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

September 22

Psychology, religion, political views, and occupation

Are psychology, religion, political views, and occupation/profession related? I seem to recall a study that detailed political and religious tendencies by occupation (or occupational category). Thank you. Vidtharr (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by psychology. But much work has been done to explore the relationship between the others. Category:Religion and politics and Category:Religion and science have lots of articles in. Also see Religiosity and intelligence and Religiosity and education as a starting point. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that by "psychology" they mean personality types. I doubt if many type A personality people become librarians, for example: "You want me to recommend a book for you ? What, do I look like I have time to waste on pathetic losers like you ? Time is money ! Now get out of my sight !" StuRat (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant something along the lines of "personality types" (sorry for not being more specific). My primary interest was political and religious tendencies by occupation, but I'll take a closer look at the linked articles. Vidtharr (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• You left out philosophy, which subsumes these categories. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I find the intersection of four different factors complicates this question enormously. There has been plenty of studies, going back decades, about religion and politics, especially examining voting behavior. And I believe there have studies done of religious affiliation within specific occupational fields. And there is an entire field called Psychology of Religion that examines than intersection. But I don't think you'll find any work that combines all four of those specific components.

Regarding any studies of religion, doing anything resembling a nation-wide study costs millions and millions of money to conduct. Most agencies funding scholarship on religion are very focused on specific groups (say, millennials, Muslims, nurses), areas like cities or states, issues (like how do feminist women cope with being in conservative traditions) or historical, critical studies. Occasionally a researcher into religion can "piggyback" on someone else's large-scale study by including a few questions about religion on a survey of another topic but even that requires some serious financial investment. Bottom line? Sometimes answering the big questions costs a lot of money and many grants go to either scientific or medical research, not studying human behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

When could the default on the US debt limit take place?

The date for the looming government shutdown is clear: if on Sept. 30 there is no budget or continuing resolution, it will happen. But what about the threat of a default on the national debt? Is the date definite, and if not, what does it depend on? --173.20.252.164 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Our aptly named 2013 United States debt-ceiling debate which is linked from the equally aptly named United States debt-ceiling crisis mentions the middle of October and links to [1] with further explaination. This source says the same thing [2]. BTW I'm not trying to criticise your language but I do think the words are important to understand what is going on, your question seems fine but your title is IMO confusing. I'm pretty sure the US (government) will not default on their debt limit. They will default on some of their debts once the debt limit is reached as this means they can no longer borrow any more to enable them to pay all they need to including debts which are due. (As it's not believed realistic and I think under current law likely not even possible for them to reduce spending by such an amount that they can service their debt without further borrowing, as the source says to some extent it also depends on what debtees do.) I recognise something I've said here may be confusing or wrong as well as is common with these sort of things but decided it might still help so worth posting. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There's probably some short term patches that can be put in place to delay the default. First off, not all debts come due on that date, so they only need to be handled as they come due. Many debts can then be rolled over with the permission of the debt-holders ("Give us another year to pay off that debt and we will give you X more in interest"). The real threat is if debt-holders get scared that they will never be repaid unless they get their money quickly, and demand their payment the moment the loans come due. This is the classic "run on the banks" scenario, where everyone wants to get their money first, before it runs out. If that doesn't happen, and current debts are rolled over, but no new debts are created, that might actually be a good thing, forcing the US to learn to live within it's means for once. StuRat (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the technical definition of a default is "not paid on time". There can be different means to handle a default, but as soon as the U.S. goes to its bond holders and says "Give us another year to pay off that debt and we will give you X more in interest" that's a form of default: You aren't paying off the debt by the agreed upon terms. Refinancing and renegotiating terms are common means of handling a defaulted debt, but it doesn't make the debt less defaulted because the terms were renegotiated. --Jayron32 19:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this applies, but it's not a "default" if you renegotiate the terms prior to the date when the dept comes due. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's how Annie Lowrey described it today in the New York Times: "To be clear, that is not “hitting the debt ceiling.” That happened on May 19. The government has stayed about $25 million below the $16,699,421,000,000 limit since then through various “extraordinary measures” that have let it free up about $300 billion in cash. But those “extraordinary measures” cannot last forever. One day — sometime in late October, probably, though nobody knows exactly when — cash going out would overwhelm cash coming in plus cash on hand. The government would keep missing payments, about 30 percent of them, until Congress raised the debt ceiling again." --Halcatalyst (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The latest thinking is October 17. [3]DOR (HK) (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

September 23

Languages

Can every speech-capable human produce every sound in every language? Is there any known language that can only be spoken by a certain tribe/group because other people are physically incapable of producing the sounds, due to genetic or environmental differences? --140.180.250.181 (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A possible starting point might be Second-language phonology, although this does not answer the question. I would suggest that if there were major differences based on birth/genetics etc., this would have been covered in such an article, so the absence of such information at least suggests that these major differences do not exist. It does not rule out subtle differences. The article might also help other editors as a starting point in trying to hunt down the answer to your question, but I am really presenting it only as a possible resource. I have certainly never heard such a claim (phonology dependent upon birth/location) from linguists, and it would go against my understanding of human genetics - it would seem to require a specific anatomical wiring of the mouth, peculiar to a particular tribe or something. IBE (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is No: see for example Speech and language pathology in school settings#Articulation disorders. Whether there are whole populations who cannot innately produce some sound is less clear, and I would be surprised if there were. --ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I can't find a reference or even a link to a Wikipedia article stating this, but I have certainly heard it asserted by linguists that at birth anyone of any ancestry can become a native speaker of any language with all its sounds (except in individual cases of pronunciation disorders). Duoduoduo (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Individual prior to society and vice versa

I'm trying to figure out what statements like "the individual is prior to society" and "society is prior to the individual" mean. It's worse when the term "logically" is thrown in. I feel like this strays into ontology or something else that's kind of mind screwy, so can anyone explain to me what those statements means and what the differences are? — Melab±1 ☎ 03:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right that it is philosophy as much as anything. Can you give us a context? IBE (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's stuff like this you are interested in, then yes, it's philosophy. I would suggest that it requires the word "logically" to be thrown in, for without that, it isn't even clear what sort of a debate we are having. Individual logically prior: this means we can have a debate about individual rights without respect to prevailing social conditions, so an individual might have an innate right to live. Individual not logically prior: might need further clarification, but would suggest that individual rights depend on social circumstances, so the right to live might be something the state could take from you, if it could grind up your bones to produce a cure for cancer (for example). This is different from "historically prior" because that depends on whether the state (or prehistoric, tribal equivalents of this) did in fact evolve alongside human biological evolution. But if you could give us more context, that would be best. IBE (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Melab-1 -- In the 17th and 18th centuries, social contract theorists, notably John Locke, assumed that the individual was prior to society, at least for purposes of political analysis, while some opponents assume the reverse... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And what do those assuming the reverse have to say? What do they describe it as? — Melab±1 ☎ 21:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

These might possibly help: for society prior to the individual, see collectivism, shame society, and guilt society; for the individual before society, see individualism. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ukraine and Belorussia at the UN

When the Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs were in the UN, did they ever vote differently from the USSR? Perhaps on minor things, to show that they weren't puppets? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 61 shows Ukraine voting against while Russia abstains, I'm unaware whether or not the Ukraine did so under orders from the Kremlin, either way the whole list of security council resolutions can be found here. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Justice delayed is justice denied

The Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, John Stalker was suddenly taken off his enquiry into an alleged "shoot to kill" policy by the RUC and suspended while he was subject to an enquiry headed by the Police Complaint Authority. He wasn't told why and the media frenzy which followed put him in the ridiculous situation of when he was asked - what is this about? he could only answer "I don't know". He was cleared and reinstated but only after his wife had nearly had a breakdown and he had an enormous legal bill which might have resulted in him having to sell his house, but for the tsunami of donations from the public. An associate, Kevin Taylor, who had no criminal convictions of any kind, remained under police investigations for years, causing financial ruin. Stalker said about this "In less than that time "international terrorists and mass murderers have been investigated, tried, convicted and imprisoned"

There's no smoke without fire. Just by investigating someone, the police generate smoke. What other examples are there since 1988 of the police ruining people with their "investigations" where the person investigated was completely innocent and there was no evidence to suggest guilt in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what you're looking for but here's a list of people executed and later found innocent. Richard Jewell is perhaps a better example, in 1996 after he was suspected of bombing the Olympics in Atlanta, the media hounded him but the police never formally charged him. These examples are all American so I hope that's what you're looking for, given the subject of the question you may also be interested in The Innocence Project an organisation which works to exonorate the wrongly convicted. If you want specifically British cases you should find something here. Biggs Pliff (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There's the Duke lacrosse case, which was entirely unfounded and based on false accusations. But again, that's an American case. --Jayron32 13:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The Matrix Churchill case comes to mind. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Matrix Churchill was Customs and Excise, rather than the Police. Off the top of my head: Christopher Jefferies, Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven, Plebgate, Hillsborough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.25.36 (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For some Canadian examples, David Milgaard and Stephen Truscott. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Overturned convictions.—Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Literary influence over French Revolution.

Is there any literary work that influenced French Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.227.214 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Older historiography usually points out Jean-Jacques Rousseaus The Social Contract as a main influence, however bookhistorian Robert Darnton in his work The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Prerevolutionary France has challenged that view, claiming that that work was never widely read, and was mainly to be found in a few private libraries among the wealthy, while it was a much broader group of poor and middleclass people that caused the revolution, and made a list of forbidden bestsellers that in his opinion was far more widespread amongst the populace and thus much more likely to have been influential. On pp. 63-64 of this book he lists the 35 top bestsellers, the no. 1 being Louis-Sébastien Merciers L'An 2440, rêve s'il en fut jamais, no. 2 Anecodtes sur Mme la comtesse du Barry, and no. 3 The System of Nature by Baron d'Holbach.

However it seems that a research team is currently in the process of revising Darntons results, so the list may change drastically. Then of course there is the whole debate on how much or even if at all books had any influence on the Revolution, or if it was mainly social or economical reasons that caused it. A part of it is collected in the anthology The Darnton debate, but it still continues and historians are still greatly divided on the matter.

Most recently historian of ideas Jonathan Israel in his trilogy on the Radical Enlightenment has made the case that books and the ideas they contain did indeed cause revolutions (his claim being that most of the radical enlightenment philosophy, which in his view was the cause of the Revolution, can be traced back to the works of Baruch Spinoza), while postmodern historians like Samuel Moyn on the other hand rejects that interpretation and claims a wide variety of reasons was the cause. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Spiritual vs. __________

Anne was resolute about following a spiritual path, and consequently, she made a focused effort to divorce herself from _______ concerns.

• A.plebeian
• B.secular
• C.pious
• D.nebulous
• E.temporal
• F.nondescript

Select the two answer choices that, when used to complete the sentence, fit the meaning of the sentence as a whole and produce completed sentences that are alike in meaning.

Without looking at a dictionary (trying to simulate a test environment here), I chose B and E, and I got the answer right. However, this question was intriguing, because it made me wonder if a person could follow the spiritual path and still make changes in the world, thereby interested in both spiritual and secular matters. As a matter of fact, I hear this from religious people who are also politically active. So, is there a term for it or not? 164.107.215.162 (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Note the use of the word "divorce" in the test sentence. This indicates that Anne wanted to keep them separated. StuRat (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

StuRat is right, there doesn't need to be a term for it because their separation isn't necessary, it was a choice made by Anne. Biggs Pliff (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, it may be the assumption of the narrator (assuming that secularism and spirituality are polar opposites) rather than Anne's choice. 164.107.215.162 (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Philosophical subsumes both spiritual and secular or temporal concerns. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Material" would have been the best choice, except it's not on the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, spiritual/temporal make the easiest pair, as in Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. Then working from Temporal ("produce completed sentences that are alike in meaning") you get "secular". I realise that it's one of those idiosyncratic bits of the British system though! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Some statistical / financial questions

I considered posting this question at the maths desk, because I'm not so much looking for the ref-desk to answer these questions for me - rather to suggest a methodology for reaching them myself. I'd add that what seem to me to be the obvious Google searches haven't helped me much.

I need to work out the following for a work-related report. I won't cloud the issue by explaining how (indeed if) they all inter-relate. But I would say that I need rough-and-ready answers which I can look up on the internet today, or calculate with simple arithmetic, rather than high-quality very accurate answers which would require research or posting freedom of information requests!

Anyway, here goes:

1. What is the life expectancy, in England, of an average person of a specified age?
2. What is the average value of the "net estate" of all cases actually admitted to probate in England and Wales?
3. How do you work out the current value of a future payment (i.e. what is the hypothetical market value, today, of the right to receive £x at a specified time y years in the future?)
4. Of a random sample of 1000 people of a specified age, in England, how many will die in each subsequent year? (And if that figure is not constant, how does it change? e.g. will more people die in year 10 than in year 5, or vice versa, and what would the pattern look like?) AndyJones (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the first and last question. What do you mean by "of a specified age" and how is that relevant? Are you just asking picking a random Englishman or -woman at this present moment, taking into account of his or her present age, and calculating his or her life expectancy? Is it important to take into account of the present age? 164.107.215.162 (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

1. A life expectancy calculator should help?

2. And you might look through these statistics for estate values.

4. I'm not sure I understand this one either, but is it about Risk of death by age? 184.147.120.88 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Specified age is a set of ages: under 1, 1, 2...120.
Sleigh (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

1. This is the job of an actuary.

3. Looks like an annuity.
Sleigh (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

3. looks like a simple case of present value. The present value of payment X, occuring Y years in the future will be X/(1+r)^Y, where r is the appropriate discount factor. The discount factor is the more difficult part to find and will depend on the nature of the payment. Risk-free interest rate (yield on government bonds of a corresponding duration are typically used) is a good bet for cash flows occuring with certainty.129.178.88.81 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Number 4 is a life table - there's one in our article and google throws up plenty more. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

September 24

When did British monarchs stop authoring the speech from the throne?

According to our article Proclamation of Rebellion, King George III authored (or at least authorized) the speech from the throne that he delivered to Parliament in 1775. Today, according to our article on the speech from the throne, the speech is authored by government ministers to state their policies, and the monarch simply reads the speech without exerting any influence on those policies. In what year was the last speech from the throne delivered that was initiated or authored by the British monarch rather than the British government in Parliament? Thanks in advance. Marco polo (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought that this would be easy to find the answer to, but I'm not having much success so far. George III was the last sovereign to be heavily involved in government, particularly that of Frederick North, Lord North. I dimly remember being told at school that George refused to read the Speech from the Throne that finally agreed to American independence, on the grounds that he had lost his false teeth. However, I can now find no reference to that story on the internet and I'm beginning to wonder if it was just a history teacher's tall tale. Alansplodge (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that this can be assigned to a definite point in time, just as there is no definite point in time at which the monarch became obligated to accept the advice of the government concerning appointments and policies. That's one of the consequences of not having a written constitution. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing that may not resolve the issue, Looie. For example, the Australian Constitution has been with us from the start, but it is devoid of any reference to matters such as: the Governor-General commissions the party or coalition that controls the lower house to form a government; the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister; there are reserve powers available for use in extraordinary circumstances. During the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis the first two of these conventions were violated, and the third was invoked. To add to the mix, two state premiers also breached convention by appointing replacement federal senators who were not from the same party as the deceased/resigned senators. The lesson was: Anything's fair game as long as the letter of the constitution is upheld. Yet it is very clear that to rely solely on a written constitution for guidance in the affairs of the nation would leave many, many questions unanswered. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Two things. (1) George III wasn't the last to be involved in government; see the material on Catholic Emancipation in George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom#Reign. (2) This is a hard-and-fast thing [who writes a speech is nice and factual, although of course the knowledge could be lost], not an undefinable "when did the government first gain influence over the contents of the Speech". 2001:18E8:2:1020:960:1ACF:434A:32B3 (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right; however I was thinking that there hasn't been an administration since that of North where government policy and the will of the sovereign were so closely aligned. I stand to be corrected on that though. Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

September 25

Positions of the worlds religions regarding the morality of bringing the dead back to life.

I recently added the use of recently deceased children's brains to the article for voodoo zombies; and a while ago I created the page for anarchist founder William Godwins Lives of the Necromancers. The page for voodoo zombies makes no reference to opposition to the practice within voodoo. I doubt an edit to the page for Jesus or Solomon saying that by definition this is what they did to Lazarus and Hiram Abiff would last more than five seconds. So what do the worlds religions have to say about this practice? Let me guess, no reply; like all my other tough questions. User:CensoredScribe 00:32, 25 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Only God can raise the dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and goodbye Bugs; I feel no need to add further references to any failed scientific attempts. Bones staying in the ground is better for the environment anyways, as they bio remediate heavy metals like lead and cadmium. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting question (would make a philosophy class hop). Off the top of my head I should think that the major religions have no moral position on bringing the dead to life, in that the ability to do so didn't exist when the religions were evolving. But what would their position be if such a thing became possible? My guess is the religions would dodge the issue - as they always pretend they have the answers to all the moral questions. But what should the moral position be? That is a very large question and would be dependent on the circumstances. Involving exploitation of the living, or the dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

CensoredScribe - the only way on which this is a "tough" question is that it's very weird, and hard to give a rational answer to. Most of the regular respondents here, and spokesmen for the major religions, are going to see your beliefs(?) about raising the dead as nonsensical. So, not tough. Just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence of the OP's question, and a glance at his user page, tell me he's not a good faith user and there's no point spending any time engaging with him. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, certain characteristics of his writing style look familiar, suggesting he's been here before under a different name or names. Exactly who, I couldn't say, as I don't keep track of that stuff. But he'll eventually get the boot. Again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And now that we're onto him, he seems to have jumped ship.[4] Or perhaps not. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody know what was the fate of this boy?

21-year-old Ebrahim Hamidi, Iranian, sentenced to death but not executed. Is he in prison? what happened to him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZMikeAZ (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed part of your description of this possible living person which does not appear to be supported by sources. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you might have reworded. The question is about Ebrahim Hamidi, found guilty, without conclusive evidence, in the face of severely irregular prosecutorial conduct, and at the age of 16, of the crime of sodomy ("lavat"), and sentenced, in Iran, to execution by hanging. Simply removing the word "gay" from the question pretty severely hampers the ability of people to follow what's being asked. It's not merely the death penalty that sparked outrage, it's the "crime" for which it was meted out. - Nunh-huh 21:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually he was accused of sexual assault not simple sodomy. This sort of misinformation is precisely the reason why I removed the unsupported characterisation. The OP has a simple question, which could be answered without getting into the messy business of the actual accusations for were the foundation of the case (which themselves risk BLP violations considering it remains unclear whether there's good evidence to support them) let alone moral outrage over the crime which ultimately the RD is not the place to discuss. In any case, I will never make any excuse for removing an almost clear cut BLP violation (the only reason it isn't entirely clear is because of the unfortunate fact the whole basis of this question is we have no idea if he is living). If you want, I could just remove the OP entire question which and leave it up to them to reword but I somehow think the most others on the RD would prefer if I do not do so. (I would also add there is long standing consensus we should not reword or refactor comments more then is necessary and putting additional words into the OP mouth would clearly fall into that category. Nil Einne (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any news items on Google after September 2010, when he was still under threat of execution. The volume of foreign condemnation at the sentence, particularly from France, suggests that if he had actually been executed, there would have been a major outcry. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You can argue about the morality of making such an act a crime, but did the suspect in fact do what he was accused of doing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the people who prosecuted him feel otherwise, but I think it's fair to say that most unbiased observers believe Ebrahim Hamidi is a heterosexual Iranian accused and convicted of a crime (really attempted sodomy rather than completed sodomy) which he did not commit. - Nunh-huh 21:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Does his orientation matter under Islamic law, or is it the act (or attempted act) that's the important factor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Officially, it doesn't matter; it is the attempt at the act rather than an inclination to the act that is illegal. However, critics of the various implementations of Sharia law believe that distinction is generally ignored, and that the law is often used as a pretext enabling the persecution of gay (and in this case, non-gay) males in the absence of any overt act. - Nunh-huh 23:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Besides, there are no gays in Iran. Just dove handlers. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Except he was not simply accused of sodomy but sexual assault. The fact that the law he was prosecuted under would could also apply to consensual sex doesn't change the fact he was accused of sexual assault and this was likely taken in to account in his sentence. (Edit: Actually I'm not sure he was found guilty of simply sodomy, while a number of sources including AI simply mention sodomy while also making clear he was accused of sexual assault, I note HRW [5] mentions forcible sodomy and lavat beh onf. The fact that the victim apparently later withdrew his testimony of being sexually assaulted instead suggesting they simply attempted to sexually assault him may not have any bearing on the actual crime he was found guilty of since the judge used his 'knowledge'. (In other words, the judge may have believed him guilty of and found him guilty of sexual assault even though the only extant accusation at the time was he had attempted sexual assault.) In any case, it seems clear making this a simple 'gay rights' issue or 'sodomy' as you are doing, is frankly offence to people of all sexual orientations, as if there if there is no difference between someone who is gay or has consensual sex with another man, and someone who commits sexual assaults which is what is at dispute in this case. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that there is no controversy over executing people guilty of sexual assault, simply that it's quite a different controversy. I would add confounding such things, similar to the Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni case for example is deeply harmful since it confuses the real world persecution those who are gay or engage in prohibited consensual activities face in Iran; with other problems like the high usage of the death penalty in Iran for stuff which while crimes in most developed countries don't generally earn the death penalty even in those that maintain it. Or the possible use of unsound evidence (or even no evidence) in such cases and a lack of representation. And other stuff like the controversial execution of juvenile offenders. All of which are relevant talking points, except they shouldn't be rolled in to one and of course wikipedia is a place to discuss none of them.) The relevance of to OP's simple question, remains unclear to me, particularly since it remains entirely unclear any sexual activity took place, but if you want to engage in long discussions mostly unrelated to the OP questions and fault me for removing a clear cut BLP violation you could at least have the decency to get it right. Nil Einne (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any single statement that could be characterized as "getting it right", as the truth is actually unknowable in this case. It's certainly not clear that the Iranian judiciary actually distinguishes between homosexuality, sodomy, and forced sodomy, even if they claim to. Surely it's better to point out the issues involved than to obscure them. - Nunh-huh 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've modified my response slightly since you response, I guess based on your earlier complaint you will have no problem with this action. In any case, you're still missing the point that making this about consensual sex when there's no evidence it's about that at all (at least in the Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni there was the allegation even if the evidence supporting it was weak) as you did is what confuses the issue. I did none of this, I simply removed a BLP violation, noting it here and providing a clearer explaination to the OP why. I did not obscure it in any way the BLP violation was confusing and unneeded as I have said several times. Instead I offered clarity when you confused it. The fact if the matter remains that the OP's question was what happened to the unfortunate man (now), not whether his sentence was deserved (which isn't a question for the RD), why there was outrage, what he was accused of, what evidence for it there was or anything of that sort. You're the one who brought these irrelevant details in to the question and then did a half arsed job at it requiring other people to waste their time to correct you. I would add your claim that no distinction is made, goes against the evidence in cases like this (where from what I can tell, the allegation is they attacked him or got in to a fight and then at some stage sexually assaulted, or attempted to, him), as well as reliable sources like HRW who while acknowledging there are serious problem (including the fact that someone who engaged in consensual sexual activites may be pressured to make accusations of assault to try and protect themselves when found out or that an assumption may be made that someone won't consent to such activities) don't suggest that no distinction is ever made. And in case you missed it, in these long discussions we've held, none of us other than Alanspodge has in any way answered the OP's actual question. (For the record I did attempt to answer when rewording but as with Alanspodge didn't find anything more recent.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Sanhedrin

In a recent women's Bible study about the Apostle Paul, it was suggested that he was a married man because any member of the Jewish Sanhedrin would have had to have a wife. I'm questioning that fact and hope you can lend some light on the possibility of Paul (a Hebrew of Hebrews, as scripture says) having a spouse. Thanks for your assistance32.177.22.3 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.177.22.3 (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin would be a follower of Jesus in the first place. 164.107.147.131 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read the Bible, it explains how Paul became a follower of Jesus in some detail in several places, both in writings about him by others and in writings by him. Acts of the Apostles, ascribed to Luke, describes the incident on the Road to Damascus, an event you can read more about at the Wikipedia article Conversion of Paul the Apostle. Paul himself covers the event as well, notably in his own Epistle to the Galatians. --Jayron32 14:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that the existence of Paul's wife is a contentious issue, as shown here. 164.107.147.131 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it is questionable whether Paul was ever a member of the Sanhedrin, the primary evidence for this assertion seems to hinge on the interpretation of Acts 26:10 which some take to mean that Paul had a vote in the assembly.

Secondly, although frequently asserted, even by seemingly reliable sources, I've not been able to find any primary source for the claim that marriage was a requirement for Sanhedrin membership. Even if such a requirement is to be found in the Talmud or later rabbinic sources, that does not prove that it was a requirement in Paul's time (pre-70 AD). - Lindert (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To your first point: I'm unfamiliar with the text, but wonder whether "the assembly" might more correctly refer to the congregation (at large); the Sanhedrin was a council. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(ETA) - I've just raised this possible ambiguity on the Talk:Sanhedrin page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

William Calley, My Lai Massacre

Why did Richard Nixon let William Calley off with just house arrest for the My Lai Massacre? Seattle (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason that Jay Bybee is a federal judge, not a debarred and disgraced ex-lawyer, and for the same reason Donald Rumsfeld is not in prison for crimes against humanity. He did essentially what he was supposed to do, up to the point the act became too extreme and too public. And the cynic in me very much wants to say "and he did it to small brown poor people far away". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I get your point, Stephan, but you have to make it in another way. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What proportion of the time do Christians, on average, devote to God, Mary, or the saints?

I once read the full version of this academic article that Christians - especially those in Europe in earlier times - would pray to Mary more often than they would to God or the other saints. Now, that made me think about exactly what proportion of people's devotional time was actually spent on praying to Mary, as opposed to the other entities. What is the purpose of praying to God, Mary or the saints? Do they share the same purpose, or is praying to one means slightly differently than praying to another? 164.107.103.177 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As to your first question, what is the average proportion, that is pretty much impossible to measure. Some Christians believe that every moment of their lives are dedicated and devoted to God, while others may consider that only prayer and church time is directly devoted to God. As to the purpose of prayer, see: Prayer. For 'prayer' to Mary, see Marian devotions, and for Saints' intercession... see Intercession of saints. Mingmingla (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't know about the median or mean, but the mode is ~an hour on Sundays. One would have to define the population to get a better response. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

When I read "Mary / the Saints" - are these relevant only for Catholics? My impression is that fundamentalist Protestants invoke Jesus (= "personal savior") on an individual basis throughout their waking hours. Are there church-based denominations more oriented toward public worship services? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article, Intercession of saints explains all. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The stuff about saints and Mary and so on is mostly a Catholic thing, and amounts to de facto polytheism. Protestant denominations generally pray to God and/or Jesus, not to saints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the Orthodox would disagree with you. Devotion to Mary and the saints is, perhaps, mostly non-Protestant, but it's certainly not even close to being exclusively Catholic. And, as always, "de facto" polytheism is in the eye of the beholder... and if the beholder worships three gods and counts them as only one, his discernment can be questioned.  :) - Nunh-huh 21:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean Eastern Orthodox. Do they pray to saints also? As regards the Trinity, that's the notion of a single God in three personas or aspects or whatever. Such is not the case with saints. They're individuals. Hindu gods and Catholic saints both specialize in aspects of the human experience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The orthodox indeed venerate the saints. If I ask you to pray to god for me, would you accuse me of polytheism? Those who ask for the intercession of Mary and the saints would say that it's an exact analogy. - Nunh-huh 21:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The standard Protestant view is that God is all-knowing and all-seeing, and that "intercession" is not only unnecessary, it has no biblical basis - it's an invention of the Catholic church, and makes sense in terms of how they structure their organization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that position. It just doesn't seem to have much to do with monotheism to me. I think in discussions such as those on the reference desk, where different viewpoints are to be respected, it's generally a good policy not to rely on sectarian positions to determine that one sect or another is lying when it claims to be monotheist. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

All three of the Abrahamic religions are officially monotheistic. The OP asked about Christians and God and saints. The Catholic view of the value of saints is functionally similar to Hinduism. Modern Protestants in general have no use for saints - they're essentially the Roman Catholic Hall of Fame, and have nothing to do with anything biblical other than being in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Christians and Hindus are also similar in believing in a trinitarian godhead. Does that make Christians polytheists as well? It's a logical fallacy to say that one shared characteristic makes things identical. Gratuitous observations labeling one Christian sect or another as polytheistic seem a bit out of line on the reference desk, and certainly aren't needed in responding to the original question asked. It would be fine to say "Some Protestants think Catholics are polytheists", better if you state exactly which Protestants they are, and better yet if it can be backed up with references. But I think it's misleading to state your personal belief that '"the stuff about saints" amounts to "de facto" polytheism' as if it were a generally accepted truth.- Nunh-huh 00:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The concept of the Trinity does not qualify as polytheism. The concept of praying to saints rather than to God is non-biblical, and typically Protestants reject the idea. Some of the older Protestant sects might still pray to saints. The more recent ones typically would not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The point, though, is that praying for saintly intercession also doesn't qualify as polytheism. There are certain Protestant sects, with a strong anti-Catholic strain that would say otherwise, but the correct answer to "are Catholics polytheists?" is "no", your feelings to the contrary notwithstanding. - Nunh-huh 20:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

They are, they just don't realize it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bugs has spoken. So may it be written; so may it be done. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer this question you would first need to accurately define a Christian. Numbers of Christians in Wikipedia articles are obtained by many means. For my country, Australia, that involves counting those who self identify as one of several "Christian" groupings on a voluntary question on our five yearly census. I would submit that, of those, many never pray at all. How many, we will never know. I doubt if anyone has ever surveyed who the others pray to. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Constructive vote of no confidence

The Cabinet of Germany article says that "There is a grace period in-between the dismissal of a Chancellor by the Bundestag and until the Bundestag can elect a new Chancellor, so as to allow the federal government, if it so wishes, to advise the Federal President to dissolve the Bundestag so that elections may be held." That's all well and good, but just above this, it says that the dismissal of the old Chancellor and election of the new Chancellor happens at the same time, i.e. the constructive vote of no confidence. So how is this reconciled? 92.23.130.40 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. The law provides a number of safety measures to prevent an "extended" power vacuum. Here is an English translation: PDF. But there may be very short periods of time (only weeks), when no regular chancellor is in office. But during this time the former chancellor and their ministers are required to continue their office as acting interim chancellor and government. GermanJoe (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the difference that one is a vote of no confidence coming from the Bundestag, the other a vote of confidence requested by the Chancellor? Ssscienccce (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, both types of vote have this "grace period" of 48 hours (Art. 67.2 and 68.2) - no matter if it's a no-confidence vote by the Bundestag or a confidence vote by the Chancellor. GermanJoe (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson's inaugural parade

During the inaugural parade of 1965-01-20, were flags at half-mast? I've looked all over for the subject, even finding photos such as this set, but I can't find any textual references to the issue, and none of the images I've found showed any flagpoles at all. I'm holding a group of prints taken around this time that depict a cavalry troop from Culver Academies at 38°53′30.5″N 77°1′0″W; it's a parade in cold weather (judging by the bystanders' cold-weather clothing), and all the flags are at half-mast. I don't know that it is the inauguration parade, but I don't know why else an Indiana academy's delegation would be in a DC parade. 2001:18E8:2:1020:960:1ACF:434A:32B3 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There's 30 minutes of footage of the parade [on You Tube here, if you have half an hour to spare... 184.147.120.88 (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There's some flag shots at about 15:02 there which look like they're at full height. It seems quite strange to me that flags would still be at half mast fourteen months later; State funerals in the United States does not give a specific time for Kennedy but suggests that thirty days was usual for a president. Depending how confident you are on the date, the photo could be eight years later - the Second inauguration of Richard Nixon in January 1973 took place just under a month after Harry Truman's death, and flags would have been at half-mast for thirty days. It may be from the day itself or from the rehearsals. According to this press kit, Culver were indeed at 1973 as well as 1965. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And as LBJ died on January 22, flags would have remained at half-staff for nearly 2 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Medicis breaking Machiavelli's arms

"The context in this case is that the Medici family to whom he dedicated his love letter is the same group who personally broke Machiavelli's arms for being such a staunch advocate for free government."[6]

Is there any historical evidence that Machiavelli's arms were actually broken by the Medici family? I googled around and all I could find are verbatim quotes or paraphrases of the Cracked article.Dncsky (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Machiavelli was subject to the strappado, which (according to most sources I'm aware of) lead to dislocated shoulders, but not to any actual fractures. Tevildo (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the help. Do you know which source from the strappado article includes this information? Dncsky (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Machiavelli's torture is mentioned in the strappado article at present. The main source that our articles on Machiavelli use is Anthony Grafton's introduction to The Prince. The primary source for the incident is a poem that Machiavelli himself wrote while in prison - I've not yet been able to track down a precise title or the text, but I'm sure it's available somewhere. Tevildo (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do people vote?

I'm doing a project and I need help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.235.74 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's either that or guns. See loyal opposition. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In my country, Australia, we vote because it's illegal not to. See Compulsory voting. Obviously too some of us like to think that we can influence government decisions by helping to choose who is in the government. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

They vote because it's a civic duty. At least it is in America. In Australia it's compulsory, so it's not a civic duty, but merely just something you have to do, like renewing your driver's license. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Having sold my last car 16 years ago, I have to ask: In which country is it compulsory to renew your driver's license? Especially if you do not want to drive? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to live in a country where you have to renew your marriage licence every year, otherwise the marriage lapses. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather dichromatic view, Bugs. A civic duty is still a duty, whereas the ability to have a direct say in the affairs of the nation ought to be a pleasure. I and millions of others would still vote here if it were not compulsory. People complain about the disruption to their lives yada yada, but it takes 5 minutes once every c. 3 years, hardly climbing Mt Everest. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your philosophy. I just think that compulsory voting is tyrannical. Everyone should vote - because they want to, not because Big Brother tells them they have to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Why was your response to Bugs instead of to HiLo? Oh well. In any case, I vote if it's convenient for me...and so I can have the sticker that says I Voted. I don't think it makes any difference and I think all career politicians are corrupt and worthless. --Onorem (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Was that a question to me? If so: I responded to Bugs because ... well, I was responding to what Bugs said. That seems reasonable, don't you think? I had no reason to address HiLo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you specified my ID, I assumed you were talking to me. Maybe Ono overlooked that detail. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some good articles for you to read:

• Civic engagement,
• Suffrage,
• Representative democracy,
• Voter_turnout#Reasons_for_voting and
• Election

- you should be able to pull out quite a list of reasons from these. Best on your project. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Voting is the means by which one ideologically hostile faction takes power from another without resort to force. When there are no free elections there is either civil war or one-party dictatorship. This is the concept of loyal opposition. The opposition is opposed, but it is also loyal enough to the concept of the nation or state to accept being out of power without resorting to violent means. This is exactly what happened in the US Civil War. When the Southern Democrats couldn't get what they wanted by the vote they ceased to be the loyal opposition, and took up arms. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• OP, you may find this paper and the references in it useful for your project: Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote To Improve the Well-Being of Others, Aaron Edlin, Andrew Gelman and Noah Kaplan, Rationality and Society, 2007. Abecedare (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In Australia, it's compulsory to register to vote once. However, if you don't want to vote you can choose to not register. You can't be fined for not voting when you're not on the electoral roll. It's compulsory to vote in federal, state and local elections.
Sleigh (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's true that you can't be penalised for not voting if you're not registered. But you can be penalised for not registering, and continued failure to do so would be contempt of court. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How strong is puritanism in Australia? μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's less popular than voting is in America. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now that was a good one. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I vote, because I might as well. Paraphrasing: "Most people are too simple-minded, or too shortsighted to deserve the right to vote." Even though I'm just a grain of sand in a mountain, I vote to counter those types of votes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's unfair to sufferers of myopia. And what if you and they just happen to vote the same way? If your stated reason is really why you vote, we may have to consider to whom the term "simple-minded" really applies.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That is ironic, because I'm myopic. The author of the quote was actually a politician of all professions. Here's a link to an explanation of the quote: [7]. And that is why I prefer a technocratically supported absolute monarchy. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In retrospect, I'd rather go for a scientocratically supported absolute monarchy, on the basis that I just heard of this neologism, and that it is more accurate.

I vote because women in my family died so that I could choose not to... --TammyMoet (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to your foremothers, Tammy. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course this is the real reason Canadians vote. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

September 26

Georges Darboy

Is his death considered a martyrdom by the Catholic Church? If not not, why isn't it?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The answer seems to be Yes. I got this by googling "Georges Darboy martyr". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I did some searching too and lot of sources do call him a martyr. But is this reflected by an official recognition by the Catholic Church? Or is this not needed for martyrdom?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The link I provided was the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. Click on the martyr link on that page and you get a discussion of martyrs, history, definition etc. There seems to be no official proclamation that anyone is a martyr, just a general acceptance within the church that someone fits the definition. I guess if some senor Vatican figure starts calling someone a martyr, the rest of the faithful would follow; but doubtless, those faithful who already knew of the person's life and, more particularly, their death, would already be so referring to them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bullying in schools

Bullying in schools is epidemic in the West. I started off wondering if there are some categories of children who are NOT targeted for bullying. Such as children of teachers at the school, or the children of known violent criminals. Have any reputable studies been done showing the socio-economic status of the parents of the bullies and the parents of the children bullied? I would be surprised if a school found it could not deal with a bully who was, for example, the child of a dustbin man, bullying someone who was a child of the school governor - and the teachers turning a blind eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiliamson (talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

School bullying may have something about this. I don't think it is anything special about the West but how well the schools deal with it. Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Socioeconomic Inequality in Exposure to Bullying During Adolescence: A Comparative, Cross-Sectional, Multilevel Study in 35 Countries. 142.150.38.133 (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

First, it's not "epidemic" just because it makes headlines when kids are bullied and/or when some of the bullied bring weapons to school and wreak vengeance. One important factor in not being bullied is not being what bullies are looking for: small and weak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a small note: I believe you mean that bullying is endemic, which is an accurate description if most children experience it to some extent. 86.164.30.45 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If also depends on how "bullying" is defined. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

^ Shadowjams (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Perhaps I should have said that bullying is epidemic in British schools. I rashly supposed that American schools had the same problem. The reference on socioeconomic status indicated that lower class children are targetted more often. But there wasn't much detail. This wasn't my question, but perhaps what I am looking for is a breakdown of the occupations of the parents of bullies and a breakdown of the occupations of the parents of the bullied. Definition of bullying? Well, I suppose you know what racism means. Pretend it is racism, but applied to anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Of curse bullying is epidemic. I cannot think of a single class from kindergarten to ninth grade that didn't have bullying in it. In tenth grade a classmate who was a bully's sycophant died in a car crash, and when an assembly was held to announce his death and offer grief counseling there was much applause, to the consternation of the professional victim-mongers. See Heathers. μηδείς (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, it depends on the definition. Kids pick on each other all the time, and always have. Real bullying, as I see it, is the threat of violence and/or making someone's life so miserable that they seriously contemplate murder and/or suicide. Adults are often oblivious to this stuff until it manifests itself overtly. As regards the kids applauding, some of those kids probably thought it was divine retribution, while others are probably the same type who cheered when the assassination of JFK was announced in schools across the nation, 50 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Any well-constructed studies on premium costs under the Affordable Care Act?

A Facebook friend just posted a link to an article going on and on about how much premuims will be going up for people buying insurance out-of-pocket. I looked into the methodology of the study (by a libertarian think tank) and saw that they were only looking at individual coverage, even though they were not filtering their household income data based on the type of household. They then compared the estimated health care marketplace cost for individual coverage to the cheapest individual plans currently available in the states. I pointed out the flaws, and showed that working through my case (if I didn't have employer coverage, but had the same income) I would end up paying $35 more a month than the cheap plan listed in the study, but it would cover 4 people, pre-existing conditions, mental health, maternity, preventative care and have a reasonable deductible, unlike the other plan (which I have actually used in the past when unemployed).

Are there any studies out there that actually do a good job comparing predicted rates under the ACA to the rates people are actually paying today, rather than comparing it solely to buy bottom-of-the-barrel insurance that barely covers anything? Katie R (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, but I can tell you right off the bat that any study funded by a "Libertarian think tank" will be biased against the ACA. I wouldn't even consider any study funded by anyone with a political agenda, and certainly not funded by the industry itself. So who does that leave ? Maybe a university study ? They might be reluctant to pay for such a study, though, since the ACA will be in force soon enough, and no predictions will then be needed to identify the relative costs. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you <something> two contradictions?

There's a word beginning with c that is used to describe the process of making contradictions acceptable. E.g. "how do you c_____ the fact that you are vegetarian while your husband is a butcher?" --129.215.5.38 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a synonym for 'reconcile'? This really belongs on the Language desk. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The word that comes instantly to my mind doesn't start with a c: it is reconcile. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. The word was reconcile. I don't have an explanation for why I felt it began with a c. --129.215.5.38 (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You were correct. Concile starts with a cee, and re- is just a prefix. Trust yourself. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you were thinking of cognative dissonance, where a person feels discomfort from holding two conflicting view points? uhhlive (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was. That's another good way to convey what I wanted to. Thanks. 129.215.5.255 (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As a non-native speaker (and, more often, writer), I find "concile" a completely plausible and useful verb, and was surprised to find that it's not in old-fashioned dictionaries. You can concile everything, while you really can only reconcile things that were together once and were separated somehow ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The term is not "concile", it's "conciliate".[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If that be the case, then how did Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa) get its name when nothing was ever conciliated in the first place? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Political hype. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Starts with c, means reconcile? How about come to terms with? Single words I don't have (I wouldn't use conciliate in this context). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

conciliate? concordance? conflate? co-mingle? coordinate? converge? consummate? Paul B (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Map about ages of consent in the world: Peru and Spain correct?

Hello,

I have a question relating this world map about ages of consent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg 1.Are the responible of this map sure with Peru? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_South_America#Peru The above link and other sources state an actual age of 14 which corresponds with my researches. 2.Are the responible of this map sure with Spain? There is a draft to raise the minimum age of consent to 16 but as far as I know it is not the law in place. It is still being discussed. If I am wrong could you please give me the source? Thanks alot for your efforts.

Kind regards

Alex A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.105.125 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alex, great catch. Looking at the page for the file, it says the author used the Wikipedia age of consent articles as a source, and made the map on Aug 8 2012. The relevant Wikipedia files for that date, (Europe and South America) did say 18 for Peru (but the statement was unsourced), and 13 for Spain, which doesn't match the image (source given was this). However, the author of the image, User:MissMJ, says they are happy to take requests for image improvements, so I recommend you just go ahead and post your findings and sources on MissMJ's talk page to get it fixed. You can also add your sources to the articles. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

how can guys see toilet seats?

I am to understand that women often complain of the toilet seat being left up - but that means that the guy must have lifted it before use, right? So, why would the guy see that he needs to lift it (without complaint) but the woman does not make the same determination? In effect I am asking logically about the difference here... I've never heard of a guy complaining about 'always having to lift the toilet seat.' Why not? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a common criticism of the great Toilet Seat Canard. It never seems to occur to its proponents that this means that the man has to put in the Herculean effort of lifting the seat and then putting it down again, all so that woman have to make no effort of any kind. Clearly true believers in sexual equality would leave the seat up in order to equalise the work between the genders. Obviously if one wishes to retain the old Chivalric code of masculinity, opening doors for ladies to pass, offering them seats, etc, then one is implicitly accepting that they are the "weaker sex". True feminists should always expect to have to put their seats down themselves. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Guys sometimes need to have the seat down, too. The default position is down, because that's the only one that applies to all users. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So, you are one of the few men, Jack, who don't poo standing up? μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(insert correct answer here)_________________ Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In a world-wide perspective it probably is the minority of men -- Q Chris (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The explanation I was given (by... a woman!) is that the issue is really about falling into the bowl. Late at night or in other times of darkness/sleepiness it would be nice to be able to simply sit down without fear of plunking ass first into a water filled basin. At our house, the issue is moot because we always close the lid prior to flushing to reduce the aerosolization of toilet water. While that effect is probably a bit overblown, it's had the effect of democratizing the situation - everyone always has to lift the lid before they start, so there's no guesswork and no favourtism. My hope is that this system be widely adopted in the hopes of healing one of the great rifts that exist between the sexes, thereby leading to a better world for all. And less wet bums. Matt Deres (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fewer wet bums. And since I care more about the less/fewer distinction than about bog seats, the top feminist prize is mine. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

But the bums are all less wet. 86.164.30.45 (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You've illustrated the reason for my question: presumably, late at night guys would piss all over the toilet seat with equal regularity to ladies' plunking down in wet basins: (both have the exact same mechanism of simply not looking) ; does this in fact happen? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Your female partner will then complain about having to sit on your urine, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If a man is content to piss into the darkness whilst indoors, I suspect there will be more things about which his companion might complain. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If a man can pee in the bowl without hitting the rim he can pee in the bowl without hitting the seat. More people die nightly from crashing butt-first into the bowl than ever die sliding off a wet seat. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking that last sentence is false in two ways. At a literal level you're comparing nightly with ever, but on an even more literal level both are 0. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

On topic, and a great example of WP:WHAAOE, Toilet-related injuries and deaths. My goodness. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

But the real reason guys like to piss with the lid seat up is that they assume they can get away with not wiping the rim when they do hit it, whereas they know they will have to wipe the seat. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems that little boys have most to fear from the toilet seat in upward position. Toilet-related injuries and deaths. Ssscienccce (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm male, but leave the seat down all the time. The reason is I've had too many seats fall down as I was peeing, getting urine all over the place. I can usually avoid peeing on the seat, but if I do, I clean it up right away, and that's a far easier clean-up job than if it's all over the room. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The hotel I stayed at recently had a button to flush the toilet. The button was situated on the front and both the seat and the lead had to be put down before you could flush. By the way Medeis, I think you will find that women also like to pee with the lid up. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a challenge: when a man pees standing up with the seat up is Easy mode, with the seat down (through the central hole) is Medium mode, and with the lid down as will is Impossible mode. You can still do it though, sideways. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's an economic/efficiency analysis of the question: [9] and [10]. Enjoy:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite the popularity of the meme I've never actually encountered a woman who complains about men leaving the seat up. I was tangentially acquainted with a woman who demanded her boyfriend sit down to pee or she wouldn't sleep with him, which is a whole 'nother level of expected control (the relationship did not last long). Meanwhile, I (a man) have got into the habit of leaving not only the seat but the lid down. I had a damp problem in the bathroom which necessitated the use of a dehumidifier, and if the toilet was left open it consumed gallons of water from the bowl but didn't dry out the damp. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

September 27

how are short positions closed when markets jump on open?

In theory what's to stop any/every short seller from being a naked short seller, in case the markets open even higher than whatever their cover was? There seems to be an assumption during a 'margin call' situation (if I'm using this term right) that before it hits the point that the investor cannot cover, it would gradually (day by day, intraday) rise to that level. But nothing guarantees this, does it? The market could open Monday three times higher than the trading price Friday, and then what? Even if the short seller sells at that point immediately, what guarantee is there that the rest of their contract would be fulfilled?

Do short sellers' contracts in fact go unfulfilled for this (or other) reason? [i.e. inability to buy the sell to return as promised]. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

A short seller is obligated to meet the contract regardless of price movements. If the short seller doesn't have the resources to buy the necessary stock, the short seller is basically bankrupt. Margin is a device for reducing the risk that that will happen, but it doesn't reduce the risk to zero. Looie496 (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Margin calculations include an allowance for intraday and overnight volatility - this is called "maintenance margin". Exchanges often reserve the right to increase margin requirements in periods of high market volatility. And if there is a very large and unexpected overnight price movement, an exchange may temporarily suspend trading in order to ensure an orderly market. Ultimately, as Looie496 says, a short seller's obligations are not limited to deposited margin, and are in theory unlimited. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So I mean let's say some news leaks over a weekend in an otherwise not so volatile market that literally make's the cap of a company when it opens Monday 80x higher. Every short seller goes broke. Does that mean if you were on the other side of those contracts they're not going to be honored? So the people who sell to the short sellers might not have their obligations honored? (If the short sellers 'go bankrupt'?) I realize this is unlikely in practice. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That depends. In some markets the exchange acts as a central counterparty, and is responseible for closing out positions if a member defaults. Or a broker may be responsible for taking over their client positions if a client defaults. But finally, yes, there is a risk in extreme market conditions that some contracts will not be honoured. In a well organised market this counterparty risk is monitored, minimised and spread out, but it cannot be completely eliminated. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

High risk group

how can i explain the High risk group communities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.155.3 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your question is incomprehensible without further context. AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

High risk of what? We cannot answer your question unless we know what the community in question is in risk of. You cannot just be generally at risk; you need to be at risk of something happening to you. --Jayron32 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would assume they are asking about communities where members are at high risk of basically everything bad, like infant mortality, dropping out of school, gang membership, arrest and imprisonment, drug and alcohol addiction, violent death, etc. In the US, we've started calling these simply "at risk communities" or "at risk individuals". The single biggest contributing factor to all of this is typically poverty. However, things get complicated because poverty is also a result of living in those areas. Thus, it's called a cycle of poverty. We may think of this as primarily a problem of city slums, but there are also rural at-risk populations, such as those on some Native American reservations, and in parts of Appalachia. The initial cause of the poverty can sometimes be traced, such as Native Americans losing their fertile ancestral lands and being forced to move onto less productive land, coal mines in Appalachia being played out or run with far fewer workers as a result of technology and automation, and industry leaving cities, such as the decline of the automobile industry in Detroit. StuRat (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Young Turks - An offensive name?

I'm confused - why do people name things after the "Young Turks" (see disambiguation Young Turks (disambiguation) for some examples) if the original Young Turks are famous for their atrocities? Isn't that tantamount to naming something "The Nazis"? I understand that it might mean something along the lines of "political agitator" but I find it odd and surprising that no one gets offended by it. Is there something I'm missing? This is all I could find on the topic, and it's not much: Change The Title of Young Turks it is very offensive. Duga3 (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Many non-Turkish nationalities of the former Ottoman empire have negative memories of them, but in the English-speaking countries they've become a vague metaphor for people willing to shake the system up and disregard old rules. Might as well ask why "Gang of X" expressions are formed on the model of "Gang of Four"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In English, calling someone a Nazi is a rather vile insult, unless it's used as a joke, like the Soup Nazi. The expression "Young Turk" has pretty much positive connotations. Like a rebel. And we tend to like rebels, at least up to a point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Squat toilet demonstration

Japanese squat toilet

Can someone link to an image of someone using this properly to defecate and micturate? I don't care if it's not safe for work. I simply cannot imagine the posture of why the excrement doesn't end up all over the place. Thanks. 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is an image and here is another which I hope will explain. I assume male users micturate squatting. There is much to commend this style of toilet in terms of physiological efficiency. Richard Avery (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How would you be using it to get excrement all over the place? I can't imagine how you would do that. They seem pretty self-explanatory to me, and I've found them great to use. 131.251.133.26 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that the first picture is a fully clothed man (pants, belt, etc) demonstrating, the second picture is pictograms. nothing NSFW about either one. http://www.chronicprostatitis.com/images/squat-toilet.jpg and http://www.kcpwindowonjapan.com/2013/05/washiki/ 178.48.114.143 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The second image from an oblique angle makes it much clearer what's going on. Doesn't a man have to remove his pants entirely to use one of these? μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. These toilets are not uncommon in France, as well, and I personally find that adopting the position shown in the diagram puts my feet directly under my bum, so that complete removal of the nether garments is the only option. And, even then, it's tricky not to get it on your shoes. Tevildo (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

OP said "I simply cannot imagine the posture of why the excrement doesn't end up all over the place." Not removing pants and underpants meets this qualificaiton. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How do these toilets work for older folk with ageing, arthritic knees? My orthopaedic surgeon has recommended that I avoid squatting. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The two pieces of advice I have seen are to stretch one leg out straight [11] or to use some sort of aid such as a camping stool [12]. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Give me examples of the Five Points of Calvinism or TULIP

Can someone give me examples of the Five Points of Calvinism, or TULIP, and how they apply to people? I don't think I am visualizing it correctly. For instance, in a case of a poor drug addict, what would a traditional Calvinist say (in terms of treatment) to the drug addict and how is that different from what an Arminian would say to the poor drug addict or a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or a Lutheran or an Anglican or a Quaker or a Methodist or a Mennonite or a Mormon/LDS or a Jehovah's Witness? I choose the drug addict example, because it's easier for me to visualize Total Depravity. 164.107.102.16 (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, this is discussed in Calvinism. It's worth pointing out that the core premise of Calvinism is somebody's theory. I don't think there's anything in the Bible that says anything about God pre-determining who will be saved. ←Baseball Bugs

You are not being very helpful. For the sake of an academic discussion, let's assume that there is no God in reality, so that we can focus on the theology. (I am still trying to figure out the reasoning behind this idea.) 164.107.102.16 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is a comparison of Arminianism, Calvinism, and Lutheranism on the Arminianism page.

• Calvinism: Total depravity without free will permanently due to divine sovereignty
• Lutheranism: Total depravity without free will until spiritual regeneration
• Arminianism: Depravity does not prevent free will

Maybe from a Calvinist point-of-view, the drug addict would be totally depraved, totally unable, due to divine sovereignty. God is in control of the person's life, whether he likes or not, and somehow "makes" him a drug addict? Or is being a drug addict a sin intrinsically and the person feels irresistible grace so despite having the sin of drug addiction, he would still be saved? From a Lutheran point-of-view, the drug addict would be totally unable until he is somehow spiritually regenerated. How is this different from Calvinism in practice? Maybe Arminianism would focus more on the person's willingness and that despite that the person is in sin, that person must be willing in order to be saved. So, where did God go in Arminianism? How is this theology reflected in practice? 164.107.102.16 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

entirely off topic and no reason to use intentionally offensive term when self-descriptive one exists
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The way it's reflected in practice is that it gives the teabagger types the excuse not to do anything to help the disadvantaged, since it's either their own fault or it's "God's will". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC) What's a teabagger? Is that theological slang for "Reformed" or "Calvinist"? 164.107.102.16 (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Alternate name for the "tea party" (which the tea party itself coined [Google "tea party coined tea bagger" if you didn't know that]). And there's a specific term for their core belief, which I just heard on talk radio the other day, but I can't recall what it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Your usage is intentionally offensive, and you know it, you wouldn't say "C&cksucker types" to refer to gay men or "n&gger types" even if they used the term in reference to themselves. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

So, can you provide real-life practical examples in everyday conversation, not politics? 164.107.102.16 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Check Google for expressions like, "If someone is poor it's their own fault". And it's not just politics. I've heard this countless times in everyday conversation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"God is in control of the person's life, whether he likes or not, and somehow "makes" him a drug addict?"

That is not how calvinists would view it. Rather, they would say that, although God preordained that he would be a drug addict, nevertheless he acted on his own real desires. Calvinists are compatibilists, i.e. they believe that predestination/determinism is compatible with free choice. Therefore a person is responsible for his actions, they are all of his own choosing, God did not force him to do anything, even though God controls everything.

And yes, Calvinists (and Lutherans) believe that a person will only respond to the Gospel if God has decided to save him/her. Only then will that person repent of his/her sins and trust in Jesus for his/her salvation. However, they also believe that God uses means to save someone, which includes preaching, reading the Bible, and Christian charity/love. Therefore all are responsible for using the means that God has provided and those who are already Christians have a duty to evangelize.

A practical example (though not concerning salvation): When Calvin's wife was dying, he promised her to take care of her children (which she had from a previous marriage). She said that she had entrusted her children to God, but Calvin replied that that did not preclude him (John Calvin) from caring for them (thus being the means by which God provides for those children).

P.S. I mentioned 'free choice' above, I purposefully avoided calling it 'free will'. Calvinists do not believe in free will, but they do believe in free choice, i.e. someone can choose to do anything he/she wants. A good example is someone addicted to smoking. Every time he lights a cigarette, he makes a free decision to do so, nobody is forcing him. Nevertheless, he is not truly free, but is in a sense 'enslaved' to smoking. He just can't break the habit. In the same way Calvinists believe the human will to be 'enslaved' to sin, to such an extent that they cannot free themselves of it without God renewing their will (in Biblical terms: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." - Ezekiel 36:26). - Lindert (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Lindert, can you explain a little about your background in Christian theology? I see that your background is really in Physics, not the Humanities. Also, where and how did you get access to the story about Calvin's wife? And why did you include Ezekiel 36:26 in your response? Is this biblical verse a common verse to support Calvinism, or has this been used by an official Reformed denomination? 164.107.102.98 (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not a theologian, I have no formal training in that area, my information comes mostly from personal reading (and listening to online lectures/debates). I was also raised in a reformed tradition. Remember many people on Wikipedia contribute to subjects they're not experts in, which is ok as long as you use good sources. The story about Calvin's wife is from one of his letters, cited in her Wikipedia article: Idelette Calvin. Ezekiel 36:26 is indeed used frequently in reformed circles, though non-reformed denominations, such as Lutherans use it too. It is also cited by reformed creeds, such as the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: ch10. You can read what Calvin had to say about it here in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. - Lindert (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic. Dude, this has nothing to do with politics.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm still looking for the term I heard the other day and failed to write down, which is the theory held by a growing number of politicians (the Sarah Palins and Ted Cruz's of the world), that the reason people are poor is that they have turned away from God, and that's how they justify cutting support for the poorest Americans. It's a single word term, maybe something like "salvationist", but I don't think that's it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC) You are referring to Prosperity Theology, but that is a completely different issue which pretty much all the groups in the OP's question condemn. If you'd asked this is a separate thread, as your own question, you'd probably had an informative answer faster, if that's what you wanted. 86.164.30.45 (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

William-Adolphe Bouguereau - Work Interrupted

Work Interrupted

Hi, I'd like to know that, who are on this[13] picture. I think the little boy is Cupido/Eros, but I'm not sure, but for the women I have no idea. Thank you for your answers, Y 6 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC).

Do you mean the name of the model, or the character depicted? I can't answer either, but the woman is very similar to the one in this painting by the same artist, even down to the hairstyle and clothing. I guess that in both cases the idea is that she is being distracted by love from her everyday activities. Eros also appears, with a different (and apparently feistier) woman, here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The article says it's Cupid and a young woman, by which I suppose they mean the woman isn't meant to be anyone in particular. Matt Deres (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The source for the French article is actually in English, but I'm not sure it's entirely reliable. My impression is that specific mythological figures have attributes to make them recognizable - as in the Young Girl defending herself against Eros, where the arrow clearly identifies him. Since there is no attribute in Work Interrupted, I think the conclusion should be that it's a generic cherub. If that woman is meant to be a specific one, the cues to her identity are sparse - more likely she isn't meant to be anyone particular. Being fully clothed, she's probably not a Goddess or the incarnation of a concept, however. Effovex (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

She's obviously the Goddess of Squash. Cupid better watch out for her serve. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

She's winding balls of wool, so eminently distractible fromable. Squashable but not squash balls :) The cherub has a stick in his hand so I guess it could be Cupid with an arrow. Dmcq (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

fromable? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. (Disclaimer: Pennies were abolished in Australia in 1966; St Valentine's Day, to be exact.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

September 28

Totalitarian ideologies

I know that Nazism and Soviet communism were two types of totalitarianism. Oddly enough, I sometimes see "socialism" used as a label for totalitarianism (like IngSoc). Are there any other totalitarian ideologies? — Melab±1 ☎ 02:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Story about Enyclopedists who devise a fictional island that becomes real

I vaguely remember reading about a short story about Enyclopedists who devise a fictional island that becomes real. They describe the island in such rich detail that it exists in fiction, and somehow that enters in reality. --Gary123 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you remember anything else about it? What time period the story was from, stuff like that- or even a character name? I couldn't find anything, but more information might help. On a side note, this reminds me of Gaunilo of Marmoutiers objection to Anselm's ontological argument, but that's a philosophical argument:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be thinking of Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius by Jorge Luis Borges.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That's almost certainly it. There is, however, a Ramsey Campbell short story in which some misbegotten encyclopaedia salesman is recruited to hawk copies of the Necronomicon (or was it the The Revelations of Glaaki?) door-to-door. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.25.36 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please identify this French classical musique

Please identify the music that begins here at 3:08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxzvVGlVZqE. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

SoundHound is my crutch. SoundHound says it's Leonard Bernstein's "Fossils and Finale".
Sleigh (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's the "Aquarium" movement from The Carnival of the Animals by Camille Saint-Saëns. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In subject "Greeks"

I would like to add some more female profiles to the subject of Greeks. There are 25 people listed there and only 2 are female. in the area where famous people are portrayed by a picture in the different nationalities. Please add:

1. Cleopatra (famous Queen of Egypt)69-30 bce
2. Atalanti (Famous marathon runner)some time before
3. Nana mouskouri (World renown singer)1970s-now
4. Melina Mercouri (actress and activist)1970s-90s
5. . Ariadne (Daughter of king Minos of Crete)Long time ago
6. Helen of Troy Hec of a long time ago

There are countless others but this is a start.

– — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §

Chris Orfanakos (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC) September 28th, 2013 Chris Orfanakos

I took the liberty to improve your formatting with some wiki-magic. A better place to discuss this is at talk:Greeks. That said, I think Cleopatra will be a hard sell. She is of Macedonian decent, but more strongly associated with Egypt. Helen of Troy and Ariadne are both mythical or semi-mythical persons, and, looking at other countries, all the examples typically seem to be of confirmed historical people. I'd take Mouskouri over Dimas, but 25 is not written in stone (Italians and Germans both have 30), so you might find consensus to simply expand it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As a point of interest, which page are you looking at? There's a very comprehensive List of Greeks, but to a non-Greek speaker such as myself, it's damn near impossible to discern between males and females. I was going to add Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington but I had no idea where she should go! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What gives value to non-dividend paying stock?

I should first clarify that I'm not really asking about the various buying and selling mechanisms that determine a stock's price on an exchange, but rather a more fundamental question of why stock has "value". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkot (talk • contribs) 05:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a read a number of articles such as http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/133.asp, but I have trouble understanding why non-dividend paying stock has value other than the reason that there is a demand for it. I understand that fundamentally stock represents a percentage of ownership in the company. However, since it can't be redeemed via the issuing authority (i.e. I can't demand that Google compensate me in cash for a 0.01% stake in the company), the only way I can convert stock to any other compensation is via a third party. Seemingly, if there was no third party, then the stock is relatively worthless.

Non-dividend paying stock usually carries voting rights (and if it doesn't then it really does seem worthless), but I would guess that most individuals invested in the stock market don't really have an interest in exercising the insignificant amount of power this entails. Instead, it seems that the true value of voting rights is in that other individuals and organizations may be interested in purchasing the stock so that they can have a greater influence in the company. However, does this mean that anyone that owns such stock and doesn't exercise voting rights is essentially "squatting" on the stock, waiting to sell to someone else so they can "use" it to gain influence in the company? If so then what about cases where there is already a majority share holder of the stock? Does the other 49% of stock lose value because it can't be used to gain a controlling share?

I understand that to a certain degree stock entitles one to the assets of the company should it fold, but since the company has creditors that will be paid before stock owners, it seems that this is, at best, a constellation prize. As can be seen when companies declare bankruptcy, their stocks drops to a few cents which is invariably a tiny fraction of the stock's price in better times.

Nkot (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There are several mechanisms that give value to non-dividend-paying stock. First, the company always could start paying a dividend if the board of directors (who are elected by the shareholders) decide to direct the management to do so. Second, the company can buy back stock if the management feel that it is underpriced in relation to the value of the company. Third and most importantly, if the stock is underpriced a different company, or group of investors, can buy the whole company by acquiring all of the stock. (They really only need 50% to have full control, but the laws require them to offer to buy the remaining shares if they buy that much.) A group that owns more than 50% of the stock has total control of the company and can do whatever they please with it, including replacing the management. Looie496 (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That's like asking what gives a dollar bill value if no matter how long it sits in your drawer it doesn't spit out any coins, any dollar bills, or anything else of value such as even a sandwich or anything else: what gives it value is that it's accepted as value by others. if this valuation by others goes up over time then it's worth more and more just by sitting there - without having to spit anything out. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way this was really cute: "the only thing I can think of is that the possibility of bankruptcies give stock some value, since in theory a shareholder is entitled to some of the proceeds of a bankruptcy". That's some Icahn thinking right there :) 178.48.114.143 (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Police State

Is there a recognised measure applied to any society which determines at what point a state is classed as a "police state"? And what factors are indicators? 31.25.4.14 (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you read Police state? That says

Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no definitive objective standards to determine whether the term "police state" applies to a particular nation at any given point in time. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate objectively the truth of allegations that a nation is, or is not becoming, a police state. One way to view the concept of the police state and the free state is through the medium of a balance or scale, where any law focused on removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state, and any law which limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.

Rojomoke (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What are the real chances for change in gay rights in Iran with President Hassan Rouhani?

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezashirazz (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It will take at least a generation to have big changes. The paradox here is that you can only change the situation fast if the country is ruled by a dictator with absolute power who wants to implement a new policy. In a more democratic setting, getting a broad consensus in society is very important. While it looks like the majority decides in a democracy, in reality it's more complicated than that. The majority can only really implement big changes if there isn't a minority who would very strongly object to that. This explains why in the US gay rights is more controversial than in Europe, despite the fact that the US is a far older democracy than most European countries. In the US the political landscape is far more polarized between social conservatives and liberals, so you have a lack of consensus on issues such as gay rights.

Rouhani can start a process that will eventually lead to more rights for gay people, but this will have to involve changing the attitude of conservative people. While most of them will likely always be against, a change is possible if their resistance changes from being against and having big problems with it, to being against and being able to tolerate it. The latter can happen if they feel that it's not a threat to their way of life if gay people are allowed to live more openly in society. Count Iblis (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the Islamic view, and how likely is that to change? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Which Islamic view? --Jayron32 19:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Whichever view of Islam that the Islamic Republic of Iran adheres to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice chit-chat we're having, folks. Reference, anyone? If no reference could be found that tells us the future, this should be hatted or deleted. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Gay Star News reported during the June election that LGBT Iranians thought all candidates are resolutely against equality on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, and will not wish or be able to (even of they wanted to) effect any change.. I haven't been able to find any direct statements by Rouhani, which would be a better source, perhaps, but better googlers might have a try. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

For an idea of how rapidly things can change, see LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland. Bugs, what is the Catholic view, and how is that likely to change? See also Spain, Italy...Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

They usually do all their leather pride parades etc. in a certain few cities where this is tolerated. It's often a bit of a problem whenever they try this in many cultures where it would never be tolerated, like for example Iran! 71.246.149.160 (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)