Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

October 29

comparison and contrast on multiculturalism in USA and multiculturalism in Canada

Is there any website where it compares and contrasting on multiculturalism in USA and multiculturalism in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.139 (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look -- Cultural mosaic. Vranak (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any better result than this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.75 (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

final total from benefit concerts

Is there a final total from the "I Love the Islands" benefit concert series? Will someone write an article on the concert series?24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your mission, should you accept it, is to collect the online news reports concerning the series and report their contents at I Love the Islands concert series with <ref></ref> to the sources you've used. This tape will self-destruct...--Wetman (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do an article on the "I Love the Islands" benefit concert series, but it was deleted. Plus, with several news reports on the event, they can be quite a bit confusing. When I tried to create another article, my request was declined. If anyone can please help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a formal WP:Articles for deletion discussion? Was it listed for WP:Speedy deletion? No one can really "decline" your attempt to create or recreate a new article except a consensus of several users, unless either the article had incredibly-grave flaws to begin with, or an administrator was abusing his or her powers. I have no idea how worthy your article was or might have been, but there is some due process involved. And very skimpy or biased articles which are still more than just propaganda or self-promotion should be considered for improvement or merger with a better, bigger article (in this case, for example, one about the tsunami) before outright deletion. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the OP is talking about. No article titled I Love the Islands has ever been created. Additionally, since the OP does not have a registerred account, he does not have article creation privileges. --Jayron32 12:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I collected as much online news reports as possible and printed them out. They were faxed into the Wikimedia offices, hoping the necessary information would be provided to create an article on the "I Love the Islands" concert series.24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's the problem. Faxing the info to the offices won't get an article made. Best thing to do is go to WP:RA and create a posting there, requesting the page be created and provide the citations necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone else could create the article. That person might be able to do it better than I'd be able to.24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Th. Roosevelt and John Davis Long - conflicting versions

Before his career as US (Vice-)President Theodore Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under John Davis Long. According to the Roosevelt article, "(Because of the inactivity of Secretary of the Navy John D. Long at the time, this gave Roosevelt control over the department.)"

The Long article, however, states that "Long served with vision and efficiency through the next five years, organizing the Navy for the challenges of the Spanish-American War and the expansion that followed, and laying the groundwork for the growth of the "New American Navy" fostered by his former assistant, President Theodore Roosevelt."

Surely, both can't be right? Could someone with historic insight please elaborate? Asav (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you post this on the discussion page of both articles so that other editors interested in the topic can get involved over the coming months (and years). Here on the Refdesk posts are no longer read or commented upon after a week's time or so, and I imagine it'll take more than a week to drum up an editor knowledgeable in this field. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use the {{contradicts|(Other article name)}} tag on both articles. Add {{contradicts|John Davis Long}} to the Roosevelt article and {{contradicts|Theodore Roosevelt}} to the John Davis Long article. Exxolon (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, TR was only under Long for about 1 year while Long was SecNav for 5 years. So perhaps he was a slacker when TR was under him, but figured it out in the last 4 years he was in the job. Googlemeister (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need names of specific theories or names at play here

Say a man does something extremely heroic and saves a whole city from catastrophy by single handedly disabling the criminals and defused the bomb. So everybody in the city celebrates and considers him a hero and becomes a national celebrity. Then, the next night he accidently hits a child with his car and this child dies. It was clearly his fault because of negligence or something like that. The courts and the public are undecided how or if they should prosecute this hero. What specific theories or ethics, or whatever are at play here? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that the RefDesk is not a discussion forum right? You seem to be asking for our opinions. Unless I am wrong and there is more nuance to your question, I don't see that it is anything beyond a moral dilemma. Zunaid 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God, what's with everyone saying that I'm trying to start a f*cking discussion. For all those who took Ethics in school, what specific ethics are taking place. btw thanks for moral dilemma answer despite your scolding. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question "what specific ethics are taking place" is unanswerable. Ethics aren't things that "take place", they're things that exist in the minds of people. This is why you're asking for opinions - who knows what "the courts and the public" might think in any given situation? What is "the public" anyway? Now, if you were to ask a specific legally focused question such as whether there is any precedent for a prosecution being dropped in such a situation, we might start to get somewhere. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

honesty, personhood, utilitarianism, victimless crime: these are examples of moral concepts with an objective existence (if you adhere to moral realism) which could be valid answers to questions on the reference desk like this question. 213.122.5.194 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not asking for anyone's opinions. I assumed that there were specfic names of any ethic theories or anything like that, I guess not. When I have this discussion later with my teacher, I will simply tell her that this is a case of "moral dilemma" instead of "_" ethic theory or whatever. Excuse my extreme ignorance on the topic. But still, not cool on the scolding. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get scolded less if you take an extra minute before clicking "Save page" and try to be as precise as possible with what, exactly, you are asking for. You've been asking interesting questions but they have been very vague in the particulars, which leads most pedantic Refdesk visitors to scold you for being irritatingly imprecise. Tempshill (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most rule of law nations, the two events are totally separate. I recommend you do a google news search for firefighters that have committed various crimes. Turns out the "but he's a hero" defense doesn't go too far in practice. --M @r ē ino 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a past might constitute a mitigating factor under law, although the wikipedia article on these only really discusses mental health not prior good character. Aggravation, mitigation, and mercy in English criminal justice by Nigel Walker [1] discusses the effect of meritorious behaviour on sentencing:

Sentencers are sometimes influenced by a principle which seems to be retributive in spirit: that deserts can be reduced by meritorious conduct. [Discusses cases where people make amends for crimes prior to being caught and receive a reduced sentence.] More remarkable are cases in which the court is influenced by meritorious conduct which has nothing to do with the offence or trial. Men have had prison terms reduced or suspended becaus they have fought well in a war, saved a child from drowning or started a youth club (p. 111)

(references supplied in the text) It also mentions a case in 1982 where a man, Reid, had saved 2 children from a burning house and had a sentence of 3 months for burglary commuted to a conditional discharge. The reference to retributive justice is interesting, and may indicate one ethical principle involved. --Lesleyhood (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think in the situation as named there would be much official, ethical leeway. Doing one good thing, and then doing one bad thing—those are going to be regarded as separate events from a legal point of view. If the latter is truly accidental, then it doesn't even matter if they've done the good thing, technically. (Accidents happen, and we have legal systems that make some accommodation for that.) Assessments of whether it was truly accidental, though, might be influenced by perceptions of the honesty and integrity of the fellow in question.

A more problemic situation, though, is what happens when someone who is currently doing something Very Good, also is doing something Somewhat or even Very Bad. This is a common trope in fiction—there is sometimes a question of what serves the greater good prosecuting someone for their crimes, or letting them get away with it and continue their good work. For the relative ethics discussion, see, e.g. utilitarianism. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sigh of relief* thank you! This is better. Thanks all for your input. I see a lot of legal explanations rather than ethical ones but this will certainly do. thanks again --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are various examples of this sort of thing. To take a recent example from down here, Marcus Einfeld was a highly respected lawyer and later judge. He was held in very high regard by groups such as Jews and indigenous Australians for his advocacy of human rights. He was named an Australian Living Treasure, and was often touted as a future Governor-General. Then he was nabbed for speeding, by a speed camera. He is wealthy, and he should have just paid the the fine and be done with it, even if it did mean he lost his licence for a while. God knows, he could afford taxis. But he claimed the car was being driven by a friend of his. It turned out this friend had died a couple of years earlier (which he knew, because he sent expressions of condolence to her family). Then he claimed it was a different person of the same name as his friend, which was a total fabrication It just went from bad to worse, and he's now in prison, having been stripped of all his official honours and all his standing in the community. In an interview shortly before he went to jail, he said (unbelievably) he didn't think he'd done anything wrong. He's usually referred to now as "disgraced former judge Marcus Einfeld". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moral character might be relevant. The line (in the criticisms section) about "situation specific traits, rather than robust traits" caught my eye. The man in your example nobly saved the life of the child he then later negligently killed. We can judge him for his overall altruism, and his general will to defend the city, which he appears conflicted over, in that he will defend the citizens from bombs but not by being careful with his own car; or we can say that we shouldn't generalize about his character in that way, and should treat the two incidents separately. 213.122.5.194 (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bible (in Leviticus) command not to give privilege in judgement to honorable or to miserable person. I guess that this could be your starts point-search for articles on ethics that refer to this notion.--Gilisa (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a series of events could be referred to as 'The rise and fall of so-and-so'. --Joe^Talk_Work 21:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the swastika

What is the legal status of the swastika in Israel? --88.78.239.248 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal and could lead one who carry it immediately to detention.--Gilisa (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the conversation here, are there any exemptions for literary/scholarly usage? -- 128.104.112.149 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under what law? This Times article of 2007 says "There is no law explicitly banning anti-Semitism in the Jewish state, simply because it was never expected to occur." If you can cite a reliable source then we can add this to the Swastika article, which mentions legal issues in a number of countries, but not Israel. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the large Palestinian population, why is anti-Semitism so unexpected? --Nricardo (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point Nricardo. However, the Palestinian you are talking about are Israeli Arabs and while Jews haterd is not unfamiliar to part of them (but certainly not to all) they don't express it by using Nazi symboles mostly. More interesting is that large part of them aconsider the holocaust as the worse crime ever. Without getting into discussion about this, their anti Semiti is mostly based on extreme Islamic views and not on racial ideas. It's not that there are not Israeli Arabs who adore Hitler and the Nazis, but you can't find a neo Nazi groups among them. Those who undermine Israel among them or involve in terrorist actions are doing it as part of their identification with Palestinians, or (and in many cases BTW) as part of their Islamic ideology/ Arab nationalism and publicly they spek out against the Zionist's and not against all Jews. --Gilisa (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide a handful of sources for this, but all would be in Hebrew. There were no specific rules against anti Semitism in Israel until lately. However, there are in Israel about 600,000 non Jewish Russians and Ukranians who immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet union after the the iron curtain fall. They immigrated to Israel under the law of return but they mostly have no connection to Judiasm or to Jewish life, they just had the right to immigrate to Israel because they were married to Jewish people or because they are the granchilds of one who was married to Jewish person. Since 2005 several Neo Nazi groups were caught in Israel and the Israeli parliament made rules against anti Semitism. Also, in 2006, a swastika tatoo was found under the armpit of an IDF soldier of Russian origin (only his grandfather is Jewish) -he was detent, his interent connections were checked and it was found that he was active to at the least two years in eastern European neo Nazi forums. Then, on an interview to the Israeli media his mother spoke out against Jewish people, and many parliament members, one hand with police officials, asked whether cacelling the Israeli citizenship of this family and sending them back to their country of origin is possible-however then the laws didn't allow it. Nevertheless, members of neo Nazi groups were charged under the laws against racism. But today there are also specific laws against neo Nazi activity and Nazi symboles.--Gilisa (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, Gilisa. For future reference, could you provide the name of this soldier? Is there an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia about this case? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they released his name. Here is a story about it. There's also this one about a gang of neonazis. TastyCakes (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work TastyCakes! BTW, they did release his name as much as I can recall, but I can't find it anywhere now.--Gilisa (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Black, Asian, Hispanic ethnic minority American literature

Can anyone name a few books I can read that are written by a member of an ethnic minority who is not Black, Asian, or Hispanic? Any author from anywhere else (Europe, Middle East, India, etc...) would be acceptable. Thank you. -hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of such books, but I will start by naming some of the writers found here on WP, and you can check the articles for titles that might appeal to you: Bharati Mukherjee, born in India; Frank McCourt, born in Ireland; Jerzy Kosinski, born in Poland; Vladimir Nabokov, born in Russia . . . In fact, just type "any nationality-American" in the Search box in the column to the left, and then scroll down the article to the section on Notable "Any nationality-Americans", looking for sections on writers or literature. Bielle (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria I am using are: a writer with a WP article who was born outside the US, but who was a naturalized US citizen at some time in his/her career and, as requested by the OP, was not “Black, Hispanic or Asian”. Here are a few others: Janwillem Lincoln van de Wetering, born in Holland; Deepak Chopra, born in New Delhi; Amitav Ghosh, born in Kolcata; Saul Bellow, born in Canada, of Russian parents; Thomas Mann, born in Germany.

Ayn Rand, from Russia. --Jayron32 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how could I leave out May Sarton of Belgium? Bielle (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Silva is Portuguese American. --Nricardo (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But note that Germans, Belgians, Russians, etc. aren't ethnic minorities in the USA: they're all whites. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They may be all "white" (or not), but even if they are, they can still be "ethnic minorities", which relates to ethnic origins outside (in this case) the U.S. and has nothing to do with skin pigment. And to Nricardo's addition of Daniel Silva to the list: I think he was born in the U.S. I was just providing names of writers born outside the U.S. who later became American citizens. Bielle (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, everyone is an ethnic minority: even English and Irish ancestries are a minority of the population. The only really clear definition of "minority" is the Census Bureau definition, in which the only "ethnicity" category is Hispanic/Latino status. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first challenge was figuring out who would qualify as an American ethnic minority, but not Asian, Black or Hispanic. How about Native Americans? “Here First” edited by Arnold Krupat and Brian Swann was the first Google hit (Amazon). “Native American Literature” got 140,000 hits. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Via this search, I find, amongst others, List of German Americans#Authors and writers, List of works by Piers Anthony (who was English), Hugh Wheeler (ditto), Gordon R. Dickson (Canadian).

In non-fiction, there's Richard John Neuhaus (author of books on politics and religion who was Canadian), Wafa Sultan (author of a book on Islam who was Syrian).

And so on.

See also the literature, author or media sections in many of the pages in Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Native Hawaiians includes novelist Kirby Wright. List of Native Americans doesn't seem to have any writers, which can't be right. --Lesleyhood (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vine Deloria, Jr.. And can somebody please explain to me how someone from India is not Asian? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Erdrich and Sherman Alexie are of Native American descent. Asians to many U.S. English speakers refers to east and southeast Asians. Catrionak (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.42.186 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

does everyone hear the days music while going to sleep

as youre going to sleep does the symphony you heard that day play itself to you in your head distinctly - not that i would confuse it with real sounds, i know its in my 'minds ear' - or is it just me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.111 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to a symphony every day is not normal, and suggests you're deeply involved in music, which makes it less peculiar that you should hear music as you drop off to sleep. A musician I know has composed songs in his sleep, which he says is aggravating because he feels obliged to wake up and write them down. 81.131.63.58 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear music all the time. I place it as a side-effect of being a stage actor at a young age. I quickly learned the skill of being to recall anything that I hear for a rather long period of time. To this day, I can listen to people talk and then repeat everything said just by playing it back in my head. Music is the same - except that it sticks with me. I can play back songs in my head very easily, but I cannot stop it. Right now, the theme to the Late Late Show is playing on repeat. -- kainaw ™ 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not hear music in my head almost ever. Occasionally an odd earworm, but certainly not every night. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... Some people have similar traits and others don't. I wonder if we have a template answer for "Some people are like you and some are not. Some people agree with you and others do not. Some people like you and others do not. etc..." -- kainaw ™ 02:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you wrote a second sentence, Mr.98. Your first one bamboozled the heck out of me. It almost reminded me of Hans Richter's Up with your damned nonsense will I put twice, or perhaps once, but sometimes always, by God, never. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

That's a good question. I had a very similar one actually: whether most people can play at will music they heard before in their head or that only those who have a kind of musical talent can do it. --Gilisa (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can't play the violin, you won't be able to play the piece of music on the violin. I'm not sure I understand your question. 86.139.237.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I've noticed that when I'm awake but dead tired, I can hear complex music (like a symphony) in my mind's ear much more vividly than when I'm wide awake. It's not music that I heard that day and it's not stuck in my head, it's just ordinary song recall but with higher-fidelity instruments. Is that what you're talking about? -- BenRG (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well-and the neurophysiological basis for that was not well studied yet.--Gilisa (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Listening to a symphony every day is not normal" - speak for yourself, Barbarian! ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz, do you have any idea what is the specific complexity of the music that BenRG hearing in his head?--Gilisa (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean specified complexity? Sorry, that is complex, but unspecified. Also, I don't know what BenRG is hearing. But according to Leonard Bernstein, Beethoven's symphonies have the property that "the next note is the one you would least expect (but that afterwards seems to be the only possible choice)". So we can give a lower estimate of the Shannon information of a Beethoven symphony. Since there are 12 half tones, the least expected one must have a probability of no more than 1/12, which gives us at least 3.58 bits/note. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may hijack this thread to take it in a somewhat different direction: I've noticed that in the presence of a rather loud and monotonous noise (when riding in a small boat with an outboard motor, for instance), I often start to "hear" music within the noise—yes, sometimes whole symphonies or other complex pieces. This is more inescapable and "real" than an everyday earworm or imagined song in one's head; it approaches being an actual auditory hallucination. Is there a name for the phenomenon? A neurological explanation? Deor (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor: unless the music is so distracting that you're unable to concentrate, I think the formal name for the phenomenon is "good imagination." But if it is causing you trouble, then you might want to have an ear doctor or a psychiatrist check you out for Musical ear syndrome, which I believe can happen if you have too much exposure to ear-damaging noises like outboard motors. --M @r ē ino 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor: contrary to M@rēino, this is a recognised and normal phenomenon, but I can't for the moment recall where I've read about it or what it's called. Roughly, when you hear broad-spectrum (approaching "white") noise with some slight 'structure' your brain tries to make more sense of it than it contains, and you perceive the result as music - I've experienced it when riding in a noisy coach at speed, and in bed at night when I can just perceive some faint constant noise like distant motorway traffic, a fridge motor downstairs or the like. A similar phenomenon may be experienced visually, especially if driving at night while tired, when a barely-seen roadside object such as a pillar box is momentarily perceived as a person, including detailed features like sex, age, clothing and even demeanor. Such visual 'false positives' are understandable as a legacy of millions of years of evolution during which mistaking a pattern of shadows as a leopard many times cost little, while mistaking a leopard for a pattern of shadows just once would be fatal. The auditory musical equivalent is a little harder to unpack. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a slightly different direction again: I don't usually hear music when I'm going to sleep. But I almost always hear music in my head when I wake up. This has been happening for as long as I can remember. As often as not, it comes from I know not where and has nothing to do with my external life. This morning, it was a recurring passage from Granados's Valses Poeticos, a piece I know and love, but which I haven't heard for months and about which I haven't been having any conscious thoughts lately. Maybe I should start cataloguing my "morning mental music". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I can remember, I've had a constant musical 'jukebox' playing in my head. I never confuse it with 'real' music heard with my ears, but it's there all the time. I can skip to a particular piece of music if I want, or a relevant piece is chosen without conscious thought. One sibling has the same thing, so I know it's not just me, but I'm aware that people who don't experience it think it's a bit weird. Siblings are useful for "it's not just me" moments. 86.139.237.128 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor, there's is a bunch of stuff on this general topic in Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain. White noise or the like seems to be a great way for the brain to start imagining, even hallucinating sounds. Count yourself lucky if you hear symphonies. When I am around white noise the sounds of babies and toddlers crying arises, to the point where I am unsure whether it is real or not. Pfly (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to read that. I read Sacks's wife/hat book and liked it a lot but haven't bothered to keep up with his work. Deor (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweet Trinity

In the ballad The Sweet Trinity why is the body of water referred to as a "lowland sea?" Is this a body of water below sea level? Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lowlands is a region of Virginia. Similarly, lowcountry is a region of South Carolina. -- kainaw ™ 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, kainaw. What would be referred to, the Atlantic Ocean off of the coast of these states? I am thinking that perhaps it is a poetic and grim reference to drowning, and not to any particular, actual body of water. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest version (Child 286A; see the first external link in our article) seems to use "Neatherlands" and "Low-lands" as synonymous—as indeed they roughly are—so one might assume that in that version the ship was imagined as sailing in the seas off Holland when it had its distressing encounter. What, if anything, was pictured by the singers or composers of various variants of the song, by no means all of which mention a "lowland sea", is perhaps an unanswerable question. John Jacob Niles's comments may be of interest. Deor (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All very thought provoking. And it got me to this. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Finance Question

In case of shortage in working capital,as an adviser to the company what factors would you consider in advising whether to sell its assets or use them as collateral to acquire loan to solve shortageSolit (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the company will have future need of the assets? Whether they are core to the company's business or represent a side-project (e.g. property which is rented without being directly used in the business)? Whether anyone will lend money, and at what sort of rates, and how much they'll lend against the assets? Whether the company is better off reducing in size (due to falling markets, recession, etc) or continuing as before? This is a vague question and would be different for each business. --Lesleyhood (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would calculate the Net present value of each choice. 92.24.25.252 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also recommend that the advisers do their own homework. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16th century units of length in Venice

Hi - finding it strangely difficult to find what the Italian equivalents of feet and inches were in 1580. Can anyone help? Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] --151.51.28.42 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't read Italian - the google translator's not helping either. Is there an equivalent in English? Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says a "Venetian foot" is 12 inches or 0.347735 metres (or 34.7 centimetres), although the Italian Wikipedia says "once" is ounce, not inch, which is "pollice". But assuming it is "inch", then an inch is "12 lines" or 0.028978 metres (or 2.89 centimetres). So they were a little bigger than today; I think a modern foot is about 30 centimetres, and an inch is 2.54 centimetres. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need to read Italian to follow that page -- it gives you the names of the units, and their equivalents in metric. You would only need to know Italian if you wanted to translate the names into English and say things like "Venetian foot". As to "ounce" and "inch", both English words are derived from the Latin "uncia" meaning 1/12, corresponding to 1/12 of a foot or a pound (the pound-size measure in ancient Rome was divided into 12ths, not 16ths, as in troy weight). --Anonymous, 19:26 UTC, October 31, 2009.

Docetism

As a Christian I am having trouble understanding docetism. Can someone explain this term further in simple English and that of John 1:14?--LordGorval (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to mainline Christianity, almost since the very first days, one of the central tenets has been that Jesus Christ was fully human. He had a real body and a real mind and experienced emotion and pain and all the things that a real human does. Docetism states that this is wrong; and that Jesus Christ had no real body, but that interactions people had with him were an illusion. The first chapter of the Gospel of John explains the relationship of Jesus with God and with Man; "The Word" is Jesus Christ, so it says both "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning" (John 1:1-2, NIV) which says that Jesus is God, and has been so since the Beginning (i.e. Genesis and Creation) and John 1:14 establishes the other part of Jesus's character, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." That is, God became human, and that human is Jesus. Docetism was one of the tenets of Gnosticism, and early version of Christianity that had a lot of complex differences from the version that became "mainline Christianity.", and has for a long time considered heretical. --Jayron32 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be relevant here that docetism became a popular variant of Christianity about 30 years before the Gospel of John had been written - and that Biblical inerrancy is a fairly recent concept (heck, the Bible is a recent concept compared to docetism), so early Christians would not perceive the conflict with any of our current books of the Bible much of a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, Stephan, but I thought I should note that what Stephan is saying may well be accurate, but I think it should be phrased more as an opinion. Whether or not docetism was really "popular" 30 years before the writing of John's gospel (as well as the exact date of John's writing, for that matter) is a matter of scholarly dispute, as the records are not conclusive. And frankly, while Stephan is 100% right about inerrancy's recent emergence, I'd say you're almost 100% wrong to suggest that the inconsistency of docetism and the gospel of John wouldn't have been seen as a problem in early Christianity (although your phrasing there was a little hard for me to follow--perhaps you were making a different point?). After all, much of the writings of early Christian figures denounce "heresies" (including docetism), and the phrasing of the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed are chosen carefully to reject certain ideas about the nature of Jesus. Stephan's larger point (that early Christians would have a very different view of "scripture" and what it means than modern Christians often do) is, I think, indisputably accurate. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. But the Nicene creed dates to 325, nearly 10 generations after docetism became popular, and 150 years after it lost much of its appeal. And some scholars even claim that one of the purposes of the Gospel of John was to counter docetism and related beliefs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair points: John may very well have served that purpose (it strikes me as very reasonable, at least). And your point about the Creed is well taken--I probably shouldn't have used it as an example. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Avatar. Doecitism is the belief that Jesus was (merely?) an avatar of The Almighty. It's the opposite of Arianism, the belief that Jesus was (merely?) a human inspired by God's Spirit. Tevildo (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arianism does/did not claim that Jesus was "merely a human". It only sees Jesus as "begotten" (i.e. created at some time, not forever coexisting with the father), not of the same substance as the father, and subordinate to him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thoughts from each of you all. I am considering what you all said and am looking at a comparison of early English versions. The earliest I see the name "Jesus Christ" (whatever spelling) in John 1 is in verse 17. I see in the Tyndale version (1526), as well as later versions, it refers to "word" as "it", for example: ....we saw the glory of it... It makes me wonder if in fact all that was really meant was that of the spoken word and nothing else. Interesting new word of "avatar" that I have not heard of before. In my Random House Dictionary it says the definition is an enbodiment or personification, as of a principle, attitude, or view of life. Arianism is defined as the doctrine, taught by Arius, that Christ the Son was not consubstantial with God the Father. Not in any of these verses do I see that Jesus is "human" or was made "human." In verse 17 I see but grace and truthe is made by Iesus Christ... and ...but grace and truthe came by Iesus Christ. So I guess what I am saying is that something close to what User:Stephan Schulz said of "begotten" is something created at some point. Also User:Tevildo points out that doecitism is the belief that Jesus was an avatar of the Almighty. Perhaps then Jesus could be an embodiment of the ultimate moral life ("The Almighty") - a principle and view of life, not necessarily an actual human being, but instead an attitude of a view of life. Where does it say Jesus is a "human being" in the Gospel of John? .....or in any Gospel?--LordGorval (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read John 1 in context, it's clear (well, as clear as 1900 year old Greek texts with multiple levels of copying and translations get) that it all refers to Jesus, i.e. Jesus is the word that has become flesh. At least that is the interpretation that mainstream Christianity has given this text. The official line is that Jesus is both fully man and fully god, i.e. that his human body was real, not just an illusion (as docetism claims). See trinity. Note that these details have been the cause of violent riot, anathemas, murder, the major schism of the Church (see Filioque), and general mayhem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear to me. Who's "official line" are we talking about? I have read over the Gospel of John as well as all the other Gospels for several decades - and at this point I am convinced more than ever that the name "Jesus" was not meant to be interpreted as a person in the flesh, however just the spoken word of a concept related to morals. Keep in mind that us "humans" have been given this item called common sense and it tells me that "Jesus is the word that has become flesh" doesn't make sense. I do believe you went around my question, so I'll repeat it: Where does it say Jesus is a "human being" in the Gospel of John? Please give me the exact verses - you know, references like Wikipedia requires - none of this ...interpretation that mainstream Christianity has given... That sounds like this term called original research that I thought we were to stay away from.--LordGorval (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you are doing (reading and interpreting an ancient primary source) is original research. But that's fine. We're not working on an article. See below for a more concrete answer to your question. I have no personal preference for one interpretation or the other - all I can do is tell you how things have been interpreted historically (or rather, a small part of that - I'm no expert, and not even much of an amateur on early Christianity). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best place on Wikipedia to read about "the Word" is probably the article Logos, which discusses the Greek word the author of John actually used. There you will see some of the connotations the word Logos has/had, which might help you understand what was meant. Outside of this case, Logos is not usually translated as word.

As to the humanity of Jesus, I don't think any of the Gospels straight-out say "Jesus was a man", although it is implied: you can see one person's summary of the relevant parts of the Gospels here. It is made more explicit in other books in the New Testament: for example, you can read the second chapter of the letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 2) here (New International Version). Read from verse 5 and find such as "he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death". Whether you consider other Christian writings from the 1st century AD that found their way into the Bible as meaningful as you find the Gospels is up to you. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional scriptures for reference. Each of us have a different take as to what they mean. I take JESUS to have a meaning of morality, not as a flesh-and-blood person. The parts you mention as to being an implication of a real live person, I take as a form of morality.--LordGorval (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary books

Hi : ) I'm really just curious and anyone can interpret this question however they want, but what books written since the 1980s and up do you feel have importance in the literary world? I mean what novels written do you think would provoke meaningful conversations in an English classroom. I've come up with The Things They Carried and American Psycho, which are just two I've discussed in my own classes. Thanks! ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 14:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brief perusing of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction brings up a lot of great books: The Road, Middlesex, Gilead, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay (one of my personal favorites), Beloved, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Library 100 Best Novels includes Midnight's Children from 1980 and Ironweed from 1983, and, from the readers' list, the following:

Battlefield Earth
Moonheart
The Hunt for Red October
Mythago Wood
Mission Earth
Mulengro: A Romany Tale
Ender's Game
Blood Meridian
The Handmaid's Tale
IT
Yarrow
Beloved
The Satanic Verses
Greenmantle (which, I must confess, I've never heard of)
A Prayer for Owen Meany
The Little Country
Guilty Pleasures
The Cunning Man
Memory and Dream
The Wood Wife
Suttree
Trader
Someplace to be Flying

I noticed a lot of Charles de Lint and L. Ron Hubbard in the readers' selections, as well as quite a lot of science fiction/fantasy/horror, which is not represented in the editors' list. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Pulitzer, you might like to look at winners of the Man Booker Prize. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to get all elitist about it, but 'readers choice' is not likely to yield 'important' books, as most people vote for the books they like, whatever the supposed criteria of the choice is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then they would be important for being popular, and probably influential because of that. —Akrabbim^talk

The difficulty with such selections is that we have no way of knowing how large the sample of 'voters' was (possibly too small to have statistical validity), whether or not they form a truly representative cross-section of the reading public (unlikely, since to begin with they're probably self-selected out of an already unusual group), and whether or not an organised campaign may have skewed the results towards, as a purely hypothetical example [;-)], a particular writer with a cult following. My personal take on that list is that, speaking as an SF/Fantasy fan myself, it seems markedly skewed towards SF/F texts, a couple of which are poorly regarded even by most SF/F fans (ObPersonal, but based on 35 years in the Fannish community). A more truly representative survey would be more likely to have been conducted by a professional survey company on commission from a major periodical or similar institution. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the authors of the books listed above, I would probably say that the list above at least gets some partially right. I would expect that Ender's Game would be counted as the most significant Sci-Fi book of the past 30 years, if I had to choose ONE Sci-Fi book in this time frame, that would be it. Likewise, I see a few Stephen King books up there; the only one of his to have the sort of "literary impact" beyond popular literature may be The Stand, though it may just miss the 1980's. Certainly John Irving should be on any such list, and A Prayer for Owen Meany is a good one, though The Cider House Rules would be equally a good choice. Toni Morrison's Beloved and Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses are also good calls. Other authors one could mine for good books since this time may include Tom Wolfe or another member of the New Journalism school. The Right Stuff and Bonfire of the Vanities could likely be classics. Lots of John Updike's work comes earlier than this, but The Witches of Eastwick fits the timeframe nicely. If one would extend the list beyond novels to playwrights, David Mamet likely will have produced some classics, Glengarry Glen Ross for one. --Jayron32 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course it is worth pointing out (as should be somewhat obvious), that "impact" is a hard thing to guess, and authors that are considered "critically important" today may be of little impact in 100 years, whereas authors of "popular" works may have had their critical standing revised once they are no longer seen as "genre" writers (I suspect Stephen King will probably be given higher standing as a "writer" some decades after he has passed away). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Stephen King? That wouldn't have been my suspicion. :-)Bielle (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give it 100 years, people will find him quaint and take him as a seminal writer of our day. Perish the thought, I know... but stranger things have happened. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King had a big influence simply through his sales/popularity. Carrie (novel) really grabbed attention, and had an impact on the way publishers sell books now. Selling over a million copies in paperback the first year, for a first-time author, was very impressive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English (translated by the author in a couple of cases), and part of the "literary" world - Lanark: A Life in Four Books, Earthly Powers, Monsignor Quixote, Disgrace, Ill Seen Ill Said, Against the Day, Cocaine Nights, Wizard of the Crow, Cloud Atlas (novel), The Wasp Factory, The English Patient, anything by Kazuo Ishiguro, The New York Trilogy, Remembering Babylon, Infinite Jest, Mason & Dixon, The Crimson Petal and the White, The Human Stain, A Suitable Boy, Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit, White Noise (novel), The Book of Evidence, The Corrections, Blood Meridian, Money (novel) and, one would assume, The Original of Laura. I haven't heard of half the novels in that readers' list. Declan Clam (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can never predict these things, though, so who knows. Stephen King, JK Rowling, JRR Tolkien (as a novelist, not a linguist) could be like Trollope is today (that is, mostly unread), or maybe not. How many people read Henry James nowadays - but how many HG Wells or Jules Verne? Here's a sample list, anyhow: Gabriel Garcia Marquez (One Hundred Years of Solitude), Toni Morrison (Beloved)), Phillip Roth (American Pastoral), Cormac McCarthy (Blood Meridian), Thomas Pynchon (The Crying of Lot 49), Don DeLillo (White Noise), David Foster Wallace (Infinite Jest), Tim O'Brien (In the Lake of the Woods), Milan Kundera (The Book of Laughter and Forgetting), Salman Rushdie (Midnight's Children), Jose Saramago (Blindness), Marilynne Robinson (Gilead), John Updike (Rabbit Run), Margaret Atwood (The Blind Assassin), Kazuo Ishiguro (Never Let Me Go). That's pretty heavily weighted toward English language, but still. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

color or non-standard black peoples marry whites

For Asian i notice ther is two types stnadad asian and white marry and US BOrn Asians and whites for US Born Asian man to marry white women actually accounts 40% What about for color not fully standard black to marry white, would it be higher for black women to marry white man? Becasue data show for black man to marry white is 71% for standad blacks then what about for non-standard black women to marry a white man. Could it be up to 40%?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article Interracial marriage in the United States may have the statistics that you're looking for. Two things worth pointing out: (1) Even in the United States, same-race marriages are still more common than mixed-race marriages, but the numbers are changing quickly in recent years. (2) Americans don't refer to any people or racial groupings as "standard" -- I think the word you want might be "common" or "prevalent". The word "standard" is misleading because it suggests some sort of official approval. --M @r ē ino 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art print wanted

Why can't I find a print of That Which I Should Have Done I Did Not Do by Ivan Albright anywhere? Mike R (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a print, for sale, or just an image? The image is at http://www.tfaoi.com/newsmu/nmus40a.htm. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to buy or receive free of charge a legal poster-sized print of the work to display in my home. I hope that clarifies. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link [[3]] is from the Art Institute of Chicago, which owns the painting. It has the history of ownership and printing, which doesn't list printing as a poster, so it has probably never been produced as a poster. There's nothing listed in the Museum Shop. An email enquiry to the Museum might be able to elicit an answer as to the possibility of it being printed. Steewi (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Marx show high regard for India's past?

Marx's contempt for India is rather famous. "I share not the opinion of those who believe in a golden age of Hindostan...". However, I read in a book a quote attributed to Marx which basically says that "We Europeans owe our language and religion to India". The writer doesn't specify the sourced work. Did Marx anywhere in his works express high regard thus for India's past? --Advaidavaark (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Marx had a dim view of religion, I doubt that he said this, and if he did, it would not necessarily indicate high regard for India's past. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had the original quote, it would not be hard to trace, if it was from Marx or not. In any case, Marx generally thought that India and the rest of Asia were notable for being the subject of Western imperialism, being fairly backwards, and for their own brand of Oriental despotism that kept it from advancing through the various historical stages he felt were inevitable. Considering he thought that Asia had in general "fell asleep in history", it is hard to hold that he really had a high regard for its past. If he did say that particular quote, it is one thing, out of context. In his general analysis, Asia in general, and India lumped in with it, do not constitute much of what I would consider "high regard". Perhaps there are those better schooled in Marx on here though that can give more information on this. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote seems to be from The Future Results of British Rule in India: "...we may safely expect to see, at a more or less remote period, the regeneration of that great and interesting country [India], whose gentle natives are, to use the expression of Prince Soltykov, even in the most inferior classes, "plus fins et plus adroits que les Italiens" [more subtle and adroit than the Italians], whose submission even is counterbalanced by a certain calm nobility, who, notwithstanding their natural langor, have astonished the British officers by their bravery, whose country has been the source of our languages, our religions, and who represent the type of the ancient German in the Jat, and the type of the ancient Greek in the Brahmin." In the same document, he states "Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had successively overrun India, soon became Hindooized, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their subjects". This all looks quite genuine; he had a high regard for India's history in many respects, but did believe that, along with much of Asia, it had failed to progress through the economic stages which he saw in much of Europe and regarded as broadly progressive. Warofdreams talk 14:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did 'fell asleep in history' mean? To mean it would seem to imply he thought Asia had fallen asleep a while ago (i.e. historically) and therefore had not well advanced since then. Therefore it's possible/likely he felt Asia had been advanced before then otherwise they would have been always sleeping as opposed to falling asleep Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's a fair summary. Basically, his claim was that it had become stuck in what he described as the Asiatic mode of production - initially, this represented a major advance on previous modes of production, but most areas of Europe had moved through the Antique and feudal modes, and were reaching the capitalist mode of production. The summary under mode of production might be a more useful introduction than our actual article on the Asiatic mode, although that gives more detail on the ways in which the concept is controversial. Warofdreams talk 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sainthood of Edward the Martyr

Why was Edward the Martyr canonized, and is he the patron saint of anything? --99.251.239.89 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Catholic saints were not necessarily canonized "for" anything; it's sort of a posthumous "lifetime achievement award" for good Christians. Among his acts which may have led to canonization was his support of Benedictine monestaries; the Wikipedia article on him notes that he seized land from nobles in order to establish several monestaries; as such he could be seen as a keen supporter of Christianity. Furthermore, in the late 10th century, Christianity was not firmly entrenched in society. I'm pretty certain that his own mother, Ælfthryth, was not herself a Christian, and she has by some accounts been implicated in his death. The article does have several details on his involvement in the Church, so you can likely decide for yourself why he was so honored. --Jayron32 20:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canonisation may be of interest Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the gentleman in question, but knowing his name would be enough to give me a good guess at why he was canonized. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Penguin Book of Saints says of him "He had not in fact died for religion, and he provides a good example of the honour due to a martyr being given to one who simply suffered an unjust death." He doesn't seem to be the patron of anything and he isn't even patron of a City of London church - the place is packed with churches named after Saxon saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talk • contribs) 00:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

Religious stance on origin of life

So far, science knows much, but not all, about the chemical proceses that led to the origin of life: likely elements, likely conditions, etc. As far as I know, religion would still atribute the begining of it to a divine intervention, but don't interfere in the discussions about molecules, enviorment, element reactions, etc.

But what would you think would happen if at some point in the future the study of the origin of life gets so advanced, that scientists become capable of designing a controled experiment that recreates such conditions and success in creating life from inanimated elements? Wich would be the religious reaction to that? MBelgrano (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any response they would have would be countered by Occam's razor. However, just because they would have figured out how it happened, it wouldn't necessary prove that the divine didn't cause it, push it along, or set it up or whatever. It certainly doesn't prove that there was an interference, but that is what faith is for. —Akrabbim^talk 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think it's likely many would suggest that the experiment, which had been carefully set up by scientists, even proves that the divine hand guided the origins of life, since it takes a conscious mind to design the necessary conditions. (Note: I'm not making this claim or interested in arguing its validity. But I think it's a likely claim, under the circumstances MBelgrano describes.) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science seeks to explain HOW things work whereas religions seek to explain WHY they do what they do. Religions will always be involved in questions of creation for this reason. Pollinosisss (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a tedious cliche (and, unlike many cliches, it isn't even true) that science concerns itself with how questions, but only theology is equipped to answer why questions. What on Earth is a why question? Not every English sentence beginning with the word 'why' is a legitimate question. Why are unicorns hollow? Some questions simply do not deserve an answer." -- Richard Dawkins 81.131.64.122 (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a great example of a straw man.–RHolton ≡– 14:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a joke about this; God challenges some scientists to create life from scratch, so they think, no problem, and they go grab some dirt; God says they have to make their own dirt first. Or something like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sagan's recipe for making apple pie from scratch starts out: "First, create the Universe". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a huge fan of Richard Dawkins, but I agree that the "how vs why" thing makes little sense. Science has explained the seasons and the tides and the motions of the planets; it's explained why the sky is blue and why it rains and why there's a funny smell after a lightning strike; it's explained why blood is red and why our armpits smell and why we get sick. Science has an excellent track record with "why" questions. -- BenRG (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all "how" questions. The "why" questions are the metaphysical questions. Here we have in mind the non-material causes of material things.Pollinosisss (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think (or I'd always assumed) that how-vs-why was supposed to be about gathering facts vs providing explanations. I suppose you could take it to be about physics vs metaphysics instead, but I don't think that leaves you any better off, because science keeps answering the metaphysical questions. A lot of the questions I asked above were once considered metaphysical. There are some eternal metaphysical questions, but the referent of those questions keeps changing. At one time when people talked about the origin of the universe they were talking about 4004 BC, but then science explained the formation of the earth and the question became where that matter had come from; that was explained by stellar nucleosynthesis and the big bang, and the question became what had caused the initial conditions of the big bang; that was explained by inflation and reheating, and the question became the origin of the inflation; and you can still put God in that gap, but he may not be safe there for long. -- BenRG (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will always require a first cause though won't you? Wouldn't this cause have to be ontologically prior to matter, putting it beyond the power of science? Doesn't this mean that religion will always have a role to play? Pollinosisss (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're only "how" questions because you want them to be. "Why is the sky blue?" is a perfectly good "why" question that science has answered. The truth of the matter is that religion doesn't answer any questions at all, beyond "Because god said so, that's why." Matt Deres (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science has told us how the sky is blue, not why it is so.

An interesting possible answer to the "why is the sky blue" question could be "the sky is blue because it is best for it to be blue". I myself find that to be a much more satisfying answer than "because god said so".Pollinosisss (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you find satisfying about a non-answer? "The sky is blue because that's best" is meaningless; first cousin to "because god wills it", but without even a pretext of explanation. Matt Deres (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "how vs why" equates to "physical vs metaphysical" then Dawkins' quote above applies quite nicely. The metaphysical version of Why is the sky blue? has about as much utility as Why are unicorns hollow?. Some "why" questions are just not worth contemplating. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true, Matt, that "religion doesn't answer any questions at all". Religion is mainly based on faith or belief, and has never pretended to do otherwise. It answers questions in its own terms; you can take those answers or leave them, just as one might disbelieve a whole host of predictions based on scientific knowledge, such as the one that confidently proclaimed that humans could not possibly survive vehicular travel above 15 miles an hour. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say it's not true and then support the opposite with every word thereafter. Religion answers no questions beyond "God wills it" and that's been true ever since our hairy ancestors first thought about why the sun makes crops grow or why rainclouds make thunder or even why murder is such a bad thing. No evidence, no open-minded consideration of other options, just an attempt to get themselves to "god wills it" in a way that satisfied the writer. I've never heard the 15 mph thing, though people always say stupid stuff and I don't doubt that someone said that. After evidence piled up, what happened next? The scientifically minded folks observed what went on and amended their ideas. The religious folks contributed as much to the event as they always have: if it works, it's god's will; if it doesn't, then it was never to be. Matt Deres (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Religion answers no questions beyond "God wills it" ', is something that can only really be said by someone who has never tried to understand a real religion. In my Catholic childhood, I was never given 'God wills it' as an answer to any question, although the question of God's will did come up in the context of the Passion and Holy Orders (please follow the links and read the ledes, rather than assume...). This is largely because the sort of questions we were looking at with religion were nothing like the questions we answered scientifically: they were questions of ethics and how you should behave, and how the world should be. Questions we explored with religion from an early age were things like "what should I do when someone is mean to me?", "What should I do when someone looks sad?", "How should we behave when someone makes us cross?", "How should we act towards people who are less well off than ourselves?". When we got older, the questions got more difficult and had less clear-cut answers, but none of them had the answer "God wills it" or "God did it". 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are questions of ethics. You may answer them in a religious framework, but religion does not inherently answer those questions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is possible to generalize a "religion reaction" to scientific accounts of things that are previously considered the provenance of religion. In previous instances of this happening (accounts of speciation; accounts of the origins of the universe; accounts of the stability of the heavens, etc.), there are a whole range of reactions. Some scientific results are resisted; some are accepted with modifications; some are accepted 100%; some lead people to reject certain religious accounts; etc. It varies quite a bit between religious traditions, as well as individuals. You can easily imagine some religious people rejecting the ground rules of the experiment, or of insisting that there is always a little room for God in the unknowns (God of the gaps). You can imagine some seeing the scientific account as simply a naturalistic account of God's work. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that science can explain everything simply because I'm not sure that human mind can understand everything and is unlimited in relation to its ability to understand the physical world. For example, I'm not convinced that humans will be able to extract a formula which tell which number is prime number (but it may well happen-or that they have different mate that we can't understand). Or, for instance the Gödel's incompleteness theorems that according to some postmodernist philosophers indicate in the most scientific way that science can't know everything (even it's realy not as simple as they think). I think that the greates question that science is facing is not "how life were form" but what is cognizance -because if it's a product of neuronal activity, it must have physical characteristics (e.g., mass, volume) and this is something hard to imagine to be solved (we don't even have yet a good operational definition of what it's-but when thinking on it, if we do have, then we already solved this question).--Gilisa (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science can answer all your questions and more, but if you don't accept its implications, then you can still find a place for religion and gods. Science has answered questions about life and death, about how we got here and why no one knows where we'll be going, but that hasn't stopped religion, has it? Imagine Reason (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Reason, I realy think that arguing that science can answer everything or that it already answered the big questions is a kind of dogmatism. I guess that because of the potential religious implications of what I wrote you respond this way, howeberm this wasn't the point I tried to make.--Gilisa (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article. It is religious in the sense that I can't understand it. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

Holocaust

Is there a link where I can find a full list of the restriction imposed upon the jews by the nazis, prior to ghettoization? I.e. jews must not own radios, bicycles, cars etc? --Thanks, Hadseys 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This[4] might be a good place to start looking. It concentrates, naturally, on the Holocaust itself, but they seem to have some prewar material as well. PhGustaf (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have already taken a look at Nuremberg Laws, which are the framework for any further restrictions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are American textbooks so verbose?

I've wondered this a long time. Americans with their long working-hours must have the smallest amount of free time in all of the English-speaking world, and yet American textbooks are extremely verbose. Why is this? I would have assumed that conciseness would be valued. Even college textbooks are verbose, but these are dwarfed by the textbooks meant for adults. As an example the textbook Getting Things Done is full of padding and repetition - it is written more like a memoir than a textbook, as the author introduces anecdotes and stories and writes as a first-person narrative. Yet the essentials of it can be got just by looking at the diagram. It also just repeats the same ideas found in other self-help books. Another textbook I've begun reading tells you in several pages all about the authors lifestyle and that of her friends presumably to illustrate the point she's making, which could be fully described in two lines. No offense, but I'm doubtful that books like this would find a publisher in the UK. 78.151.139.162 (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textbooks (at least in America) are complicated by the fact that there is an immense amount of money involved. Publishers can make huge profits just by spitting out new shiny editions each year. Other companies can make huge profits by buying large amounts of used textbooks for much less than they are worth, and then selling them back to the next batch of students for the typical blown-up price. Couple that with the requirement placed on college professors to mandate their students to get the newest edition of a textbook rarely used in class or for assignments, and you have an industry. —Akrabbim^talk 01:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textbooks are constantly being reprinted. Perhaps regularly adding material is a way of justifying the new editions? Have textbook page numbers gradually increased over the years? Pollinosisss (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read it, but judging by our article Getting Things Done isn't a textbook. It is a self-help book. Are you using "textbook" to mean any non-fiction book? If so, that isn't the standard usage. Non-fiction books are often intended to be entertaining and/or thought provoking rather than just informative, that is why they are often more verbose than they need to be. Actual textbooks, intended to educate someone on a subject, are usually only as long as they need to be to get across the information in a way the intended audience can understand. --Tango (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textbooks are generally written by people with a very narrow focus, the antithesis of a Renaissance man. How many eloquent people do you know who have an esoteric interest, academic or otherwise? Vranak (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very many. I had plenty of good lecturers at uni (a couple of bad ones, of course). --Tango (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think both the books referred to above were textbooks. Getting Things Done is about how to organise your home office. The second book was definately a textbook. Part of the problem may be writing textbooks in the style of a self-help book, but in any case I am still puzzled by why even self help books should be so very verbose, repetatitive, and simply copy ideas from other books. Calling them self help books is not an excuse. Perhaps they are written by hack authors who merely rehash other authors ideas without having any personal experience or research to contribute. Perhaps the bigger American population means that publishers are willing to print books that would have proportionatly lower sales than publishers in other countries would find acceptable. 92.24.132.67 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the beginning of our article Textbook, "They are produced according to the demand of educational institutions.". Unless you know of an educational institution that teaches 'organising your home office' and has set this book as a textbook that they work from, it seems unlikely to be a textbook. If it were a textbook, you are right that it would almost certainly be written in a more concise manner. Self-help books seem to be generally written with very low expectations of their readers, which is why they are written in the manner you have noticed. That people buy them in large numbers I leave you to fit into your worldview however you see fit. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textbooks in America must be politically correct. That explains a lot.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even American textbooks, in the narrow sense that 86.142 is using are still very verbose and whaffley and have been for decades. A better definition of a textbook may be books for instruction. They do not have to be used in educational institutions. Arguing about the nomenclature does not alter the problem. 92.24.132.67 (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of a genuine textbook that you consider excessively verbose? --Tango (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of American textbooks that are large-format hardbacks. I suppose Americans expect college textbooks to be of this type, and have lots and lots of text with no thought of conciseness. One I have to hand is Customer Behaviour by Sheth and Mittal. Someone could make money producing concise versions of textbooks, like Reader's Digest condesced novels. 78.146.167.26 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any particular reason why there would be. I presume there are already many textbooks that are fairly concise in the US, if that's what you want. Students can choose to use these if they prefer. It's not like a novel where you want to read a concise version of the same thing, there's little reason the textbook has to be a concise version of a specific text book. I don't realy know how common this is in universities (or colleges if you so desire) in the US but if the course has a standard textbook (I've seen this in movies/TV shows so maybe it's fairly common there, at the University of Auckland few of my courses had standard textbooks, most of them only had recommended ones) then this could be problematic if the lecturer/whoever tells you to read pages X-Y and you have no idea what that is so that would be the only real advantage I can think of. But it would likely be more effective to simply produce a guide telling you what is covered in what pages. In any case, if the lecturer/whoever sets problems etc from the textbook the student is likely going to need a copy of the text book in which case they can just see what is covered themselves and then read it in their own concise text book. Plus if you are producing a concise version this could easily end up being a derivative work which means unnecessary copyright costs (presuming the original authors/publishers even allow it) raising the price unnecessarily (as opposed to just writing your own concise textbook).

In Malaysia reference books are quite commonly used by secondary school students [5]. These are rarely used in class (although many subjects didn't use text books that much either). They are primarily intended to aide in rote learning particularly for exams, and are therefore very concise using bullet points etc. Because rote learning is common and the curriculum (and the important exams, not dissimilar from the UK there) are standardised they are a rather big market.

BTW do universities in the UK really always use textbooks from the UK? Here in NZ we obviously don't produce many text books for the university level (at least not for most general science subjects) so many text books were from the US and some from the UK. Indeed when I was doing A-level in Malaysia I'm pretty sure one of the recommended textbooks was from the US as well. I would expect UK text books would be more common at UK universities but would be surprised that they use them exclusively. At such high levels I don't see any reason why you specifically need a text book written by authors coming from the same country, most stuff covered will be the same and most textbooks will cover more then you'll learn.

Edit:

This last part is perhaps an important point. Many textbooks will cover more then you wish to learn or are learning at whatever university course. This doesn't mean you have to learn it or it's a bad book. Text books are rarely intended to be read from cover to cover in fact there's often no harm in skipping whole chapters or certain sections if it's something you don't wish to or are not learning. Also making notes of what you read is a good idea, it's generally considered a good way to help you learn and your notes could easily be better then anything someone else writes since you hopefully know what level of detail you need. (If you are studying for an exam you'd usually rely more on your notes then a text book and I suspect this is fairly universal.)

One more thing, looking at [6] I see it says "producing a new text that is tailored specifically to upper level 4-year programs, or to graduate level programs. Its managerial approach focuses not only on the household consumer but also on the business customer market. This text goes beyond the conventional subject matter of consumer behavior textbooks, focusing not only on the role of customers as buyers, but also on their roles as users and payers". It sounds like this book is intended for fairly advanced business students. Is that you or do you otherwise have sufficient experience that you would expect to understand something to that level? If not, perhaps this 'lots and lots of text' is actually quite important stuff you just don't understand very well?

Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone came here to intentional argue over nomenclature, rather your definition is rather unusual and not used by most people here nor supported by our article nor I suspect most dictionaries. For example OED: 2. A book used as a standard work for the study of a particular subject; now usually one written specially for this purpose; a manual of instruction in any science or branch of study, esp. a work recognized as an authority (cf. TEXT-WRITER 2) (none of the others are particularly relevant); or M-W a book used in the study of a subject: as a : one containing a presentation of the principles of a subject b : a literary work relevant to the study of a subject. Although both of these don't limit textbooks to those used in educational institutions, it's doubtful that "Getting Things Done" (or how to get things done or whatever you can to call it) would normally be considered a 'subject' people study nor is the book really intended to study the 'subject' nor that it can be called a 'standard work' in any way. You can't complain when people are confused by your question because you use rather unusual terminology. BTW, since your IP looks up to the UK, try going to a large book shop and asking them for the text book section and see how many self help books you find in the section. Edit: In case anyone believes this is a British English/American English thing, I don't believe so as we have at least two people living in the UK here who found 78/92's (same ISP and I believe same person) definition odd, Tango and 86, one living in Canada and one (me) Kiwi Malaysian. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the bottom line: a book like Getting Things Done is long because nobody's going to shell out $16/£10.99 for a two-page pamphlet. As for American vs. UK enjoyment of such piffle, I note that the book is ranked at #203 on American amazon.com, and a lower -- but still very high -- #747 on UK Amazon. --Sean 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And interesting thing there, notice how it isn't in the textbook category? Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing over what is or isnt a textbook misses the point: American instructional books (call them what you will) are very verbose. Another point is that they are either blatantly written in the first person, or something very near to it without actually using the word "I". Why cannot they just give the facts without having to wrap them up in stories? 78.151.90.163 (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read a text book written primarily in the first person. It would indeed be rather odd. "My understanding is that the nucleus is is a membrane-enclosed organelle found in eukaryotic cells" "When I look at most cells under a microscope I see the following organelles"? Perhaps in some fields it would be appropriate but not for text books in most science fields. And it doesn't miss the point. Textbooks and self-help books fill largely different markets (there's obviously some overlap, as there is with many things but it's usually not that large) and comparing the two makes limited sense. If you think American textbooks are excessively verbose that's one thing, if you think American self-help books again that's another and both are valid POVs. But if you tell us you think American textbooks are excessively verbose and then give us a self-help book as an example of course people are going to get confused. P.S. I've personally never been a fan of self help books however I strongly suspect you'd find that the "personal stories" are in fact a big selling point. Self help books are frequently not intended to be primarily facts. Just giving people facts is often not enough to motivate people to change themselves or do things differently. (I'm not saying self-help books do a great job, but they at least get people to think they help so they buy them.) Feel good stories are of course something that often sells well. You mentioned Reader's Digest earlier, while not the magazine. However considering the magazine, it's been a while but my memory of it was that it has quite a lot of feel good stories (and American propaganda). Or Chicken Soup for the Soul a high successful (in many countries) series of nothing but feel good stories. P.P.S. You're welcome to complain about me using too many examples or writing in the first person perspective if you wish but it's not going to help anything. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May You Help Me?

Hi, I watched on T.V. the case of Eric Walber, a teen murdered by a gang in 1998 in Louisiana, USA. All of those involved were convicted and one of them, Michael Weary, was sentenced to death. I want to know if he was executed or if he's still in prison. I just found a pdf. of Louisiana V. Michael Weary, but nothing more. Well, thank you. --190.50.100.174 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crime was committed in 1988. Weary was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in March 2002. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana on 24 April 2006. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on 27 November 2006. Weary's appeal for post-conviction relief was denied in district court in February 2007, which ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and the Capital Post Conviction Project of Louisiana (CPCPL) took over the case on 1 April 2008. On 26 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ of Certiorari to the Twenty-first judicial district Court and granted 180 days from the date of enrollment in which to file a supplemental application for post-conviction relief.

26 June 2009 + 180 days = 23 December 2009.

So he's still in prison (probably the Louisiana Penitentiary (Angola), and there's a lot more litigation that would have to happen before he could be executed. - Nunh-huh 03:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Nunh-huh. --190.50.100.174 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An easier approach: notice he is not listed on [Searchable Execution Database] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cats, drawings of

Can anyone point me to an article about these cats or the artist thereof? And I'm not talking about the lolcat. Dismas|^(talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous cartoonist of cats (after Garfield's creator, of course), is likely Kliban. The ones on the comforter have less black line than Kliban tends to use, but you should take a look for yourself. Bielle (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comforter in the picture appears to be this one, so I'd definitely say the artist in question is Kliban. --LarryMac | Talk 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Dismas|^(talk) 18:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Crossword

Heads up to Wikipedians: we get a name-check at 21 down in Sunday's puzzle :) - Nunh-huh 04:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spoiler. PhGustaf (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to share for those of us who don't get the Times and would have to drive at least a half hour to even find a copy? :-) Dismas|^(talk) 14:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to Google that for you: ta-daa! (spoilers, btw.) The third result. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Hold on, he doesn't give the questions! Well, I suppose he'd get in trouble, since they charge. Woops. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go... 21D: Like online medical advice for kids? (Wikipediatric) - the theme was fake portmanteaus. (portmanteuax?) Vimescarrot (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (sort of). Portmanteaux is the French spelling. In French, all -eau nouns (including eau itself, "water"), take the plural -x, hence portmanteau > portmanteaux. But whether French plurals belong on naturalised English words is another question. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on that: English plural, the section on Irregluar plurals#Irregular plurals from other languages. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err ... I think he was referring to a portmanteau of "portmanteau" and "faux". -- 128.104.112.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Excuse me-- it's not "portmanteau" in French, but "porte-manteau". Rhinoracer (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial attitudes toward children

I guess the humanities topic this fits under is "society". Does anyone know if there is a name- or anything else- for the phenomenon of people of one race finding all the babies/small children of another race automatically "cute"? Americans would be most familiar with the now taboo idea that all black babies are cute, but I have reason to believe it extends beyond that. Thedoorhinge (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such a so-called "race" specific phenomenon. "All babies are cute," is a belief supposedly held by some. Newborns who arrive by Caesarian section are believed to be cuter than those experiencing vaginal birth as their forms don't such any of the birth trauma or stress, like misshapen heads, for example. The paler the basic skin tone of a newborn, the more likely it is to appear mottled, which is not usually considered attractive. Is this what you mean? Bielle (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Allow me to quote my friend, a white American who lives in Japan and caused me to wonder about this: "I was talking with a Japanese teacher at work the other day and explained to her that all the foreigners who I've asked have agreed with me that Japanese kids are adorable and virtually all of them are handsome or pretty. She immediately disagreed, and insisted that many are quite ugly and it's foreign babies with their blue eyes, rosy cheeks and cute little faces that are the cutest. She said she'd never seen an ugly foreign kid. I'm wondering if there is a term for this phenomenon." Add to that my own knowledge of the cliche of white people saying "black babies are all so cute". Thedoorhinge (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the taboo here in the United States is with ANY sentence that boils down to "all people of a certain race have a certain trait in common." I would also add that many cultures across the world treat babies in a way that's almost diametrically opposite to the universal fawning that babies get in America. I've heard a lot of people say that, back on the shtetl, superstition dictated that you not praise your baby to strangers, with explanations varying (someone might kidnap or hurt your baby, demons would give the baby misfortune, etc.). It's possible that Japan has a variation of that, but I'm not as steeped in Japanese culture. --M @r ē ino 18:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect what you are describing is just a baby variation of the common "they all look the same" approach people have to races they have less direct contact with. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do a thesis on it and then it could be called Thedoorhinge's foreign baby effect. ;) Vespine (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

multiple names for Middle Eastern figures

Mahmoud Abbas (Arabic: مَحْمُود عَبَّاس‎ Maḥmūd ʿAbbās) (born 26 March 1935), also known by the kunya Abu Mazen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halcatalyst (talk • contribs)

Arabic name explains pretty well. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- there's also good explanations at Kunya (Arabic). Note that Kunya is hardly a uniquely Middle Eastern practice: before the modern age it was very, very common for powerful or influential people (the sort of people who end up in history books) to have Honorifics, Epithets, and Noble titles. --M @r ē ino 04:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who in the Obama Administration determines U.S. WTO policy?

I was recently at a conference during which a speaker commented that Obama blocked Palestine's bid to join the WTO as an observing member. This caught my attention, as I had once heard another speaker mention that the amdinistration is considering offering Iran an updrade to full-member status (it is currently an observer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wto#Accession_process).

My question is the following: whose traditional job is it in the executive branch (that is, the presidential administration) to determine/advocate WTO policy? I'm not sure if this would be an offical position or a part of someone's portfolio -- perhaps unofficially. Possible departments could be State or Treasury. This is further complicated by the hush hush nature of WTO negotitions, as the US's influence in the organization is used largely at closed door meetings.

Thanks for your help!

Dan 130.64.34.185 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally Ron Kirk in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, although of course you can bet that non-routine stuff (particularly things Israel/Palestine and Iran) it's mostly a function of the overall foreign relations policy regarding that matter, so State will really be in charge. In practice they'll sit down and have an inter-departmental chinwag, but you can bet HRC is the one doing the wagging. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

Countries that have never lost a war

...Are there any? Googling just returns sources from people who...well, I don't trust them as much as the Wikipedia ref desk. Because you're just that awesome. The conversation that prompted me to ask was based primarily around Russia, who I've been told have never lost a war due to their impenetrable winters. But other countries are interesting too. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland due to being neutral in WWII and not existing before that? Their soldiers have taken part in various peacekeeping operations. You'd need to confirm, don't take my word for it. Vatican also probably. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland has never been at war since they regained independence in 1815, and it's been suggested (Jaffee, Al, Al Jaffee's Mad Inventions, ISBN 0446861162) that this is why Swiss army knives are useless as weapons. Neon Merlin [7] 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of wiggle room in this question. For example, would you include any of Russia's failed foreign campaigns as a failed war? Further, would you rule out the United States right away since half of it lost the Civil War? Do you only consider the country to exist from the most current form of government - meaning that any country with a recently overthrown government is a "new" country that has not lost a war, such as Iraq? Only by really nailing down all the variables can you get a worthwhile answer. -- kainaw ™ 01:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a loss for early Russia Mongol invasion of Rus', and a more recent one Russo–Japanese War. As has been said, definitions are difficult. The Vatican might not have lost any wars but the Papal States certainly have. meltBanana 01:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany defeated Russia in World War I, even though Germany ended up losing the war the following year. See Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. --Anonymous, 08:17 UTC, November 2, 2009.

You need to define "war" and "lose" (and "country" as Kainaw points out). There is no universal definition of what is and isn't a war (I remember the invasion of Iraq in 2003 being called "the Iraq conflict" in the news reports at the time, for some reason they weren't calling it a war). It is also often very difficult to determine who won a war since it is very common for the two sides to sign a truce before anyone was truly defeated. The conditions of a peace agreement will usually benefit both sides. There are also other complicating factors. For example, did the US lose the Vietnam War? They certainly didn't win, but at no point were the Viet Cong any threat to the US, so can you really say they were defeated? There is no universally accepted answer to that. --Tango (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: Iraq: Probably because no war was declared - but it did amount to an armed conflict nevertheless) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we count countries that have never lost because they've never fought one? The Federal Republic of Germany has never lost a war (nor, for that matter, had the German Democratic Republic before its dissolution). The German Reich, though? They had a couple big losses.... --M @r ē ino 04:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Reich only lost once..... --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably most of the tiny nations in the South Pacific. Tuvalu for example doesn't even have a military. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And some of the not-so-tiny ones. Depending on your definition of "losing" the Vietnam War (as mentioned above), both Australia and New Zealand may qualify. Grutness...wha? 09:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS -thanks for the compliments, Vimescarrot - you can ask us questions any time you like ;) Grutness...wha?

Thanks for all the answers so far.

I wouldn't count any kind of civil war.
I wouldn't consider a new form of government to be a new country.
I wouldn't generally tend to count "failed foreign campaigns" as a loss unless it incurred significant losses to the sovereign state.

Do those help? You might have guessed already, but I don't actually know very much about war... Vimescarrot (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians were massacred during their invasion of Finland in the Winter War of 1939-1940. They also didn't have much success in Afghanistan. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see why you would not count "failed foreign campaigns" as a lost wars though. Depends on what your definition of "foreign campaigns" is of course. If you mean campaigns that was only part of a greater war, then I would agree, but if you also mean wars where the "foreign campaign" constituted the entire war, then I would disagree. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. USSR lost Afghanistan, USA lost Vietnam. The exact numbers don't really matter on those fronts, except that both states invested large resources in "victory" and neither achieved anything close to it, with massive political repercussions. That's a "loss" by any definition. More problematic would be, say, the Korean War, where the US/UN didn't really achieve its stated aims, but neither did the other side (no absolute winners, really, but calling it an absolute loss seems not quite on the mark, either). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between a war where there is a threat to your homeland and one where there is just a threat to the troops you choose to send to war, so I can understand why the OP might not count foreign campaigns. --Tango (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland. It won the Cod Wars. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which wars has Britain lost? I'm curious. 78.146.167.26 (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary War, Irish War of Independence. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the British invasions of the Río de la Plata as well. MBelgrano (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has been at war for over 60 years and hasn't lost any of them. That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean they have all of them either. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't Britain at the time, but the Norman, Saxon, Angle and Roman invasions spring to mind. The other wars mentioned could be dismissed as foreign campaigns - it's the OP's question, the OP sets the rules. --Tango (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it's reasonable to consider the United Kingdom and England to be one continuous country, most people would not trace it back further than the Norman invasion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has never fought an international war of its own, but it has never fought on the losing side of a conflict. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is certainly very faulty on this, but I remember something about a rather worthless island that was claimed by both Canada and Greenland. After many years of neither side putting any effort of any kind to win the war over the island, Canada just gave in and let Greenland have the island. Does that ring a bell in anyone else's memory? Hopefully someone can correct me as I'm certain I've got it completely wrong. -- kainaw ™ 05:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the war that was narrowly averted between the U.S. and Canada over the possession of Frostbite Falls, Minnesota: each country strenuously declined possession and insisted that the other one accept it. (The main factor preventing the eruption of military conflict, as I recall, was the very worthlessness of the territory involved.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly sounds interesting, if only for the lol factor. Thanks for the answers, everyone - I'll be bookmarking this topic once it's archived. Vimescarrot (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are thinking about Hans Island, but there has never been an actual war over it, neither for any other island that might be disputed between Canada and Greenland (aka Denmark).--Saddhiyama (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for others' comments, I'm not sure if the Crimean War can be considered an Anglo-Franco-Turkish victory. Perhaps it ended like so many others (e.g. the War of 1812) as a stalemate. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re The Cod Wars: is it really "war" if no-one gets hurt and only one side actually does any shooting? Maybe all wars should be like that!Alansplodge (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most critically, you have to qualify what you mean by country. Relating to the first reply to this post: Ireland as a nation has never lost a war, though it has been occupied by peace keeping British forces before, however peoples who occupied the island of Ireland have been defeated by invading Norman forces at times, and have adopted into their culture and ancestry a number of Viking, Welsh, Scottish and other peoples who have at times come to raid or settle. Likewise, Germany in its current state has never lost a war, but the Third Reich did, as did the German Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia and other incarnations over similar geographic areas. Likewise, South Africa has not been defeated in war, however peoples of the South African colonies suffered at the hands of the Zulus and in the Boer War. SGGH ^ping! 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible examples: The state of Greece has existed since 1822 and was on the winning side in both world wars (Greece didn't really exist as a political entity before then); it has had civil wars, and did lose some minor disputes like the Greco-Turkish War when it tried to annex Turkish territory, but I'm not aware of any major conflict it lost. Kuwait has only been independent since 1961 and aside from border disputes the only conflict it's been involved in is the First Gulf War of 1990-91; although it was invaded it ended up on the winning side. Excluding the brief Nazi puppet state, Croatia has only been involved in the Croatian War of Independence and the Bosnian War in its few years of existence; there are issues of definition, but it didn't lose either war. --Lesleyhood (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A correction: Yes, Croatia rejects association with Nazi puppet state of NDH, but it claims it's sovereignty based on continual existence of Croatian identity since 7th century, particularly it's during Kingdom of Croatia in 9th century. And they did lose wars, in fact, Kingdom ended with Battle of Gvozd Mountain where Croatians were butchered and last Croatian king, Petar Svačić, was killed. So, no, Croatians lost wars... 124.169.15.112 (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odin

In Norse mythology, did Odin discover the secrets of the runes before or after Midgard was built? Neon Merlin [8] 01:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer would come from a canonical "biography" of Odin. But when historicised narratives are applied to myth, the "before and after" of narratives have been applied to a pre-existing dreamlike perception. The question is, do runes figure in the mythic theme of Odin-in-Midgard? Or are the themes of Odin-and-runes and Odin-in-Midgard incommensurate?--Wetman (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After. Midgard was fashioned from the cadaver of the slain giant Ymir. Odin only learned the runes by hanging speared from a tree for nine days; this was after the death of Balder, so quite a bit after Midgard's creation. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

addition--- in many cultures writing was considered a magical or holy craft. See Egypt and Ibis.

I'd say this was the same for Runic writing: made holy by its association with Odin. That said, we have to be skeptical about the "purity" of much of Norse mythology; Odin's hanging from the tree is a little too close to the passion of Christ, and the Ragnorok as well as its aftermath, as set forth in the Eddas, is a little too close to the eschatology of the Christian religion to be considered 'purely Heathen'.

By the way...did you know that Her Majesty Elizabeth II claims descent from Odin? No 'Blood Eagles', i should hope. Rhinoracer (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions about Julius Caesar (the play)

Why isn't it classified as a history play?
My English teacher said that Brutus was Caesar's son. Is this true?

--76.194.201.103 (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link that you provided (Shakespearean history), explains this in the first paragraph. The histories were mainly about English kings. This is just the way it was classified. If you only define "historical play" as "play about history", then it would fit in, but there are other points of division.
Brutus was not Caesar's son. See Marcus Junius Brutus#Early life. —Akrabbim^talk 01:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - because it's not about English history. Non-English history is not counted as history in this classification.

2 - It's possible, but unlikely, that Brutus was Caesar's son, either in fact or in Shakespeare's play. If he was, he would have been a bastard son fathered when Caesar was 15 years old. See [9] and [10]. From Plutarch's Life of Brutus:

And this he is believed to have done out of a tenderness to Servilia, the mother of Brutus; for Caesar had, it seems, in his youth been very intimate with her, and she passionately in love with him; and, considering that Brutus was born about that time in which their loves were at the highest, Caesar had a belief that he was his own child. The story is told, that when the great question of the conspiracy of Catiline, which had like to have been the destruction of the commonwealth, was debated in the senate, Cato and Caesar were both standing up, contending together on the decision to be come to; at which time a little note was delivered to Caesar from without, which he took and read silently to himself. Upon this, Cato cried out aloud, and accused Caesar of holding correspondence with and receiving letters from the enemies of the commonwealth; and when many other senators exclaimed against it, Caesar delivered the note as he had received it to Cato, who reading it found it to be a love-letter from his own sister Servilia, and threw it back again to Caesar with the words, "Keep it, you drunkard," and returned to the subject of the debate. So public and notorious was Servilia's love to Caesar.

Perhaps your teacher was trying to point out some way in which Brutus was like Caesar's son, or considered him his son. - Nunh-huh 01:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, in Conn Iggulden's The Gates of Rome, Gaius and Brutus are best friends who grew up together, and Brutus's mother was a prostitute. That sort of sullies the reputation of Servilia Caepionis, and makes one wonder whether to believe anything Iggulden writes. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gates of Rome is a novel, in the genre of Historical fiction. While writers of historical fiction usually try to work within established historical facts as far as possible, most of them alter non-major facts (admittedly a subjective judgement) as they think necessary to achieve an artistically satisfying narrative, and all of them invent additional "facts" (such as conversations of which there are no records). These are accepted conventions of the genre, and no "fact" in a historical novel should be assumed to be necessarily true unless the author explicitly states that it is (in, say, an afterword). Having "belief" in the contents of Iggulden's fiction is therefore inappropriate, except in the sense of the "willing suspension of disbelief" usual when reading any fictional work. If one cares about the actual historical facts, either for their own sake or to see how far an author of historical fiction has departed from them, one should consult appropriate works of historical reference. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writers of stories in this genre, while penning fiction, nominally attempt to capture the spirit, manners, and social conditions of the persons or time(s) presented in the story, with due attention paid to period detail and fidelity. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what he said. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Reimerswaal

Something is amiss. In the article on Floris V, Count of Holland it says the Battle of Reimerswaal was fought over the custody of Holland in 1263. However when one clicks on this hot link it tells of a battle that took place in 1574 during the Eighty Years War. Can someone correct?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've DAB'd it to a redlink for now. Good catch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is DAB?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - shorthand for disambiguation, and discussed at WP:NCDAB. In this case, I've changed the link to Battle of Reimerswaal (1263) which, since there is no article, is a red-link. I think this is the normal minimal action to take in the case of a link which points to an unintended article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FX Question

My friend and I went on a trip to Brazil about 6 months back. She's from France and I'm from the US. We both made charges to our credit cards on the trip and so the charges we instantly converted to our home currencies (USD and EUR respectively) but now we're trying to settle the bill equally. The problem is the rates have changed quite a bit in that time and we are debating whether it's fairer to tally things using the historical or current rates. Any suggestions on how to do this in a fair manner so neither of us lose money to the other? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only tell you what I have done in the past. We have settled at the exchange rate on the date the bill should have been paid by whomever paid it. By 'paid" I mean the date on the credit card statement as the last date before interest began to accrue. That's when the person is officially "out-of-pocket" but not incurring penalties the other party cannot control. If you are not talking about thousands of dollars, however, and value the friendship, don't sweat a few dollars/euros one way or the other. You could also decide to calculate the net win/loss on the currency exchanges, and split that amount. Bielle (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was foreseeable that this could happen, and you should have settled up as soon as you received the bills; but you were both negligent, so maybe the best approach is to settle up as though you hadn't been negligent about this, and pretend that it's 5 months ago (or whenever you received the bills). Then again, my opinion is worth as much as any other random person on the Internet. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own method with friends and loved ones is to split the bills proportionally to our wealth ratio for those who are less wealthy than me, and 50/50 for those who are more wealthy than me. So if I make 200K per year, and my teacher friend makes 20K, I try to pick up 9 out of 10 of our bar tabs. If my programmer friend makes 200K or above, I'd try to pick up 5 out of 10 tabs. I know this system is disadvantageous to me, but I like it because I don't have to worry that poorer friends are burdened by going to more expensive places, and I don't force my value system on wealthier friends. --Sean 22:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to settle in your home currency, the key is how much of that currency each of you spent. Today's exchange rate isn't important; what is important is the rate you were charged. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EU President

I am an EU citizen but I cannot vote for the new upcoming President of the EU. This seems to be very unfair and very undemocratic - why cannot I vote for him/her and can this be changed? --AlexSuricata (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President of the European Council notes The president is not granted any formal power, but he or she would "chair and drive forward [the work of the European Council]" and take part in the representation of the common foreign policy of the EU on the world stage. That, on the face of it, makes the President really a minor functionary, entirely unlike the President of the United States, for example. The article goes on to say It is unclear what practical relationship the post would have with other major posts. Some analysts[who?] have deemed that the influence and role of the new post would largely be shaped by the persona of the inaugural president. So in practice the Treaty of Lisbon grants this person no real power; in practice it seems it'll be something of a bully pulpit at best. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been able to vote for any of the presidents of European Union institutions from their inception in 1958. There are limits to representative democracy; in this case, matters are arranged so that it is some of our representatives who decide who becomes the President. I'm guessing you are thinking in terms of the election of the POTUS ... but Europe is not trying to create a presidential system a la the US of A. So no, it is neither unfair nor undemocratic. Can it be changed? Very doubtful, since (I guess) it'll be a piece of business that will require unanimity amongst member states, something increasingly unlikely - vide the time it has taken to steer towards the Lisbon Treaty. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, there is an argument that a republic is "undemocratic", as you say; in any republic you don't get to vote for most of the laws that are passed, or for most of the people staffing the government; they are voted on by the people you voted for. (Or are voted on by the people voted for by the people you voted for...) The claim that a republic is "undemocratic" is a fringe argument because a true direct democracy would be such an impractical burden (ed: on a nationwide scale); your complaint is much more reasonable. List of countries by system of government is interesting; I didn't know there were so many republics in the world. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, "republic" just means "not a monarchy" and even that isn't absolute - there are some nominal republics that are de facto monarchies (eg. North Korea). --Tango (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide usage, perhaps, but in the US it's common to use it to refer specifically to elected representation. From Republic: "In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy." See also Republic#United_States.-- 128.104.112.149 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but far more countries have elections than I would describe as democracies. Even North Korea has elections: Elections in North Korea. --Tango (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many political systems don't allow you to vote directly for a hread of state or head of government. If you live in Britain you can't vote directly for the Prime Minister (unless you happen to live in his constituency). In the US you technically can't vote directly for the president either. All these systems have their advantages and disadvantages. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: Ordinary German citizens can't vote for the President of Germany - he's elected by the members of the Bundesversammlung; similarly Vaclav Klaus, whose signature finally validated the Lisbon Treaty, was not elected by the Czech people, but by the deputies and senators in the Czech parliament. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to bring back our old friend:

The democracy/republic chart

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Brunei

Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that chart is that democracy is really a spectrum. There is no obvious cutoff between a democracy and a non-democratic state - you need to judge how free and fair the elections are, how corrupt the leaders are, etc. --Tango (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it's a bit of a simplification -- residents of the District of Columbia would argue as to how democratic the U.S. is, for example -- but the point is to show that a country can be a democracy, a republic, both or neither. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

Ted Bundy Lawyer?

Was he a lawyer?... I think not but when the judge sent him to the electric chair to pay for his horrible crimes, the judge told him he'd have loved to work with him as lawyers. --190.50.125.48 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ted Bundy quotes the judge who said: You're a bright young man. You'd have made a good lawyer, and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. Bundy had been accepted into law school but chose a different path, as noted. Bielle (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Series -- 3 losses followed by 4 wins

How often has it happened that a team loses 3 games in a row only to win the next 4 straight to win the series? Is it as rare as it seems it would be? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never is pretty rare. It only happened once in the playoffs, in the 2004 American League Championship Series. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was only because the Red Sox wanted to spot the Yankees a few games to make it a more interesting series. —Akrabbim^talk 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like a stern, expected but very unwelcome test of faith, to see if Red Sox Nation really, really, really loved them. And boy that 86 years' worth of fatalistic depression to numb the pain that the Nation was sure would strike (2003, 1986, 1975, 1967, 1946, curse of the Bambino, Bucky Dent, etc., etc.) had sure kicked in by the end of ALCS game 3, mixed with bottom-of-the-gut trepidation about Election Day soon to come.—— Shakescene (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare in sports in general. It's only happened twice in the NHL, for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so extreme but in the 1920 America's Cup, Shamrock IV won the first 2 races only for Resolute to win the next 3 and therefore retain the cup (I presume this was a best of 5 series). Similarly in the 1983 America's Cup, Liberty won 3 of the first 4 races (i.e. it was 3-1) only for Australia II to win the next 3 and the cup in a best of 7 series (4-3 in the end). Finally although perhaps not really relevant, there's also the 1992 Louis Vuitton Cup, where New Zealand Challenge won 4 of the first 5 races (4-1) however a successful challenge of NZL 20's bowsprit resulted in them being docket a race win and required to remove the bowspirit and Il Moro di Venezia came back to win the next 4 and the cup (and right to challenge for the America's Cup) of a best of 9 series (5-3 in the end). Whether the loss of the bowspirit affect their performance that much or the poor morale after the succesful challenge was a big factor we may never know. (Some would of course argue that New Zealand was cheating and so should have been disqualified.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same but in the same vein - in Football there's a number of high-profile astonishing come-backs. Liverpool fc in the 2005 Champions League final against AC Milan springs to mind (Liverpool trailed 3-0 at half-time, clawed back to 3-3 in a mad second half and hung on to win by pens). Infact see here (http://www.soccerphile.com/soccerphile/news/comebacks.html) for more great comebacks. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three goals down? How about winning a baseball game after trailing by 12 runs in the seventh inning? ([11]) Or erasing a 35-3 deficit in the second half of an NFL playoff game? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is communism thought to be a bad thing?

The idea of liberty, freedom and equality is in the foundation of every country's constitution. Communism is the first to try and make them real. Why should communism be feared when it's main idea is the well being of the people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.173.237 (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Communism and Red Scare and see if you have some factual questions for us. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are theoretical, practical, and historical reasons why Communism is thought by many to be the antithesis of "liberty, freedom, and equality," whatever it claims to be. Read the article on the subject, come back if you have more questions. All political ideologies invoke the well-being of the people as their end goal. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to qualify that "many". Perhaps "many in the US", but not "many in China". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a bit more than "many in the US". I think an unqualified "many" is actually just fine (even "many in China" probably think Communism is not about liberty, freedom, and equality). It is not the same thing as "most" or "all" or "everyone" or so forth. Using "many" is actually fairly qualified by itself—it is deliberately inspecific. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes even dictators and generals heading army coups say they're doing it to further the well being of the people. And they often mean it too. You have to judge some of these things by their effects. Phrases like Dictatorship of the proletariat might warn you about how communism has turned out. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It put an end to any private entrepreneurship, it put restrictions on personal views because they are "dangerous" to ideology, it always lead to corruption and to exploitation and unavoidably to poverty. It can solve none of the problems that it pretend to be able to solve and it only suggest common poverty. Also, all communist regimes, without exceptions, resulted in barbaric actions. For instance, to solve the famine in Russia, Stalin didn't allow private entrepreneurships or asked for Western countries help and involvment-he just choosed the simplest solution for him: killing 40 million of former USSR citizens.--Gilisa (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing Stalinism, not Communism. SGGH ^ping! 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to assume that all dictators get up every morning and say "What can I do today to harm the people I rule?" More likely, in their own minds, and in their diaries or communications to their associates, they claim to be doing "what's best" for their people. Certainly many have excluded a portion of the population under their control as "their people." Edison (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, It's not that most of them seek bad for their people I guess, but they also don't have much care for them-more to their being in power.--Gilisa (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, I essentially agree with you, I'd just like to warn you that not so long ago Will Smith got a lot of flak for saying pretty much the same thing :) TomorrowTime (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomorrowTime, Will Smith, as you know, said something prety different-that Hitler wasn't a bad person. Do you feel agree with that?--Gilisa (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the exact Will Smith quote: "Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'Let me do the most evil thing I can do today.' I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good.' ". To me, that doesn't say "Hitler was not a bad person." It says "Hitler was using a twisted logic to justify what he did." I see a world of a difference in the two. (And before you suspect me of apologetics, my people, just as yours, were on Hitler's shortlist for extermination, and I have no reason to feel anything but revoltion for the guy. I just feel people should be objective in all things - and objectively speaking, the flak Smith got was an undeserved knee-jerk reaction.) TomorrowTime (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomorrowTime, it's not a knee jerk, even if it seem like that to some people who do not have the slightest sensitivity for such statments. Usually, evil people do have rational justifications for their evil actions (not always, Psychopathes-and Hitler was one actually, don't need it) -it's not that they have any defence mechanism to protect them from feeling the heavy burden of the conscience they lack as some psychologists who do have defence mechanisms argue from time to time, it's just that most people need order in their life and reason for what they are doing. I do not suspect Will Smith is being a supporter of the Nazi ideology, but his statement was sensless and pointless. What more that Hitler knew that he's not a moral person (infact, he accused Jews for flawing Humanity by assimilating moral values into it).--Gilisa (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are all dictators communists ? Does capitalism never result in corruption, exploitation and poverty ? Do western democracies never adopt barbaric and simple-minded solutions ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reading A Communist Manifesto to decide whether you are among the "people" for whom it would make things better, as it is not good for everyone. The simple answer is that the majority of the world's leading powers utilise systems which they prefer and to which communism would be an antithesis. It is perfectly plausible to believe that Communism is a good thing, many people do and some of the prospects are appealing, however its historical applications have not always adhered strongly, or lastingly, to its principles, and it is an antithesis to a number of other ideas prevalent in the modern world. It is only due to the historical precedents that most people above link ideas like communism to words like dictatorship. There is a vast difference between the theory and previous applications of it. SGGH ^ping! 14:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But "capitalism" is not a system in itself: it is simply how humanity operates when given the freedom to so. Markets are not artificial creations. The basic problem with Communism is simply that someone has to enforce equality, said enforcer must therefore have authority to do so, which already puts him on a higher plane than others - and so the basic idea of equality breaks down. As does liberty, for obvious reasons. The fundamental principles of pluralism and consensual politics that form the basis of Anglo-Saxon political culture remain, I believe, better than anything yet devised - precisely because these principles were not "devised", but arose through centuries of custom.

As for results, though Western market culture has produced some bad results, it has never produced anything like the Holodomor, where a so-so harvest (despite previous enormous murder and deportations of the most productive workers) was turned into a mass famine through murderous grain requisitions, brutal enforcement of these requisitions, and bureacratic incompetence, stupidity, and apathy, to the point where mass grain piles were left to rot in fields under armed guard mere miles away from where entire villages were being wiped out through slow starvation. The death roll is roughly estimated at around 4-5 million inside the Ukraine, and around 3 million elsewhere. And all this in the name of stamping out counter-revolutionaries! Moreschi (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the potato famine had some similar elements. TastyCakes (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally dissimilar. The potato blight that caused The Great Famine was something very serious that would have caused severe famine even without the unhelpful attitude (to put it mildly) of the British officialdom. The Soviet famine was purely due to dekulakization followed by the grain requisitions. Drought probably didn't help, but from what I remember the drought did not stop a reasonably decent harvest and in any case was not centered on the Ukraine, which suffered worst. Moreschi (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically referring to this line from the article: Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine. I think that makes it a similar situation, although obviously the potato famine was caused by the blight and only made worse by "requisitions". TastyCakes (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a short article on Criticism of communism which won't help. But it has some links that might. There are also some good points at Planned_economy#Disadvantages_of_economic_planning. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the expulsions to Siberia and the Gulags? It's not only Stalinism, those who came after were maybe less blood-thirsty but they didn't give any chance for personal freedom and rights or to self expression. I don't think that the North Korean or the Chinese cummunism do any better. It seem like communism can grow only under conditions of poverty, and while promising prosperity to everyone it only doom all to continuous despair. First, the main focus of communism is on material goods, which it ofcourse fail to provide-then, and because any other human point of view is forbidden, communist regimes divert public opinions by fueling their citizens with patriotic feelings and by terrorising them. As always it afraid that they will understand that there are better economical options under different forms of government, it can't live in peace with non communisitc countries, at least mostly. The nature of human beings is to actively seek their happiness and to engage with new intiatives-but in cpmmunistic terms it mean that X will build a house which is different from this of Y, Z would like to have both sport car and station wagon and then the all system will collapse. So it just doom everyone to live under poverty. Many Western countries have improved social systems, where no one is poor thanks to the rich people-the idea is that the goverment is involved in the market only to the needed extent and do not hold all production means as it's in communistic countries. I do not support pure capitalism on the other hand, it have its own failures-but it still better option than communism as at the least it gives hope to large precent of the population. Also, as communism give people no incentive to work, it must force them to do so sometimes, the rest work because humans just feeling a need to work mostly, but hidden unemployment was a serious side effect of Russian communism. It's important to understand that Marx formulated the principles of communism in times when workers had no social rights or strong associations-so they realy served as an instrument in the hands of manufacturers. But he throwed the water with the baby, and the result is not any better--Gilisa (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to spoil a good rant with facts, but you might want to check which country has the fastest-growing major economy for the past 30 years with an average annual GDP growth rate above 10% before you say things like "communism can grow only under conditions of poverty, and while promising prosperity to everyone it only doom all to continuous despair". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf, even you are a wizard, your spells just won't work: I'm very well aware for what is happening in China, but telling the Chinease economy is communistic is nothing then utter nonsense -it does have private sector, it is opened to foreign investments, it does have classes and etc. However, it kept the centralistic form of communistic regime. Its GDP grows simply because it exploit its citizens in the capitalistic way that Marx described and because there are 1.5 billion of them...Meaning very cheap human power.--Gilisa (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see - China cannot possibly be a communist state because it has a successful economy, whereas communist states by definition are filled with poverty stricken, downtrodden, despairing masses. For circular reasoning see circular reasoning. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Gandalf, because its economy is free and the goverment allow private property in many cases, but not in all. I don't think that you can find one serious person who will call the Chinese economy as something else than a radical form of capitalistic economy. However, there are places where it preserved its communistic form: I have a friend who is regulary on the line to China for work reasons, and she told me that she met there brilliant electrical engineer who hold a PhD from MIT and he was forced to return to China (believe it or not, but I don't know exactly how they do that) and he work there in a partly private company I assume, he's paid by the government about 300$ a month for his work -part of this sum is being confiscate by the government for his rent in an appartment that the state provide him, in a place that he didn't choose. So you see, it's a very comfortable mix of the bad attributes of capitalism and communism. It's complex, but it doesn't mean that it's circular as well--Gilisa (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf, that's just silly. China has just taken the economic prescriptions of Marxism and thrown them out the window, and if you throw out economic Marxism, there isn't much left. Essentially what's left is a one-party state governing a market-orientated economy. They might call themselves Communist, yes, but the description just doesn't apply any more. Moreschi (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources (including Wikipedia) classify China as a communist state, even if you do not. The adoption of non-standard definitions and terminology to support ideological stereotypes is a sign of closed-minded thinking. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually know anything about Marxism? No? Because if you did, your discourse here might make a lot more sense. That list, FYI, is a list of states that label themselves Communist: obviously China can be validly labelled a Communist state insofar as it self-describes as such, but technically it just isn't in that its economy does not abide by Marxist prescriptions. Moreschi (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh deary me - lacking other arguments, you now resort to ad hominem attacks. This thread is becoming a crash course in rhetoric and faulty logic. We can only be a hop and a skip away from invoking Godwin's law. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the victim is an old rhetorical trick, but it doesn't really wash. Why not respond to my point? Moreschi (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you don't make a point that can be responded to. You just say that by your definition, China is not a communist state. It's as if you said that by your definition a whale is not a mammal because it does not have four legs. If you wish to use your own definitions then that is your prerogative - private definitions cannot be argued with. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why China is no longer a communist country --Royor (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that many of the problems of the Soviet Union can be boiled down to two things (of course this would probably be simplistic). First the idea of a command economy, a central part of communist theory that just didn't work. When applied to regular industries, it led to poverty, inferior products and vast shortages in some sectors with surpluses in others. When applied to agriculture it led to the starvation of millions. The second problem seems, to me, the imposition of one party rule. Everything changes when there is no official opposition to the party in power, and abuses are likely to follow (and did, to a tragic degree, in the USSR). Of course, this second problem can (and does) happen under any ideology, not just communism. To my knowledge there has never been a real multi-party communist state, presumably because communism requires such a huge reorganisation of society that undoing it every time a capitalist leaning party is voted in would be unworkable (and unthinkable). TastyCakes (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People “fear” communism due to the bad track record from communist governments in the past. Holodomor, Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 are just a few examples. However, they are really not communism but more like Stalinism and Maoism. Marx wrote communism, not instructions on maintain government rule by killing citizens. Critique of Marxism point out some fundamental flaws with communism (a very dry read, btw). A quick look at the Corruption Perceptions Index put communist governments generally in the mid-range (Of course one could always argue on the reliability of the CPI, but it does give some really rough ball park estimate). Royor (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communism does not work because people do not like to see their labors be given away to others. The mindset becomes "why should I work harder when my labor will not noticeably improve the situation for me or my family?" Think of it like you have an apple tree in your yard. The tree and all its produce belongs to the state, so why should you spend time and effort to prune the tree when all the extra apples will be taken from you and given to others who did nothing to ensure the tree was producing well? Googlemeister (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errm ... because next year your apple harvest might fail and you might be glad to share some of your neighbours pears ? It's called altruism, and is usually considered a virtue. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Loath as I am to cite Rand, she had some rather good things to say about altruism. Randian dogmas apart, collectivization caused a massive slump in productivity across the USSR - all because people were not working for themselves: they had no guarantee of seeing the fruits of their labours - and indeed, come the 1933 famine, most of them didn't. Moreschi (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why do we need communitic economy if all people are so altruistic? As for myself, I would keep pruning the three because I love it and as for the apples, I don't mind to give some to others...--Gilisa (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to see China as a "communist" country, when it has millionaire and billionaire tycoons and party bosses who live in mansions, and the People's Liberation Army is used to keep the peasants in line when their land is taken without adequate compensation to build a factory[12]. Most of the billionaires got that way through "real estate," which often involved expropriation of land that rural families had relied on for farming, until it was taken by the government for the benefit of the few. Twenty of China's new super-rich have a net worth of $28.9 billion, which is more than 400 million of China's poor [13]. In a communist country, one might expect said army to go with the peasants to the billionaires' mansions, take the rich folks out back and shoot them as exploiters of the people, and turn the land and buildings over to the peasants. Such things happened there in the 1950's and 1960's. Edison (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, how regimes are self defined don't always have anything in common with what they actually are. You may find many oppressive regimes under the title of "The republic of this and that". --Gilisa (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and by the two general problems with communism I mentioned above, China is increasingly abandoning one of them, the command economy. It is a little unnerving to see them do rather well with a one party state. It suggests, perhaps, that the USSR's most intractable problems (the ones that ultimately tore it apart) could have been caused by their economic follies rather than their political ones. TastyCakes (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist journals and publications in other countries have noted that 90 % of China's billionaires are "princelings:" the children of high ranking party officials. This is akin to the "nomenclatura" or the old Soviet Union. From each according his ability, to each according to who his daddy is. Edison (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only nepotism, there is also a middle class in China. So it's actually corrupted ex-communistic regime that preserved its centralistic power. The same happened in Russia where after the fall of the iron curtain and the communistic system the state still had all assets under control and all was left to do is to share them with important frineds and Nouveau Riche oligarchs. So, there is a regularity that can descrive the circle of life of any communistic regime: rise-failure-fall-transition to semi dictatorship with capitalstic corrupted economy-? (Western economy?).--Gilisa (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not that much of a middle class in today's China. 0.4% of the people controlled 70% of the wealth in 2005. Hundreds of millions live in abject poverty. An opinion poll showed that 81% thought the tycoons lacked social responsibility, and 68% thought they got rich illegally. The CCP has been described by the Guardian as a "giant aristocracy." [14]. Edison (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilisa's description is certainly the common pattern (and hardly a surprise, given that capitalism is the dominant international system and it's never going to be easy for a country with no recent democratic tradition to develop one overnight). However, Afghanistan, for instance, emerged with little resembling a capitalist economy, while some other states - such as East Germany or the Czech Republic - left this Stalinist model of government and rapidly developed capitalist economies which functioned in pretty much the same way as any in Western Europe. Warofdreams talk 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at this list indicates that China is indeed a place of wrenching inequality. However, I'm not sure its situation can be compared to the breakup of the Soviet Union. The tycoons created then did so by acquiring rights to the USSR's natural resources, namely oil and gas, at prices far below their value. The state's manufacturing industries were not particularly valuable in comparison. Chinese billionaires, on the other hand, seem to be made through manufacturing and land development. You can't just give someone a factory and have them become a billionaire, they have to have at least sense enough to properly operate it, maintain competitive products domestically and internationally and ultimately expand. This is somewhat the case with land development, although of course not quite so meritocratic. But in both cases, they had to make their money by building something, while the Russians made their money by being given something of value. It is also the case that the middle class is expanding strongly, particularly in the coastal cities, which certainly wasn't the case in Russia after its break with communism. TastyCakes (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are three main reasons why communism is often thought to be a bad thing. Firstly, people fear that it would leave them personally worse off due to the redistribution of wealth. Secondly, people fear that it would leave the entire economy worse off, because they believe that an economic incentive is the only way to maintain prosperity. Thirdly, people fear that communism will inevitably lead to totalitarianism, or at least a complete lack of democracy. There are other reasons, such as a belief that the world is best off with just one international economic system and that any competitor would inevitably lead to increased conflict, and general propaganda against communism showing communists as enemies of the people or the state.

My response to these? Redistribution of wealth should leave the vast majority of people better off, provided the economy doesn't shrink. Evidence for the necessity of an economic incentive is very weak - even under capitalism, people are often motivated by things other than wealth. Marxist theorists usually call for direct democracy - but given the terrible record of self-declared communist states in implementing any sort of meaningful democracy at all, it's no wonder that this scares people. Warofdreams talk 17:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People don't need, usually, incentive to work-work give value for their life, but they do need incentive to be productive. Many people, espcially in low administrative positions and other jobs, spend their working hours in speaking with their co workers, on the internet and etc. But they would feel lost without their job, even if paid twice to stay at home or to do any thing they like. Communism failed to give people a reason to be productive. Also, as it was obligated that everyone will have the same goods-communistic industry couldn't be too diversed and became obsolete. However, there are also one good side for communism: as it's not very productive (a side for weapons) it didn't destory the enviroment as Western economies did. When China made the transition to communism it also became the most contaminated country in the world-along with USA and other Western countries. Part of the high rates of pollution its industry produce is a result of obsolete technology of its production means, leftovers from its communistic past.--Gilisa (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under Stalin, the Soviet Union rapidly industrialised and increased productivity in a way that many former colonial countries with the outline of capitalist economies rushed to emulate. The increase was greatly exaggerated in Stalinist propaganda, and a large part of the incentive given was the terrible level of coercion, but it did exist - and a more democratic state could have brought many other incentives into play. While it's true that choice was hardly at the forefront of production concerns, not every one of these states insisted that everyone had the exact same goods (not least the wealthy bureaucrats, although I guess some of their goods were probably imported from the West). You also give a very optimistic view of pollution - many Eastern European states suffered terrible pollution long before any transition to capitalism (we don't appear to have much on this, other than the weak article on effects on the environment in Czechoslovakia from Soviet influence during the Cold War) - and the Chernobyl disaster also springs to mind. Warofdreams talk 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every economy must sustained its people. The communisitc one wasn't any different for most history. The first industrial revolution in USSR was meant to deal with the low agricultural product. The second came during WWII when the USSR had a death or life choice, and anyway it was focused on weapon industry. Then it was forced to compete with USA weapon technologies as part of the cold war. Also, to cummunism survive, USSR tried to export the communistic revolution to anywhere possible -for doing so it had to have the ability to provide support to its proteges (one was China, then). I do not consider Chernobyl disaster as an event that indicat the high level of pollution that communist regimes produced, as it was accident and neuclear power is quite clean and safe mostly. However, it may be that on other aspects it produced more pollution.--Gilisa (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with the first half of that; I don't see that it contradicts anything I wrote. In the same way as the U.S., the Soviet Union tried to develop a sphere of influence, basing this on ideological appeals where possible, but accepting nations with very different ideologies where necessary, and making tactical decisions where and how to do this. You make a fair point on Chernobyl; although the accident was due to a shockingly low level of concern for safety, similar things have been seen in capitalist economies. Warofdreams talk 19:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl had a lot to do with the specifics of the Soviet approach to nuclear power. It doesn't really have to do with Communism, per se. There is no reason you couldn't have a Communist regime that was more careful about how it trained engineers and designed reactors. It was certainly an indictment of the USSR, but not Communism more broadly. Three Mile Island was not really an indictment of capitalism, either, though it was an indictment to certain aspects of the US nuclear regulatory system. A more broad indictment against Stalinism (and even Leninism) would be, say, Magnetogorsk—a desire for heavily centralized industrialization, at the expense of any reasonable health considerations of its populace. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the above discussion, I think it's important to make two comments about China:

Its economy grew at possibly the fastest sustainable level ever after it stopped centrally planning it. This would indicate that free market principles are a prerequisite for growth. The implication being that increased wealth-disparity might also be necessary for growth. There are many articles here on the matter including Economic reform in the People's Republic of China.
Otoh, China also shows that a democracy is not needed for economic growth. A lot of the discussion above about how bad things are in China is quite biased: there are some factual stats here.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I suggest the OP read Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. Quill, ISBN 0-688-06426-4 in order to understand the theory behind communism and its criticism (a much better read than what's on wikipedia). Royor (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, Marxism is an insular system which does not comport with historical evidence. It is naïve because it vastly oversimplifies the worth of entrepreneurship and management skills. Contrary to Marx, labor alone is not the determining factor of economic success, rather it is innovation with proper risk taking. Marx assumed the means of production just came about "somehow" without serious reflection on what that requires. Marxism is also prone to be used (misused?) as a political power grab - usually by privileged intellectuals, or other elitists promising the masses a new order. In fact, they deliver economic misery, usually with brutal oversight, because of their incomplete and misinformed framework.
Directly quoting Roy Massie, written as book review for the above book on November 10, 2008

I think this explains the flaws of communism as an economic system and why many associate poverty with communism much, much better than I ever can. Royor (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communism is doomed to lead to despotism as it seek that the state will hold all property and as it is closed to sincere relations with non communistic countries. It's doomed to failure as it break off the natural correlation between productivity and income and it neglect the outcome test. What more that the goverment have to handle every economic crisis by itself. It is not a coincidence that the Chinease goverment changed its economical system after the fall of USSR.--Gilisa (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop ranting pointlessly. And include references to your contentious comments. Unsourced speculation is not appropriate here. Your above comment could look like the following in article space:

Communism is doomed to lead to despotism^{[citation needed]} as it seek that the state will hold all property and as it is closed to sincere^{[clarification needed]} relations with non communistic countries^{[citation needed]} ^[how?] ^{[clarification needed]} ^{[dubious – discuss]}. It's doomed to failure^{[citation needed]} as it break off the natural correlation between productivity and income and it neglect the outcome test^{[citation needed]} ^[how?]. What more that the goverment have to handle every economic crisis by itself^{[citation needed]}. It is not a coincidence that the Chinease goverment changed its economical system after the fall of USSR^{[citation needed]} ^[relevant?]

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, civilised and straight to the point answers Zain Ebrahim! Just thinking what barn star I should award you with.In other configuration I would suspect it to be a personal attack, but you are too businesslike for that. Sorry to spoil it for you, but you are the one who rant. Giving links to wikipedia articles (and parroting what was already said in this discussion) make none of your arguments any better or put any wisdom in them. --Gilisa (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Communism is doomed to lead to despotism" is pure speculation. Gilisa, can you provide any historical empirical evidence for that? Communism failed completely as an economic system both in theory and in history (read above for ref). China is NOT using a communist economic system. --Royor (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royor, where did I claim that Chinease economy is communistic? I claim the opposite consistently so far and I realy get hard to understand what exactly you want. Second, "Communism is doomed to lead to despotism" is not a speculation, surely not more than most of the arguments on this reference desk and I make it clear that this is my opinnion. Historically there was not even one democratic communisitc regime, infact it's a paradox to think that otherwise is possible when the definition of communistic economy demand the absence of private property -at leat at the level of production means. So your demand for historical empirical evidence is quite odd.--Gilisa (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilisa, opinion without supporting fact is speculation. If you think any argument in this thread need reference you should, and are more than welcome to ask for them. The claim "Communism is doomed to lead to despotism" - I honestly cannot think of any historical evidence supporting this, nor did I read anyone argue for this anywhere. The assumption of communistic government unable to uphold good diplomatic relation with non-communistic countries is simply false. I'm sure China maintained, and still maintain, good diplomatic relation with numerous monarchies (Middle East), and military rule (Africa) countries even back in the Mao/True communistic era (I can dig up ref for this if you want). Market failure and economic crisis happen to Capitalism as well (think recent US economic crisis). Chinese government switching its economical system does not prove anything by itself - when the USSR switched to central planning way back, did that prove communism work as a viable economic system? Royor (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the countries you count for having good diplomatic realations with China back then are not democratic countries. However, I do admit that I might gone too far here. Nevertheless, communist China forbid its citizens to visit in Western countries before its economy became capitalistic. For obvious reasons. It's just that as I see it, you have to force people to be economically equal, it's not just happend. Marx himself portrait two stages in the way to the realization of the communisitc utopia: the first is the stage of socialism, where there is a dictatorship of the proletariat and only after the communisitc utopia is achieved. I realy liked your last argue, because it's a good one. But I think that you can't realy compare-I assume that China changed to the capitalistic approach because it understand that it have a great potential (and indeed, forecasts are that it will become world's biggest economy in the years to come) and because it understand that it will only give it strength and much more influence-something that the communistic economy couldn't give it. Also I think that seeing USSR falling (from economical reasons) consists catalystor for this change it made. But you made the point that Russia made the opposite change (if you can call it like that) -however, while transition to free market economy lead many times to prosperity, I can't find one example where transition to communism did it. --Gilisa (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to correct the OP. The first countries that included "liberty, freedom and equality" in their constitutions would be the US and revolutionary France. So communism was not the first "to try and make them real". I think it is more a question of how you try to realise those concepts. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markets are (not?) artificial creations

Of course. But "capitalism" is not a system in itself: it is simply how humanity operates when given the freedom to so. Markets are not artificial creations. [copied from above, from User: Moreschi] - I think my friends Edward Teach, Ghengis Khan, Rollo, Jason, and Ugh (inventor of the club, and, coincidentally, the Harem) would be powerful counterexamples to that claim. I'd suggest that markets are very much artificial constructs, and need strong social protections to work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Invisible hand principle is clearly not enough to explain how markets can sustain. However, too visible hand, or state monopoly on the market, mean that there is no economical competition. Where does this leave us?--Gilisa (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No girlfriend

Have there been any studies that might explain why some people think "no girlfriend" = "must be gay"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.128.188 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sounds like one of the Heuristics of Social Psychology. Never heard on such study, but sometimes people have other attributes for why one don't have a girlfriend (he's a nerd/wirdow/looser/have bad communication skills and etc).--Gilisa (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who label others "weirdos" and "losers" generally can't spellRimush (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are always some people thinking odd things. I don't think a large number of people think that these days. In the past when getting married was pretty much a social requirement a man that remained unmarried past the age when most people would be married might be assumed to be a "committed bachelor" (which is a euphemism for homosexuality). --Tango (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase in my circle was "confirmed bachelor" and if it meant "homosexual" then no one ever told me that. Bielle (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle called Sherlock Holmes a committed bachelor and Holmes was not gay. Granted he was fictional. Googlemeister (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was not? Claims who? His "friend", Dr. Watson? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“Very sorry to knock you up, Watson,” --Holmes, The Adventure of the Speckled Band, page 1 213.122.31.234 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been exclusively used as a euphemism for homosexuality, but it was widely used as one. --Tango (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly newspaper-speak, like 'tired and emotional' for drunk. One of those things that avoids libel while still being clear to readers in the know. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watson was happily married, and Holmes was portrayed as pretty much asexual, or at least not interested in romance of any kind. I think Watson claimed that the only woman Holmes ever was attracted to (that he knew of) was one that conned them at one point. He sort of fell in love with her for her intellect or something. I can't recall the name of the story though, I haven't read it in a few years. Other than that, I don't think he cared much for women otherwise, since he identified most of them as having inferior intellect. Of course he thought the same of most men as well... —Akrabbim^talk 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes was a necrophile, he was interested in dead bodeis more than in women (or men).--Gilisa (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no writing by Doyle that said Holmes was sexually attracted to corpses. Can you provide a reference? Edison (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not realy, I was just joking.--Gilisa (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read Irene Adler. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because having a girlfriend (or having had a girlfriend) is seen as a proxy indicator for having interest in girls? Implicit in the (illogical) jump from a lack of a girlfriend to being gay is an acknowledgement that the person is datable (if the person in question was say mentally retarded and physically unattractive, then I doubt any people would conclude that the person is gay if they lacked a girlfriend).--droptone (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unaware Prophesied Messiahs, Saviors, Redeemers, etc II

I am looking for some literature regarding the title. Something exactly like "The Matrix" --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of the case in Ender's Game. TastyCakes (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red roses

Hi. I've noticed that recently, several British people appearing in public are wearing red roses on their jackets, like ribbons. I wonder, what do those represent? Thanks. --193.2.5.237 (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not roses, they are poppies. They are part of the Poppy Appeal, which is to do with the upcoming Remembrance Day. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Remembrance Day, and In Flanders Fields for the root of the tradition. As well as in Britain, poppies are worn in several countries in the commonwealth around November 11th, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand for sure, and probably more. TastyCakes (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in the US both for Veterans Day and Memorial Day. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, In New Zealand (and I think in Australia), poppy day is Anzac Day (April 25th). Grutness...wha? 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing classical music on the piano

When playing classical music on the piano, are there widely followed schools of thought that there is one and only one "correct" finger to use for each note? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean for specific pieces of music? Different pieces of music will require you to use different fingering in order for them to be possible to play. I don't know if each piece comes with a generally accepted "correct" fingering. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm wondering per piece, as in "if your fingers are presently configured just so and the next note you have to hit is x, use such and such finger" while covering a whole library of common finger configurations. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your general question: yes, different professional pianists do play the same piece using different fingering. A pianist who has mastered a piece has earned the right to play it any way that works best for them, as long it's always consistent with being true to the composer's intentions. A teacher will usually insist that their way (which is usually what they themselves were taught) is the only "correct" way (and sometimes they will have a wooden ruler or something similar at the ready, to be slammed down on the student's hands whenever they use the wrong fingers. Well, that was my teacher's occasional method, and, being fundamentally rebellious, I naturally did it my own way when I wasn't at lessons, which sometimes worked better, but mostly not) Many pieces (including scales) come with the editor's suggested fingering printed on the page; some have 2 sets of fingering, and you can take your pick. Students are generally best advised to follow their teacher's instructions, assuming they're a good teacher and you have a good relationship with them (otherwise, get a different teacher). It's only when you've completely mastered the fundamentals that you should experiment with alternative fingerings (not to mention different pedallings, hand positions, sitting positions, etc etc). Unless you're a genius - but then, you'd be guided by your own genius and I doubt you'd be seeking advice from random strangers on the internet. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "as long it's always consistent with being true to the composer's intentions", Jack. How do you know what those were? The composer may not have stated their intentions, and even if they did, the pianist shouldn't be overly concerned with them. This is essentially the same argument as the one in literary criticism as to whether the author's intentions are available to the critic, and even if they are, whether it is valid for the critic to pay attention to them. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of information at Fingering. --Thomprod (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Concentration camp

I used to hear that Jews were not systematically killed in Concentration camps, but rather were killed in Extermination or Death camps. But according to our article here on wiki, it states that Extermination camps are a type of Concentration camp. So which is it? Could one say that over 6 million Jews were killed in Concentration camps? ScienceApe (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "concentration camp" predates the Nazis, and merely meant a place people were concentrated together. While some of these camps had high mortality rates (such as due to disease) they weren't built with the express purpose of killing people. The nazi camps weren't built just to store people - some were labour camps, and some were expressly constructed solely for the purpose of mass murder. Auschwitz was something of a hybrid of the two. Treblinka was entirely for extermination (to such an extent that its victims didn't live even a day there). So calling them "death camp" or "extermination camp" helps clarify that we don't just mean places were people were concentrated. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, during the South African War, the British army built many concentration camps for Afrikaner civilians, not to kill them but to keep them from aiding commandos. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the United States build concentration camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. They were holding them in a fenced area (concentrating them). They were not exterminating them systematically. Concentration camps are no fun, to be sure, but they are not the same thing as places of extermination. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we establish that not all concentration camps are extermination camps. But that is not the direction of travel of the OPs question; which was, are extermination camps members of the set concentration camps such that an extermination camp can be described as a concentration camp. And I think the answer is clearly yes. An extermination camp is a special class of concentration camp, which is a special class of camp - all within the admittedly loose definition of all of these terms. --Tagishsimon 23:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two approaches to distinguishing between what the Nazis did to the Jews in their camps and what is often done when you have a camp to hold a lot of prisoners. One is to indicate that the Nazis did something extraordinary by labeling their camps as "extermination" camps. The other is to not use the term "concentration camp" at all except when talking about camps in which people are exterminated—instead, you use a term like "relocation camp". At this point in the game, I would suggest doing both at the same time, since "concentration camp" by itself is vague, and the distinction is important. --Mr.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Treblinka II (and the other Rheinhart camps) was an extermination camp, but really wasn't a concentration camp. The camp was tiny, with no barracks or other facilities for the victims (only for the guards and the sonderkommando who ran the place); people arrived and died on the same day. The article says much the same "The killing centers had no other function, unlike concentration camps where prisoners were used as forced labor for the German war effort." -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

Hiroshima apology?

Have americans ever publicly apologized to japanese for Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? like the senate did for slavery Kooz (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US Government certainly hasn't. The prevailing opinion in US government and military circles seems to be that the bombings were a necessary evil (when compared to the invasion of Japan) so I don't think any such apology is likely any time soon. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in population in general, some 60% of Americans still think Hiroshima was "the right thing" to do. Only 1 in 5 think it was "the wrong thing" to do. (The rest are undecided.) So says a recent poll, anyway. Polls, of course, aren't everything. But it is a pretty common sentiment in the US that there is nothing to apologize for—that the Japanese "brought it on themselves" (Pearl Harbor, etc.), that it was "necessary to end the war", that it "saved millions of American lives," and other common phrases (the veracity of which have been in debate since they were first suggested, but that's a totally separate question, and one in which we have a nice, long article on). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will check the news archives. I would like to start looking in the year that the U.S. received Japan's apology for the Pearl Harbor attack. Anyone know when that was sent? It had not happened by 1991, the 50th anniversary of the attack. Edison (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of people across Asia who would feel quite offended by a US apology for the nuclear attacks... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Korea, for example, the nuclear attacks are seen as a Very Good thing, because it stopped the Japanese, who had taken over their country rather brutally. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In WWII Japan invaded China in the Second Sino-Japanese War. Millions and millions of Chinese were killed, most notably as a result of Unit 731s activities and in the Nanking Massacre.

Those numbers (from 1991) are quite interesting. I'm surprised by this part: "...only 16 percent of Americans favoring an apology. The proportion of Americans who would favor apologizing for Hiroshima rose to a total of 50 percent if Japan apologized for Pearl Harbor, however." That's quite a jump! I am surprised at the number of Americans who (at least in 1991) would have be fine with an apology if the Japanese apologized first. I would not have expected that to matter much, but I guess it does (or did). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should American apologize? War means retaliative death. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get into an argument over whether they should or not, or whether Hiroshima was justified, and etc. If you really have no clue, read the article I linked to about the debate. Nobody on this board is going to say anything new in that regard, and we don't need to start an endless debate. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negative view in U.S. multiculturalism

How is multiculturalism is view in United States in negative way? How about in a positive way? is there any websites that deals with this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.32 (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Multiculturalism#Support_for_multiculturalism and Criticism of multiculturalism, for starters. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a negative, I'd say that multiculturalism can be viewed as reverse discrimination -- sort of a bad thing from the perspective of those who are not part of the overemphasized cultures. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing multiculturalism with affirmative action. They are not the same thing at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen presentations of multiculturalism that emphasize strategies that could be called reverse discrimination without being affirmative action, e.g. they've claimed that multiple studies have demonstrated that minority children perform better on standardized tests if there are images of members of their minority group present in the room. The implied actionable outcome of such studies is that we ought to have more images of minority members present in the school room. To many majority group members, this is viewed as reverse discrimination since wall space is a scarce commodity (placement of an image of say a prominent black figure will likely replace a prominent white figure) and they view the reason for the placement of the minority group member's image does not solely depend on that member's accomplishments, but a combination of their accomplishments and their race. The integral connection between the race of the individual and their presence on the classroom's wall is therefore viewed as reverse discrimination. I am not advocating any position here (and do not wish to debate the pros and cons of multiculturalism as some amorphous blob), just pointing out it may not due to confusion over issues that multiculturalism is viewed as reverse discrimination.--droptone (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For cultural non-members to be socially coerced into celebration of cultural heritage or significance is dicriminatory, albeit politically correct. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negative view in Canada multiculturalism

How is multiculturalism is view in Canada in positive way and negative way separate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.32 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essay questions are intended to assess your own grip on the material. The Reference desk can't write your essay.--Wetman (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith and refer the questioner to the responses to his or her question above. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiculturalism in Canada would presumably be the best place to start. If you are a Canadian high school student, you will have also learned the myth of the Canadian Mosaic. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic World in Toronto

Is there any Kazakh community, Turkmen community, Uzbek community and Kyrgyz community in Toronto according to 2001 and 2006 Canada Census? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.32 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Statistics Canada's census pages. The data should be there; I don't have time to look right now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also City of Toronto demographics - you can browse ward by ward for ethnocultural profiles. There's also an Uzbek restaurant in Toronto: [15]. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John II's nephew?

Something is amiss. In the article on John II, Count of Holland it says Floris V, Count of Holland is the nephew of John II. In the article on Adelaide of Holland it says Floris V is her nephew. Adelaide is the mother of John II. Explain please.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floris V is the son of William II of Holland, who was Adelaide's brother. Thus he is definately her nephew. Since John II is Adelaide's son, that would make Floris V the son of his mother's brother, and thus his first cousin, at least in THAT family. It is entirely possible that Floris could also have been John II's nephew on the other side of the family. John I of Avesnes, John II's father, had only one brother that I can find, one Baldwin; that would mean that Floris would have had to have been Baldwin's son in order to be considered John II's nephew on that side of the family. However, we know this not to be so. It looks as though the article may be in error unless someone else can come up with a better explanation. --Jayron32 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John I of Avesnes

The article on John I of Avesnes says ...John and his brother Baldwin undertook to receive imperial recognition of their legitimacy and did so from the Emperor Frederick II in March 1243. Is there details anywhere as to what it took for John II to get his legal rights for inheritance? What procedure and how often did he have to see Emperor Frederick II before he was intitled to his legal rights? John II ultimately became Count of Hainaut and Count of Holland, through his mother since he ultimately had legal rights to inheritance, in 1299 upon the death of Floris V's son.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did Hitler know allied countries would consider his murderous actions evil?

did Hitler know that the allied powers would think his murderous actions (specifically concentration camps) would be evil? If so, why didn't he "get rid" of the people he murdered by just shipping them somewhere instead, dumping them on an allied power's lawn like the police in rich neighborhoods will sometiems take the homeless and dump them in the slums just to get rid of them. Sorry for the naivete of the question, but I just don't see why Hitler or the Germans wouldn't have anticipated how evil their murderous concentration camps would make them seem in the eyes of other countries, even if they were total psychos who felt no remorse over the action itself. Even a cold, calculating psychopath knows how certain actions that don't bother his conscious personally would make him seem in the eyes of others, and so avoids doing those things. Why didn't Hitler avoid murderous concenctration camps based on the same principles, even if he didn't actually have anything like a conscience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.146.7 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were early discussions, continuing from the 1930's through 1940, of moving the Jews to some small and inhospitable country such as Madagascar, rather than killing them. The colonies of conquered European powers could be used for resettlement. Himmler wrote that "the physical eradication of a people" was a bolshevik behavior and un-German. Establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was discussed by the Nazi leaders but rejected.This was seen as something to be done after the war, since transport overseas for 4 million or more people would have been difficult in wartime, with the superiority of the British navy. Edison (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the assumption that England would... attack the transport ships? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would not matter, what would matter is that those ships would not be able to be used for moving war materials and troops if it were carrying refugees. Googlemeister (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even when they had an inkling they were losing they wanted Germany to have no Jews after the war. They were driven by efficiency considerations in carrying out their aims, not by fear of the allies. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you've answered half my question, guys, but you didn't address a kind of basis I had for the question, which I also put in questuon form: did Hitler and the Germans think that the allies would consider their murderous camps 'evil' (obviously they themselves did not, or they wouldn't have done it). 85.181.146.7 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no support for my belief, I would believe that Hitler thought the rest of the world would have thought it evil, or he would not have tried so hard to keep it secret. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this, I'm not sure that German has a word that is quite equivalent to the English word evil. The German words that could carry this meaning, böse and übel, don't have the same intensity, I think, because they have other, less intense meanings. For example, böse means naughty or morally bad. When a child is scolded, he may be told that he has been böse. Übel means nasty or offensive, such as a foul smell. I think that neither concept may have the same absolute quality as our evil, such that a German would feel shame or recoil from the thought that others might consider their actions böse or übel in the way that an English speaker would react to the thought that another person might consider his or her action "evil". As for why the final solution was kept secret, I don't think that we have to include Allied reaction as one of the reasons. I think that the Nazis were probably more concerned about destroying their legitimacy among elements of the German population who might be offended, such as liberals (in the European sense of the word) and devout Christians who weren't also anti-Semites. Marco polo (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once they found the war in the east was unlikely to be won, the SS went to great lengths to exhume corpses already buried and incinerate them[16].Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amory - the RAF did in fact attack and sink a shipload of 7,000 concentration camp prisoners in 1945[17] - not our finest hour.Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the Nazis cared (ed: as far as the moral justification of genocide goes) whether other countries thought the death camps were evil. Any dedicated Nazi who supported the death camps would presumably label critics as "Jew-sympathizers" and therefore not worth listening to. Have you read the Untermensch article? Under that philosophy, many Nazis thought genocide was OK. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for the outcome of a legal case (if it's publicly known)

Once on the news there was a story about a woman who had severely underdeveloped arms and did everything with her legs and feet who went to a McDonald's drive through and was humiliated by the employee there and not given her food. They said in the news piece that she was suing McDonald's for something like $2 million dollars (big surprise). I can't find anything on whether she won her case or not. Does anyone else know? 71.161.57.157 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This news story was in 2007, looks like. Googling "dawn larson" mcdonalds yields about 2,900 links; all of them I saw were from 2007; maybe you can dig deeper. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

payment

what is the minimum wage per hour for a 19 year old per hour in the netherlands