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.

November 8

Reasons for moonshine being illegal? (in the U.S.)

Prohibition ended a loooooooooooooooong time ago, and while there are still dry counties, these are few and far between. From what I understand, producing moonshine both for personal use and commercial use is illegal just about everywhere. I can understand how the latter would require taxation and FDA regulation, but if I can make my own beer & wine, why can't I distill my own grain alcohol? 216.93.191.242 (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not illegal to distill grain alcohol, it's just illegal to do it outside a licensed distillery. You can open a licensed distillery yourself if you have some money and are willing to jump through enough hoops. One hoops involves giving the key to the distillery, so they can pop in any time they like and make sure all your alcohol is accounted for and taxed. It's all about taxes, and has been since the Whiskey Rebellion. You're allowed to make beer and wine at home only in quantities toolow for you to sell profitably or them to think worth taxing. PhGustaf (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. If you want to distill legally, move to New Zealand. Hobby distillation is legal there. PhGustaf (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless done perfectly, distillation of alcohol can include fractions which could cause blindness and paralysis: [1],[2],[3], [4], [5]. Lead in the condensor can also be a problem. Is that a contraindication?Edison (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In addition to the tax issues, it can be dangerous to distil your own alcohol. If you do it wrong you can end up concentrating the really serious poisons rather than the ethanol. It is also easy to contaminate it by using dirty equipment (car radiators that still have traces of antifreeze, for example). See Moonshine#Safety. --Tango (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 3 reasons I know of, the first two of which have already been listed:

1) Taxes: Even if for your own personal consumption, the government still thinks this means they lose tax revenue because you won't be buying as much taxable liquor.

2) Safety - poison: Drinking moonshine can be dangerous to your health, as noted previously.

3) Safety - explosion hazard: Mixing alcohol and an open flame has the potential to cause a fire and/or explosion. StuRat (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A man making poteen was let off with a caution in Ireland I believe because it was well made without any contaminants. So it obviously takes some work to do it properly. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes are the motivation, remember: personal health and safety of citizens are justifications after the fact.--Wetman (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard "poteen" and thought you meant "poutine", and thought, "it's not that bad"! :) --Sean 14:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baron and Count of Thurn and Taxi

When were was the first member of the Thurn and Taxi family created Baron and later count? Was Leonhard I von Taxis (1544–1612) the first baron of Thurn and Taxi or Lamoral von Taxis (1612–1624). Also was Lamoral von Taxis (1612–1624) or Leonhard II von Taxis (1624–1628) the first count of Thurn and Taxi? Is there any dates of these creations?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility of the Holy Empire with ratification of arms 31 May 1512 for two sets of four brothers who were cousins

confirmation of Nobility of the Holy Empire and ratification of arms (Jean-Baptiste) 5 Jan 1534

Grand Postmaster General to the German Empire 16 June 1595

Lord and Baron of the Holy Empire (Leonard I de Taxis) 16 Jan 1608

Hereditary Grand Postmaster General of the Empire in the Netherlands, Lorraine and Burgundy 27 July 1615

Count of the Holy Empire 8 June 1624

Permission to bear the name and arms of the Counts von Thurn und Valsassina 24 Sept 1650

Prince de la Tour et Tassis 19 Feb 1681

Prince of the Holy Empire extended to all descendants 4 Oct 1695

Hereditary Grand Postmaster General of the Holy Empire 2 July 1744

Vote in the Council of Princes of the Holy Empire 30 May 1754 by virtue of the dignity of Hereditary Grand Postmaster General 30 May 1754.

The place to look for confirmation of who was specified would be the Almanach de Gotha (pretty much available online in pdfs served by the Biblioteche Nationale de France via Gallica, but it's a bit tedious. - Nunh-huh 09:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's last theorem

One of the most famous citations of Einstein is something like "There are only two infinite things: Universe and stupidity, and I'm not sure about the first". Yesterday, when I was lying on my bed this statement strike me-my God, how come that no one saw this before-Einstein last theorem was that stupidity is a space with infinite number of dimensions or an infinite dimension by itself. I was thrilled; it's not every day that you have such important scientific discovery at hand. But then I start wonder, like Ferma, Einstein didn't leave behind the mathematical prove for us-or that he did? I burrowed Einstein writings, I found that many things could be infinite in theory, for example, mass could be infinite when traveling at the speed of light, but for that infinite energy is needed, and we know that there is finite amount of energy in our universe-so both can't be really infinite. And then it cross my mind again, stupidity is not energy, nor it has a mass, and it's infinite-so it isn't a practical, but what could it be? Maybe the contradiction between the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics could be solved when applying stupidity as another dimension? It make no sense at all, and this only strength my mind that I'm on the right way, because Einstein arguments make no sense at all at the beginning-and then it turned to be that he was right. I spent the all night in a search for a solution, but in vein. My head became full of ideas, as like the spirit of Einstein himself reflected itself through me. Then I become tired and fall to sleep, while sleeping I had a vision: Einstein himself was speaking to me, as like he was trying to pass a massage to the entire universe through me, but I couldn't understand it as he was speaking German. So, could anyone prove that stupidity is infinite?( you may use mathmatical induction for that)--Gilisa (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-stupid: 1+1=2.

Stupid: 1+1=π or 1+1=a giraffe.

Even just sticking to real numbers that aren't 2 (or 10 if you want to go binary), you can come up with an infinite number of stupid examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's classic.--Gilisa (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there are an infinite number of stupid examples, we can start with the definition of stupidity as a property of a person, action or belief that indicates low intelligence. Let's say (you may disagree with this) that actions are done by people and beliefs are held by people so niether can exist without people. So modify the definition to: property of a person that indicates low intelligence. There are a finite amount of people who each have a finite time to hold beliefs and perform actions and a finite observable universe that those actions could affect. So the limitations on people imposes limitations on the extent of stupidity. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this doesn't directly contribute, but Einstein was not correct in everything he did, scientifically or otherwise. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, everything he said was not always to be taken to be a statement of scientific truth. See sarcasm and platitude, and depending on your opinion, wit. --Jayron32 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. He had a lively sense of humour (such as his explanation of relativity in terms of how more quickly the time goes when sitting next to a pretty girl than next to a less attractive woman). His humour was never intended to be subjected to rigorous scientific analysis. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klimt

Please, do you know the name of this Klimt's painting? http://www.ikea.com/at/de/catalog/products/50149720 Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water Snakes II ([6]) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was my salary in the year 19XX worth now, in the UK?

I used to do a moderately well-paid but very boring job. I'd like to find out what the equivalent salary would be now for the money I earnt then. One way to do this would be to adjust the money from 19XX for inflation to get the 2009 equivalent. Another way would be to get some idea of what percentile my salary was at in 19XX, and then find out what the salary at the same percentile would be now. As people's incomes have been slowly rising by more than inflation, as the population's standard of living has slowly risen over the years, then the answer from this method will probably be different. Can anyone tell me where I could get the information for either methods please? 78.147.8.170 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This [7] site has a calculator to convert your income from year X (minimum 1930) to a theoretical current level. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different jobs have had pay rise at different rates so if you want to know what you could earn doing that job now you would be better off looking for vacancies and seeing what salaries are on offer. --Tango (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tango is correct. Certain jobs have seen salaries rise beyond average (and vice versa) because of (dropping of) government encouragement, scarcity, changes in technology, changes in relative pricing etc.

Risking looking stupid, I'll give an example with two ill-educated guesses:

I can't imagine that a plumber with, say, five years experience in 1960 could enjoy anything like the quality of life he could expect today.

Conversely, and perhaps equally stupidly, I also suspect that in 1960, a primary school teacher with 5 years experience would have had a relatively better income compared with society at large, than today. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which Saint Rose?

St. Rose Catholic Church in western Ohio (specifically, Marion Township, Mercer County) was established in 1839 among primarily German settlers. Any idea which of the three Saints Rose is most likely (or least unlikely) to be the patron? I can't find anything on the already-linked parish website, and this document — the only other one that I can find that deals with the history of the parish — doesn't discuss the question either. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rose of Lima is your most likely Rose for an American church. Of the 3 listed, Saint Rose Philippine Duchesne is impossible: she was canonized after the church was named. The site you point to seems to indicate that the name arose from the flowers found on the site: they presumably picked a St. Rose afterwards. (I'm guessing they chose St. Rose of Lima because they're American, which would be even more likely if they're of the Dominican Order. But there are other Stse. Rose. The only way to be sure would be to write them. - Nunh-huh 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I emailed a related church yesterday — St. Augustine Catholic Church, a short distance to the east, to ask if their patron is the Doctor or the first Archbishop of Canterbury — so I was planning to email them, but thought it best to wait until Monday. FYI, the church has always been related to the Society of the Precious Blood. One other thing that I should have mentioned: it seems also to have been called "St Rosa" at one time, as I've seen that name used to refer to the crossroads community in which it is located, and "St Rosa" is the name over the entrance to the cemetery. Would this shed any light on the subject? I observe that we have no article on St. Rosa, and I'm assuming "Rosa" is a variant of "Rose". Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since St. Rose of Lima was Peruvian, her Spanish name would have been Santa Rosa de Lima, so I think that supports her as the likely namesake. - Nunh-huh 07:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before posting this thread, I'd not observed that St Rose Philippine Duchesne hadn't yet been canonised. I assumed that "Rosa" would be sensible for the Peruvian saint, but the Italian name for the Italian saint is "Rosa", so I wasn't sure. Your reminder that St Rose of Lima is the patron saint of the Americas is enough for me: I'm only trying to put the church in the right subcategory of Commons:Category:Churches by patron saint, so original research isn't a problem. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iambic pentameter

In Shakespearean England, did everyone speak in iambic pentameter? --75.39.192.162 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? --Tango (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of Shakespeare's plays were written in iambic pentameter, which would seem to indicate that it was the main style of speech at the time. --75.39.192.162 (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it helpful to compare with an old sitcom: watch how everyone talks in a strange 'stagey' way, pausing after every line to allow the audience to react. People no more talked like this in normal life than they talked in iambic pentameter: it's merely a convention of that specific type of drama, used to give a specific effect and match expectations.

This reminds me of something I read about American stage-acting of the 19th - early 20th century, something about the 'stagey' style of acting and talking which was utterly different from naturalistic acting or British stage-acting, or later film-acting. Anyone have links? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the iambic pentameter states in the first sentence: "Iambic pentameter is one of many meters used in poetry and drama." It remains to be researched if life in Elizabethan England was sufficiently poetic and dramatic for everyone to satisfy such conditions. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Molière's 17th-century comedy, Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme Monsieur Jourdain is astonished and delighted to find that he's been speaking prose all along. Natural English speech often falls into iambic patterns.--Wetman (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of WP:OR, but if you read and most importantly watch a lot of Shakespeare, you may eventually notice something: While the main characters tend to stick to the pentameter, characters of lower stature (porters, guards, etc.) regularly deviate and speak in a normal parlance. I would be akin to the perceived differences in British accents today, such as Cockney or the Queen's. The majority of Shakespeare's patrons were the poor villagers, and they would have likely noticed the distinction between how they and the upper-class characters spoke. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If poetry were ere the spoken norm
The iambic pentameter the rule,
Then those of us who lacked a sense of form
Would find the strain of speaking far too cruel.
And scholars then would rule the world with dread:
You'd need one every time you bought some bread.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a number of speeches by Queen Elizabeth I online. In contrast to the speeches of Shakespearean leaders, none of the real-world speeches by Elizabeth are in iambic pentameter; all are in prose[8][9][10].--Lesleyhood (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

death sentence and president approval

Does the American president have to approve any death sentence in USA or that he must approve only soldiers death penalties?--Gilisa (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three different cases:

1) State death penalties (this is the common type): The President has no authority over the use of these. In this case the governor of the state in question has the right to grant pardons, but is not involved in the original sentencing.

2) Federal death penalties (outside the military, extremely rare): The President does have the authority to grant pardons, commute sentences, etc., but only after the original sentencing.

3) US military death penalties (extremely rare): In this case the President is in the chain of command above the military courts, and could theoretically influence the original sentencing. However, they are typically very "hands off" at this point, in order to not be accused of inappropriate influence over the court. After sentencing, the President again has the right to pardon sentences, commute them, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln, from 1861-1865 issued numerous pardons, including for civil convictions for treasonand military convictions for desertion. Edison (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean civilian convictions for treason? "Civil" in this contest means the opposite of "criminal" rather than the opposite of "military". --Tango (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference says Lincoln issued "civil warrants" to pardon those convicted in "civil courts." Edison (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "civil" in this context is "civilian." These were federal courts dealing with charges related to the war - the sort of thing that would be included in StuRat's second type.B00P (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about soldiers, but for ordinary citizens, the prison system may carry out a death sentence without seeking the President's involvement at all. The President has the power to grant clemency, which converts the death sentence into a lesser sentence. In theory, a President could issue a Blanket clemency order converting all death sentences to life-imprisonment sentences, but as far as I know, no President has ever come close to doing anything like that. As our Blanket clemency article says, though, Governor George Ryan of Illinois issued a blanket clemency to all death row inmates in 2003, and I recall at the time that other governors considered following suit. --M@rēino 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Capital punishment by the United States federal government - the last execution of a U.S. soldier occurred in 1961, so it isn't much of an issue. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might be an issue in a couple of years when that guy from Fort Hood gets the needle or the chair or whatever is used these days. Googlemeister (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Democratic Parties

I have two questions to ask you:

1. Are Christian democratic parties left-wing or right-wing?

2. Is the Christian Democratic Party in Australia left-wing or right-wing?

3. Is Christian democracy left-wing or right-wing?

Bowei Huang (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually Christian Democratic parties are conservative, i.e. right, although exceptions might exist. The party in Australia is right-wing (see Christian Democratic Party (Australia)). For more information, you can consult Christian democracy. Regards So Why 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in what ways they may not be useful in this context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraphs of our article on Left-right politics may shed some light. Also the last paregraph of the section Contemporary usage in the United States specifically mentions Christian conservatives in general identifying with the right-wing. Vespine (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Christian Democrats would claim, at least in some circumstances, to be centrist, progressive or non-secular liberal rather than conservative: you really have to look at the specific political universe in which they operate. The predecessor to the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union in Germany was in fact called the Zentrumspartei or Centre Party aligned between the Nationalists on their Right and the Social Democrats and Communists on their left. In the Low Countries (Benelux), where party alignments have changed in the last decade or two, the historical position of Christian Democratic parties was to the left of the Liberal parties on economics, taxes and social welfare, but to their right on issues such as secularism/clericalism and moral regulation. In the post-war Fourth French Republic, a similar position was taken by the Mouvement Républicain Populaire (MRP), a Catholic party which grew out of the Resistance and collaborated with the Socialists and the Radicals. There's no space here to expound at length on Social Catholicism, Rerum Novarum or Quadragesimo Anno, but (like Monsignor John A. Ryan in the United States) many Catholics sought a non-Marxist response to the atomising effects of capitalism, industrialism, urbanism and modernisation that would restore the solidarity and mutual support of rural societies. However, what had been the historical positions of the parties over much of the 20th century has changed in recent decades. Often the Christian Democrats grew at the expense of more-right-wing parties (as in Germany and Italy) and by default occupied the right-hand slot in their nations' politics. In a basically secular country like Australia without an established Church, the Christian Democrats are usually right-wing groups focused on moral/religious issues such as abortion, homosexuality and pornography. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few examples of Christian Democratic parties siding with the left in Latin America (such as in Uruguay). However, contemporary Christian Democracy is generally identified as right, centre-right or centrist. --Soman (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antigone

In the original Greek, did Antigone rhyme or have a standard meter? --75.15.163.184 (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek tragedies were written in various meters for different scenes and characters (the chorus had a different meter than the main character, for example). I don't think they rhymed, just because rhyme is not usually a feature of ancient meters, which depend more on the aesthetics of syllable lengths. Antigone was the same, it didn't have one standard meter. It's like Shakespeare that way, minus the rhyming. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page in an introduction to the play discusses matters metrical. --Sean 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

Begrüßungsgeld

In 1988 West Germany, what can you buy with your 100 DM "welcome money"? F (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the data from this source and this source and doing the math, I find that DM 100 in 1988 would be worth about €71 in 2008. There has been very little inflation since 2008, so that number is about right for today. That would be enough money to stay in the cheapest accommodation, such as a youth hostel, for 2 nights and maybe to buy about 2 days worth of cheap food. That might be enough to get by before one could expect to qualify for assistance from the West German state, although they may well have had facilities free of charge for refugees. Alternatively, that amount could buy a train ticket (maybe not on an express train) to most parts of Germany. When the Berlin wall was opened, I think that many of the East Berliners who flooded across used their welcome money to buy small luxuries or consumer goods that they couldn't get in the east. Marco polo (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would, for example, have bought you 20 pounds of coffee, 4-5 meals in non-fancy restaurants, one meal in a fancy restaurant, 100 l of milk or 10 kg of chocolate, 12 cinema tickets, or 15 paperback books. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is the relationship between truth and reality?

what is the relationship between truth and reality, if any. 92.230.65.3 (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Aristotle (from memory): "To say of that which is that it is not, or of that which is not that it is, is untrue, whereas to say of that which is that it is, or of that which is not that it is not, is true." Reality would be "that which is", and truth would be the property of being an accurate statement about reality. Aristotle is not being flip, rather he is drawing a picture of the blindingly obvious to draw our attention to the fact that it really is blindingly obvious. That is, he's trying to say that "truth" and "untruth" and their relationship to reality are irreducible and you can't really explain them to someone who does not understand, or pretends not to (Socratic irony has its limits). But that's just one view. If you don't like it, other philosophers have others.--Rallette (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To most people, "truth" is an absolute. That is, "truth" = "reality". There are a minority, however, that think of "truth" as relative, or, in other words, it's whatever you think it is, regardless of reality. A prime example of that type of thinking is in the book Nineteen Eighty Four, where it is argued that if everyone thinks that 2+2=5, then it does. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is how reality is perceived. For example, think of the story of the blind men and the elephant. They were asked to describe the elephant based on what they perceived by touching it. Four of them said an elephant is like a tree trunk: one said it was like a snake: one said it was like a whip with hair at the end. Of course, it isn't like that - but that was their perception, and to them that was the truth. It's the basis behind qualitative analysis in social sciences: asking people how they perceive a service, rather than relying on quantitative analysis which only tells you numbers. For example, consider a charity which provides a service funded by an external agency such as the NHS. It can provide a really good service which meets all the targets regarding bums on seats/footfall, but if service users give negative feedback, then funders are likely to withdraw the funding. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romantic friendship

Could I get some info that has to do with the same topic as romantic friendship, but heterosexual focused? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Platonic love useful to you? --Tango (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closer, but I guess I'm looking for more information on the modern definition stated in the first sentence as applied to heterosexual romantic friendships, and on the heterosexual romantic friendships themselves. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 08:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed at length in Theodore Zeldin's An Intimate History of Humanity. Book has references you could look up, too. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, inappropriate comments

No, girls who aren't into you sexually are not going to cuddle with you, you might as well forget it. 92.230.65.3 (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I had a friend who wasn't lesbian but she cuddled and even kissed me sometimes because she knew I liked her, but it was always clear that this was just for me and wasn't going to go any further —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.85 (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the funnier, and somewhat insulting, responses I have ever seen at the reference desk. If you must know, I am doing research for AP Psychology. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a bit more specific please, what section of that article is closest to what you want? By the way many people fool themselves a friendship is just that but they turn into affairs. Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat difficult to phrase...basically, like said above, "Platonic love, in its modern popular sense...non-sexual affectionate relationship" or "romantic friendship...very close but non-sexual relationship between friends". I can find a plethora of information on purely romantic relationships or non-romantic friendships, but I can never seem to find any information on what falls in between, which is what I am looking for. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends with benefits? Casual relationship? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are usually explicitly not romantic. They are just sexual. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, they rarely last long without any romantic feelings whatsoever, and often something in between develops. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I perhaps looking for a relationship style that doesn't exsist (or at least hasn't been widely studied) when I think "A) Romantic feelings, B) No sexual desire, and C) very close friendship" all rolled into one? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you put it that way, that just sounds like marriage ten years in! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1,000,000 Mike R (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World War II British submarine sonar operators

I'm researching British WWII submarine sonar operators. I've found a lot of useful information on the web, but I've been unable to find answers to the following two questions:

What wages would a sonar operator have earned? Where would he fit into the command hierarchy?

Please could somebody point me in the right direction? Yes, I admit this is homework, but I've spend a lot of time looking for answers to these two questions, and have drawn a blank.

Thanks in advance.--168.168.43.250 (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best links I can find are this from a British operator, and this from a US one. In both cases the operators are enlisted men, not officers, and seem to be only a couple of ranks up the ladder from the bottom. Knowing that should let you find out what the wages were - I doubt they were paid more than others of their rank. Even in WWII everyone on a ship had a specific job, usually a pretty technical one. It may help with your search to know that during WWII the British usually referred to Sonar as ASDIC.

Have a look at this [11]; the relevant RN rank (near the bottom of the page) might be Submarine Detector Instructor, Higher Submarine Detector and Submarine Detector. Then look here [12]: (click bottom right of the image to enlarge). "Rate per diem"...

"Submarine Detector Instructor: 1s 9d

Higher Submarine Detector: 0s 9d or 1s 0d

Submarine Detector: 0s 6d

Anti-Submarine Officer's Writer (ie clerk): 0s 3d"

I'm fairly sure that this is in addition to their usual daily rates of pay, which you can find here [13] - Ordinary Seaman, Leading Seaman etc etc. Hope this helps. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again - it looks from your question as though you mean an ASDIC operator in a submarine rather than on a surface warship. Therefore Page 33 (my second link above) says...

"Submarine pay: 0s 9d to 3s 9d

Rangefinding allowance 0s 2d

Hydrophone allowance 0s 3d"

I don't know if ASDIC would be "rangefinding" but I don't see what else you could use underwater. I don't think they would mention ASDIC by name because it was secret. A hydrophone is a listening device - does it need more skill than ASDIC? I'm raising more questions than I'm answering I'm afraid! Alansplodge (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Rangefinding" may refer to the parallax rangefinder in the sub's periscope. Knowing the distance and speed of your target was essential for proper aiming of torpedoes. --Carnildo (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but in old films, it's always the Skipper that gets to look through the periscope. My grandfather was a submariner, but is no longer with us to ask. Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sstock markets

Differences and similarities between Primary markets and Secondary markets 12:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.34.165 (talk)

Apples and pears - participants, structure, pricing, settlement and regulation are all different. Only similarity is instruments - a security issued in the primary market may subsequently be traded in the secondary markets. See primary market and secondary market. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humans arguing with God

The Old Testament contains occasional examples of human prophets arguing with or at least strongly debating with God (2 examples: Abraham lobbying for the saving of Sodom; Moses arguing with God not to destroy the Israelites after the Golden Calf episode). Are there similar examples in the New Testament and / or the Qur'an, other than, perhaps, repeats of the OT stories? --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, all the time. By turning into a human, God was able to talk and directly interact with people on a daily basis MBelgrano (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MBelgrano, I don't think that he meant to that (and is there any example when people argue against Jesus and then after he change his mind?). In Judaism there is a discipline that explain the meaning of these "debates" (which seen ,in a nutshell, as advocacy by Jewish scholars).--Gilisa (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's doen all the time, lots of prayers are like that. Dmcq (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean where the text makes it clear there's a dialogue, and man and God are arguing back and forth. Probably without the need for colon indents and wikimarkup. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything like that in the NT. —Akrabbim^talk 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller I know no such stories in the Qur'an and certainly not in the NT. One reason for that there are no such stories in the NT, is that according to the NT Jesus served as one person sacrifice to pardon all humanity so he ccouldn't go against his mission and debate with God about it. Also, NT concept of God is very different than this Judaism have (no trinity in Judaism). More, the attitude of NT about crime and punishment is pretty much different from this of the Hebrew Bible.--Gilisa (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since I posted, I wondered if Jesus's words on the cross counted, but my hazy memory of the text is that there's no recorded reply from the Father. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Islam there's the story of how Allah wanted everyone to pray to him 50 times a day, and Mohammed argued with him and bargained him down to "just" 5 times a day. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm after. Sounds like Allah is arguing back, too. Source please... online version would be great if possible. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an online source: [14]. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a work of fiction, not a holy book, but Fiddler on the Roof has some hilarious examples of Tevye bargaining with God, such as "I understand that we are the chosen people, but, just this once, couldn't you maybe choose somebody else ?" (spoken right before an impending pogrom). StuRat (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but God doesn't argue back. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I forgot this one. It somehow have resemblance to the course of the discussion Abraham had with God about the sentence of Sodom people. There, God asked somewhat relatively high number of righteous ones among Sodom people but Abraham pleading decrease it to Ten. There are other fundamental differences between what is written in the bible and the story in the Quran (e.g., in the Hebrew bible all "arguments" had the purpose to call off a disaster, but never a commandment), but it's too long for here.--Gilisa (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus also talked with God, begging to be spared of the crucifixion. God doesn't seem to have answered directly though, and didn't change his mind at all (read Arrest of Jesus). Flamarande (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He begged not to be crucified? Hmm..pretty much contrary to what I know: According to the NT, didn't he prayed to be able to stand it and was told by the devil that one man can't carry the burden of humanity sins (refering to Jesus intent to be crucified)?--Gilisa (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Garden of Gethsemane: Matthew 26, Verse 42: "He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. ". 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How this say that he begged for the crucifiction to be cancelled?--Gilisa (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilisa, I'm aware that English is not your first language. Maybe you should look the verse up in your mother tongue? It's clearer in verse 39 "(...)My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." It's not the most ferocious arguing, since he's saying "Please, if there's any way around this, don't make me do this. But I'll still do your will if you don't change your mind."

Edit to add: I realise I'm assuming familiarity with the context. You might be better off reading the whole chapter in your first language. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.142.224.71, give me a break. English is not my first language but I understand very well what is written in the NT. Thank you for the interpretation you gave, but it was realy unneeded. All he said is that if there is another way -then he would prefer it. But if not, then he's willing to take it. This is very different from the case of Sodom, where Abraham asked God to judge Sodom indulgently -as it may be that Sodom people are not all the same and he asked God to give more weight to the righteous ones and to spare the all city for them (he actually bargained), until he understand that Sodom is totaly corrupted and evil.--Gilisa (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Certainly no offence was intended. You asked how this said he begged for the crucifixion to be cancelled, and you asked in a way that made it apparent that English was not your first language. Since this particular, very widely accepted, interpretation depends on you interpreting metaphor, it seemed helpful to suggest you read it in your own language rather than trying to translate it after it's been translated into English. Metaphor is tricky in a language that is not your native tongue, since you can't always tell what is idiom. Indeed, as I noted, it is not the most ferocious arguing, since he is ultimately submitting to God's will. But he is trying to change God's mind, if possible. 86.142.231.220 (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the indivisibility of the Trinity alluded to in a later section on this page, "not as I will but as you will" is fairly odd in this context. I guess God was in two minds about the whole business :) As for the original question, Jesus rarely argued purely and simply but many of his parables were in response to questions which could be considered debate arguments. A lot of this was in attempts to trick Jesus into contradicting scripture. Render unto Caesar details one well-known example. In John 12, Judas argues with Jesus about Mary's use of expensive anointing oils. Grutness...wha? 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's where you get into the whole humanity of Jesus thing, whereby a lot of mainstream branches of Christianity hold that he was both wholly man and wholly God. It would therefore be the wholly human Jesus who was doing all the doubting and worrying and suffering. I guess for the purposes of this question, that probably means we can't use examples with Jesus. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is much simpler if you see the term "son of God" as mutually exclusive with the term "God the son" (which never occurs in the original text). But there is too many centuries of theology mixed in for that to be accepted. —Akrabbim^talk 01:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The end of The Book of Job has similar features, but is more of a monologue style. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book of Job is part of the Hebrew bible and not of the NT. And anyway, Job is not arguing with God -as you wrote, it's much more a monologue.--Gilisa (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State Visit

Do world leaders ever share a "brainstorming session" or do they always go into a meeting with a set position. Can you provide some examples where a world leader left a meeting with a different position after talking with another? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully a little of both, but in truth there's probably a lot more of the former. I also bet that there's actually a lot of so-called brainstorming behind the scenes before the leaders actually meet; those meetings are usually more about getting a feel for a process. As an example, though, take the relatively recent situation of and Afghani runoff election. John Kerry traveled there and "unexpectedly" convinced Hamid Karzai to agree to a runoff.[15][16] ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea is also potentially relevant. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a world leader, but I would assume that it's 0% brainstorming, because these guys only get a couple of hours to meet and they probably have a large backlog of issues to negotiate. They have underlings that spend a lot of time brainstorming (hopefully in meetings with the other side as well). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stereotypical situation, as beautifully exemplified in Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, is that the officials write the final communiqué on the plane while going to the conference/summit, before it's even started. How far that differs from real life, I couldn't say, but hopefully quite a lot. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is about right - someone (perhaps the host) writes the communique based on behind-the-scenes discussions that preceded the meeting and then the meeting takes the form of negotiating over the final wording of that communique. That's for things like the G20 meetings - one-one-one meetings between world leaders are probably more variable depending on the relationship between the countries and leaders. --Tango (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be overly cynical about such meetings. They are in fact occasions where important matters are discussed and decisions are taken. Communiqués are written by bureaucrats with limited decision-making powers. They are prepared and quibbled over in advance because they usually cover very different ground than the actual contents of the meeting. It is very rare for leaders to actually spend time in a summit arguing over the communiqué language, unless it is a legally-binding text.

Leaders will be thoroughly briefed and scripted by their officials before a summit meeting, but in the end they are the decision makers and can ignore the script. In fact, it happens quite often, and officials must scramble to pretend they know that these decisions were coming their way and are perfectly consistent with whatever spin they were giving before the meeting. An interesting case of a meeting that went off script is the 1986 Reykjavik Summit between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan; it was supposed to be a fairly benign, "get to know each other and repeat well-known positions" type of meeting, but the two leaders got into serious discussions about significant reductions in nuclear arms. While no agreement resulted, the mutual confidence the meeting and the wide-ranging discussion helped build between the two superpowers served to increase mutual confidence and hasten the end of the Cold War. Of course, at the time, many observers were greatly surprised and thought the two leaders were bonkers. --Xuxl (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

It apparently violates the establishment clause to either ban the teaching of evolution or require the teaching of flaws in evolution. However, would it be legal for a state to, rather than specifically banning evolution, simply remove evolution from the required state curriculum and not include any questions about evolution on their standardized assessments? ----J4\/4 <talk> 18:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We´re not US lawyers, and therefore we're not qualified to answer this question. I humbly suggest you ask this question to a lawyer and to the Supreme Court of the United States as your question concerns the rights of the states (making this a constitutional matter). That court seems to be qualified enough to answer this particular question.Flamarande (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, just because YOU are not a US lawyer, doesn't mean other participants on this reference desk are not. Also, being "qualified" to answer a question is not a prerequisite to answering questions here. My point is the question can be discussed and answered without being "official". Tan | 39 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this would be held to be unconstitutional in the United States, under Edwards v. Aguillard. Your proposal lacks "a clear secular purpose", and I would argue it "undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education," which were fundamental requirements in the ruling for such an act to be nonviolative of the Establishment Clause. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of what creationists call "Flaws in evolution" are presented to students. They're just not presented in the distorted, blown out of proportion way that you'd get from a anti-evolution tract. They're presented, correctly, as minor details that are still being worked out, points still undergoing debate or research, or as questions that are yet to be answered. It's an important part of good science education to teach that the process is ongoing and that our knowledge is constantly being refined. APL (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Duplicate question is at Science ref desk). We had this same question not too long ago, I think. It would almost surely fail the Lemon test, as banning evolution would serve no secular purpose. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't be banning evolution, per se. Each state has the right to create its own standard curricula. If they can choose to omit other topics because they simply believe they aren't important enough to merit time, they should be allowed to do the same with evolution for the same reason. The "secular purpose" would be that the legislators creating the state standards don't feel that evolution is important enough to merit any class time. The Supreme Court has held that banning evolution is unconstitutional; this would merely make it so that evolution isn't required. Teachers would still be allowed to teach evolution, provided they covered everything in the state curriculum first. --75.40.206.243 (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, 'evolution' which is largely considered to be a relevant issue of education of the modern world could be de facto banned through sneaky arguments, sneaky methods, and sneaky rules-lawyering. I'm truly glad that I'm not a lawyer. Flamarande (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really wouldn't be banned, though. I think that in districts with large numbers of educated parents, parents would force the local board of education to mandate evolution in addition to the state standards. The main effect of such a move would probably be to further disadvantage students who live in districts with lower levels of education, who would then have trouble gaining admission to good universities. Such a move could well have this effect even on students from that state whose districts did teach evolution through guilt by association. This would rouse the state's elite to demand reinstatement of evolution into the state curriculum. As the case of Kansas demonstrates, attempts to discourage the teaching of evolution tend to lose out to educated parents' desire to safeguard their children's future. Even where it is outnumbered, the economic (and educational) elite tends to win out in our system of pay-to-play, for better or worse. Marco polo (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you agree with 75's argument, which I don't buy. The ostensible purpose he listed would be laughed out of court by any judge, IMO. To some extent the OP is asking us to be a WP:CRYSTALBALL but I think it's reasonable to believe that the OP's strategy (and 75's) would fail when appealed to the federal court level. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the questioner asks is exactly what the Kansas State Board of Education did when creationists got control over it in 1999. They de-emphasized evolution in the state science curriculum and removed it from standardized tests. The changes were reversed in 2001 after an election. See Creation and evolution in public education. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That change was never declared unconstitutional. It was merely reversed when the atheists took control of Kansas's educational system. --76.194.203.5 (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "atheists took control of the Kansas's educational system"? How did they manage to do that? Flamarande (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very unlikely. More likely it was taken over by Christians who aren't such fundamentalist extremists that they would be willing to sacrifice their children's education to make a political point. APL (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, last offer: no banning, no purging, no book burning. What about just "conveniently forgetting" the science-based answer to who we are, and why, and at the same time constantly chanting one randomly chosen religion-based answer? Would that work? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it was the teachers doing that, it wouldn't make any difference at all, would it? Science teachers aren't likely to voluntary go against mainstream scientific opinion in large numbers. --Tango (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't give a religion-based answer. You can either give the science based answer, or, potentially no answer at all. (I buy Marco polo's argument, after thinking about it, that just leaving it off requirements would probably be able to squeak by). But the courts have made it pretty clear that a religious-based answer (whatever religion) is not going to fly. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching a randomly-chosen, religion-based answer to the origin of life is clearly unconstitutional under Edwards v. Aguillard. Doing so has no clear secular purpose, so must be assumed to be religiously motivated, and is hence a forbidden violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Mr.98's suggestion above also would be forbidden under this precedent, as it cannot be demonstrated that omitting the discussion of evolution, the foundation of all modern biology, has a clear secular purpose; it must be religiously based, and therefore the omission is forbidden. I think everyone interested in this topic should read the Edwards opinion itself; it's good reading. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

god

is god made of cells? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.161.249 (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?DIVISION BY ZERO ERROR

READY. Tan | 39 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trinity is indivisible. Or so it is asserted. Which implies to me that there aren't loads of separate cells. Or maybe the adhesion between the cells is very strong. How do you expect anyone to determine an answer? I only know you are composed of cells by assuming you are human and knowing all humans checked so far are composed of cells. Dmcq (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who believe, God is not made of matter, but of ineffable spirit (not the stuff you drink). For those who don't believe, he doesn't exist at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You erroneously assert that Gods existence depends upon Man's belief. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, ineffability. I'd been reading about inaccessible and ineffable cardinals but they seem distinctly non-religious :) (sorry an in-joke) Dmcq (talk)

The up-side of arguing he is made of cells is that he did, according to Genesis, make man in his image, so presumably there is some resemblance. But it does seem rather backwards to think of God having mitochondria, rather than being the maker of mitochondria. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in his spiritual image. That's why it's often truly been said that we are not so much humans who sometimes have spiritual experiences, but spiritual beings who are currently having a human experience. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. God is most definitely made of cells. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." (Of course, if you're not Mormon, results may vary.) --M @r ē ino 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the first point of clarification should be, "Which god?" DOR (HK) (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As M wrote, you will have different answers from different religions. According to Judaism, and I guess that Islam accept it to at the least certain extent, God have no body image, it's not material and we can't imagine it. According to Christianity the answers are different, mostly.--Gilisa (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, God is omnipresent, therefore He is one cell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.151.83 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DC Sniper's Execution

Minutes ago, the US Supreme Court denied request to stay his execution (tomorrow 9pm EST). He has no salvation right? --190.50.123.131 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The governor can always pardon him or commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Salvation says under " What must we do to be saved?": "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"[Acts 2:38] So salvation is still within his grasp. Edison (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But since he is a Muslim he is probably more interested in what Allah has to say about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster probably wasn't speaking about "salvation" from a spiritual perspective--just my reading, at least. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Salvation lies within" - Inscribed by the warden on a Bible which contained the rock hammer used to escape, in The Shawshank Redemption. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think this particular prisoner has had the time for that route. Googlemeister (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

(He has now been executed, and Q's don't get more resolved than that.) StuRat (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TICAD

Since TICAD is a forum like FOCAC the title is the 4th time when is the last TICAD? Did all the leaders go or most of them i didn't see Robert Mugabe and Paul Biya. how long was the program? I wonder if Yasuo Fukuda have meet with any African first ladies?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Our article Tokyo International Conference on African Development says the conference is held every five years, and also specifies that TICAD III was held in 2003.

(2) That article also links you to the article TICAD-IV_Delegations, which lists the 40 heads of state who attended. (There are 53 countries in Africa so that's 75% attendance for the heads of state.) Neither Cameroon nor Zimbabwe are listed as participants.

(3) The official program (PDF file) was for a three-day conference starting with a reception the evening before, followed by two full nine-hour days and one half day.

(4) I can't answer this. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

crackdown on fakes

I read in a fashion magazine about this campaign called Fakes Are Never In Fashion. It must've inspired federal officials in New York City to conduct raids. I hope similar things are conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Chicago, Miami, and many other big cities across the United States of America. What are officials all over the world doing about fakes?24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "must've?" Depending on how they make 'em, fake products (bags, usually) aren't necessarily illegal, but the way they are sold is. There has actually been a fair amount of press about all the good fake purses do. A $300-$800 bag is only available to a limited market, and thus fakes aren't necessarily taking away business from the big companies. Fakes for 20 or 30 bucks a pop allow people to have the appearance of such a bag - think professionals or teenagers - without having to throw down all the cash. Moreover, the fakes increase the visibility of the product, and are essentially free advertising. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China might be of some interest here. China is one of the biggest producers of pirate material, both electronic and material, and it is of import to international politics how the issue is dealt with, because of the influence industry has on the politics of the most developed nations. Steewi (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edited to fix wikilink Steewi (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, fakes do take away some of the exclusivity of the brands they are copying, and the idea of having something that most people don't have is presumably at least a part of the motivation for spending (as it seems to me) ludicrous amounts of money on these items. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officials in many countries have for years, periodically raided counterfeiters. Perhaps the Fakes Are Never In Fashion campaign has sorta inspired these people to do what they already do, or inspired their paymasters to publicise some raid or other. The campaign itself appears to be a creation of Harper's Bazaar, spearheaded by their senior vice president & publisher, Valerie Salembrier. Lord knows what the deeper politics of it all are. Harper's Bazaar is owned by Hearst Communications. Harpers and other of their titles, such as Cosmopolitan, receive huge amounts of advertising from vendors of luxury goods; so perhaps it's some form of enlightened self interest. Or perhaps she's just genuinely really concerned. As she says, "Counterfeit goods fund child labor, terrorism and drug cartels" ... much the same schtick as we've heard from the RIAA and MPAA. One would think that drugs fund drug cartels, but who am I to doubt these things? And presumably not-fake stuff never funds child labour, by some miracle of the market. And one can well picture Osama, down the King's Road, trying to flog fake Gucci sunglasses to fund his holy war. Whilst one can have some sympathy for the rights of intellectual property holders, the whole shebang is really much more about shoring up the profits of LVMH than it is any concern about the supposed down-sides. And this takes us back to the bands of public officials, paid for by your taxes, who police the market in the interests of the profit of multinationals. So, bottom line: it is not clear cut to me that it is such a great thing to encourage more use of public funds for this purpose, when civil routes to protection of IP are available. </rant> --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about counterfeit pharmaceuticals? Do they qualify as fakes?24.90.204.234 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do, if you like - Counterfeit medications. We also have counterfeit consumer goods, should you wish for any. Clearly some problems arising from some counterfeit drugs are of a different order than for a dodgy handbag. There's no limit to the ingenuity of fakers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the computer industry is helping out with the crackdown on counterfeit software and equipment.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can imagine what counterfeit computer equipment would look like, I'm having more trouble grasping the concept of counterfeit software... On the one hand, if it is a straight out copy, then it's not counterfeit but piracy, on the other hand, if you talk about software that looks very much like other software, there's always the copyright law notion of "ideas can not be copyrighted" - i.e. Microsoft cannot sue OpenOffice, for instance, since they use the same idea for word processors and such. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's counterfeit is the packaging—the CDs are printed to look like official Microsoft CDs, there's a fake certificate of authenticity, etc. -- BenRG (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Never came across one of those. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The software people have organisations such as the Federation Against Software Theft, which do what they can. I tend to think they're in the pockets of the larger IT companies, and that they may act against other legitimate IP interests. Once more I do not share your evident enthusiasm for crackdowns. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people from Hong Kong will use their fake LV handbag on regular occasions, leaving their real LV for formal events.F (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

Citizenship of the Queen

What is Queen Elizabeth II's citizenship? Obviously British, but she is the Queen of 14 other realms, officially head of state. So, for example, she is the Queen of Canada, a separate crown from that of Great Britain. Does she also hold that citizenship? 70.79.246.134 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC) (edited to added the login of the asker Aaronite (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Citizenship in the U.K. is related to the idea of being a British subject, quite literally it means "A subject of (subordinate of) the British Crown" and as such, the concept that the Queen would be a subject to herself is a patently silly idea. Furthermore, the concept of "official citizenship" is basically one of bureaucratic paper pushing; the sort of thing that commoners need to worry about, and not what the Monarch worries about. The queen is just the queen. She is both a sovereign (as a person) and sovereign (as a concept). In otherwords, at the theoretical level, the Queen is under the jurisdiction of no one except God; and as such needed worry about things like citizenship. In practical matters, Parliament rules the U.K. (and the various national assemblies likewise rule other Commonwealth realms). However, the "pomp and circumstance" surrounding the Government of the U.K. at least plays along with the idea that the Queen is the ultimate source of all sovereignty in the U.K. (with ideas like Her Majesty's Government, etc.) To sum up, she isn't the citizen of anywhere, because being a citizen would mean she denies her own sovereignty. --Jayron32 05:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, there. As you'll see if you follow the link, the concept of "British subject" has been redefined several times and the term is now almost obsolete. Citizens of the UK are just citizens of the UK now, like the way it works in most countries. --Anonymous, 08:41 UTC, November 10, 2009.

I agree with Jayron - whatever the rules on UK Citizenship, they don't apply to the Queen. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's 15 other realms, btw. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I too agree with Jayron, I'd have to say that if you define "The British Crown" as meaning the whole system of monarchy, rather than simply the monarch, then you could argue that there is probably no-one who is more "subject of the British Crown" than HMTQ. Just about her every move is specifically part of the monarchic system. Grutness...wha? 10:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.royal.gov.uk describes the Queen as "a national of the United Kingdom" and "a citizen of the European Union". However, her position as Sovereign is obviously somewhat unique - she does not hold a passport, for example, and UK civil or criminal law proceedings cannot be taken against her in person. Interestingly, she is entitled to vote in both UK and European elections, although by tradition the Queen and members of the Royal Family do not exercise this right. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do any heads of state, or even heads of government, have (or at least use) passports? I would expect they all travel on diplomatic papers. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean by "diplomatic papers". There is such a thing as a diplomatic passport, but it is still a passport. All other members of the Royal Family apart from the Queen need passports. The US President has a passport [17]. I imagine it is only monarchs who don't need passports. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of states normally travel on diplomatic passports. I'm not sure what the Queen does when she travels outside the Commonwealth. --Xuxl (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When travelling overseas, The Queen does not require a British passport ... As a British passport is issued in the name of Her Majesty, it is unnecessary for The Queen to possess one. All other members of the Royal Family, including The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales, have passports." www.royal.gov.uk Gandalf61 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing here, but if her son and heir has a passport, it is probable that she also had a passport which has since expired. She wasn't always the queen. Flamarande (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and in fact she was outside the UK when she became Queen. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the rules in 1952 may have been different. Did British subjects need passports to travel within the British Commonwealth then? I don't know. Oh, but she'd also been to the US while a princess. I guess she'd've needed a passport for that anyway. --Anonymous, 19:58 UTC, November 10, 2009.

In 1952, she wasn't in a dominion, but Kenya, then a British colony. Of course, the United States was neither. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick, someone try to abuse this loophole in the system by impersonating the Queen in order to travel abroad without a passport! Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger things have happened... Flamarande (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name one. --Tango (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a legion of Lizzian look-alikes. However, for her to just turn up at an airport all by herself, carrying her own luggage, with no advance security and other arrangements having been made, and to stand in the queue like everyone else - that would be exceeding strange. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the answers. They certainly help a bit, but would she also be considered a Canadian/Australian/Belize citizen)? Aaronite (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is, as sovereign, she doesn't worry about citizenship of any sort. Such matters are beneath her. It is quite possible that other commonwealth realms have granted her citizenship, or that she qualifies for citizenship under the rules of those nations, so the question could be answered on a techincal level by asking of each individual nation what their stance on her citizenship is. However, its a moot discussion because it has no practical bearing on how the British Monarch operates. --Jayron32 04:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is more clear. Appreciated. Just one thing, though, is that while British Monarch is a handy shorthand, she is the Monarch of several independent realms, so Canadian Monarch applies just as validly (though obviously it's more confusing to most people.) Aaronite (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Australia, etc . -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creeds

I've noticed that the Apostle's Creed describes Christ as "crucified, dead and buried", whereas the Nicene Creed merely says "he suffered and was buried". Is there any theogical significance in the Nicene Creed not specifically saying that he died? Has this ever been the matter of controversy or alternative views as to whether he did actually die on the cross? --rossb (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Christology may be a good starting point for your research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that article doesn't seem to address this issue. --rossb (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting. It seems clear in the Latin at least, although the ecumenical English translation widely used since the 70's has "he suffered death and was buried". Does anyone know if the word used in Greek means only 'suffered' or can also mean 'suffered (death)'? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use#1973_draft_for_an_ecumenical_version: ""He suffered death and was buried" (1975) replaced "he suffered, died, and was buried" (1973): "παθόντα" in Greek and "passus" in Latin are indicative of a suffering demise; but the 1973 draft inserted an extra verb, "died", not present in the original Greek or Latin." This suggests that the Greek and Latin verbs translated as 'suffered' indicate 'suffered (and died in this suffering)'. Obviously there is a lot of discussion about how best to exactly translate the Greek and Latin, but it looks like the Nicene creed doesn't necessarily leave out him dying. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the Greek, but "passus" often does imply death; however it often does not, and anything can be suffered that way (hunger, some idiot bothering you, whatever). Of course, in this context it implies the Passion, which is derived from passus, and that certainly includes the death bit. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Greek the word is παθόντα, which I understand is the aorist participle of πάσχω and means "having suffered". Like the Latin, I suspect it may or may not imply death. One wonders why the authors of the Creed didn't spell it out more explicitly. --62.49.68.79 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speak no Greek, but I wonder if the verb that is translated "rose again" necessarily implies death. It's an interesting question--I think there's more than enough evidence (NT, writings of church figures of the time, etc.) that the people composing the Creed didn't doubt Jesus' physical death, but the phrasing is odd. I'm suspecting, though, that "rose again" is a phrase that can only really refer to the reanimation of one who was dead. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking a couple of online dictionaries, including one that claims to translate Koine, it does not look as if the meaning of πάσχω entails or by itself implies death. It really seems to mean just "suffered". Marco polo (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco, either you mistyped that last word, or misunderstood my comment. I'm suggesting that the phrase after "he suffered [death] and was buried" -- that is, "on the third day he rose again, in accordance with the Scriptures" -- uses a phrase "rose again" which in English certainly seems to imply he was not merely someone who had suffered, but in fact someone who had died. What Greek word or words are being translated as "rose again"? And what did they mean in 3rd century Greek, as far as we can tell? 67.170.96.241 (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question about DC Sniper

The US Supreme Court denied request to stay his execution and now I read that Governor Tim Kaine has denied clemency. Is there any other way he could be saved now? --Maru-Spanish (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. He could escape, or the governor could change his mind. I would say his chances are pretty low for either. Googlemeister (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if he has a genuine medical emergency they would actually delay his execution until he was medically treated and was "well enough to be executed". I know, irony abounds. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A team of vigilantes could stage a daring rescue. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, his attorneys could always file another emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, or with the state appellate court, if, say, the attorneys found new evidence showing that he didn't get a fair trial. The likelihood of this is low at this point, of course, after the years of opportunity to find such new evidence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, or... oh, nevermind. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point, one could reanimate him. I don't know if the technology is availible yet. Plus, there's a good chance he could become a brain-eating zombie if we did... Still, its not much worse than what he was before... --Jayron32 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection Hospital might be useful. Edison (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

middle-eastern and white american interracial marriage

our artlce said other and white interracial is a huge gross amount. This makes sense. But which one is mor likely. For middle eastern dad to have white mom or other way around. The 2006 census said 32% of Hispanics go with white-american 18 is white male with hispanic mexican female, and 15% other way around.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiracial people make up only 2.4% of the U.S. population. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Self-declared multiracial people only make up 2.4% of the US population. Googlemeister (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong partially. I've known like 11 people who is black dad, white mom, two in my math class, 3 unknown people, one in my old middle school, few people in my high school. Of African American interracial I only know black dad with white mom, but I still never hear the other way around. let's see for Asians and white. One OCTA driver is Japanese male and he is marry to a white female, one in my middle school have like a Vietnamese dad, a white mom (last name is Tran), anohter one in High School (last name is Butte) have Chinese dad and a white mom, one in my nieghborhood is a Japanese dad, white mom, one last name of Gizara, and one Lee at old Chinese school have Chinese dad, and American white mom. But largely, I've known like 7 people with white male and asian female. I've known few middle eastern, hispanics males with white female.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Isn't middle eastern consider as a white? i thouhght black people is USA born, black people isn't neccessairly having descents from Africa.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The USA does not have legal definitions of who belongs to what race -- it's largely a matter of "I know it when I see it." In some contexts and for some people, Muslim Arab-Americans are seen as being their own separate category. But usually they've blended in to "white". Consider the huge number of Lebanese-Americans who are powerful politicans. Do you think most people know that the Majority Leader of the Senate in the early 1990s, the current governor of West Virginia, and the governors of New Hampshire for half of the last 25 years are Lebanese? No -- they were all thought of as "white." And in America, that pretty much means you are white. --M @r ē ino 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Race and ethnicity in the United States Census: Arabs are counted as White. This may not be enshrined in law (I could be wrong, but I don't think so), but it's close to being an official national definition — the Census Bureau is the nation's official statistics bureau. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the data i want For my english class we try have to learn else besides google seach. --209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

History of neutering

When did it become common and socially acceptable to neuter house pets? Looked at objectively, the idea that one would systematically remove an animals' male or female bits is a rather aggressive approach to population control. I would guess that it was uncommon before the advent of anesthesia and modern surgical techniques, while today it seems to be very common and widely accepted. (My perspective is American, if that makes a difference.) Dragons flight (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutering has been common on farms far longer than anesthesia has been available. Geldings, oxen, etc. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, neutering has been around for a while, but I would guess the incentive to neuter beasts of burden was somewhat different from the incentive to neuter pets. I also suspect that society in general may have been less concerned about preemptively controlling stray dogs and cats in the past, so it may not have been pushed as a systematic agenda like it is in many places today. Dragons flight (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that historically farms had bullocks, geldings and capons, I'd say neutering animals in generally has been socially acceptable for a long time. However, cats have historically been either pampered and kept separate, or viewed very cheaply such that drowning excess kittens was fairly common. It's generally much easier to neuter a male animal than a female one (given lack of anaesthesia and modern surgical techniques), and it is the owner of female dogs and cats who bears the cost of extra animals, so it's easy to see a situation with little incentive to go through a tricky procedure. I'd imagine the set-up with dogs is slightly different.

If you look at the article castration, you'll see that there are specific terms for all manner of commonly castrated (male) domestic animals, since it was common practice. Even in humans, you have eunuchs and castrati, with the last castrato only dying in 1922. However, it is questionable how socially acceptable these last were. 86.142.230.196 (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eunuchs were used by (and often made for the purposes of) royal courts throughout the Old World for many centuries, and many post-Renaissance composers wrote music specifically for castrati. I'd say that they were socially acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I castrate my bulls by slamming two cinder blocks together on their balls."

"Geez ! Doesn't that hurt ?"

"No...only if you get your fingers stuck between the two blocks." StuRat (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Gastric pressure needed to vomit

I have been unable to discover the intra-abdominal pressure (mm/Hg) needed to eject the gastric contents from the gastrointestinal tract in human. Please quote authoritative source.72.75.122.122 (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the responses the last time you asked this same question. I'm not sure that the data you seek has changed all that much in 3 weeks. --Jayron32 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Brilliant!! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of To Catch a Predator

I have always had problems with this show, but when discussing it with my friends they never agree with me about this. I've had these problems:

1. The show never asked the subjects permission to film them, interview them and broadcast them on national television. He doesn't even admit that is what's going on at the beginning of the interview.

2. They kind of set up the subject by talking to him about sex and stuff on the chat room; the FBI agent had to say yes at some point in the conversation.

3. Chris Hansen always ends the conversation with "you're free to go", or something of the sort. Except they're not free to go, there's a bunch of police officers and stuff waiting right outside for them, and they get arrested immediately. It doesn't seem right that he can tell them they're free to go when he knows full well that they're not.

My friends say these points don't matter because they're child molesters, and so don't deserve any rights, but I thought everyone in America had privacy protection and protection from getting set up and lied to by the cops. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen that show but going from your description you might be asking about entrapment. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, that show really bothers me as well, so you aren't alone. Grsz¹¹ 04:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is it a "reality show," staged by actors? If so, that would answer your questions: the entire program is a lie~~. See our article. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be entrapment, the show would have to plant the idea of the crime in the perpetrator's mind. In other words, it isn't entrapment to merely "go along" with someone until they commit a crime they already were going to commit, it would have to be the show that propositioned the perpetrator. The show is careful not to do that. Those posing as underage children merely passively wait to be propositioned for sex, and accept the proprosition. --Jayron32 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your logic for #2. I guess it's okay in that regard. What about points 1 and 3? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly an ethical problem with "to catch a predator". In a sense it's very much like provoking a Pit Bull intently to lead him to bite and then to define it as a dangerous dog and to put it to sleep. It's true that these people are somehow on the border, but it mean nothing about their being dangerous because dangerous pedophile will initiate sexual relationship even outside the internet, many times using force or seductive means, with childrens much under 16 (actually, the DSM definition for pedophiles, if I remember correctly, is attraction for childrens under 12 and without sexual features that usually distinguish male from female)and his urges are typically uncontrollable. Here they produce a very artificial situation: underage teenager is being left alone at home, she is interested in sexual relationship with a much older man and etc. They traped these people with a fantasy they dragged them into. This is not real situation and the way to keep this danger far from childrens is by monitoring chat rooms and not by deliberately hunting and destroying in a wave of the hand the life of people for a fututre crime they yet didn't commite in the scene of the crime they were cast in just for the rating. I think that this phenomenone is much more dangerous than those people themselves.--Gilisa (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legal implication for #3—telling someone they can go (as far as you are concerned) when you know that a cop is outside to arrest them does not break any laws whatsoever. You can lie all you want to people, casually. There are only a few situations (relating to fraud and perjury) when lying to someone carries legal implications. As for #2, I think they ride a pretty fine line close to entrapment, but don't cross it. As for #1, I am sure their lawyers have hashed over the permissions question fairly carefully, since the entire thing hinges on that. My understanding is that US law is somewhat weak in this respect (privacy, exposure, etc.) and that the copious permissions forms usually used are just overkill to avoid any possibility of lawsuits, not that they are necessary to win lawsuits. You can get more information about privacy law in the US at Privacy laws of the United States—being exposed for committing a crime is probably not a violation of privacy, but if the shows air before someone is convicted, that seems like it would open the network up to False light problems. But again, I ain't no lawyer, and I know they do have fleets of lawyers. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on TV, it even seems, in the US, at least, that cops can lie directly to the suspect, and often do. For example, they will say "your buddy has agreed to take a plea bargain and testify against you, but we really want to get him, not you, so this is your last chance to take the plea and testify against him, instead". I've only seen this on TV, and hope that a lawyer can explain that this isn't actually the case. This type of thing certainly seems like it should be illegal to me, as it might cause an innocent person to agree to plead guilty and also calls into question why anyone would believe anything a police officer tells them. StuRat (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American's don't have a right to not be lied to by the police. In fact, the life of a police officer would be very difficult, if not down right impossible, if they couldn't lie (why bother doing any undercover operations if you always had to say "Yup, I'm a cop" every time you are asked?). Also note that law enforcement does not do any of the initial online investigation, its done for the most part by volunteers from Perverted Justice. Entrapment only applies to law enforcement and a defendent would have a very difficult time trying to prove they were coerced in to the meetings by a civilian volunteer. Livewireo (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you're all saying. I guess the show is okay. It doesn't sit well with me, but I do see they're not breaking the law. I guess it's kind of like when cops pretend to be homosexual at gay bars and arrest people after 'requesting' sex. Those arrestees didn't get any of the above three points either, and while I can disagree with it, it's not illegal. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Louis Conradt, about a man who killed himself after being "caught" by "To Catch a Predator." Note that the district attorney wanted nothing to do with Chris Hansen and refused to pursue any "To Catch a Predator" cases that had led to indictments. There are clearly legal issues with Dateline's methods of operation -- not that those will let all of the people they caught off the hook. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting geography question

I am looking for the name of a slice of land (nearly 4,000,000 sq km) contains over 75% of a political entity's population, yet only 25% of its territory.

Apprecaite any help.

I tried to figure out variuos combinations but could not succeed.

Obviusly the total area of the political entity (may be a country or state etc) is close to 16,000,000 sq km. Only China matches this size. It could be one of the cities in China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Russia is what you seek. Roughly 1/4th of Russia's area and 3/4ths of Russia's population. I spent a long time digging through various official Subdivisions of Russia, but none was nearly large enough or populous enough. --Jayron32 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ignore the size of the slice, Japan also fits into this - I seem to recall reading that 80% of its population lives on 20% of the land - in the shore belt you can draw from Tokyo across Aichi and Osaka to Kitakyushu. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska? --Thomprod (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of a US border. Not sure if that total is 25% of the country or not. Googlemeister (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. It's a big country. --Anon, 01:43 UTC, November 11, 2009.

The Indian subcontinent has more than 75% of the population of the Commonwealth of Nations population in under 25% of its territory (just over 4M square kilometres). Warofdreams talk 14:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is right, it's European Russia. China and Canada are each less than 10 million square kilometers. Only Russia comes close to being large enough, and it also matches all the other parts of the Q. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another tantalizing geography question

Which is the highway of sorts (may be waterway or seaway or similar one) which is named for a major religious figure (some thing like santa or saint or st) and it has a namesake in one of the African countries ( Kenya, South africa, Angola, Congo, Nigeria , Liberia or Cape Verde) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only african nation named for a major religious figure I can think of is São Tomé and Príncipe named, in part, for St. Thomas. That may give you a start. --Jayron32 05:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP's asking about a passageway of sorts, not the name of a country. Sort of like if Nile was called "St. Nicholas' pass" or something. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a saint, a likely guess might be a patron saint of travellers or sailors. Saint Christopher is the patron saint of travellers. Maybe it's him? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And St. Nicholas is the patron saint of boatmen, which is why I used him in the example :) TomorrowTime (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I suspected as much. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Is it only those specific African countries? If so it's an odd range... For some reason, my first thought was St. Lawrence (as in the seaway, definitely a "highway of sorts"), but I can't find any St. Lawrences (or Saints-Laurents or San Lorenzos) in Africa - though there is a São Lourenço dos Órgãos in Cape Verde, so that might be it. Loads of places in Cape Verde are named for saints, BTW, as this page implies. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Saint Paul River which runs through Monrovia, the capital of Liberia? Astronaut (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more challenging Geography teaser

1.It is Frequently plagued by pirates and 2 somewhat difficult to navigate because of its depth 3 it conveniently connects two of the planet's oceans, 4 and through it a huge percentage of the world's oil is transported on a daily basis

Which fits the above criteria??

I am looking at straits/channles/canals since these water bodies connect Oceans. But I am not able to zero on any since I am not able to verify with resources like wikipedia

I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Panama Canal connects 2 of the world's oceans, is difficult to navigate due to depth - not sure if it has piracy problems but then it wouldn't be hugely surprising - it's a place where bilions of dollars worth of cargo goes through every year so would be a prime sport for would-be pirates to try their hand. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. It's a big shipping route, including by Saudi Arabia, and plagued by pirates from Somalia. With the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea, they connect the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. I have no idea about #2. Rckrone (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the Suez Canal is probably more likely than the Panama Canal, even though it is deeper (it is still too shallow for many supertankers). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that it is the Strait of Malacca in Indonesia. Googlemeister (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the Strait of Malacca. The nations of Panama and Egypt have very tight control over who enters their respective canals. Indonesia is not capable of doing the same for Malacca, because Malacca is international waters (it also borders Malaysia and Singapore). Go read Piracy in the Strait of Malacca if you want to learn more. --M @r ē ino 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you illegally copy a CD on a cruise ship, are you guilty of "piracy on the high seas" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

That's a subject that's difficult to navigate because of it's depth. Fribbler (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I was trying to come up with a torrent pun but I couldn't come up with anything clever enough for me to be happy with. —Akrabbim ^talk 16:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I though it was likely to be the Bab-el-Mandeb, the straits between the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, or the Hanish Islands some 150 km to the north-west in the red Sea itself. In both places, the deep (>50 m) channels are only a few 10's of km wide and the Hannish Islands have several sets of rocks mid-channel which I imagine are a significant navigational hazard to shipping. All shipping to and from the Suez canal has to pass through this area and the nearby Gulf of Aden where piracy, particularly against large ships such as oil tankers, has become a significant problem in recent times.

However, the Strait of Malacca in Indonesia, is even shallower (<30 m deep in many places), has many shipwrecks and other navigational hazards and is also plagued by pirates. Astronaut (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that fails the "2 oceans test". The straits of Malacca, mentioned previously, seems to pass all the tests. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most comprehensive search engine for second-hand books in the UK?

I want to look up and buy some second-hand books in the UK. What is the most comprensive website for doing this? I am aware of Alibris and Abebooks. I seem to remember some website that combines both of these. Does anyone know any more about this please? 78.149.246.109 (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found http://used.addall.com/ which I now remember and which appears to be relevant to the UK but I'd be interested to hear of any more. What would be great would be something that combined this with Amazon and eBay etc. 78.149.246.109 (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use BookFinder, which aggregates the listings of a number of sellers and listing services, including Alibris, AbeBooks, Amazon, and eBay—click on "Our booksellers" at the bottom of the page for a full list. (This is not an advertisement, and I have no connection with the site.) You can set your search parameters with "United Kingdom" as the destination and "British Pound" as the currency displayed for prices. Deor (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the British branch of the Antiquarian Booksellers Association. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did the changes in pre-trial Small Claims Court procedure in England and Wales come into effect?

I understand that to recover a debt you are now expected to go through an exact pre-trial procedure. Does anyone know when this came into effect please? I am trying to find books that will be relevant to the current proceedures, so ones published before this date will not be relevant. Thanks 78.149.246.109 (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when it came into effect, but can point you to guaranteed up-to-date documentation. The CAB advisernet says "The protocols require each party to provide specific information to the other. The nature and subject of this information varies between the protocols, but in general the claimant is expected to set out a clear summary of the facts and the defendant is expected to state if s/he accepts or denies liability within a set time period. Details of the protocols are contained in the Civil Procedure Rules and may be viewed on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk.". That website has a PDF of "Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct" which I would suggest should be what you need. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place in Lincolnshire, name of Tid

Resolved

– by Nanonic

The Dictionary of National Biography entry for Gerard de Camville has him "measuring the marsh between Spalding and Tid in Lincolnshire". Is there any evidence of such a place as Tid, or has someone simply misread the word tide (however it was spelt at the time). Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to expand your search into alternate spellings, for instance - Tydd railway station used to serve many villages called Tydd- in Lincolnshire. Nanonic (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been very helpful - that makes perfect sense. Thank you. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that a very large number of rural communities in England simply disappeared following the arrival of the Black Death. Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler

Someone in my class claimed that Hitler was a Socialist, and that therefore all Democrats are neo-Nazis. Ignoring the glaring logical errors, I have one question: Was Hitler a Socialist? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi comes from National Socialist German Workers' Party, so basically yes. (One could argue over whether Hitler was actually socialist, especially towards the end, but that was his party association.) Dragons flight (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's highly misleading. The "national socialist" in the Nazi Party's name comes from the right-wing nationalist ideology of Austrian National Socialism, although the use of this name was initially opposed by Hitler. While there were a few points in the party's first programme, copied from the Austrian group, which have origins in socialism, these were de-emphasised, and they are far outnumbered by nationalism and conservatism. To give an example of the Nazi's attitude to socialism, both communists and social democrats were imprisoned in concentration camps. It's not for nothing that socialism is placed on the left of the political spectrum and fascism on the far right. Warofdreams talk 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The early history of the Volkswagen is sometimes mentioned in this context. It was to be a nice affordable, government sponsored car that almost any German worker could afford. That's a pretty socialist thing to do. Of course, they never really delivered any of those cars (except a few photo-ops) before they switched the factory over to making tanks. I don't know if historians interpret this as an honest socialist effort that was ruined by the war, or as a Trojan horse from the very beginning. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The largest communist nation on earth is the People's Republic of China. George W. Bush is a member of the Republican Party. Therefore, George W. Bush is a communist. See how that works? The use of a word in one's name means nothing. The German Democratic Republic was an oppresive dictatorship under the control of Erich Honecker for 18 years, and wasn't really democratic nation under any reasonable definition of the term. Forget the names of things, and what groups call themselves, instead focus on their actions. Your friend is an idiot on two counts. 1) The Democratic Party is a liberal/leftist party on the U.S. political scale, but they are FAR from what anyone would define as socialist. On most worldwide political scales, the Democratic Party would be considered a centrist, or even center-right party. See also Blue Dog Democrat. 2) Even so, the Nazis were not "socialists" in any reasonable definition of the term; the Nazi's were primarily an authoritarian nationalist party; the socialist part of their name has little to do with following any branch of political or economic socialism. --Jayron32 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's North Korea, or, by it's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They must have defined "democracy" as meaning you have the choice of voting for the person you are told to vote for, or being killed. It's good to have a choice, isn't it ? StuRat (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was fervent anti communist, however he was socialist. I think that in USA it's somewhat harder for people to make the distinction between socialism, which not forbid private property, and communism which is a totaly different creature. For example, the EU countries are pretty much socialistic (espcially the Scandinavian ones)--Gilisa (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was a fervent anti socialist. The movement you mention in Europe is social democracy, sometimes described as a branch of socialism - our article is quite good on how it arose and how social democracy relates to socialism. Again, Hitler fervently opposed social democracy. Communism is also a branch of socialism; it should be distinguished from social democracy, but not from socialism.

You totaly missed my point. In the first section of my post here I wrote that Hitler was socialist. You don't have to be democart to be socialist and addressing me to the article on social democracy was realy unnecessary. In the second section I just tried to shortly make the difference between socialism, communism and capitalism. I wrote that the EU countries are socialist to make it clear that they are not following the American capitalistic model, and that countries can be socialistic without being communistic-a fact that is not well known to all. So Hitler wasn't a communist, nor a capitalist, he promoted the idea of nationalistic socialism. BTW, there are studies that show tight connection between nationalism and socialism: the more one population is culturaly and racially homogeneous the more taxes people are willing to pay on the behalf of socialitic state system.--Gilisa (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have missed my point. I was stressing that your assumption that social democracy was a form of socialism was not straightforward - while it is sometimes called socialism, and there is certainly a relationship, it is not as simple as saying that it is socialism. Your contrast between communism and socialism is also incorrect (unless you are using communism in the Marx's strict sense of the ultimate state towards which socialism tends); communists also describe themselves as socialists, and Marxism is widely recognised as an influential variety of socialism - it is covered, as expected, in our article on socialism. Hitler did not promote "nationalistic socialism"; he promoted national socialism - a specific ideology which is not socialism any more than the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is democratic. The negative correlation you mention between nationalism and socialism is interesting - I wouldn't have thought it would make any difference, but I suppose that if people feel that nationalism is less of an issue (e.g. in Scandinavia), they may be more likely to accept socialism. Warofdreams talk 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will start from the last to the first. Fisrt, who told you that in Scandinavia nationality is less of an issue?I have a Sweedish friend and she once told me that many people in Scandinavia even have derogatory names for Swedish people of German origin (when I can't see any great differences between the two nations) and certainly for people of other, non European, races. Many right wing parties whose political platform focus is to stop immegration of non Europeans (and eastern Europeans) to their countries are pretty much bolssom -even in the Netherlands which is considered by many to be maybe the most friendly for foreigners among European countries. In scandinavia, the biggest party of Sweeden is the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which strictly fight for stiffing the laws of immegration. It's not that they necessarily adopted nationalistic agenda, but it's just that there is deep, unsolveable contradiction between the cultures of some immigrants societies and that their way of life is treatend. Second, Hitler didn't promote social rules for Jewish people and not even for Polish ones-that's tell nothing about his vision for the Aryan nations, which was at least at the declarative level -socialistic. I know that the Nazis, for instance, grant maternity benefits. Communism is a radical for of socialism, even I feel pretty much uncomfortable to imply that communism can be a form of socialism. While in socialistic society priavte property is allowed and the focus is on equal opportunities, communism focus on equal outcomes. What more that socialism have its roots already in the bible and it's not restricted to one form (but you told it already). Social democracy is much more a form of socailism than communism is, and as I see it, it's the best and most successful form of socailism (and state economical system at all). Are you familiar with the social rights of women after birth in Finland for instance? With the rights of single-parents in Scandinavia (even if here you can find an instance of a case where too much social rights can cause problems in society)? About the protected tenancy in Germany? It's all very socialistic, I can find no other term for it. If Wikipedia article imply that social democracy is not a form of socialism, then it don't worth much.--Gilisa (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things Hitler did were socialist, even if the predominating mantra of the party was not. Lots of the posters for the 1931/2 election campaigns show the Nazis as a party for every sort of problem (this one springs to mind). Clearly that has a lot to do with popular appeal, but it does demonstrate the rule that not every policy of a party need match the underlying ideologies. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What things that Hitler did were socialist? By that, I don't mean populist, and I certainly don't include state control of much of industry - there's nothing inevitably socialist about that. Warofdreams talk 20:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialitie and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public" as a general idea. Taking this, one can see parallels with the position of Jews in society (perceived or real) as believed by Nazis, and through a few other smaller things, including natural opposition to other forms of government. Shakey, perhaps, but it's enough to say there are a few small aspects of the Nazi ideology (particularly during elections) that were socialist. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a useful question to answer is: why does anyone (and it's not many people) think that Nazism is related to socialism? Leaving aside crude propaganda, usually, it's one of two reasons: the use of the term "national socialism" in the party's name, or the state control of sections of the economy. As Jayron discusses, the name of a political entity isn't a good guide as to its actual position. The idea that state control of sections of the economy is sufficient to make something socialist appears to originate with the Austrian school of economics. It's not a definition which many socialists would agree with (for them, the question is in whose interest is the state acting, or at least claiming to act?), and it's not a definition with which fascists would tend to agree - they tend to either see their ideology as stridently right-wing, or as outside left-right politics. It seems to me that, therefore, this is not a useful definition of socialism. Warofdreams talk 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler promised to take many socialistic moves: he promised a private car for every laborer (however, his industry was more busy with war and war preparations to do that), he promised to make socialistic reformes but escaped these promises as well to avoid confrontation with his sponsors and etc. However, he did rehabilitated German economy, create an atmosphere of uniformity and as socialism ask, gave everyone (very roughly) the same oppurtinity to success (which is a great moral and economical principle that capitalism ignore) -as long as they were Aryans(...). However, Nazis didn't invent Socialism and didn't realy apply it.--Gilisa (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first just say, "socialism" means a lot of things. It is not incompatible with capitalism. It is not restricted to Communism. It is not restricted to Nazism. It generally refers to government ownership of and administration of resources. In the United States, "socialism" is used as a bogeyman, something to attack as being similar to the USSR or Nazism. In reality, many sectors of the US are or have been in the past run in "socialist" ways—public power production, Medicare, the public mail service, Social Security, etc. You can have socialism without having horrible 1984-like situations, and you can have hybrid public-private systems that try to utilize the best of both worlds (the private system is very good at certain types of public systems, but less good at others, and prioritizes profit higher than other goals, which depending on the system in question may not produce the greater good for the greater number).

Once we've gotten that out of the way—and the implication that if the USSR or Nazi Germany or whomever is "socialist" then it makes people who believe in, say, increased regulation of economic transactions or government-run health insurance Nazis or Soviets—I think we're ready to have a real historical conversation.

Hitler did believe in a centralization of the state, and definitely was of the mind that the resources of the centralized state should be used to enact certain economic outcomes. It was not the same economic approach as, say, the USSR, where the state actually planned out the economy every five years. But it was still pretty centralized and was not unfettered capitalism in the least.

Hitler did this, though, not because he believed he would reallocate resources, or that the state was a better organ for doing these tasks than the private market. He did these because he wanted power and because he could not tolerate dissent whatsoever. He centralized the medical profession not because he believed it worked better that way, but because he could then use it as an organ of political power and ideological justification. He centralized the scientists not because he believed it would make for better science, but because he wanted to enforce loyalty among the intellectual elite and complicity among the wary. All of his "socialist" activities were clearly and explicitly done in the name of political power. (The same cannot be as easily said for the policies of Stalin, which were often for political power but cloaked under layers of Marxist justifications, e.g. collectivization, which was about breaking the kulaks as much as it was about trying to turn agriculture into a proletarian economy).

So was Hitler a socialist? It depends whether you are defining socialism as the ends or the means, and how broad a brush you are painting any government intervention into the economy as "socialist". Personally (as a Democrat, I would say, and one who, I am sure it comes across above, believes that some government economic intervention is necessary and appropriate), I think the answer is probably, "yes", but a very qualified "yes", and one that recognizes fully that Hitler was vehemently anti-Communist (both in terms of consolidating his power, but also in terms of denying the core of their ideology, that class was the central unit of political power and change) and espoused a variety of "socialism" that is very different than even the left-wing socialism of his day, much less what passes for "socialism" these days. Hitler's ideas about socialism are a bit like Hitler's ideas about hygiene—yes, they bear a family resemblance to certain concepts in modern politics, but the motivations and the means are fundamentally different.

But opinions on this question are a dime a dozen, and even professional historians slog this particular battle out, so I do not encourage you to take me (or the other answerers) as being the final word on this. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to testify in death penalty cases

If I witnessed someone commit a capital offense, would it be legal for me to refuse to testify due to the fact that I oppose the death penalty? If not, and I were fined or imprisoned for contempt of court, and I still refused to testify, and my testimony were vital to the prosecution's case, could the person still be convicted on the grounds that I wouldn't refuse to testify if the suspect weren't guilty? (Note: This question is purely hypothetical.)

Also, is contempt of court/obstruction of justice a felony or misdemeanor? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to testify could be deemed obstruction of justice, and you might find yourself on trial. Googlemeister (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if my testimony were vital to the prosecution and I still refused to testify, could the suspect be convicted anyway on the basis that I wouldn't have refused to testify if the suspect were innocent? ----J4\/4 <talk> 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that circumstantial evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.205.178 (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it doesn't indicate the value of the testimony at all (your testimony could be full of holes, or just plain wrong, and the only way to know would be to actually have it open for cross-examination). I do not think any judge (or lawyer) worth their salt would let your refusal to testify officially be part of the judgment of the jury. (How that would actually play out with a real jury is, of course, different, but I am certain that a judge would direct them not to take it into account.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question, or one similar to it based on the Fifth Amendment, was asked within the last couple of months. In the United States, no, it would not be legal for you to refuse to testify on those grounds. You would be cited for contempt of court and jailed until you agreed to testify or until the judge got tired of thinking about you sitting there in prison. The law says you have to give the evidence that's demanded in court. In every state. On your last question, the jury would not have heard your evidence, so, no, they can't pretend that the evidence was presented anyway and convict on the grounds of the pretend evidence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prosecution could direct the jury to take your refusal to testify into account, though (which it couldn't if you were the defendant). I would be circumstantial, but that doesn't make it inadmissible, just not particularly convincing on its own. Having somebody else testify that you told them you saw XYZ would be hearsay, so would be inadmissible. --Tango (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In cases like this, I believe it's common for the judge to call a recess until the witness agrees to testify, so the trial is simply put on hold, if the judge feels this is what's required for the administration of justice. He doesn't have to march through the rest of the trial ending up in an acquittal due to lack of evidence. But this is my vague belief and I'm unsure how common this type of recess is. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be forced to testify, though, and no judge would recess the trial indefinitely. Eventually they'll have to give up on you, charge you with contempt (as opposed to just detaining your for it on their own authority), and get on with the trial. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. You're speculating when you say "no judge" would recess indefinitely. Judith Miller was in jail for 3 months for refusing to testify to a grand jury. I don't know what the longest recess for this purpose has been; it'd be interesting to know. Branzburg v. Hayes, a 5-4 decision, has been the only reporter's privilege case decided by the SCOTUS to date, apparently. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for your felony vs. misdemeanor question, see Contempt of court in the United States section (assuming that's the location you are asking about). Normally it is actually neither; the judge just throws you in jail, and since "you hold the keys to your own release" by simply agreeing to testify, due process is not required under the law. You can later be charged with criminal contempt of court, which is a more lengthy and complicated and unusual process. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wolf served a record 226 days, surpassing Vanessa Leggett's 168 (in a murder case), see the Wolf article and Murder of Doris Angleton.John Z (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The separation of church and state

What are the laws pertaining to the separation of church and state; or more specifically; what are the right of a religious orginization to lobby, petition, or otherwise try to influence state or federal lawmakers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpoehls (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Iran, there is no effective separation of church and state. In the UK, there is an official state church, but (nowadays) people are free to ignore it. In Germany, there is a stronger version of separation - no state church, but some large churches have special status and receive special taxes. People again are free to follow any religion (or none), and their religion does not limit rights or access to offices. In the US, the guiding principle is the First Amendment to the constitution, interpreted by the US Supreme Court over time in light of Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists (the "Wall of separation" phrase). In short, it limits what the US government can do, and by application of the Fourteenth Amendment, what the states and local government can do, but not what religious bodies can do. The Southern Baptist have the same right to buy a congressperson as Exxon Mobile, Boeing, and Kenneth Lay. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I assume you are talking about the US. In which case, the relevant law is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I don't think it makes any restrictions on religious organisations. The constitution is designed to restrict the powers of the federal government. There may be some restrictions on what an organisation can do if it wants to get the tax and other benefits, but they aren't part of the separation of church and state. --Tango (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your latter statement isn't really true. The IRS has been pursuing a policy, which I think the OP is alluding to, where if a church advocates one political candidate over another, it is in danger of losing its tax-exempt status, which I'd argue is definitely related to the separation of church and state. Oh, Separation of church and state in the United States ought to be related to the OP's question, though the article is mostly about the history and is pretty sprawling and has an OR tag or two. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Supreme Court hasn't stopped the IRS from doing that, I guess it isn't in violation of the prohibition against the state getting involved in religion. It could be considered as being related to it, I suppose. --Tango (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that endorsement of a political candidate is not about separation of church and state, but would be considered evidence that the organisation is not a religious one but is a political one. In the US the line can be pretty fine at the best of times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the OP is making a somewhat subtle distinction, asking about the laws about political contributions. These are largely statutory creations. In fact, religious organizations have as many if not more free association and political contribution rights as other groups (commercial ones, for instance). However practically speaking, IRC 501(c)(3) (tax exempt) status for religious organizations is premised on their non participation in certain kinds of politics. I haven't researched it in depth, but I see no reason why congress couldn't tax churches if it was inclined to do so. 501(c)(3) is an exception, but because it is the IRS can set some terms on that. The full story is more complicated partially because putting strings on legal privileges premised on constitutional rights is often a problem for other reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, or good enough; here is an IRS fact sheet that goes into great detail. "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." Violation can result in the removal of tax-exempt status. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those organizations may still have rights to participate in elections, albeit without tax exempt status. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; and looping back to the OP's question, a church could "intervene in elections" all it wanted as long as it was OK with being taxed. I'd be interested in knowing whether there are any such churches, and very interested in whether this IRS rule has been tested in court. As for the other questions from the OP, about churches petitioning and influencing US lawmakers: this happens all the time, and there aren't any restrictions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gelatin, whey, and lard vs. Islam

Why Islam forbid Muslims to eat gelatin, whey and lard? do they associate with pig?

Animal products have to be killed in a certain way to be halal. If the animal wasn't haraam and had been killed in the proper way to obtain these products, I would imagine Muslims would eat them - but I'm no expert. I don't know about whey. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This piece may shed some light on the issue of whey. Pallida Mors 19:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lard is a pig product, so is right out. Gelatin is boiled out of bones, and would seem to be OK only if the bones were of halal animals. PhGustaf (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was once problem with giving immunizations to the Muslim population in few places after it became clear that many vaccinations have gelatin as one ingredient. The problem with gelatin is that it actually made of haraam animals bones or from animals that was not slaughtered according to the Islam. I don't knopw how it was solved, in Judaism most rabbinical ordinates viod any problems with gelatin as it's considered as new raw material that during its long manufacturing process lost any connection to its original animal source. As for whey, it's a basic by product of cheese manufacturing. Some cheese generes use rennet enzyme to cause the coagulation of the acidified milk from which the cheese is made. The rennet is obtained from animals stomach, having the same problems Vimescarrot described. As for lard, eating pork is haraam and forbidden for Muslims. There are also animals which are not haraam but are makrur -meaning that eating them is not forbiddened nor allowed. Generally, they are treatend as haraam.--Gilisa (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most rabbinical ordinates would not void gelatin because the rules of nullification have a few exceptions, and davar hama'amid is one of them. Kosher gelatin could come from properly slaughtered kosher cows, but in practice, is derived primarily from fish (info is included in previous link). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Israel many products have the label "Kosher for gelatin eaters" and generally, most orthodox people in Israel do consume it (I don't know about the ultra orthodox) -but I don't know what animal the bones were taken from to make this kosher gelatin.--Gilisa (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is 'permitted' for those who 'permit.' It's often suggested that it is 'permitted' to drive on Shabbat for 'those Jews who drive on Shabbat.' DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way vs stands for versus. Perhaps vis a vis is what was meant. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black immigrants in the USA

Where is black people or African Americans usually immigrant from. Since black people not neccessairly come from Africa then from what country could they most possibly immigramnt from Is Central America or Australia most likely, our they can be just born and raise in the south of USA? not too many blacks come from Africa-from my know of I don't think any black people I see comes from Africa.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think they don't come from Africa? If they (or their ancestors) don't come from Africa then they aren't really African american, the article goes into some detail about history and demographics. We also have an article on Black people. I didn't think the Americas had native black people, i could be wrong, but I thought all the black people the Americas, including central and south were African descent also. I think it's a pretty safe bet that there would be very very few Australian aborigines immigrating to the States. Vespine (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because they have never been to Africa.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian immigrants, even Aboriginal ones would not be considered African Americans or even, by most, black Americans. Of course, I don't think I have ever met an aborignial Australian American. Immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa still come to America but some will not identify themselves as "African American" which usually refers to the culture associated with the descendants of American slaves who make up the vast majority of black Americans. More than 1 million of the 1.4 million African immigrants in the U.S. come from sub-Saharan Africa and they make up only a couple percent of all U.S. immigrants.[18] See also African immigration to the United States 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of black people in the USA will have been born there. Most immigrants to the US these days are from Mexico and Asia, so they wouldn't generally be black. I can't find a break down of US immigrants by race and country of origin, but if we just go by country of origin for people getting permanent residency in 2006 there were about 1.3 million total, of which only about 120,000 were from Africa, who would probably have been mostly black. There were about 150,000 from the Caribbean, who were probably mostly black as well. Most of the rest were Asia (440,000) and Mexico (170,000), who wouldn't generally have been black. Country of origin isn't a perfect way to tell race, but it's the best I can do. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hold on when Tango said black in the USA will have been born there he means where?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He meant: Most black people in the USA were born in the USA. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --Tango (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)</small.>[reply]

This is what you want, at least a good starting point. It has breakdowns by country of origin, so you could assume that African immigrants were largely black, and it might also have breakdowns by race (I don't know if it has breakdowns by race and country). Shadowjams (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think the OP is confused about the term "African American". (See that article for details.) This is not surprising, because the term is easily misapplied. In most of the USA, the term is a euphemism for "black". It doesn't mean that the person came from Africa, or that their parents did; it is supposed to indicate they have some ancestor who came from Africa. (Presumably in the last few hundred years, or else all Americans would be called "African Americans".) Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Boston area, there are large numbers of immigrants from Haiti, for example. They are definitely "Black" but they are not part of "African American" culture. (Their children probably will be, though.) They look quite different (much darker), they speak a different language (Haitian French), go to different Churches, wear different clothes, etc. There are also a non-insubstantial number of immigrants from Nigeria, who similarly stand out for the first generation (but subsequent generations do not, in my experience). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original post... There are American citizens who were born in Africa. I know at least two that I work with. The first was born in Kenya and the second in Ghana. Also, I work with another black guy who was born in Canada and has American citizenship. And finally, not all blacks who are born in the US are born in the South. They're free to travel anywhere and give birth to black children anywhere in the country. I'm not quite sure what you seem to think of the US due to your comments and questions... Dismas|^(talk) 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the questioner is asking, "From what countries do black immigrants to the U.S. come from?" I'd bet the U.S. Census Bureau could produce a table for him, although I can't find such a table in a cursory check of their website. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link with that information was already provided above: African Immigrants in the United States. Tops are Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ghana and Kenya. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but my guess is more "black" immigrants come from the West Indies. And not all immigrants from Africa are black. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much to my surprise (knowing several African immigrants but no Caribbeans ones, myself) - "In 2005, two-thirds of the 2.8 million foreign-born blacks were born in the Caribbean or another Latin America country and nearly one-third were born in Africa. Another 4 percent (about 113,000) were born in Europe, Canada, or elsewhere."[19] Now I am still not sure how many Afro-Hispanics (?) there are versus Afro-Caribbeans. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read African American culture if you want some perspective on the cultural difference between recent African immigrants in the US and the so called African American community. Most African Americans are descendants of slaves brought to America by force hundreds of years ago. To find the countries or regions that these slaves tended to come from see Atlantic slave trade, however due to this history of slavery, most African Americans today simply identify as African American (or black or whatever other term) rather than by ties to specific countries or regions their ancestors were from. A lot of those specific ties were destroyed, although many slaves did try their best hold on to pieces of their shared cultural roots, which still heavily influence black culture today.

It's true that a slight majority of blacks still live in the South (see African American#Demographics). Many also live in big cities like Chicago and New York (see Great Migration (African American)), but there are African Americans dispersed throughout most areas of the US and have been for many generations. Rckrone (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

In Letter 40: Choosing a College in Chapter 40: It's Over in the book Lord Foulgrin's Letters by Randy Alcorn, Lord Foulgrin says:

While our experiments in communism with their legacy of mass destruction have disappeared nearly everywhere in the world except China, I'm proud to say that communism is alive and well among many American college professors.

I don't understand. What does he mean by that? What does he mean? What is he talking about? What American college professors? Like whom? Where? In what universities or colleges? Can you please explain?

Bowei Huang (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book is fiction, not real. If that bit has a meaning, read on and the book will tell you. However, don't expect to find a real-world match. Bielle (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the book, which appears to be a work of evangelical fiction. Assuming that the author means the statement to be taken seriously, I would guess that it is hyperbole, referring to the reputation of college professors to be more liberal than society as a whole. But they could be talking about the continuing influence of Marxist thought in many fields of study. I'm no expert on American academic Marxism, but Michael Hardt is one name which springs to mind. Warofdreams talk 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Bowei Huang asked what it means, so let's try to answer him. I have not read this book, but I am going to try. "We, the devils of Hell, have experimented with installing the evil plot of Communism in several places on earth. Communism has disappeared nearly everywhere except for China. However, fortunately, there are many college professors in the United States who remain Communist!" There is an old conservative complaint that there are "too many" leftist professors in US universities, and the youth of America is at great, continual risk because the leftist professors are inculcating the youth with their leftist values. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book sounds just like the premises of C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters. It certainly has copied the format and the characters. I suspect the style may be where the two books part company. Bielle (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that this was asked in good faith. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. The OP probably knew it was fiction, but didn't know how much truth was in that particular clause. —Akrabbim^talk 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has asked questions in this fashion for a lonnngg time now, always along the same lines, never with any particular interest in learning anything, never with any apparent regard to the answers given, without any attempt to actually understand the issues at hand. He has been warned about this for literally months. Always the same "left-behind" literature, always questions that are the political (anti-leftist) equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Check the edit history, check the comments he has removed from his talk page warning him about such things. Don't take my word for it. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But (s)he doesn't incessantly disagree with the given responses like most other bad-faith posters. We shouldn't discriminate against loaded anti-leftist questions if they are factual. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There probably are a lot of "communist" professors in the United States, by some warped definition of communist. But it's all in the definition. They are definitely leftist/socialist ones - but socialism and communism are not the same thing, any more than conservatism and fascism are. They are leftist, that is, in relation to general US political standards, but those standards are so far to the right by most western world standards that any straightforward comparison is meaningless. Given that the basic tenets of socialist government are government of the people, for the people, and by the people, it's surprising there aren't more of them; it's a shame that the US for the most part has abandoned such principles. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Lord Foulgrin's Letters is fiction. I know that. When I asked what did Lord Foulgrin mean by that statement, I actually meant what did the book's author, Randy Alcorn, mean by that statement. I meant what did Randy Alcorn mean by what he wrote there in the book. What did Randy Alcorn mean? What did he mean by that statement? What did he mean by what he wrote there in the book? What was he actually talking about?

It was the only one place in the letter, the chapter, and the book where it mentioned communism. I've read on in the letter, the chapter, and the book but the book didn't tell me.

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

The Difference Between Sunni and Shia Islam

What are the fundamental differences between Sunni and Shia Islam? I worry that without understanding this, I wont be able to truly understand Mid-East issues.

Expect a reply soon! 98.211.246.70 (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be great if we had an article on this? Don't forget to search before asking your question - you're likely to get your information all the sooner that way. Warofdreams talk 00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect a thank-you soon!--Wetman (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question, that have more than one answer of course. First, Shia muslims believe that Ali is the only successor of Muhammad and do not acknowledge the three khalifs. The founder of Shia, Husien, was killed by Sunni muslims in Karbala and they mark his day of death at the Day of Ashura. While Sunni Islam has 5 pillars of believe, the Shia muslims have sixth. Besides Mecca Shities have two other holly cities: Karbala and Najaf and Shiite ordinates are disputes about the sacredness of El Medina. They believe that out of 12 Shiite imams that lived at the 9CE, only one survived and the rest were killed by the Sunnites. Only one survived -the Mahdi, or as dubbed frequently by Shiites "The lord of the time" or the "disappearing imam". They belive that he is still alive, and that through the centuries have passed he remained undercover but will revel himself at the end of the days. The Iranian president Ahmadinejad oftenly refer to him during his public arrivals, and also claimed once that the 12 imam have shown himself to him. The history of Shia and Sunni muslims with each other is blooded (as in Iraq today). As Shiites Muslims mostly lived as a persecuted minority among Sunni muslims along the history, their Fiqh scholars designed 4 rules of thumb as main survival tactics, that according to many orientalists were used extensively by the Iranian regime (Iran is the biggest and most influential Shite, or even Muslim, country):

1. Choda: Make your enemy judge his situation unrealistically-claim he is losing while you are win even when reality is otherwise.

2. Tanaphia: Use the enemy's shortcomings to make benefits-for instance, when fighting democratic societies claim that the enemy slaughter childrens when you know such claim will shock its people and turn them against it.

3. Takiya: pretend that you agree with your enemy and wait for the opportune moment. For instance-when living among hostile Sunni majority.

4. Kataman: deny your actions, intents and even opinnions while you keep striving to achieve them. For instance-the Iranian nuclear project.--Gilisa (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading our articles Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. As Gilisa says, the key difference is the difference in belief about who was the rightful successor of Muhammad, his son-in-law Ali and his descendants (hereditary leadership), or the caliphs elected by community leaders (semi-elective leadership based on merit). The split between the two groups led to other differences over the interpretation of the Quran and Islamic law. Marco polo (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP, if you truely want to understand whats driving the Middle East, or to be more specific, what are the roots to the bloody conflicts between Sunnic and Shiiets Muslims in Iraq, then the questions you should ask are less concern with religious differences (even they do play part) and more to the different ambitions thet the different regional regims have, as well as to their stand in the region and internal political and economical status. There is much order and sense behind this chaos, even if insanity is certainly important factor as well.--Gilisa (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilisa is right. Though an understanding of the difference between the two is important in understanding the politics of the Middle East it is far from the whole story; it's equivalent to expecting that knowing the difference between catholic and protestant would enable you to understand the politics of Northern Ireland. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another challenging geography question

I am looking for

1. City on the western edge(border of a familiar country) 2. It is also close to the border of another country 3. The city was ruled by both the countries (back and forth) several times 4. Massive construction project completed in mid 19th century gave the local and regional economies a boost

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say Strasbourg, which was ruled alternately by France and Germany over time as part of Alsace, but I'm not sure if that fits all of the conditions.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was destroyed and rebuilt after the Franco-Prussian War, so maybe that counts. It's on the eastern edge of France though, not the west, unless that means the western edge of Germany. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe, I can think of three cities that might meet these criteria: Aachen, Gdańsk and Vyborg. Astronaut (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two other possibilities are Szczecin and Rijeka. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trieste is another. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk seems the most likely of the ones that have been suggested so far. Steewi (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

symbol

I have seen a symbol on cars several times here in Central Orange County California and I have searched online and asked people and cannot find an answer to what it is. I have seen it on several occasions. It appears to me to be an "n", followed by a Christian cross, followed by a "w". I believe the "n" and cross may have a circle linking the two. I don't know if it's from an organization or group or what. Any answers would be appreciated.

Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.215.124 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be a reference to North West? —— Shakescene (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Of This World clothing [20] Livewireo (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show trials

How is it possible that all accused political prisoners in Soviet show trials admitted their "guilt"? I mean, Nazis also held similar trials, but not all of the victims admitted, also in recent times Saddam Hussein was tried but he never admitted and it could be argued that ICTY trials are, in most cases, little more then "show trials". I can understand why people would admit to save their lives, but in Soviet show trials they knew that the death penalty is the only possible outcome, so why would they admit? Surely people like Bukharin had a reputation to worry about (being famous worldwide) and they pretty much knew that they will die no matter what, so what made them admit? It couldnt be just the torture and pain, cause at least some of them would have resisted or admitted to the investigators, but told the truth in front of the media in court. Is there any explanation for this, I couldnt find it anywhere on the internet. I red a book on this issue recently, but its explanation that they felt "its one last sacrifice for their communist ideal" isnt valid in all cases, it does not explain why there were not exemptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.156 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A threat against the family of the accused? Confess or we will torture them all? Maybe they were killed in prison and the "confession" is fake? Just speculation, I have no actual information. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely some were killed in prison, but those who confessed during the public "show trials" did so in the presence of often even western jurnalists. I cant understand why would they admit it all in public, saying things like "I am a fascist" or "I had raped my childrend and conspired to kill Stalin". After all they were all well-known former leaders of USSR. Thats why I cant understand why would they admit to all of those accusations when they had a chance to at least die with the clear name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.156 (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bukharin, as I recall (though I wasn't born then), was a rare example of a defendant who positively contested his case at trial and didn't confess or give in. But the question of what can induce these confessions and apparent changes of heart goes all the way back to Tudor treason trials and right up to the current show trials in Tehran. Although I haven't read it, I understand that it's the main theme of Arthur Koestler's book and play, Darkness at Noon. The ex-Communist Koestler, as a fellow anti-Stalinist veteran of the Spanish Civil War, was a close friend of George Orwell, who drew upon the Stalinist and Nazi show trials to draw the fictional picture of Winston Smith's conversion in Nineteen Eighty-Four. See also the discussion of similar topics in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. A combination of physical torture, disorientation, terrorization, playing upon guilt and political brainwashing seems to produce these effects, but the results (as in Tehran today) while very useful for convincing the already-committed and some naïve outside sympathizers, is often quite counter-productive to sceptics. I've read that the main reaction to seeing the defendants on Iranian TV has been not to what they say but to their stark physical appearance and demeanour after confinement. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that many of the things they are accused of are actually true, in a way. Say the interview goes like this:

"Did you carry out the massacre of the village in question ?"

"Yes, under the direct orders of ..."

Then, in the televised version of the confession, they cut the answer off after the "Yes". StuRat (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in reading the chapter on the Trial of the Twenty-One in Eastern Approaches by Fitzroy Maclean. He was then a junior diplomat, and sat in the courtroom day after day, discussing the trial each evening with other expats. I don't have the book with me, but in at least one case, the accused denied the charges and made a spirited defence for as long as the judge would allow, only to return the following morning a broken man, recanting the previous day's bravado in a robotic voice. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacha Distel

How many of his songs were featured in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? Ericoides (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one, "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head". However the version in the movie was recorded by B. J. Thomas. Sacha Distel covered it later, though his version became more popular in the UK. —Akrabbim^talk 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, you may want to post music/movie relate questions on the entertainment desk...you may get and even faster response. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to its existence (although this was plenty fast enough ...) Ericoides (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Bacharach and Hal David would say that none of Sacha Distel's songs were sung in "Butch ... Kid". They wrote the song, and presumably they still own the rights to it. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Hugo's religion

The article says (in section 1. Life) that he was an atheist, but in another (4. Religious views) that he was always religious but just anti-Catholic and followed rationalist deism - So was he really an atheist as such for a certain period or not, and when? Thanks for help, --AlexSuricata (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The line about being an atheist is a bit confusing in its use of pronouns, but it is referring to Hugo's father (a huge believer in Napoleon). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you call something that you assume to be true, but it is not a dogma for you?

Like, if you see a guy beating a woman, he is the criminal. In a car accident, the car which crashed behind the other is at fault. A working hypothesis? Standard assumption?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on context. Definition. Assumption. Hypothesis. Or "probably", "likely". Or. in my case, "oversimplified and not generally true" (but I'm a professional nit-picker). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged?" "Standard assumption" and "working hypothesis" are good too. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

circumstantial evidence? heuristic? statistically significant correlation? --Gilisa (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about supposition? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumption" is the usual word in UK law; "rebuttable presumption" if it's possible for evidence to show that the fact presumed is false, "irrebuttable presumption" if it isn't. Tevildo (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the Elfs of Tolkien

I have read all of Tolkien's writinigs along time ago and yet I can't drew the conclusion whether they are Scandinavians or from the Netherlands-does anyone have a lead? And seriously, Tolkein implied at least once in the past that there is some connection between the different races he described in his books and races/nations in the real world. --Gilisa (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some connections, for example the Rohan are based on the Celts, if memory serves. I don't think the elves are based on any real world culture, though. They are largely based on real world mythologies, including those from Scandinavia. Elf (Middle-earth) has information on this topic. --Tango (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that kingdom of Rohan is a Celtic kingdom and that the Hobbits are somewhat English people (as Tolkien said himself). I know that Elfs were described already in ancient Scandinavian mythology -but I doubt that Tolkien didn't take the inspiration from real people when he gave the detailed description of their traits, look and etc. In one interview he had he pointed out a connection between few non human races in his book and real nations. So, just out of curiosity, who are the Elfs?--Gilisa (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Elf (Middle-earth), but Tolkien didn't literally write the elves as though they were some nation from historical Earth, and of course we know Tolkien cordially detested allegory in all its forms. He did love the Finnish language and the main Elvish language was strongly influenced by, or derived from, Finnish. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Tuttle, In a letter he wrote in 1955 Tolkien spoke out on the dwarfs: " Like Jews they are at once native and aliens in their habitants...Speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue..They guard their language, Khuzdul, as a treasure of the past". He also made somewhat similar comparison between Hobbits and British people. So, I don't think he distest this kind of allgories-even if not explicitly admit them. So, you think that Elfs are of Uralic origin?--Gilisa (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Elvish languages were inspired by Uralic languages, but I don't think the Elvish people were based on Uralic people. I've certainly seen no mention of that in any of Tolkien's writings (although I'm not as well read on the subject as I'd like to be). --Tango (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one Elvish language (Quenya) is based on a Uralic language (Finnish). Sindarin is based largely on Welsh. Algebraist 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Just because he didn't intend for any allegory doesn't mean he didn't incorporate real-world parallels into his characters. I think he once stated that the dwarves were based loosely on Jews, but I don't think elves fit into any parallel as strong as that. —Akrabbim^talk 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am cringing as I read these claims. Tolkien was not writing the Dwarves to be the Jews of Middle-Earth just because he compared one aspect of dwarvish culture to one aspect of Jewish culture. Rohan was not a Middle-Earth version of the Celts. I remember the likening of the Shire to aspects of part of England ... but I'm really uncomfortable with these claims that ME's different races and nations have counterparts on Earth, and you're all going to have to cite better sources than that if you want to sustain your claims. Remember how he hated the claims about LOTR being an anti-Soviet-Union novel. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuttle, we are just saying that the Jews and Celts were just some inspirations for Tolkien's races/nations. He did not mean to represent the real-world entities in his stories. As for references, looks like this book is where the Dwarf-Jew claim is from. I don't know about the Rohan-Celt claim (the section at Rohan#Inspiration is mostly OR), but their language seems to be inspired by Old English languages (looks like that is learned from one of his appendices). —Akrabbim^talk 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Tuttle, I'm not implying for a direct connection, and to be more specific, the associations Tolkien had are what I'm after. Also, somehow I can't see how he totaly isolated himself from external influence when he wrote a trilogy about an imaginry complete world, with its own languages and etc. As for the Dwarves-it's actually a funny comparison he made, as I can't see too much connection (but I can see a little when comparing between imaginery Khazad-dûm and Jerusalem). What about the people from the east that he described?--Gilisa (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you said Rohan was a Celtic nation, and you asked whether the elves were Scandinavians or Dutch, and are asking "who are the Elfs (sic)". You're indeed asking for, and making assertions about, "direct connections". All I'm asserting is that Tolkien did not write the ME kingdoms and races to correspond to different Earth nations. I never made any assertions about his inspirations or any alleged isolation from historical influence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm pretty much accepting your opinion -I think that you misunderstood me or/and that I didn't explain myself correctly. Anyway, thanks!--Gilisa (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Rohan is not a Celtic nation. At all. The Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxons on horses. Algebraist 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

food prices

Approx how much does a dozen chicken eggs cost in the capitol of Zambia? Googlemeister (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the same as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.--Gilisa (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?

Sorry, I was thniking that you just joked when you posted this question.--Gilisa (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have a friend who will be going there later and wants to know some basic food prices. Googlemeister (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page says that, in 2004, one unit of eggs (I assume that means 1 egg, although it seems a little expensive) cost 3,200 ZMK, which are current rates is 0.69 USD. Our article on the subject says inflation is about 10%, so over the last 5 years I would expect the price to have increased to 5,150 ZMK or 1.11 USD. --Tango (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while that page was written in 2004, it says the prices are from 2002, so those last numbers should be 6,200 ZMK or 1.35 USD. I am, of course, assuming inflation has been constant and that the price of eggs has followed general inflation figures. I don't have any evidence to confirm or contradict that. --Tango (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way to find out might be to email one of Zambia's supermarket chains (the main ones seem to be Shoprite and SPAR) and ask directly. Failing that these people might be able to answer your question. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add this question to the original question of Googlemeister?

Is there any place where one can buy the following items for .10 USD?

1 dozen chicken eggs

1 bread (about 1 lb)

1 lb rice

1 lb potatoes

1 lb fish (any kinds)

1 lb meat

1 lit milk

1 lb vegetable (any kinds)

In Canada, one can buy 5 of these items for a 1.00 USD each where the minimum wage is at least 8 USD. So if one can buy at least 5 items for .10 USD each where the minimum wags is .80 USD, then the living standard is much higher than in Canada; in overall analyses, even a wage of .30 USD. That is, three hours of labor for an average three persons households. I do not know, but it seems 5 of the above items for .10 USD each still possible somewhere. Couchworthy (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a grocery store advertisement from Canada offering 5 dozen eggs for the equivalent of $1 U.S. I sincerely doubt that is a common retail price, unless it be some giveaway gimmick to attract customers. Ditto for the rest of the items. Very doubtful. Edison (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood - it's $1 each, if you buy 5. It sounds like a special offer - you buy 5 things, you get them cheaper. --Tango (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand, when they're in season, pumpkins can be bought for very low prices. Pretty sure they'd work out at somewhere close to 10cUS per lb at some times of the year. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half kg of pumpkins for 10$ is cheap!? In Israel you can by it for less than 2.5$ all along the year.--Gilisa (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He said 10c which is 0.1 USD. A similar thing happens to apples in parts of the UK, in season you can buy "windfalls" in bulk for less than 10p per kilo. They are not "class one" but are fine when you remove the bruised bits. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

What is the correct number of figures in Rodin's “Gates of Hell”?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Rodin#The_Gates_of_Hell States The Gates of Hell comprised 186 figures in its final form.[25] 25.^ a b Jianou & Goldscheider, 41.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates_of_Hell States The Gates of Hell (French: La Porte de l'Enfer) is a monumental sculptural group work by French artist Auguste Rodin that depicts a scene from "The Inferno", the first section of Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy. It stands at 6 m high, 4 m wide and 1 m deep (19.69'H × 13.12'W × 3.29'D) and contains 180 figures. 132.198.153.130 (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Volkswagen

Hi, i need help. Could somebody help me to identify the man on this picture? [21].

It seems like the CEO of Volkswagen during the 1970s but i am not sure. He is posing in front of a newly made Volkswagen Golf Mk1. The picture dates possibly from 1978.

Thanks in advance.--HappyApple (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interest rates and money flow

Where does the extra money paid by borrowers go, when interest rates are raised by a central bank? e.g. mortgage interest payments.

In a historical and simple view of a single bank, the extra cash would end up in savings accounts at the bank through a higher savings interest rate. However in today's global economy where securitization is prevalent and everyone lends to everyone else, I'm guessing it doesn't end up with bank depositors or the banks themselves.

I know that corporations suffer with higher interest rates as they are usually geared, so I guess it doesn't go to shareholders as a group.

I know that a government must pay out higher bond coupon rates on new borrowings, so I'm guessing it doesn't go to government.

Where does the money go then? And how does it flow there? What are the gaps in my logic? CrazyGoldy (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of basic assumptions. First, the US Fed (to take a familiar example) adjusts the rate it charges other banks, not the rate they charge customers. The action is most effective at the short end (30 days), rather than on longer-tenure bonds. Second, raising interest rates may result in a loss of interest income. For example, ten loans are made for $100 each, at 2.5% interest. When the interest rate is raised to 2.75%, one borrower drops out, and the remaining nine loans are rolled over. Income from the 10 x 2.5% loans was 25, whereas interest from the 9 x 2.75 was 24.75. In other words, there was no increased income from raising the lending rate. Third, rising interest rates affect not only loans but also deposits. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health Insurance Costs in the 1960s

I read a youtube comment on a video implying that government inclusion in the Health Insurance system drove up costs of Health insurance from their original levels in the 60s, that being around 15 dollars a month. Is their any truth to either claim brought up?

How much is 15 dollars adjusted for inflation? 74.236.23.152 (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting take: In the 1960s, US households spend 24% of their consumption expenditure (goods and services) on food and healthcare, combined. This decade, the total is 25%, because as healthcare got more expensive, food became much cheaper. Source: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=70&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2008. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man and God

It has been said that one reason the Jews do not believe in Jesus Christ is because Jesus Christ is at best still in part a man while God is not man and the First Commandment prohibits them from accepting any other God before Him. This argument seems to be trumped by Jesus saying that in fact he is God so that the inevitable result is that since man cannot be God Jesus is lying and attempting to nullify the First Commandment through deception to win allegiance to God for Himself. This is a great argument for not believing in God unless you consider the idea that man and God are joined in a manner similar to a caterpillar and a butterfly or an egg and a chicken. Man and God certainly seem to be joined by a covenant so how is it impossible that man and God can be joined in flesh and in spirit? 71.100.0.254 (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]