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

May 2

"Sexual attraction"

Inspired by this RefDesk question, I have some follow-up questions. Does anybody know the cause of sexual attraction in general? Also, what is the difference between "sexual attraction" from other forms of attraction or other forms of affection or something that is agreeable to one's tastes? When people say "I am sexually attracted to..." what does this mean? Is this related to sexual desire, or is it just an affectionate emotion for another person? Is this why some people like to identify their boyfriends/girlfriends as different from their other regular friends? Maybe the boyfriend/girlfriend is the "best friend", while the other friends are merely friends and a bit distant from the individual. Sneazy (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you try Sexual attraction? Good luck in your quest for an answer ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If by "cause" you mean the efficient cause -- the mechanism in the brain that causes males to move toward females or vice versa -- then no, we really don't understand that well at all. We know some of the brain areas that are involved but have little idea how they work. If you mean the final cause -- the function that is served by having males move toward females or vice versa -- then I would say we understand that reasonably well. Looie496 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Moral Constructivism vs Semantic Meta-ethics

According to the book "The Normative Web", moral constructivism, or at least a new version of it, belongs to moral realism. However, it is widely known that constructivist moral theories do not discuss meta-ethics in terms of semantics. Instead, it focuses on substantial meta-ethics.

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "For some constructivists, lack of interest in semantics is motivated by the conviction that the semantic task with which metaethics is mostly preoccupied is positively misguided (Korsgaard 1996a; Korsgaard 2003; Street 2007, 239). The philosophical issue worth worrying about is normativity, and this is not something that we can explain solely on the basis of semantics. Rather, explaining normativity requires philosophers to engage in other sorts of philosophical investigation, for instance investigation into the idea of autonomy and rationality (Korsgaard 1996a)."

I believe that Korsgaard defended constructivism by dismissing the practicality of semantics in meta-ethics. She affirmed the belief that moral constructivism does not need to have a semantic position.

My questions: 1. Are there any other moral constructivists who criticize the dominance of semantics in the study of meta-ethics? Who are they?

2. Do moral constructivists agree to call themselves realists or anti-realists? Or, would they rather support the view of Korsgaard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Option 3: They have no idea what you're talking about. Can you suggest some links? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He has given lots of references and elaborated quite a bit. Why don't you just not respond if you don't know anything about the subject? This is a relatively advanced question in philosophy, and is not the sort of thing you can just "wing" based on two Wikipedia articles. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bugs. These are "floating abstractions": words divorced from evident connections to concrete meanings. If the OP wants a serious answer he should do the research himself, since he already has the references, and is looking for an interpretation. If he wants our opinion, which we do, but do not do, (but do), then he should give examples and links. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP's problem is quite different. They're hung up on the taxonomy of philosophical systems. It would be more helpful in studying philosophy to understand what each philosopher is saying than it is to pigeonhole everyone into a category or assign labels to it all. --Jayron32 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a baseless question, even if it does show confusion: I might respond more if I have the time tomorrow. Joshua is dealing with "textbook" metaethics, and the main lines in the debates are pretty well established, and he is just trying to see where those lines are.

Quick answers: 1. Yes: Most Kantians. 2. Realists. Korsgaard is a moral realist, and I don't see any reason why she would reject that label. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

US military things named after Confederates

I note that USS Robert E. Lee (SSBN-601) and the M3 Lee tank were named after CSA general Robert E. Lee, and USS Stonewall Jackson (SSBN-634) (and the two USS Stonewalls that preceeded it) after Thomas Jackson. Were/are other notable US military items (ships, bases, units, equipment classes) named after other CSA figures? [I thought I was onto something when I found USS Forrest (DD-461), but no] When those two submarines were named, both after noted rebels, was there any substantive complaint that it was inappropriate to name US military units against officers chiefly famous for fighting against that same US military? [Yes, I'm aware that both Jackson and Lee were formerly US Army officers, and that the US has made great efforts to heal the wounds of the civil war.] 87.114.11.184 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

M3 Stuart tanks. A Liberty ship isn't exactly notable, but there's SS James Longstreet. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Lee and Stuart (and I believe many others of the time) were names given by the British and then adopted by the Americans (who officially used numbers), which may have helped gloss over the issue. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Grant and Sherman are the only other ones that I can think of. Alansplodge (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Various forts, many listed here, more recognizable ones being Fort Bragg and Fort Hood. "Although naming forts and camps after distinguished military veterans from both the U.S. and Confederate Armies had become a common practice, it was not the official policy until the publication of a War Department memorandum dated 20 November 1939."[1] (I'm not sure that Braxton Bragg "distinguished" himself in quite the right way, though.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew and Clarityfiend, that was very informative. 87.114.11.184 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone die in the Tunguska event?

For the longest time that I can recall, the Tunguska Event article claimed that precisely zero people died in the impact. At some point, this source was used to add the claim that a single death was caused. Clearly, Earthsci.org is not going to be doing any original investigation, so I'm wondering if anyone can help dig up other references, better references, as to whether anyone actually died. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It might not be very clearly known, considering that the main investigations came years later... AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Earthsci.org writes "One older man at about this distance was reportedly blown about 12-15m into a tree" - 'reportedly'. They aren't saying it happened, only that it was reported to have happened... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This article, today, mentions for the first time I have ever heard someone dying. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's neither here nor there as far as our article is concerned, but I've always found it hard to swallow that no humans died (1 being functionally equivalent to 0 here). The area was and still is very sparsely populated, but 2,150 sq km is like a circle of radius close to 30 km. Not a living soul for 30 km in any direction is taking sparseness to extremes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Taking sparseness to extremes" could just about be the motto of Siberia. Looie496 (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not like Antarctica. According to Demographics of Siberia, Siberia as a whole has a population density of 3 people per sq km, but it fluctuates wildly, between 41 in Chelyabinsk Oblast down to 0.1 in Koryak Okrug. Let’s assume the Tunguska region had 0.1 people per sq km in 1908. That means that in 2,150 sq km, there would have been 215 people. Given the force of the blast, it’s not at all surprising that they were all totally obliterated, and given the huge area, it’s not at all surprising that nobody’s ever found any remnants of their housing. But that's not the same as saying there was nobody there.

I think we’d be on safer ground saying that “no evidence of any deaths has been found”, or “evidence of only one death has been found”, rather than “there were no deaths” or “there was only one death”. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming a smooth distribution. Two cities 100 miles apart will give a large area including them a small per acre population that will be a statistical illusion. There was a story in the last few months of a small religious refugee family that had lived in the region with no human contact for forty years. μηδείς (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Which region? Tunguska? Anyway, a cite for that claim would be good, since that's even harder to swallow than what we're talking about. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

See Lykov family. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ghirlandjo, we cannot be too careful about what Jack swallows. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping one eye out for my welfare. Your concern is both gracious and fellatious. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What might be a better or alternative search strategy is to run if any bodies were recovered. I understand it was a year or two later but if the predators were also killed then some bodies may have been recovered. Then again think of the most rural, most remote part of Canada or the U.S. and then multiply that times 10, needles in a very massive haystack IMHO, add to that the prevailing 1900s and 1910s attitude by the Church and Tsarist government--as wrong as it is--that native Siberians were not really worth counting in the first place and you get an idea of how impossible the task might be and why no one has really spent much time trying to find out during that era. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. That just strengthens my argument that it's wrong to say "nobody was killed". If they didn't even look for years later, how would they know? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No disagreement with that, I liked the earlier statement to the effect that no evidence or none recovered, or 1 reported etc. Sign me up for the Wikipedia expeditionary taskforce to Siberia to uncover the real story ;-). ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

mizrahi supporting and in left wing parties in Israel

Is Amir Peretz the only Mizrahi/Sephardi Jew that is a left-wing politician?--Donmust90 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

You are as capable of going to Category:Israeli politicians and reading all of the articles as any of us are. --Jayron32 23:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our article doesn't specify what soccer team he roots for? μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 3

Engels' contribution to sociology

what were the contribution of Fredirich Engels to sociology field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.59.13.192 (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like homework to me. Try here: Freidrich_Engels (I assume your spelling was a typo.) 196.214.78.114 (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As was yours. It's Friedrich, people. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It does sound a bit like homework, but to put you on track, the books that sociologists would most often cite would be The Condition of the Working Class in England and The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. The name is Friedrich Engels, sometimes anglicised as Frederick Engels. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Engels' contributions to the description of industrial society, but in anthropological speculation he followed many of the ideas of Lewis H. Morgan and similar figures, including the idea of an inevitable linear progression from "primitive promiscuity" or hetairism to matriarchy to patriarchy, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Grenade-resistant

Is there grenade resistant suit available? --Yoglti (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of grenade you are talking about, and how close you are. Most grenade fatalities are believed to be caused by fragmentation, which may be stopped by standard modern body armor. However, the degree of body armor you would need to survive a fragmentation grenade would depend heavily on what type of grenade it is, and how far you are from the grenade when it goes off. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

To provide a reasonable protection against both offensive and defensive grenades, something like a bomb suit would be needed - preferable one that also has gloves and/or mittens. A less cumbersome option would be to induce someone else to fall on the grenade for you - with modern body armour such an act can be survivable. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest the use of a Unmanned ground vehicle instead, or a tank if you must be present. Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

... or you could invent one of these. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 4

Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga, Duke of Guastalla

How was he burned alive exactly?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the Italian Wikipedia version (run through google translate) it appears he had been hunting on a cold, rainy day, and when he got back to the lodge, rubbed himself down with alcohol (perhaps as a linament, maybe he was sore?) and being cold, he moved close to the fire place. That unfortunate combination caused him to accidentally catch fire. Someone who actually speaks Italian may be able to get a better translation. --Jayron32 01:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Homosexual Novels

Are there any novels that express anti-homosexual sentiments? I mean fictional stories, novels, short stories, novellas, that kind of stuff. Sneazy (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A google search for anti homosexual novels would be a good starting point. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Revolt of the Pedestrians" by David H. Keller is a semi-classic science-fiction short story which still retains some interest, despite being very "pulpy" and over eighty years old. However, it contains a rather strange anti-lesbian sub-plot based on the idea that lesbianism is not just a form of deviant sexuality (a pretty standard view in 1928), but is the deeply pathological manifestation of a very disturbed mind... AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I keep reading this, and I keep not understanding what is being asked. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You could always ask the OP for clarification, rather than just reporting your difficulty to AnonMoos. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Medieval shipyard

Was a medieval shipyard such that the construction of the ship was done high up on scaffolding and then rolled down into the sea, -OR- was the ship built in a large hole and that hole filled with water when the ship was done? Is there any pictures of such medieval shipyards where they did ship construction? LordGorval (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This picture [2] indicates rolling down but I guess others might do it differently. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The first picture in that series showing galleons being built has them surrounded by big banks of earth, I think that was for easy access and a sound base though. I'd have thought the problems if there was some rain and the hole was filled would be too much unless you were sure it wasn't going to rain for some months. In one case of building a dry dock I know of they had the area protected with a big bank of earth and used pumps to keep the place dry and an electric field between the pump holes in the bank to keep it in place, it was quite deep so not the same problem but that technology wasn't available in medieval times! Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Just had a though, they could have used a canal lock type arrangement and built them above the water line that way, so I think it is worth your seeing if there was anything on those lines or something else I haven't thought of. Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "medieval"? If you mean the usual thing (prior to 1450 AD), then there weren't very many large sailing ships. The largest ships, I believe, were Venetian galleys that sailed mainly in the Mediterranean Sea. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I mean between the year 1000 and 1400. Yes, I realize they were small sailing ships - but I would imagine merchant ships traveled the Mediterranean Sea in this time period. Yes? LordGorval (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I see at Roman shipyard of Stifone (Narni) they did what I said in effect, they had the river fill up the channel in which they built the ship and then the ship went downstream to the sea. Before Medieval times but seems a sensible way of doing larger ships and I think people did sometimes build galleys later to ram and sink pirates. For smaller ones the Norse for instance could pull their ships across land [3] rather than go around by sea! Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Shipbuilding seems to be Wikipedia's article on this though it doesn't seem to answer your question. Dmcq (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Most medieval shipbuilding would have been on a slipway and launched from there. Trying to build a drydock would be much more involved than "digging a large hole", since nearly any hole near a navigable waterway would fill up with groundwater very quickly. Medieval Viking ships were certainly build on slipways. My (modern) copy of Architectura Navalis (1629) also seems to assume that every type of ship is launched from a slipway. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I believe my question has been answered.LordGorval (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Intermarriage in Israel

I realize this question has the potential to be highly controversial, but I'm curious and can't find many sources that aren't blatantly biased.

This article about anthropology says that "over half the Jewish population in Israel believes that the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason". Our article on Arab citizens of Israel says the same, while this link claims that "75 percent of participants did not approve of apartment buildings being shared between Arabs and Jews".

Are these claims an accurate reflection of Jewish Israeli culture, or is there something that I, as an outsider, am missing? Is there a large divide between Haredim and secular Jews in terms of their opinions about intermarriage? I find it hard to believe that these attitudes would be the norm among well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we please try this again, but in a manner helpful to the OP?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yup, the question IS highly controversial. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Why? HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC) I won't pretend to have no opinion on the matter, but please trust that I'm not trying to stir up a debate. There's enough of those on the Internet already. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) See Deuteronomy 7:3, 4.—Wavelength (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I've read Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Kings, so I'm aware that the Bible prohibits intermarriage in no uncertain terms. Nevertheless I was under the impression that secular Jews don't take the Bible literally, even if they're religious at all, just like how most Christians don't stone women to death for adultery. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC) [The account of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is not universally accepted as part of the original Bible. —Wavelength (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)] They no doubt take over 73 years (and still going!) of fighting seriously. Anyways, stoning women to death for adultery and whatever is tantamount (since adultery would not actually approach treason in the USA) to (merely) saying adultery is “treason” are quite separate matters. Maybe you should just take a step back and realize that it is journalism based on haphazardly done studies the details of which (specific questions asked, protocols taken, etc.) have not even been disclosed. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC) How much support is there for gay marriage among the Orthodox? It would offer an in-house alternative to those who Jewish men might otherwise consort with Arabs or seculars. On the other hand gay miscegenation might be seen as weakening Israel's enemies. And what about the rights of Stan? μηδείς (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, that was completely over my head. Was it supposed to be helpful, or just a joke? (I'm not criticizing you, just puzzled about what you're saying.) --Bowlhover (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The OP is overlooking one slight detail, in his rather smug remark about "well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy": When an ethnic group's leaders have declared their intentions to destroy you, that tends to trump other considerations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) As is par for the course with your contributions, that remark is (a) irrelevant to the question and (b) tendentious to the point of absurdity. --Viennese Waltz 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC) As is par for the course with your contributions, that remark attacks a responder while making no effort to actually answer the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not coming here to answer the question, I'm coming here to register my opposition to your contribution. I could do that on your talk page, but I think you need to be called out on it at the place where you made it. --Viennese Waltz 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) So you came here not to try to give the OP any useful information, but rather you came here specifically to attack another user. Way to go, VW. You continue to live down to expectations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, I second Viennese Waltz here, if not happily. Your comment was not helpful, but a stupidly misleading platitude. As part of our educational mission, it is important to point these things out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I notice he had nothing to say to Medeis (whose bizarre comment was pointed to on the talk page), nor did he criticize the other users who likewise gave no useful answers. So I figure that VW (and you, by inference) are initiating these attacks for strictly personal reasons, and you should know better than to do that. You also totally missed the point: Israel is constantly being told by the leaders of nearby Islamist nations that they are targets for destruction. But you're much less dumb than I am, so maybe you can explain to us why "well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy" shouldn't put their personal and national safety above other considerations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) You seem to assume your own conclusions. Also, as far as I can tell you fail to differentiate between "islamist", "islamic", and "Arabic". And, apparently, you think the state Israel is plural, or you fail to differentiate between the state and its citizens. You also seem to fail to differentiate between Arabs and "people hostile to Israel" (ignoring the fact that a sizable minority of Israeli citizens are indeed Arab). Try to sort these things out first. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Before you continue your personal attacks on just me, how about you go to the talk page and address the question another user raised about another user's comment here that you don't seem to find troublesome (probably because I'm not the one who said it). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Baseball Bugs, I'm not very familiar with the issue, but who are the leaders of Israeli Arabs that want Jews to be destroyed? Do most Israeli Arabs agree with that sentiment? The most likely Arab men to marry Jewish women are Israelis with moderate political and religious opinions; I highly doubt that many of them are Islamists from neighboring countries. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Bugs, please stop just for a minute and consider whether your view would be altered if the Arab in question were a Christian? There are a lot of Arab Christians in one of Israel's neighbouring countries, Lebanon. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to be both Arab and Jewish. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We can provide sources; we cannot judge a source's validity for you. We cannot comment on the contents of your mind and what may be missing there. What you find hard to believe is not something we can help you with. Please seek an internet forum. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, following the links, the first source actually gets its data from the second source, the Ynetnews article here. The news site is operated by Yedioth Ahronoth, which is a tabloid newspaper in both senses of the word. So I would take the claims with a big grain of salt. Possibly the original posters scepticism is justified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Ynetnews website is a skimpy edition and rife with mistranslations into English, good only for quick updates if you don't read the better-written Haaretz English edition online. I strongly disagree, though, with disparaging Yedioth Aharonoth as a "tabloid": it's Israel's largest mainstream daily newspaper, quite comprehensive over a broad range of topics. If it leans towards populism, one might equally say that the more left-leaning Haaretz is narrower in its coverage and doesn't adequately reflect what's happening in the country. (I subscribe to the daily print editions of both, so am not biased.) --'Deborahjay (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You could track down and take a look at these and see if they point you in the right direction.

--some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP needs to strike his condescending remark about "well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy". Israel is under constant attack and threat - and you all know from where. If there's a strong cultural reluctance to interact with people who "could be" the enemy, it's totally understandable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I read that remark not as condescending but as naive and woefully undeserved. Israel is not the sort of democracy ruled by the majority while protecting the rights of minorities. It doesn't have a Constitution. The party that forms the government after any election has never gotten even a simple majority of the votes; instead, coalitions are cobbled together of a cluster among the myriad small parties, with ministries (governmental departments, in AE) handed out to coalition partners who thus gain power and budgets far out of proportion to their share of the plebescite. The Haredi ("ultraorthodox") parties, representing a fundamentalist minority stream of Judaism, has frequently held the Interior Ministry and wielded enormous influence on matters of personal status: marriage and burial, to name two. This is why there is no civil marriage, although marriages performed abroad are recognized as legal. (They also have imposed strict Orthodox observance of the Sabbath that restricts public transportation and commerce for the majority: secular Jews and all non-Jews.) The education system (public and private) is almost entirely segregated, such that religious and secular Jews don't send their children to the same schools, let alone Arabs (of any religion) and Jews. Almost all residential neighborhoods and communities are likewise segregated. Don't forget the language barrier: although Arabic is an official language of the country, it isn't mandatory for Jews to learn it (although the Arabic school curriculum includes Hebrew; both learn English). The Haredi school system, by the way, promotes religious study and avoids teaching secular subjects such as English, math, and history, so hardly up to 21st C. standards.

Underlying this, kindly recall: Israel as a sovereign state has only been in existence 65 years, approx. 3 generations. Both the Jewish and local Arab populations on the whole have their mutually exclusive identities, and each has historical and current reasons to feel threatened by -- or fear the risk of destruction at the hands of -- the other. The likelihood of intermarriage in these circumstances is extremely marginal, and the situation I've described here is likely to continue even with the new government that excluded the Haredi parties from the coalition. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Good answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Breton duke

Who was the last duke of Brittany to speak Breton (not Gallo)? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't Brittany a county? Should you ask, who was the last comte to speak Breton?
Sleigh (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If Brittany wasn't a duchy, why do we have an article titled "Duchy of Brittany"? Gabbe (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This book says "Apart from the colloquial Breton that she spoke with her nurse, Anne, like all upper-class Bretons, was fluent in formal" - so Anne of Brittany for sure. That leaves Claude of France (likely, for similar reasons?), Henry II of France (unlikely) and Louis, Dauphin of France, Duke of Burgundy (even less likely) to investigate. 174.88.10.231 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't fluent in formal mean fluent in French?
Sleigh (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, especially since that book says "fluent in formal French", specifically. But do we know how different 15th/16th century Gallo was from 15th/16th French? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

May 5

open university?

Would I be allowed to apply for a course at the Open University whilst also taking a different course at another university at the same time? Also, how would this work regarding student loan funding, since both have different costs, would I apply for a loan to cover the more expensive of the two?

213.104.128.16 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by allowed? ... I don't think anyone could stop you from taking an Open University course, if you wanted to take one. The real question is whether you would receive any course credit (towards a degree) for the Open University course at your primary university. That would be up to the university. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean, as in separate credit towards two different degrees at the same time, from different institutions, are there no restrictions there? 213.104.128.16 (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Who would be imposing such a restriction? Does any university say that if you study at another institution at the same time, you get no credit for your achievements at the university? I very much doubt it. How could it possibly be policed? And why would they care? Whatever you do outside the uni is your own private affair, and that includes being involved with some other educational institution. Their whole ethos is about support for learning, not about creating stupid and arbitrary disincentives. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the loan, it would be in your best interest to contact the Student Loans Company directly. OU courses do qualify for funding as of this year but undertaking two courses at two separate institutions at the same time seems to be quite rare. Nanonic (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised and shocked if you had any kind of problem with either the loan or enrollment by either institution, but again there's only 2 organizations that can answer that definitively. It's a free world after all you may do what you please . . . but its a free world if one institution chooses not to accept the other's course credit or loan, no opinion here its pretty much a yes or no by the interested parties. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue of the loan is a bit complex, as Student Loans in the UK are provided by the Government and then repaid once the candidate has finished a course is earning a certain minimum income. Usually this will cover up to 16 years of courses, paid to either the candidate or institution in installments. If you switch courses or universities, it gets a bit involved as part payment will have been made already on the original course. To be taking two courses at once isn't a usual state of affairs and may need to be topped up with a private loan as the government may see it as excessive. Especially if the candidate applies for the maintenance loans and grants (which help with the cost of living at university) twice. Nanonic (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

US federal legislation vs. state legislation

G'day. Does a state legislature in the U.S. pass more laws than Congress, and are such bills more often vetoed by a governor than by the president? Recently I read that Jerry Brown signed more than 10,000 bills into law during ten years as governor of California (two terms served 1975-1983). That is more than any president in history, even in times when many laws were passed in the 20th century. And I heard that Ronald Reagan (in his National Convention speech 1984) vetoed more than 900 bills only in fiscal terms while serving as Governor of California. As I pick Ronald Reagen as exemple, he served eight years as governor and eight years as president, may it be that he signed and vetoed a lot more laws in the governorship as in the presidency? Are state legislatures more active than congress? Or does that vary from state to state and only larger states such as California pass so many laws? --85.176.224.153 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know the source you originally read. This is an easily gameable statistic. Structure matters a lot. For instance, omnibus budget bills could constitute thousands of provisions, but if they're passed as one bill that would count for one. Similarly, do Federal Regulations (published in the CFR) count? How about private laws? If it's a simple question of how many times the executive signed his/her name to a "bill" (as the term's understood under the appropriate constitution) then you could count the Statutes at Large for the term you're interested, and the state equivalent. That seems tedious, and not particularly instructive to me.

If it's not just a numbers question though, as for who's more "active", that seems to be a qualitative question that's almost impossible to answer. Shadowjams (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Also keep in mind not every U.S. President had the Line-item veto so that will skew results (presidents before were more cautious NOT to veto a bill because of its "riders", but Presidents with LIV partially veto lots of stuff). Also the differences between state statutes on how their bills become laws differ immensely in some situations, add to that both Presidents and Governors having friendly legislators or one house of the bi-cameral legislatures vetoing a bill by the opposition controlled other house and basically doing the dirty work for the governor or president before it even reaches his desk. The proverbial "Passed by the House, killed in committee in the Senate" etc.

Long answer, short I am sure you could put together some accurate numbers for the Federal Government and some of the larger states but why, its really apples and oranges comparing them or even comparing presidents, take for instance Clinton had a hostile opposition controlled Congress for 6 years, and Reagan an opposition House for 8 (Congress for 2), yet George W. who although capable was not the status of either Clinton nor Reagan I think we can all agree, had a very friendly Congress for 6 years, thus George W. would "seem" better than Clinton and Reagan not because he was, just because he lucked into a very agreeable Congress for the vast majority of his presidency, likewise for Governors or for comparing state vs. state. In short although good for trivia it really doesn't mean anything, and its why most political pundits really don't spend much energy on detailed comparisons other than to score some cheap temporary point. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Marketdiamond seems a little confused on this issue. As the article Line-item veto in the United States makes clear, only Bill Clinton had a line-item veto power, and only for a short time. No other president before or since has had the option. Textorus (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Textorus, I keep hearing news blurbs about it so I had assumed others had it as well, then again I don't put in assumptions to my posts usually and did not do so here, just raising the point without any details, though my pural syntax was overreach. As you can see by word count IMHO the other points are much more relevant than LIV's effect alone, but did learn something interesting, thanks. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Photograph of a 19th-century Bosnian woman

?

The woman on this photograph is supposed to be Umihana Čuvidina, a Bosnian poet. However, I find it somewhat unlikely that she is the actual subject, given that she was born in 1794. The earliest known photograph of Queen Victoria was taken in c. 1845 - by that time, Čuvidina was over 50. Surtsicna (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that's a photo? The resolution is so poor that I can't whether it might be a painting -- and in a quick web search I couldn't spot anything with higher resolution. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks nothing like early 19th-century paintings I've seen. For a start, it is black-and-white. Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

But it could be a monochrome photo of a painting. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. It could be. The new question is: is it a monochrome photograph of a painting? I very much doubt it, but it is a possibility. If not, can it be a photograph of Čuvidina? Surtsicna (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Radio Sarajevo says it's a daguerreotype that is believed to be of her. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't it fairly common for old portrait photos to be "touched up" by artists? So maybe she was 50 but the artists were particularly generous to the age of the subject, just like photoshop, smoothing out wrinkles and the like. Vespine (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all women over 50 are all that wrinkly, and this image is of quite low quality. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Earliest-born known human to be photographed

This is inspired by Surtsicna's question. History of photography shows us a photo of the Boulevarde du Temple, taken in 1838, which is the first photo of human beings. But they're unidentified, and even if we knew who they were, they wouldn't necessarily answer my question, which is in two parts:

Who is the earliest-born identifiable person to have been in a photo, and when were they born? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And if that person is not notable, who is the first notable such person? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the photographers themselves, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1839_photographs. Although Nicéphore Niépce made the first photograph in the world of an engraving of Pope Pius VII in 1822 which was later destroyed in the attempt to recreate it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's Robert Cornelius according to http://petapixel.com/2012/11/15/the-first-hoax-photograph-ever-shot/ . He was born in 1809.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure those are what I'm after. The key here is not the date of the photo, but the date of birth of the subject. There could have been photos taken after 1839, of people born well before Cornelius. Also, a photo of an engraving or a portrait, or even a cadaver, is not what I'm after. I'm after a photo of a living person. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course he isn't it, but I believe the first U.S. President photographed was Andrew Jackson who was born March 15, 1767, so that would give you a baseline to work from. --Jayron32 01:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Van Buren and Jackson are getting much closer to the ballpark. I suppose there's a natural limit; if the earliest photo of humans was in 1838, then it would be hard to imagine anyone born before 1738 getting themselves photoed. At the moment, we're looking for a birth in the period 1738-1767, and probably closer to the later date. I'm actually surprised this hasn't been nailed down for a Wikipedia article already. Maybe it's there somewhere, but I couldn't find it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A random search for a daguerreotype of a really old guy produced Martin Routh born 1755.--Melburnian (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, he was born just 5 years after Bach died and the year before Mozart was born. Fantastic. Any earlier takers? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This site mentions Dr Ezra Green (born 1746) as a contender, together with other possibilities.--Melburnian (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This question was discussed on the German WP back in 2006. Our results can be found here. --Wrongfilter (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate German -> English hasn't been working for me lately ("server failure" keeps coming up), but I get the general gist, which seems to accord pretty much with Melburnian's results. Danke. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's nothing personal Jack, I get the same message. Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The last link in the German discussion hints at a fotostream with eight early photographs, including one of Baltus Stone, b 1744. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

May 6

Alien abduction insurance

What proof the insurance companies want to show that a claimant have been abducted by extraterrestrials? --Yoglti (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You should buy a plan and then show us the paperwork. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A signed confession by the extraterrestrials? Dbfirs 08:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apparently. According to this blog the requirements for a valid claim include a signed statement from an alien, as well as photographs of the inside of an alien ship and/or alien biological material. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly a London-based firm has issued policies,[4] but I'm not convinced it isn't a joke as the company's name is Goodfellow Rebecca Ingram Pearson. You've got to get a GRIP, you see. Anyway, if you can track them down, why don't you ask them? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone fakes ones own abduction, constructs a lab interior and make alien suits with humans inside, how will the insurance company know the documents are man-made or extraterrestrial? --Yoglti (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that I read this in the 27,000 pages of the Affordable Care Act, no American will be denied coverage for pre-existing condition of alien abduction again . . . if memory serves it was on the same page as the free birth control! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"NEWS | Insurer Stops Issuing Policies on Abductions by Space Aliens | April 3, 1997 | Associated Press | The company that insured the 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult against abduction by aliens said it stopped writing alien-related policies after the group's mass suicide. The cult members paid $1,000 on Oct 10 for a policy that covered up to 50 members and would pay out $1 million a person for abduction, impregnation or death caused by aliens."[5] So rather historical then. It seems that GRIP was an underwriting agency (in other words, they persuade Lloyd's of London underwriters and small insurers who specialise in the out-of-the-ordinary to carry the risk and earn a commission by doing it), rather than an actual insurance company.[6] The years around the turn of the millennium were ones of rapid mergers and acquisitions on the London Market, so I'd be rather surprised if they still exist. To answer the original question, it seems that claimants were required to "pass a lie-detector test, and provide video footage or a third-party witness."[7] In this article, GRIP's managing director called his "alien abduction" customers "feeble minded". Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Global Employment in Automotive Driving?

Are there any estimates for the number of people employed as drivers in the US, UK or preferably globally? This would include all taxi drivers, bus drivers, UPS delivery men, private limo, etc. --CGPGrey (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify your requirements, would this exclude those for whom driving is an essential element but not the main purpose of their jobs, such as travelling sales representatives, Mobile/cell phone antenna riggers/repairers, etc. (The latter is my Company's principal activity). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.66.241.41 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Link between watching porn and sexual violence

Has there been any study on whether watching pornography causes persons with impressionable minds to commit crimes of sexual violence against women and children? -124.125.31.129 (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia's article on this helpful at Social effects of pornography and also these articles here and here. One must also take into account cultural, socio-economic, racial and regional differences not to mention all forms of sexual orientation and under a Google search there are studies just for Japan, Europe etc. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not be an area for simple study. We can't do a double blind test where one group of subjects is force-fed porn, and then watched to see if they become sexually violent. It all has to happen in reverse. People who are found to be sexually violent are investigated to see if is they consume abnormally large amounts of porn. But that's a pretty subjective measure anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There's also a correlation does not imply causation and/or post hoc ergo propter hoc problem. Even if people who are sexually violent view more pornography (and I have no idea if that is true. It may not be, but lets concede the point just to make a further point), it doesn't mean that the pornography caused the sexual violence. For example, they may have some predisposition to sexual violence caused by something else entirely, and that predisposition may also lead them to view more pornography. That would mean that even if the person in question had no access to any pornography, they may have been just as sexually violent. There would also need to studies done regarding a negative correlation: that non-sexually violent people view less pornography. The fact that sexually violent people had viewed pornography doesn't mean anything. I'm pretty sure most of them drank milk as children as well; that doesn't mean that milk causes sexual violence. --Jayron32 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Or more generally, obesity is caused by food, so we should ban food. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Also related is the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax effect, just because there are a ton of facts supporting a conclusion doesn't mean water is out to kill you today. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Water is essential to life, and can also kill us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not strictly on the topic, but you might be interested in this YouTube video, or in the Video game controversy. The YouTube video is only about violence rather than pornography, but the two debates always come up together, even if they don't necessarily go hand-in-hand scientifically speaking. IBE (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See the United States Department of Justice, Final Report: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1986), part 4, chapter 3, and the bibliography at part 5, chapter 1, section D. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Loads of studies and a lot of hot air and some rather complex results. As far as I can see it may cause people to view rape as not so criminal - but overall the effect is good as far as such crimes are concerned because people who do feel that way can very often turn to pornography as a substitute. So definitely not a no brainer type of problem. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What is obvious is the fact that the vast majority of people who watch porn are not sexually violent. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That may be obvious, but what is confusing is why someone would preferentially name non-men and non-animals as the victims of pornography readers? Are only children and women sympathetic enough? μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Great point μηδείς, as I answered in my first reply sexual orientation may have different results along with regional, cultural and other differences. And by sexual orientation that would include women that prey on boys, men that prey on other men, women who prey on women and all possible variables. The OP specifically asked its effect on women and children so I think we are all answering that, but a better question really is neutral as far as any victim profile. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Either that or an intentionally emotion-manipulating meme is being used without stated purpose, as I tried to demonstrate in my answer to the supposedly unbiased semitic endogamy question. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon Species by Popularity

Remove duplicate question - see WP:RD/E.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey, all! So we all know that there are many (649) species of pokemon. In order of popularity, what would be, say, the top 20? For example, can someone find an official list, or perhaps see which one has the most hits on Google (the latter method may be inaccurate, and besides, there are 649 to look up...)? I ask because I can't find out for myself, due to my restricted network only allowing Wikipedia access (it's not here, either. Perhaps someone can create a list of this sort?). Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.50.132 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

May 7

The definition as "race"

Is race scientific at all, or race is social construction is always arbitrary, which human categorize and construct the definitions manually. Because when people measure interracial pattern they always include Hispanic as being a race, I try to find ways to remove Hispanic from racial categories. Is definition of race any right or wrong, or there are many ways to classify the racial groups, which many ways are perfectly valid.--69.233.254.115 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

See Race (human classification) for some information. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My personal response is usually along the lines of "I'm part of the human race". Any narrower classification will always be arguable, and will inevitably depend on local perspective. I'm in Australia. Hispanic is hardly ever mentioned as a race here. In fact, Australians seem far less concerned with race than perhaps Americans are. There are some issues here concerning Aboriginal people, but even when discussing them the word race is hardly ever used. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I class myself in that way, too. I always have to laugh when on any government forms here in the UK, it always asks 'White (British)', 'White (Irish)', and 'White (Other)', as if Irish are somehow different (and my family is a mix of Irish, Scots, Welsh, and Norwegians, with maybe a bit of English somewhere, so I don't think of it as ethnicity or race, but rather what passport I have). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Race" is a combination of physical characteristics and the social reaction to those characteristics. EO speaks to the origin and the inherent vagueness of the term.[8] The way I was taught in school, Hispanics are considered to be part of the Caucasian race. But that's just a high-level grouping. Taking it down several levels of detail complicates matters. That's how you end up with the crazy notion of the Irish being a "race". Yet the vagueness of the term, as mentioned in EO, make it possible to consider any distinctive ethnic group as a "race". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to be proved wrong, but I don't think any serious scholar thinks that races are natural kinds. This is not to say that all conceptions of race are unscientific, however. See Yuddell, Michael, "A Short History of the Race Concept" in Krimsky and Sloan (eds.), Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture (Columbia University Press, 2011), pp. 13—30. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

EO's usage as "people of common descent" allows for broad interpretation. "Human race", the traditional races based on skin color, and further classifications that are more and more localized and specialized. The value of studying those racial traits depends on what you're trying to prove. As an example, it used to be said that sickle cell anemia was predominantly seen among Africans and those of African descent. But it turns out that sickle cell is not connected with race as such, but rather with geography - it's a product of natural selection, as those with that trait have an advantage in resisting malaria - hence it's seen in several tropical areas around the world, not just Africa, and hence not just the "African" or "black" race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Almost all words have multiple senses, as does race: competition, family, geographical variation. Each sense is a separate concept and you must define each concept as you would use it in context. There is a sense of race in which the Ukraine is closer to the Frenchman than to the Chinaman. That sense has less reality to it than geography, but not no reality too it. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Allied war crimes during World War II

Soviet Union will top the list of war criminals, which country will go to the bottom? --Yoglti (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to be clear whether you're basing the ranking on total people killed, raped or otherwise brutalised by each country; or the number of individual war criminals in each country; or whatever else. On what do you base the USSR being at the top? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

JackofOz makes a great observation, there are some very thick studies on this matter however the different opinions on what is a war crime is almost as varied as the contemporary debate on what is torture (is being held at Gitmo where they are spending close to $900,000 a year on each prisoner torture, or is waterboarding or is what Israel is doing with Palestinian captors torture). It is a great question for a doctoral thesis or NGO white paper, but there is no one page or even one paragraph answer I am afraid due to the very justified different interpretations of all things that could and could not be considered a "war crime". ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Soviets committed the maximum war crimes, mass rape of Poland and Germany, POWs in Soviet captivity had lowest survival rate, large scale massacres, etc etc. This makes them top war criminal. --Yoglti (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Native separatism

As most of you are probably well aware, here in the USA there's quite a lot of Indian separatism, Hawaiian separatism and Puerto Rican separatism -- but we don't hear much about Eskimo separatism. Is this because Eskimo separatism is actually less prevalent, or just less well publicized? And if it's less widespread (as I think is the case), then what are the reasons -- is it because the Eskimos are more assimilated, or because the harsh conditions in Alaska create a feeling of "we're all in this together", or just because there's been less animosity in the past between the white people and the Eskimos, or maybe for some other reasons? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be on to something with the harsh conditions also the fact that anthropologically a lot of these groups organized movements based on real or perceived cultural encroachment, the Eskimos have had a different experience in the tundra than Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians or tribes in the lower 48 with encroachment and total assimilation. A big reason I've seen is the extremely sparse population of Alaska combined with the highest mountains on the continent and formidable, expansive terrain, even though Eskimos have some interference by the state and feds by in large not much has changed for their culture or homelands in the last 200 years, especially when compared to Puerto Rico, the Cherokee or Hawaii. Separatist movements must have a large segment of the population in fear of losing land, resources, culture identity, tradition and the like to have any kind of staying power, Eskimos by in large are not feeling that pressure with the wild expanse that is Alaska. Also worth mentioning is the extremely generous financial payments to the Eskimo in particular and to Alaskans in general by both the Federal government and the oil companies, the oldest trick in politics is the way you pacify a group is send them money, and keep sending it. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)