Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 19

Where In The World

[1]

Where is this?174.3.123.220 (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The green logo in the foreground is for Early Learning Centre. Millets, according to our article, only has shops in the UK. So, you can narrow it down a bit. Dismas|^(talk) 01:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely a British high street, but I have no idea which one. TinEye finds it used as a generic picture of a high street on a few websites, but none of them identify it. --Tango (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The third sign appears to be Ellis Brigham Mountain Sports: [2]. Here's a map of their UK locations for cross-referencing with the other two stores: [3]. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Found it ! 130 Deansgate, Manchester, UK. StuRat (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Kensington High Street to me [4] meltBanana 01:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know, Stu. I put the address from Ellis Brigham's Manchester store into Google Maps Streetview and, while there is a Millets just down the road, I can't see any Ellis Brigham. Nor any ELC. Dismas|^(talk) 01:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's Kensington High Street. In fact, you can see the stores from the OP's photo in our own image of KHS. They're on the left of the photo. Dismas|^(talk) 02:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but the No. 27 bus's destination board reading 'Turnham Green' would have narrowed it down to the London area from the get-go. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Except the bus isn't in the picture linked to by the original questioner, it's in a different picture linked to by someone answering. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. Missed the initial link and leapt to the wrong assumption. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America and Evolution

Has the Boy Scouts of America ever issues an official policy on teaching evolution? It wouldn't surprise me based on the BSA's other absurd policies.

--71.98.64.15 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I was a Scout years ago and I don't remember any specific mention of it. I don't know why they would have any position on it. There are certain religions that allow for a belief in evolution, so I don't know how they would be able to reconcile religious freedom with a stance against evolution. Also, going over the requirements for Environmental Science merit badge, it asks for the Scout to "Conduct an experiment to find out how living things respond to changes in their environments" which suggests the possibility of evolution. And then Geology merit badge has a requirement that involves discussion of various eras including ancient life and fossils. Again, not a direct endorsement of the idea of evolution but they're certainly not young Earth creationists about it. Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not really about evolution, it's about adaptability. In any case, I don't think the average creationist has a problem with the idea of "natural selection". What they have a problem with is the idea of one species evolving into another species. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Its been a few years since i was in Boy Scouts (made it to eagle) and i wasn't sure if they either had a policy and i never heard about it or if they started a new policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The BSA has no policies on evolution. Other than the merit badges noted above, I can't think of anywhere it would come up. The BSA is a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement, and they have nothing on evolution. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rocky Marciano

Did Rocky Marciano appear in any films? If so what were they? Thank you.

Yes, see IMDB: [5]. Also, this would have been a good question for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wittelsbach heir of the Kingdom of Greece

After King Otto's death he made Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria his heir as pretender and because Luitpold's son Louis III renounced his claim to Greece it passed to Luitpold's second son Prince Leopold of Bavaria. But after Leopold wikipedia doesn't list who comes next. I can only guess that it passed to his son Prince Georg than his other son Prince Konrad and finally his grandson Prince Eugen. Does anybody know for sure if this is correct and who wpuld come after Eugen?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the pretender title claim did pass to Prince_Konrad_of_Bavaria and onto Eugen. At his death, his rights were passed to a third cousin once removed, a certain Prince Fernando of Bavaria. The current claimant is Prince Leopold. --Kvasir (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

economic growth

this project that the government will be doing in the article...will it ensure economic growth? 41.145.87.150 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What project that what government will be doing in what article? Regardless, I doubt any government can ensure economic growth, they can just increase the likelihood of it. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Governments tend not to generate economic growth because the taxes they need to impose to pay for the project cause as much (or more) drag on the economy as the project creates expansion. It is analogous to sitting in a sailboat and directing a fan at the sail. Wikiant (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Government can create the infrastructure required for economic growth, like roads, airports, schools, police & fire departments, etc. StuRat (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

They can change when economic growth happens (or does not happen), though, by funding projects through borrowing (or spending savings for those rare governments that aren't in debt). A good government can invest in a way that produces more economic growth than their taxes destroy, anyway - it's not easy, but it is certainly possible. --Tango (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What do Atheists swear to in court?

A guy next to me was wondering this. Any help? Buggie111 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["swearing in" atheist] and found a number of possibly useful answers or theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Which Bible is used to accomodate the different Christian religions? After all a Catholic wouldn't swear an oath on the King James Bible nor would a Protestant swear on the Catholic Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of those sources in google say that Bibles often are not used anymore, and where they are, the witness can choose their own particular holy book, e.g. a Jew might take the Jewish Bible (i.e. the Old Testament) and a Muslim might take the Quran (hence the right-wing flap over Keith Ellison's swearing in). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn, when I (a Catholic) was on Jury Duty (in the UK) they used a copy of the New Testament. That way there isn't any worry about the different number of books (since those are seven in the Old Testament). I didn't know what translation it was but I personally wasn't fussed - the important part was that it was a book containing the Gospel of Jesus and the teachings of the early Church. Joe^Talk_Work 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A number of jurisdictions offer the possibility of an affirmation for those that for some reason are unwilling to swear an oath. This can potentially include both atheists as well as those of various and sundry religious persuasions objecting to oaths. Gabbe (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Adams covers this here : The Straight Dope : How do courts swear in atheists? APL (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

May I offer a personal answer? I would not describe myself as an athiest, but post-religious. In any event, if a judge wanted my assurances of honesty, I would tell him that I understand that lying is counter-productive to my interests as well as everybody else's. I believe that would satisfy even the most cynical of magistrates. Vranak (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that it is not only atheists who object to taking oaths. As our article Affirmation in law makes clear, the exception to taking the oath was introduced to allow Quakers (a notably devout denomination) to act according to their conscience and beliefs. Some other Christian denominations also prohibit the taking of oaths, as do some traditions in Islam. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A bible isn't a honest book & it may be missing a few pages or might be in a foreign languauge (maybe even brail). IMHO, one should swear on a mallard duck. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not a half eaten fig? Or a margarita? Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Either will do. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You could swear before who or whatever you consider to be a supreme being. In your case, I would imagine you would also sing a "ducksology". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why a duck? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt any judge or magistrate would accept that. There are procedures to follow and they will follow those procedures. That includes getting you to swear or affirm using the standard words for that jurisdiction. --Tango (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vranak, what makes you believe that a judge would accept that? Besides the fact that the judge will almost certainly have a protocol he has to follow, (You wouldn't be the first atheist ever to be sworn into court!) You're also dodging the point of the exercise. (You haven't promised to tell the truth, you've just explained that it would be a good idea for you to do so.) And furthermore it may, in fact, not be counter-productive to your interests to lie. That's certainly not self-evident at all! APL (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the judge believes that I value honesty as much as he does, then plainly I will be regarded as honest. (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I think he's much more likely to believe that he doesn't have time for this crap, why won't this guy just say the affirmation like all the other atheists, and that he hasn't found these sorts of dodges clever since his first week on the job. APL (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Vranak (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You would use the form of words prescribed by law. In the UK it is given by the Oaths Act 1978. [6] DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I had to swear to something a while back (for a US federal document). They had me hold up my right hand while they asked me "do you swear or affirm blah blah blah", from which I inferred that swearing and affirmation were considered equivalent. I think I was supposed to say "I do", but I instead said "yes sir", which was accepted. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall hearing that some prominant atheist or other (Dawkins? Hitchins?) said he preferred to be sworn in using a copy of the constitution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins is British and we don't have a single written constitution, so I very much doubt it's him. --Tango (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Foreigners can't take the stand in the US? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What if someone happened to be a Satanist? Would he or she have to swear on the Satanic Bible?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In UK courts, there is the standard General Oath "I swear by Almighty God...", an Affirmation, "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that..." and a number of Other Oaths for members of other mainstream faiths or Christisn denominations that eschew the swearing of oaths (ie Quakers and Moravians)[7]. Full details here[8]; I'm afraid Satanists don't get a mention. More contentious here is the oath or affirmation that Members of Parliament have to take before they can take their seat[9], because they both require "allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law." Some MPs who support republicanism take the oath with their fingers crossed, while others, notably members of Sinn Féin, don't take their seats at all[10]. Alansplodge (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 603 (to use a federal example in the U.S.), there's no requirement that any oath be on a bible or religious text, only that there is an "oath". It says:

Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so.

In practice, there is often not a bible at all and the oath is generally agnostic. There is not (again, federal) a specific text under FRE 603. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I just got off jury duty in Massachusetts, and saw a lot of people taking oaths, but there were no Bibles/other books, just standing with right hand raised. 65.96.208.10 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for anti-immigration?

OK I completely understand anti-immigration sentiment in many countries at the moment, there are already so many unemployed people during this economic downturn that immigrants are only going to add to that and be a complete drain on my money.

But, during the boomtime before all that Lehman Brother's crap there was still a lot of anti-immgrationism. Unemployment was quite low and if you really tried you could find a job. Why was this?--92.251.238.63 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Check out xenophobia, which is a recurrent theme in connection with immigration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from xenophobia, there is also the issue of foreigners keeping nationals from getting jobs, one way or another. For example, it used to be the case, and maybe still is, that in Switzerland you had to "prove" that no Swiss citizen could do a specific job before bringing a foreigner into that job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See also Scapegoat#Psychology and sociology --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the major reason behind anti-immigration rhetoric (and similar rhetoric that has been leveled in the past against welfare recipients, single mothers, and certain disempowered groups like African Americans in the US, migrant Turks in Germany, and gays everywhere) is that the groups have negligible political clout and can be made to look like they are a drain on the rights and resources of 'solid citizens'. That makes them ripe political targets for any person or group looking to gain political power by inflaming public tempers. sad, really... --Ludwigs2 21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See our articles Immigration to the United States, Immigration to the United Kingdom, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, you need to be careful to differentiate between those who are anti-immigration, and those who are anti-illegal-immigration. While one may see illegal immigrants in a bad light, the same might not be true for legal immigrants. The trick is distinguishing which is which. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a secondary issue. People (like the minutemen groups in the US) who actively advocate tougher measures against illegal immigrantion do so on basis of racist arguments, the same type of prejudice that affect legal immigrants as well. --Soman (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are assuming a static economy. Labor is a resource. The more resources a country has, the more it can produce. Look, for example, to the 170,000 (as of 2008) jobs created in the US by just five immigrants: Grove (founded Intel), Khosla (founded Sun), Yang (founded Yahoo), Brin (founded Google), and Omidyar (founded eBay). Wikiant (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a natural instinct in humans. As Enoch Powell said: "...we have an identity of our own, as we have a territory of our own, and that the instinct to preserve that identity, as to defend that territory, is one of the deepest and strongest implanted in mankind. I happen also to believe that the instinct is good and that its beneficent effects are not exhausted...In our time that identity has been threatened more than once. In the past it was threatened by violence and aggression from without. It is now threatened from within by the forseeable consequences of a massive but unpremeditated and, in substantial measure, reversible immigration."--Britannicus (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Disadvantages of immigration, other than causing unemployment:

1) Leads to an increase in population. Of course, if your country has a low population and plenty of room for more, this is less of a problem, but not many countries fall into this category any more (although many "colonies" did 200-300 years ago).

2) If the immigrants are poor, this can lead to lowering the wage base, especially for menial jobs. This, however, is an advantage to business owners, who tend to be pro-immigration, but also want to keep it illegal, so the workers don't get any legal rights.

3) If the immigrants are from another culture, this can change the existing culture, sometimes in rather severe ways, like wanting to implement Sharia law.

4) If the immigrants speak another language, this can cause problems for government, which now must provide both translations and translators. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, every one of StuRat's 4 "disadvantages" may not be a disadvantage or has a flip side that's an advantage; and additionally, although the very poor will consume some state resources, depending on where we're talking about, even the very poor are consumers, which boosts local business. It's a very complicated issue. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Applications of involuntary sterilization in the United States in the 1900's, including cases of coerced sterilization.

I am trying to do a report on the history of applications of sterilization in the United States in the 1900's. My instructor requires me to locate print materials, which I have already located, as well as audio-visual materials and web based resources. I was hoping someone would be able to help direct me towards web based materials, idealy archives or websites that focus on involuntary sterilization, which are repuitable enough for me to include in a bibliography. I know they have to exist but I'm having difficulty locating them and my librarian told me to consult wikipedia.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.37.16 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me just suggest some categories of people who are sterilized against their will, to help in the keyword searches:

1) The mentally retarded.

2) The mentally ill.

3) Male rapists. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that male rapists were sterilized in any great numbers. By the 20th century, sterilization as a form of punishment had been largely discontinued in the US on account of its probable violation of the 8th and 14th amendments. In any case a search for "eugenic sterilization" is probably going to be more helpful than the specifics of the populations sterilized. (And I note you use the word are—compulsory sterilizations by and large have discontinued in the USA; that ought to have been a were.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought about changing that, myself. However, I do believe some male rapists are currently given the choice of prison or sterilization, and I don't consider that to be "free choice". StuRat (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That'd be chemical castration, Stu, not the same thing as sterilisation at all. FiggyBee (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction. They can't reproduce while on the chemicals, just like a man who has had a vasectomy. Yes, it does reverse itself once the drugs are stopped, but a vasectomy may also be reversed. StuRat (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of chemical castration is to reduce sexual desire, not to reduce fertility. The two are completely unrelated (men who have vasectomies retain their sex drive). FiggyBee (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be the original intent, but the result is the same, both are incapable of reproduction. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See Compulsory sterilization. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And, specifically: Compulsory_sterilization#United_States. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The best web-based resource on the history of eugenics is the Image Archive of the American Eugenics Movement. It has a lot about the sterilization laws and their use on it. They are a reputable source, run by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. BuckvBell.com is the website for a book by a well-respected historian of sterilization, Paul Lombardo, and has a number of documents on it in a small archive, as well as an excellent bibliography of eugenics and a links page. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Joseph DeJarnette, Racial Integrity Act of 1924, Buck v. Bell and Category:Eugenics. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also look at the more recent controversy over "voluntary" sterilization of Native Americans. Rmhermen (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the name of this psychological phenomenon?

i ws talking to a friend the other day who said that he "can't see part of something," his brain can only take in the whole thing, instead of compartmentalizing. So, for instance, he said when he would hear a tune, he couldn't play just part of it, if his instrument only played part; he would have to play the whole song. Is there a term for this manner of processing information? Thanks.209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Something related to Gestalt psychology? Warning: the article is not particularly well-written. It needs a good cleaning with an effective de-turgid. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming your friend can otherwise function normally in the world, that kind of thing would just be taken as part of normal human behavior, and wouldn't have a specific name. If it is severe enough that it begins to interfere with his life in a significant way (e.g. he finds himself incapable of stopping himself from completing wholes so that he can't engage in normal human interaction, puts himself and others at risk when he operates a car or other machinery, or etc), then it might be diagnosed somewhere in the obsessive/compulsive spectrum of disorders or as a mild form of autism. or something else entirely - a lot more information would be required for a clinical diagnose. but that's probably not the case. --Ludwigs2 13:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

April 20

Who funded McVeigh?

Having just watched the special on Timothy McVeigh and seeing how much time and effort he put into his efforts, I wonder: where did he get the money? --Halcatalyst (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A rental truck full of fertilizer isn't all that expensive. It was presumably financed by the conspirators: McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael and Lori Fortier. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing#Gathering materials provides more detail on the funds required, suggesting the total budget was less than $5000. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and capitalism (USA vs. world)

USA is considered to be the richest country in the world, yet it is one of the very few countries (maybe even the only one) that never had socialists in power. Could it be argued that even though socialism in theory is more noble then capitalism, that in reality "little people" live better in capitalism? You often hear that capitalism is "cruel", "evil" and so on, while its never said of socialism... But could it be said that american capitalism, as an economic system, is superior to any socialist system in the world? Socialism is suppose to make things easier for the regular, hard-working people, but dont they live better in capitalism after all? --92.244.137.205 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The US is the richest country in the world due to a high average per capita income and a fairly large population. The average per capita income of the US is comparable to many socialist nations in Europe. However, since each nation is smaller, the total GDP is lower. But, if the US is compared to the EU in total, then the EU is far richer.

Now, as to how well the "little people" do, there is more disparity in wealth between the rich and poor in the US than in socialists nations. This, along with a comparable average per capita income, means that the "little people" are poorer in the US, and the rich people are wealthier. Also note that poor people in the US have fewer government resources provided for them, such as health care, child care, high quality schools, job training, etc., than in socialist nations in Europe. This makes their quality of life much lower. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "socialism." The only truly socialist state left in the world is North Korea. There is no question that ordinary Americans live better than ordinary North Koreans do, or for that matter ordinary people in any of the Communist block when it existed. If you are talking about countries with a more-developed welfare state than the U.S. has, which is not the same as socialism, the answer is less clear. Rich people are probably better off in the U.S. than in Europe. Poor people are probably better off in Europe. As for the people in the middle, Europeans are currently better off because their recession hasn't been as bad. Looking at it from a long-term viewpoint, American middle-class people tend to have bigger houses, bigger cars and more "stuff." Europeans have longer vacations, safer cities, healthier lifestyles and less fear of economic catastrophe should they lose their jobs or get sick. So pick your poison. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think many people would agree that North Korea is a "truly socialist state". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The No true Scotsman fallacy often rears its head in discussions of which states are or were "truly" socialist/communist. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. "No true Scotsman" applies when there is an initial, well-agreed upon definition of the class, which the speaker appears to accept, and then it turns out that the speaker changes his definition in order to be able to dismiss all counterexamples by excluding them "by definition", thus making his initial statement tautological "no true Scotsman is dishonest... and my definition of a Scotsman is a man from Scotland who is not dishonest". In the case of socialism, there is no such initial, well-agreed upon definition that socialists appear to accept ("any country that calls itself socialist", or "any country that nationalizes its entire economy"), and most modern socialists' definitions of socialism do exclude dictatorships from the start. So did the definition of most socialists before the October revolution; etymologically, "socialism" (from socius "partner", "associate") suggests something like "partnership", so it is about equals working together voluntarily for their common purpose, not about a tyrannical boss forcing them to do what he wishes for his purposes. Socialism was supposed to involve some form of democracy, and the dictatorships that described themselves as socialistic always claimed to be democratic. Thus, this is not a case of "No true Scotsman", but simply of people having different definitions of the same word. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a number of other reasons for the success of the US. Inheriting what amounted to a (as far as military/political power is concerned) nearly empty continent with unspoiled resources, right on the brink of the industrial revolution, and at a time when technology allowed this to develop into one fairly homogeneous nation is one point. Sitting behind a conveniently large ocean from all large technologically similar nations also provided a huge benefit - there has been only one serious war on US soil (not counting the War of 1812), and no credible threat of a conventional war destroying significant infrastructure since the US Civil War. Europe, on the other hand, had two world wars and a number of smaller (not small) wars, and, of course, maintained large and unproductive armies to fight them. WW1 killed 16 million, only 117000 of them Americans. WW2 killed some 60 millions, only 418000 of them Americans. In both cases, casualty rates for Americans are about an order of magnitude or more lower than for Europeans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Some European countries have a higher per capita GDP than the US - places like Switzerland or Luxemburg for example. My half-educated guess is that the large physical size of the US may have something to do with the wealth of the US - lots of land per person, hence lots of natural resources (ie wealth) per person. The large population size of the US means you have a large internal market which can support lots of fledgling products that would not get big enough sales to be viable in other smaller countries. In Europe the difficulties of the different languages, cultures, and regulations means that it is impractical for small or new companies to sell things Europe-wide. And I wonder if the comparative cheapness of real-estate in the US means that people's efforts resources are not wasted on the unproductive end of acquiring very cramped but very expensive housing. 89.241.47.121 (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

..."never had socialists in power" - really ? What about Roosevelt's New Deal ? Social security, minimum wages, empowerment of unions, central economic planning through agricultural subsidies and state funding of big engineering projects, increased regulation of banks ... surely that was a socialist administration in all but name ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that socialism, in theory, is more noble than capitalism. Capitalism (i.e., free market economics) is predicated on the assumption that people are fundamentally good and that, left to their own, they will work together in harmony. Socialism is predicated on the assumption that people are fundamentally evil and that, left to their own, they will devolve into chaos. Wikiant (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these is generally accepted. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, those are backwards. Capitalism assumes that people are lazy, yet greedy, and will therefore only work if they don't get paid, otherwise. Socialism, on the other hand, assumes that all will work for the good of society, without the need to be rewarded. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No brand of socialism, even the craziest Maoist type, ever abolished rewards. The idea, even in the sickest dictatorships, has been to reward labour, materially as well as symbolically ("to each according to his labour"). Only in the future perfect society of absolute affluence ("communist society" as opposed to "socialist society" in Marxist parlance) would people start working without a connection with what they get and vice versa ("from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need"). Moderate, social capitalist ideology does assume that people will work in order to be able to buy nicer clothes or a newer car, even if there is a safety net ensuring that no matter how little they work, they won't starve to death, die without medicines, or see their children suffer that fate. More radical forms of capitalist ideology, on the other hand, consider these stimuli to be an indispensable bliss for the lazy animals.

As for the issue of which one is "nobler" in the sense of pre-supposing a nobler human nature: Strictly speaking, socialism is nobler, because proponents of a socialist economy, like democracy, expect the citizens to be capable of ruling their own society collectively and consciously for their own common good; proponents of a capitalist economy expect the common good to result as an emergent phenomenon, unconsciously, from people's individual selfish actions. But moderate pro-capitalists recognize that for this to work, there is a need for at least some rational and collective decisions made by the people for the common good; these are supposed to impose rules and restrictions, to create some legal framework for capitalist activities, and to make some convenient and humane additions to the overall system. Radical pro-capitalists of the kind we've been seeing recently tend towards denying all such needs. While that latter ideology does not always assert directly that it expects the rich to act consciously for the common good, it is often argued to pre-suppose this expectation, because it seems obviously impossible that the rich would avoid all noxious activities (use of force, ecological damage, child labour, subprime package machinations) or perform all the needed useful activities (regular and reliable charity) if they aren't forced. In this sense, it can be regarded as being even "nobler" than socialism - while socialism expects the citizens as a group to act in their own collective interest, radical capitalism expects individual rich people to act in society's interest without being forced to or having any profit from it. But again, other representatives of that ideology will argue that there is a good enough selfish motive for each of these things, so there is no need for conscious striving towards the common good even here. The only conscious striving for the common good endorsed by these idealists is then the one found in their own motives to advocate radical capitalism. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that size has anything to do with it. Russia is much bigger then USA, but its much poorer. Also, EU is not richer then USA, because EU is not a country. Every, or 9 out of 10 european countries, have had socialist in power at least once. I believe that Wikiant is probably closest with his answer. --92.244.137.205 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia is much bigger than the USA as a territory (so is Canada), but it is much smaller in terms of population.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether the EU is a nation has nothing to do with whether it has a higher total GDP than the US. It does, period. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look for a single cause in history, you will very rarely succeed. Russia is bigger than the US in area only. It's only half the size in population. Russia also was a backwater long before the October revolution, and had to bear the brunt of the most destructive war ever within less than a generation after the revolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One cannot judge the quality of life in Europe as if it were one single country; each nation is different, and therefore has a different standard of living. For instance, can one compare southern Italy to Scandinavia, for example? The same goes for the USA. Can we honestly say that people living in West Virginia generally enjoy the same standard of living as those in Southern California? As regards the difference between capitalism and socilaism it boils down to two things: Capitalism offers a person more freedom to choose and it favours individuality, whereas socialism is about conformity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that "socialism is about conformity", I also disagree that "capitalism favours individuality" - it doesn't, it favours those with capital. DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And how does a person acquire capital? In a socialist state there is more government control and regulation; it hinders the individual with the intelligence and/or diligence to open a business, start an industry, thereby giving employment to others. Socialism and it's heavy sidekick communism hinders free enterprise and the entrepeneur. Could Wikipedia, Facebook, etc., have been conceived and brought to fruition in a socialist state?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the WWW was invented in "socialist" Switzerland by a British employee of state-funded CERN. ARPANET was created in a government lab, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

While nobody doubts that Switzerland (as well as other socialist nations such as Sweden, etc.) has given the world many wonderful things, I cannot help noticing that given a choice, the average European would choose to emigrate to brazenly capitalist Los Angeles or New York than Zurich or Geneva (My apologies to Swiss editors as I've no wish to give offence but we are talking governments not people).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

TomorrowTime (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"the average European would choose to emigrate to brazenly capitalist Los Angeles or New York than Zurich or Geneva". Yes. You often hear people say how american economic system is cruel, but still America have more immigrants then any socialist country. So it must not be that cruel after all? --92.244.137.205 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The WWW was not invented in Switzerland. The protocols that made it possible may have been, but the WWW is the sum total of individual contributions by hundreds of millions of bloggers, web designers, photographers, etc. In fact, it was not until ARPANET released control of the beast that the web developed. Wikiant (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As an American, the argument I generally hear against socialism has to do with individuality, which seems to us to be of more importance than it does to Europeans. The attitude about socialism seems to be "someone will take care of us", that "someone" being the government. The attitude about capitalism seems to be "no one will take care of you - least of all the government; you have to watch out for and stand up for yourself." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well put, Baseball. It's interesting that most of the Europeans who chose to leave the safety of Europe for the uncertainties, risks, as well as opportunities on an undreamed-of-scale the New World had to offer, were the most daring, non-conformist members of their society.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The ones who left were the unsuccesful and poor ones, for whatever reason. The wealthy succesful people stayed at hom,e. 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is hardly relevant. Neither European nor American society then was anything like it is now. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant as it serves to explain why so many Americans place a high value on individuality and mistrust socialism as a form of government interference.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Those perceptions are still there, though, at least to us Americans. Australia might be a better example of the American ideal in terms of individual freedom, though no place is perfect. But ultimately it comes down to what you want. I've worked with people who think Switzerland is wonderful because there's no crime. And from what I've heard, I would hate it, because it seems to be a highly conformist society. What's the state's interest in telling you what you can or cannot name your child? None, that's what. It's legalized nannyism. And while Americans are usually willing to obey rules that are agreed upon, some busybody government telling us how to run our private lives is highly offensive. That's just a symbol of something that Americans wouldn't stand for. But for those who like an authoritarian environment, that's just fine, I suppose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the heading for this section, by the way, as it illustrates my point perfectly. Rest of the world: "Conform!" USA (mockingly): "Sieg heil!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying all Europeans are conformists and all Americans non-conformists. I am originally from west Los Angeles, not far from the celebrated counter-culture of Venice Beach, where believe it or not there was a degree of conformity even among con-conformists. What I'm saying is socialism favours the common interest not the individual concern. In fact socialism reminds me of school uniforms.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Groups certainly have their specific conformisms. You're touching on another core issue, by bringing up uniforms. If everyone looks the same, then everyone is the same, no one stands out from the crowd; and the American argument is that in such a system there is no incentive to produce anything new, because there's no reward. It's no accident that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of authors and inventors for a period of time. What's the point of inventing something if you won't be rewarded for it somehow? Remember what Michael Douglas' character said in one of his movies: "Greed is good. Greed works." That's a crass way of saying that appealing to people's selfish interests is the best way to stimulate progress; not by appealing to their supposedly good nature. That's the libertarian view of things, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What gets me is when I hear women praise the virtues of socialism, not seeming to realise that fashion and cosmetics are products of capitalism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, under capitalism pretty much everything is a product of capitalism. Under slave-ownership it would be a product of slave-owning. As for the "anti-authoritarian" argument against socialism, it's funny how this argument completely rejects the possibility of democracy: it assumes the state could never be an instrument used by the people collectively to fix things and help each other, it is necessarily portrayed as an alien authority. Indeed, any form of collective action is branded as "conformism" or "tyranny against the individual" (except for anti-collectivist collective action, which is OK). This ideology may be OK for the strong and rich, but the weak and poor do need to work together. This argument also ignores the fact that authoritarian dominance relations develop perfectly well from the cleft between strong and weak everywhere in corporations, gangs, families and every walk of life without any help from the government, and flourish progressively as you abandon the possibility of collectively combating them through democracy. I'm afraid that the idea that "greed works", when left unchecked, to produce freedom and welfare is a utopia, unless your idea of freedom is working like a slave during all your waking hours or licking the boots of a boss in order to live another day. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice the OP and subsequent posters are talking about European countries or even "the world" being "socialist" as opposed to US capitalism. Please stop. There isn't a single country in Europe that isn't economically capitalistic - their economies are all market economies. A socialist economy is a command economy. Almost no country in the world is economically socialistic nowadays (and under most socialists' definitions, almost no country ever has been). What US right-wingers refer to as "socialistic" are just minor modifications or restrictions of capitalism intended to make it slightly more palatable and to prevent it from self-destructing. Help for the poor and sick, laws for at least minimal protection of labourers from their bosses, restricting certain dangerous business activities for the good of society as a whole, etc. have been part of every capitalist system to some extent during most of capitalism's history. The US is not categorically different from Europe in that respect, there is only a gradient difference (and many a Third World country has even less of these than the US). Calling these features "socialism" and describing them as mutually exclusive with capitalism means reviving the language of the Cold War in a completely inapt way; calling them "European / global" and describing them as opposed to "American" is similarly incorrect. The purpose is, of course, to destroy those small elements of non-capitalism on the basis of their being equated with something evil or feared such as Stalin, Hitler, absence of all economic prosperity, the "Other" alien enemy, etc.. Even the minimal rules that capitalism needs to avoid devolving into warfare and banditry between rival feudal clans have to be decided upon and enforced through some form of collective self-governance. If you call any such form of collective self-governance "socialism", then capitalism can't exist without socialism.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not so much all subsequent posters as only two of them patting each other on the back about how exceptional the US really is, and how the ancient Egyptians, a people with a flourishing cosmetics industry, apparently lived in a capitalist state. In other words, a lot of pointless soapboxing, but then with a question like this, that's to be expected... TomorrowTime (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that so many still want to come to the USA speaks for itself. And your implication, that this is not really an appropriate ref desk question, is likely on the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the view expressed here suggesting that many Europeans would like to live in the US. Not in my experience - we enjoy some of the products of its culture, but are bemused to the point of incredulity about others. There is no way many of us would want to live there. Of course, the view from other parts of the world, where the obvious differences in material living standards are much greater, is quite different. And just to comment on the differences between socialism and capitalism, my view is that "socialism" is essentially a set of structures necessary to enable people to help each other, while "capitalism" is the product of the underlying assumption that it is most important for people to be hostile to each other and try to outdo them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, most Europeans would not want to live in the US. The lack of universal health care and the guns and so on suggest that people are very selfish, and that those who cannot help themselves are considered not worth helping. This far outweighs the lure of cheap property or "real-estate". 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One factor to consider is that Protestantism tends to be more capitalistic and Catholicism tends to be more socialistic. I say again, the core difference is the notion that someone else will take care of you (socialistic) vs. you have to take care of yourself (capitalistic). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true globally. Nearly everywhere in the world, Catholics are associated with more conservative parties and capitalist systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No question the Catholic Church is conservative to the point of being backwards in some ways. I'm saying that in a certain way the Church itself is more of a socialistic creature than the Protestant churches are, which tend more to encourage individual initiative and less reliance on someone else (perhaps other than God Himself) to help you. You've perhaps heard the term "Protestant work ethic"? I've never heard of a "Catholic work ethic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that idea goes back to the puritans, and is prevalent mostly in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Notably, the % of Protestants in Sweden is way higher than the US. Furthermore, in Sweden Lutheranism was state religion (and enforced in a rather brutal manner). Later, the 'Protestant Work Ethic' has been a key component of the Social Democratic welfarist project. The logic of Protestant Work Ethic is that productive labour is of greater ~(moral/ethical) value than earning money by speculation. --Soman (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of the European system is that people can take great risks in starting a business because even if they lose everything, they will still have health care and somewhere to live. The outpouring of creative artists from the UK, for example, may be for the same reason. 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK, despite its health care system, is a capitalistic nation as well as the USA's staunchest ally. Yes many creative artists do come from the UK, and the music industry just happens to be one of the most blatantly capitalistic businesses in the world. That is why I find British pop stars who bleat on about the advantages of socialism while being a part of the lucrative entertainment industry makes me laugh to the point of gagging for their sheer hypocracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That proves that its possible to have capitalism and socialism combined. 92.29.113.160 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's reasonable to say that most developed countries (including the US) have a mixture of the two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the three of you seem to understand what socialism is. It's capitalism with the government intervening in some areas.--92.251.214.205 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we please close this? As shown by 91.148.159.4 the premise of the question is faulty, and not ref desk material at all. Let us end this before it gets even more cringeworthy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

US and Western Europe have many things in common politically & economically, but there are also differences. For many Europeans (Scandinavians in particular, I think) it is mind-boggling why many Americans prefer twice as much of their GDP for health care rather just so that insurance companies can harvest billions in profits whilst millions of Americans lack medical insurance, rather than having a cheaper, more efficent and ethically justifiable health care system. In Sweden, promising lower taxes doesn't win any election (compare the electoral platform of the rightwing in 2002 and 2006), whilst in the US the situation is the diametrical opposite. I heard once a theory, which I don't know if it is true: That the notion that the tax-collecting state is a vicious robber is a cultural inheritance largely from Irish immigrants, whose experience with the (British) state was universally negative. Would there be any truths in this? --Soman (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I have a vague feeling that we've had an identical discussion before, and that I have posted the same question earlier? --03:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

America currently has a leader who would be regarded as "socialist" in a country like Germany in power. They have had many of them, most notably Lydon B Johnson. We are using 2 different definitions here, "socialism is communism" and "socialism is social intervention".--92.251.133.88 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialized schooling and policing in the US

Why are Americans content with a socialized school and education system, a socialized policing system, and socialized fire-fighting, but go bananas (some of them) about what they call "socialized health care"? 89.241.47.121 (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I surmise that those who oppose it either don't really understand what "socialized" means and so don't realise that those existing institutions are - to some degree - socialized, or they do understand but don't believe that health care falls into the category of services that should be socialized. Some, of course, will be lobbying for the retention of the existing setup because they profit from it. Apologies if this is too discussional: hopefully someone can come up with more referenced material on the topic. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

They already have all the other systems. It is change people don't like. I expect there was an outcry when each of those systems was introduced too, but people get used to them and realise they actually work rather well and stop complaining. The same will happen with health care. --Tango (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis of claiming that Americans are content with the current police, fire-fighting, and education systems? If you spend any time at all reading the news, you will find a daily dose of complaints about the police, fire-fighting, and education systems. Also note that there is a huge difference between systems that benefit society as a whole and systems that benefit a single individual. When police protect a city, they benefit the city. When fire-fighters protect a city, they benefit the city. The purpose of public education is to reduce the population of uneducated adults in the city, which has been proven to reduce crime (and education is required to make democracy function). When a doctor sees a patient, the patient is helped. Further, consider the need. If there was no police, how many people have their own police force? If there was no fire-fighters, how many people have their own fire-fighters? If there was no public school, how many people have their own school? Now, how many people have their own health insurance (including those who use Medicaid/Medicare, the VA, military medical benefits, or purposely refuse insurance and pay out of pocket)? You can go one step further in this argument by asking if people are against socialized health care (like Medicaid/Medicare and the VA) or if they are against a plan to introduce a completely new (and expensive) branch of the Federal government with the sole purpose of undercutting existing insurance companies to put them out of business and cause all of their employees to become unemployed. -- kainaw™ 13:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When a doctor treats a patient, society benefits. Ill people are less productive economically, they are less able to contribute to society through voluntary work, and they spread diseases. DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis for your assumption that Americans are content with a socialized education system? We have a robust (parallel) private education system. Pick up almost any newspaper on any given day and you'll see an article arguing that our public primary through secondary education systems are inferior. Wikiant (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think we have socialized firefighting? Where I grew up all firefighters were volunteers and the ambulance was run by the undertaker (he got your business either way). Where I live now the firefighters are city employees and are all paramedics but the ambulances are private companies. There are many different systems in use. Rmhermen (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Even when firefighting is contracted to a private company, it is paid for by tax money. But, it still isn't socialized firefighting at a Federal level. People in Cuba, MO are not paying to fight fires in Enid, OK. Public schools are similar. Local taxes pay for local schools. There is a little Federal funding here and there, but not enough to make a big difference. It is more aid than socializing the system. -- kainaw™ 14:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly the problem if itwas socialized? (So asks the rest of the world) Aaronite (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is taxes. Who pays for socialisation? The burdened taxpayers. Since 1980, I have been living in three different Europeam countries and I am still astounded at the amount of tax people have to fork out to the government. Here, in Italy a person has to pay for a stamp for every document! Then there's a TV tax, road tax, tax this tax that, everywhere you turn you are hit with a tax, yet my daughter was born in a private clinic because the wonderful socialised hospitals are rat-infested and full of incompetents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society". The "burdened tax-payer" also is the one who profits from the services his tax money buys. Nearly all Italians manage to get born fine in "socialized" hospitals. It's quite possible that there are less-than-shining examples among these hospitals, but the same is true for private clinics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I think you get what you pay for, through taxes or any other means, except that when you pay a private corporation, a big chunk of your payment goes to generate profits and outsize executive compensation. Because of the imperative to generate profits and the claimed imperative to pay executives 8- or 9-digit salaries, it is a myth that private providers can provide similar services at a lower cost than public providers. On the specific question of healthcare, this study shows that the current privatized system in the United States is the most expensive in the OECD, but it delivers poorer results in terms of public health than the healthcare systems of most OECD members. Certainly, wealthy individuals in the United States have access to and can afford excellent healthcare. However, other countries offer better results to the general population at a much lower cost through "socialized" healthcare. Jeanne Boleyn is unhappy at the level of taxes she pays in Europe. If she is affluent, she can probably enjoy a similar quality of life in the United States with a lower tax burden, but with higher out-of-pocket costs for services she has to cover on her own. The U.S. and its state governments offer few good services, since they are starved of taxes. If she is not affluent, I invite her to move back to the United States and notice the absence of services to which she has grown accustomed in Europe. When I travel to Europe, I am in awe of the excellent public transportation services, the well-maintained roads, and the thought that everyone enjoys free healthcare. (When I hear Londoners complain about their public transport system, I try to tell them that it puts public transport in any US city to shame.) Those things cost money, which must come from taxes, though the healthcare does not cost as much as (lower-quality for most) healthcare in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is important to note that any current study of healthcare cost in the United States will not separate the cost of lawyers in the health care system from the cost of health care. Most of the cost of health care in the United States currently goes to lawyers. If not directly to lawyers, it goes to insurance companies to hold money to hand over to lawyers in the future. This is a snowball effect of continually increasing malpractice lawsuits. Socialized medicine will replace insurance companies with a Federal insurance company (one company to rule them all). It will not replace the lawyers. So, those who need care will still be in a system designed to take money that is supposedly going to health care and hand it over to lawyers who are only in the business of seeing how much money they can get from malpractice suits (and many other lawsuits such as "My doctor called me fat" or "I swear that nurse spit in my water"). -- kainaw™ 15:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits are problematic, yes, but they are also the only incentive medical providers and insurers have to provide good medical care, as regulatory agencies in the US mostly seem to have suffered from regulatory capture. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kainaw, all reputable studies (as opposed to people like Rush Limbaugh flapping their jaws up and down) have shown that malpractice lawsuits are simply not the biggest factor (or anything near the biggest factor) in driving up U.S. healthcare costs. Some types of malpractice reform might be useful, but by themselves they would not remotely constitute a broad general solution to U.S. healthcare problems... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question, not all Americans go bananas about "socialized healthcare". A minority are very unhappy about any publicly funded plan, a minority desire such a plan, and a third minority is in the middle, seeing some advantages to a public plan but concerned about possible disadvantages. I think that opposition to such a plan comes from three directions: 1) the small minority who benefit personally from the present arrangement; 2) another minority who are ideologically committed to laissez-faire capitalism and opposed to any role for the state, apart perhaps from policing and military operations; and 3) those who do not benefit from the present arrangement and expect the state to educate their children and provide for their retirement but who are not well informed beyond what they happen to see on TV and have been convinced by media propaganda generated by people in camps 1) and 2) that public healthcare is an evil plot designed by people who want to enslave Americans. Incidentally, the minority of Americans who fall into camp 2) are opposed to public education and sometimes to public firefighting as well. An alternative to public firefighting would be a private subscription service. If you don't pay, your house burns down. Marco polo (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Add that there are people who are against the plan that just went through Congress, but are not against Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. They are against this particular plan. -- kainaw™ 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And the minority who are against passing legislation that has not been fully read by those passing said legislation as a general rule. Googlemeister (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that it is impractical for everyone to do a grass-roots study and survey of the primary data themselves, so they have to rely on what other people (in the media or politicians) tell them. These people already have opinions or agendas of their own. 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Turtles 1965 line-up

I have a question which the article on The Turtles does not provide the answer. Perhaps an editor can answer. I was watching on YouTube the clip of the Turtles on the programme Shindig! in which they are singing It Ain't Me Babe. It was recorded in 1965 and I'm curious as to the name of the good-looking guitarist who elicited the hysterical screams from teenage girls everytime his face appeared on the screen. The reason I wish to know is that I know a guy here in Italy who is the image of him (only much younger) and I'm curious as to whether there's a family connection. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the linked page, the guitarists are named as Al Nichol and Jim Tucker. So one of those probably. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I hadn't noticed their names listed at the bottom. Alas, I'm still none the wiser as to whether he was Al Nichol or Jim Tucker. He was the guitarist who stood in the back, but received all the screams!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a picture here that might help; it lists the names of the members in a photo left to right. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears he was Al Nichol. Thank you so much for your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm mistaken.The photo line-up is wrong. I have just been searcing around various Internet sites and the photos say he was Jim Tucker. Can anyone please confirm this? He can be seen in the Shindig clip when all the girls burst into screams whenever the camera shows his face.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's the guy second from the right in this photo, it seems to be Jim Tucker - but I probably don't have any more evidence than you have. He was born 17 October 1946 in Los Angeles, but left the band in 1967, and I don't know any more about him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he was Al Nichol. Jim Tucker is too skinny to have been him judging by the clip. All those bowl-cut hairstyles make it all very confusing. Thank you,Gmyrtle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

GK Question

I am looking for city (place) A. its canal system is one of its greatest, yet mostly undiscovered assets B.Each and every year (more than once) its name is heard or seen on almost all media outlets worldwide. Would apptrciate anu help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.89.215 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Venice & St. Petersburg are both known for their canal systems. Googlemeister (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And there is Amsterdam which is also celebrated for its canals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer was Indianapolis, Indiana, but the $100 prize has already been won, see here.. I assume you intended to donate it to Wikipedia if we had been able to produce a winning answer for you? Karenjc 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"every year (more than once) its name is heard or seen on almost all media outlets worldwide" Really? I presume that's a reference to the Indianapolis 500. I'm not sure about the rest of the world but coverage certainly isn't ubiquitous in the UK.--Frumpo (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly "undiscovered" to this writer, but I don't live in Indy. Much bigger and likely better known is the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, although it doesn't make the news except when something goes wrong, like the carp infestation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk should stop aiding contestants in WorldAtlas GeoQuiz, as a matter of good form.--Wetman (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Either that, or answer the question and claim the prize, then tell the OP what the answer is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I considered that last time one of these came up ... and I would have donated, honest! Karenjc 08:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese ban against google and wikipedia.

While China warnings to block its citizens access to google from many different reasons (political, economical and etc)-some were publicated and some probably were not, I never heared that China have any intention to block the access to wikipedia (even if blocking google may have similar effect on wikipedia)-does it ever aired warnings against wikipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See blocking of Wikipedia by the People's Republic of China. China has frequently blocked Wikipedia, but they don't tend to air warnings about these things - Google was a rare exception. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you know whether other countries have blocked wikipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

According to History of Wikipedia#Blocking of Wikipedia, the countries that have blocked a part or all of Wikipedia in the past are Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Thailand, Tunisia, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Karenjc 16:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK? Well that's interesting, run to read why!--Gilisa (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of a pic they thought was kiddie porn: Virgin Killers. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The cover of a Scorpions album contains a picture that the Internet Watch Foundation (a non-governmental body that many UK ISPs use to help the identify and block illegal pictures) decided was, or might be, illegal. Wikipedia wasn't blocked, per se, but the clumsy way they did the block and the dismal way they interacted with Wikimedia, the public, and the press made them look far more like moustache-twiddling tyrants than they needed to. A BBC story is here. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia describes the affair in detail. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why people live where they live

Earthquake zones, active volcanoes, and other locations prone to natural disasters in high numbers. I'm wondering why people ever chose to settle in such locations? Why did they consider these risks to be acceptable? Were the events too infrequent? I'm assuming the only reason people live there now is because of the infrastructure created by the settlers before them, but if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcanic ash can make for extremely fertile soil, which explains why people live near volcanoes. For other locations, it may be a different reason for each one. People live near the San Andreas Fault because gold was found there, for example. I think Earthquakes are only a serious problem in areas with high population density (a few mud huts collapsing isn't a big deal, a skyscraper collapsing is a a very big deal), so the earthquakes probably weren't a problem when people arrived in the area and they have become a problem gradually, so people have just got used to them. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The infrequency of major earthquakes in a given area is the main problem. Many areas were probably built up before the residents had ever experienced an earthquake there. Or, if they did, they just thought it was a random act of the gods, not a feature of that particular location. Very few places have been heavily populated only after plate tectonics theory was fully developed. So then, the Q becomes "why don't they leave, now that they know the danger ?". It just works out that the risk is worth the benefits of continuing to live there, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving is an expensive hassle, and the probability of being killed by any particular disaster is pretty low. One could just as easily ask why midwesterners build farms in the flood plain of the Mississippi River, or for that matter why anyone lives in the midwest at all, given that it's "Tornado Alley". Or in the coastal regions, where hurricanes and typhoons can occur (as well as volcanoes, on the Pacific rim). Or in the tropics, where it's too hot, or the polar regions or the mountains, where it's too cold. The fact is, there's really no "safe" place to move to, and even if there was, you couldn't get there because everyone else would be going there too. Life itself is not safe. However, unlike animals, which are almost totally dependent on evolution for their adaptability (or lack thereof) to environments, humans are one species which can use its brains to create acceptable environments with risks that are considered acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is some risk anywhere, but the risk is by no means equal. For example, the risk along the banks of the Mississippi river is far higher than to any property in the central US (from tornadoes). Not building homes along the river is also far more practical than abandoning the central US entirely. The easiest way to get there from here is to not offer government subsidized insurance on such houses, and condemn the property once a disaster strikes. If the homeowner or private insurers choose to take the risk, that's fine, but the taxpayers shouldn't pay them off when the risk comes to fruition. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

People mainly migrate for economic reasons. In the past people chose the land which had the most fertile soil, hence eastern Sicily (where Mount Etna is located) has a much higher population than western Sicily.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

have you considered that it is God's will that people live there? People simply could have gone to these locations after praying and receiving divine providence. As for leaving or staying, this, too, could be a decision made with divine help. 84.153.182.163 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I would never consider that. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to blame God for what people choose to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To expand on the points made by Tango, a recent BBC TV series along the themes of natural forces (Earth, Air, Fire and Water, though not in that order, and whose title I have regrettably forgotten - anyone?) asserted that easily exploitable mineral deposits are most often found close to geological faults, so from ancient times onwards, towns and cities preferentially grew in their vicinity, with occasionally tragic results. San Francisco was an example mentioned where the costs of rebuilding after earthquakes are calculably outweighed by the benefits of the location. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How Earth Made Us, perhaps? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That indeed was it. Thanks, TammyMoet. (No Wiki article yet, but mentioned in Presenter Iain Stewart's, by the way.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

All useful info. Thanks for the input. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rich and fertile lands tend to have some hazard accompanying the boon. Hawaii's soil produces high quality, high-cost goods (e.g. coffee, vanilla bean), but it's sitting on a volcanic hot spot. Iceland has great prospects for geothemal power -- because it's sitting on a volcanic hot spot over the Mid-Atlantic rift. Kansas is good for growing grains, but then there's the tornados. The west coast of North America is rife with salmon and seafood and verdant crop-growing lands, but there's the prospect of earthquakes and tsunami. Not much hazard in the desert, apart from the temperature issue. But there's not a lot to eat either. Vranak (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deserts can have earthquakes, flash floods, sand/dust storms. I think the point is that all places on earth can be dangerous at certain times, some more so then others, but not really all that frequently. Googlemeister (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. One doesn't generally think of Ireland as being buffeted by the primal forces of nature in too severe a manner, but then that potato famine wiped out or displaced about a quarter of the population. So even when there's nothing obvious to cause ruin, there may be something insidious and subtle. Vranak (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

how do I develop a sense of rhythm?

how does someone who has absolutely no sense of rhythm (ie for dancing) develop one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.182.163 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First, understand how rhythm works with most Western music. Most rock and pop and blues is 4/4 time or 2/2 time. Waltzes are 3/4 time. Those are essentially all that are important for ballroom dancing. Then get some music with a strict rhythm and learn to count the beats. If you have difficulties, there are special dance recordings where an instructor counts the beat for you. Be warned that the music on those is often fairly atrocious, though. If you are interested in pair/group dancing, what is also important is a proper sense of balance and of knowing where your centre of mass is. Even if you know it's time to move your left foot, you cannot do so if you have any weight on it. This leads to an awkward pause while you shift your weight. That pause is often mistaken for a lack of sense of rhythm.-Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Before trying to count beats, you need to be able to find them. Can you clap in time to music? Learning to do that is the first step in getting to grips with rhythm (it's pretty easy from there, really). --Tango (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It helps to have someone show you. I'm thinking of a particular scene in Mr Holland's Opus, where a character helps another learn rhythm by playing music with a clear beat and rhythm, and clapping along with them, and tapping them on the shoulder or arm with the music, with the hope that you can connect it to something in the music. If you don't have someone to help you like that, what can be learned is to separate the bits of music that are the primary parts emphasising the beat. In modern popular music, this is usually (but not always) the drums. Listen for the bass drum. It often sounds on the strongest beat of a measure, so you can find it each measure. When you can hear that reliably, listen for alternating drum hits between them that are stronger than the others. In standard rock and roll (e.g. Rock Around the Clock), the strongest beat is the first one in the measure. Listen for it. Then listen for the third beat in the measure. It's the second strongest beat, half way between each of the strongest beats. Then fill in another one on either side of them, and you have four beats in a measure. It takes a while to get used to it, but classic rock and roll is usually good for hearing it. So is some club music, which has a very strong, regular beat. It's fast though. Steewi (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

April 21

modern lifestyle bring more harm than good to us?

????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airene Sim (talk • contribs) 10:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This question cannot be answered because:

1. You cannot define harm.
2. You cannot define good.
3. You cannot compare harm (of X) with good (of Y) without first assigning a scalar value to each of them.
4. You cannot come up with a scalar value (for Z) that everyone would agree upon.

122.107.207.98 (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst agreeing with 122.107 that this qwuestion is effectively unanswerable. Evidence in favour of modern life could include...Modern average-life-spans lengths are almost universally higher than historically (how much of this is due to lower Infant mortality i'm not sure). Similarly average Working time has come down in the modern era too and there's evidence to suggest more people have more Leisure time too. It's hard to find out for certain but i've also heard that there since World War 2 the world is a period with very low numbers of wars occuring compared to most of documented history - and i've heard it suggested that modern warfare is less bloody than historic wars (though again it's hard to research). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"It was the best of times... it was the worst of times..." etc. - Dickens. "The quiet past is inadequate to the stormy present." - Lincoln. "The worst moment of being alive is better than the best moment of being dead." - Dennis Miller. 122 is right that it would be difficult to measure. And there's another aspect to this: "Compared to what?" The OP is implying that older lifestyles might have been more good than harmful. But in what sense? What era does he think might be superior to this one? The one where lynchings of minorities evoked a shrug of the shoulders? The era when there was no running water, and if you got sick, you died, end of story? As regards war, look at the casualty figures for World War II compared with Iraq or even Vietnam and tell us if you would prefer to live in that era. "The best time is always right now." - Paul Harvey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the writings of the Traditionalist School. René Guénon's "The Crisis of the Modern World" would be a good place to start. -Pollinosisss (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Compared to preindustrial life, there are many improvements (as mentioned above) but there are quite a few health problems associated with our recent lifestyles such as increased heart disease and possibly allergies and autoimmune diseases. Also, our chemical and nuclear advancements mean people are more likely to be exposed to harmful substances.\

If we're going further back to pre-agriculture, there are some more stark differences: foraging peoples typically have more leasure time, better nutrition, and a more sustainable lifestyle. It's likely that agriculture became widespread because it supports larger populations (which can then easily conquer foraging peoples and force them to cease their foraging ways) and allows workforce specialization that includes an elite class that rules over others. Since agriculture allows larger populations, it also allows the formation of cities, which then facilitates the spread of diseases.

Going back to the OP's question, you'd have to assign weights to the good things and bad things, which can be pretty subjective. But, now that you know the sort of things to look at, you can decide the answer for yourself. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One theory about the "Garden of Eden" and other creation stories is that they express nostalgia for hunting-and-gathering lifestyle ("living off God's bounty") vs. agriculture, in which man attempts to control the environment rather than letting the environment control him. Nostalgia or idealism for the past, and being blind to its negative side, is what led Will Rogers to say, "Things ain't what they used to be... and never was!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See Doomsday Clock. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The principle of natural selection prohibits outrageously poor practices from continuing very long. Vranak (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Natural selection prevents practices that are poor for the continuation of the species to last very long. It says nothing about individual comfort or the amount of leisure time available. Buddy431 (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that I personally find to be better from the years past is entertainment. Movies and music were, in my opinion, much better than that of today and you didn't have talentless idiots becoming famous for absolutely no good reason. But that aside, I'm thankful to be alive today and I wouldn't have it any other way, even if presented with the opportunity to travel back in time (unless I'm guaranteed that I can return to the present whenever I feel like). From a social and technological point of view, we're the best that we have ever been. That being said, ask any American minority if they think life was better 30-40 years ago, and they will answer you with a resounding "HELL NO!". 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There were always talentless idiots, you just forget about them. And in 25 years you'll forget about today's talentless idiots who seem to be omnipresent. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reality shows didn't exist back then, did they? Unless the trend of people becoming stars from reality shows, sex tapes and the internet dies down, we'll probably just keep seeing more of the same. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They had their equivalents—their media spectacles, their celebrities for celebrity's sake. Daniel J. Boorstin's The Image makes this quite clear—he puts Charles Lindbergh in basically that category: carefully engineered media fete (the flight) is then spun out into a personal drama. The trick is that you don't remember most of these kinds of people, and in fact it's always good for a laugh to remind people of who used to be popular for no great reason. (Half of the jokes in Family Guy are based on this kind of humor—remember when MC Hammer was cool? Ha, ha!) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Lindbergh was in significant peril during his flight (a French counterpart had disappeared over the Atlantic not long before), and also just happened to be the one who was ready to go from New York, as there were two other American teams at the same airport trying to be the first to fly the Atlantic solo. Regarding "reality shows", that era had its own equivalent (or ancestor) of "American Idol" or "Star Search" (or "The Gong Show"), which was Major Bowes' radio show, the Amateur Hour. He didn't have Simon Cowell, but he had a gong and didn't hesitate to use it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want an example of a pointless media celebrity of 100 or more years ago, just click on Steve Brodie (bridge jumper) or Mary Toft etc. etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As a word of warning, I will say that we must be careful when comparing our experiences to the past, because our experiences (i.e. people with access to a computer, probably living in an English speaking country) are not representative of all people's experience. A poor farmer in Ethiopia would almost certainly have been better off in terms of health and leisure if he had lived in a hunter-gatherer society 15 000 years ago than now. Maybe he would have been better off 500 years ago, when those pesky guns weren't so readily attained that make it so easy to slaughter people by the thousands. On the other hand, there have been numerous advances that have benefited even the poorest in recent times: antibiotics, mosquito control, vaccination, etc., so it's not a clear cut case for anyone, and we must assign a subjective metric to get any meaningful results. I just think we should keep in mind that Wikipedia editors are not a representative sample of the world population. Buddy431 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Native American Culture without European Involvement

I often times find myself wondering what direction native American culture would have gone in had it not been for European settlement. I was wonderng if anyone knows of any fiction related to this idea, or if there are any anthropologist that have theorized about it.--160.36.38.126 (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean no contact at all ? Or would they still be exposed to European alcohol, guns, disease, horses, and ideas ? StuRat (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fiction? Two sort-ofs: Kim Stanley Robinson's Years of Rice and Salt and Orson Scott Card's Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus. There may be more if you check the Uchronia website. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Fiction relating to the idea would be "Alternate history", and theorising would be "Counterfactual history". List of alternate history fiction has some examples which might fit the bill, including Aztec Century, Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus, Conquistador (novel). I have read none of these, but the plot summaries sound like they might interest you. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys.--160.36.38.126 (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Given how thoroughly inaccurate many representations of pre-Columbian Native Americans are, you may also want to check out 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus for a very up-to-date and well-referenced assessment of current knowledge of the topic. Once you know what things were like in 1491, you'll have a better idea how to imagine an alternate 1492 (and onwards). Matt Deres (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And if you are more in the mood for viewing than reading, try Apocalypto by Mel Gibson. It has taken its fair share of criticism, but I did learn something from it. Vranak (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction -- Apocalypto gained some passionate champions in the Hollywood community. Actor Robert Duvall called it "maybe the best movie I've seen in 25 years". Director Quentin Tarantino said, "I think it's a masterpiece. It was perhaps the best film of that year. I think it was the best artistic film of that year." Actor Edward James Olmos said, "I was totally caught off guard. It's arguably the best movie I've seen in years. I was blown away." Vranak (talk)

I thought it was so-so. They missed a golden opportunity when the chief baddie told his minions to jump over a waterfall, while standing in front of them. I expected them to say "you first" and give him a good shove. Not that "our hero" had anything to risk. Anyone who can outrun a jaguar while seriously wounded clearly has super-powers, so he should have just flown away. I was glad to see his father die, though, as he was too stupid to ask why the other villagers were fleeing and take some action to protect his village. And what happened to the village kids ? They just dropped that thread midway thru the movie, it seems. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Though not quite a direct answer, the the "First People" series of books by W. Michael Gear and Kathleen O'Neil Gear are basiclly finctional stories based on archeological evidence. While these stories give us a picture of what aboriginal culture may have been like, we can probably extrapolate that over the course of their collective history there were cultural changes that naturally occurred over time that were impacted by many influences (climate change, migration, inter-tribal relationships, etc.). Thus, there were different kinds of ebbs and flows as there was in european, asian, african and other areas. Given the different spiritual focus of aboriginal peoples (and they were as complex as any other culture!), one can speculate with confidence that a "Myan" or "Incan" style of culture would have developed. Would the aboriginal peoples have developed technology such as metalurgy, writing or other "advanced" sciences, who knows? History can follow a "natural progression," so the better one understands the historical context of a culture's development, the better one can speculate. As was noted in a previous thread some months ago, it does not appear that aboriginal peoples were much better at conservation than we are now - due to our current level of technology, we are just more efficient at polluting and creating environmental havoc . . .

In reading the above reference to the "First People" series of books, I have read a few and have enjoyed them. I wonder how "accurate" the books are in relecting or hypothesizing about pre-Columbian Native culture. I know that there are references at the end of each novel. Has anyone spoken with Native communities to see how accurate these book are? Just wondering.

Immaculate conception of Elizabeth?

Just read Luke 1 recently, where Gabriel reveals: "He (John the Baptist) shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb" and "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible". Is that a reference to immaculate conception of Elizabeth and immaculate birth of John the Baptist? 213.154.11.120 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The articles on Elizabeth (Biblical person) and John the Baptist seem a little vague on that point. I don't think Lizzy conceiving John was "immaculate", but "merely" miraculous. But it would be better for a biblical expert to step in here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No. An "immaculate conception" is conception in which the child avoids the stain of original sin, and the only person the church has ever thought of in this way was Mary, Mother of God. It refers to the child, not the mother; thus the Immaculate Conception was the conception of Mary by her parents, not Jesus by his. Mary was the result of an immaculate conception. No such claim is made for Elizabeth; the claim is that she miraculously conceived late in life when seemingly barren. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's coming back to me a bit: Mary was conceived in a normal way, but God declared that she was without original sin. God Himself became the father of Jesus by impregnating Mary (by turning Himself into a sperm cell, or whatever - those kinds of details were unknown in biblical times). Hence Jesus was born without original sin. Right? The remark in one article about God having graced Liz probably means simply that this miracle happened, not that God took away her original sin. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Priests always squirm whenever you press them to elaborate on the dynamics of the Immaculate Conception.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially as it's reasonable to assume the beneficent God gave Mary one Holy "Big O" in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

More especially if you're dealing within the Mormon mythos, where God physically schtupped Mary with His big ol' God-penis.-Nunh-huh 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And I bet that's the exact word He used, being Jewish and all. And it came to pass that Mary sang out, "Ah, sweet mystery of life, at last I've found Thee!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

But it may be worth noting that we seem to have slipped into discussing the virginal conception rather than the Immaculate Conception. - Nunh-huh 19:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a common misconception (choke) and which confused me also until you reminded us of it. Mary needed to be free of original sin so that Jesus would also be. There was no such need with cousin Elisabeth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And for some interesting coincidences (?) regarding naming, check out the articles on Miriam and Elisheva. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I always thought the Magnificat was the Biblical equivalent of an orgasm! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If God can't give a woman an orgasm, then who can?!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot be serious! Vranak (talk)

The serious point is, there's no "immaculate conception" in scripture or in early apocrypha. Instead, this is part of what the RCs term "tradition".--Wetman (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, certainly not in those words, but Catholics actually do maintain that their belief in the immaculate conception has a scriptural basis. In fact, they maintain there is a scripture basis for many of the doctrines of Catholicism that Protestants object to. And of course, if one is judging ideas on the basis of their antiquity, the idea of the "immaculate conception" (though not its proclamation as dogma) pre-dated that of "sola scriptura" by centuries. - Nunh-huh 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Gendered unemployment question

This week in my Introduction to Economics class, the professor showed us graphs of recent monthly unemployment in the US by gender. I don't have them on hand right now, but I noticed that male unemployment tended to peak at the 1st of each month, whereas female unemployment tended to peak around the 15th of each month. Do you know why this is? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If it was monthly figures, how do you know when in the month the peaks were? --Tango (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Here is a PDF from the US's Bureau of Labor Statistics and they measure everything monthly. I have never heard of an attempt to chart the daily unemployment rate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said daily. I haven't found the graphs yet, but I remember with certainty that male unemployment peaked at or near the start of each month, and female unemployment at or near the middle - the respective peaks and troughs appeared to alternate almost perfectly. (I know this does sound odd, and I have no idea where my TAs got the graphs from, but they must have gotten them from somewhere.) --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to ask your professor. I've never heard of daily unemployment figures. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it's a monthly data set, with the male data justified to sit 'on' the month-line 'crosshair' thing along the axis, with the female one justified to sit between the two months - IE. the male Jan datapoint is directly beneath the line for January on the axis, with the female one halfway between Jan and Feb points. Not sure why the lecturer would set it out that way, though. --Roydisco (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It could simply be reader error. The chart is a monthly barchart with male on the left and female on the right for each month. The reader assumed that the male bar was the first of the month and the female bar was the 15th. -- kainaw™ 16:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't what it was - it was two completely separate line graphs. I think Roydisco might be right. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

April 22

Defendants showing up in court

Is there anyplace I can find the percentage of defendants for criminal cases that were let out on bail bonds that show up to court on different charges? For example, lets say 90% of people who are arrested for domestic violence show up, 85% of people who are arrested for criminal threats, etc... Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• U.S. data is collected and published by the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics here's data for 1990-2004, what you asked for is on page 9, table 7. Note that the data is for 75 large urban counties (which, I reckon, are worse-than-average in public safety). NVO (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Being specific to bail bondsmen, I would guess there's an industry association that keeps these statistics, but they may be difficult to find using just google. The Professional Bail Agents of the United States is a good place to start. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the big issues in the UK election?

From a US perspective, there don't appear to be a whole lot of difference among the three major UK political parties. They all seem more or less centrist. It's not like in the US where there's more of an obvious difference of opinion between the major parties on taxes, healthcare, abortion, gay rights and so on. Or in the old days when Labour wanted to socialize steel mills.

So what are the big issues that people will be basing their vote on, and how do the main national parties stand on those issues?

I suggested including this info in the article on the election on its talk page but no knowledgeable person seems to have taken up the task. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This poll suggests that the main issues include economic recovery, immigration, crime, health care, education, defence and terrorism. There are different views, particularly on when public investment should take place to stimulate the economy, and how savings in public sector budgets are to be achieved, as well as on things like civil liberties issues. Different polls of course give different results. It's quite surprising that defence issues aren't higher in that list given the fighting in Afghanistan, and also that the trustworthiness of politicians isn't mentioned. In Scotland and Wales, there are also fundamental issues over the extent of devolution. But, if the media are to be believed, the election's actually all about which party leader is better at looking into the camera, and smiling nicely. And many people don't so much vote for a given party or candidate, as vote to stop other parties or candidates winning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph has an interesting quiz which asks your opinions on various issues and proposals, and then tells you the party positions. Since the quiz proposes to help you decide how to vote, it covers issues on which the parties differ. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) A lot of attention has been paid to the details of economic recovery packages - especially whether National Insurance (a form of income tax) should be put up in order to pay for other government recovery plans. Labour say yes, the Conservatives say no, and I think the Lib Dems say yes too. The Digital Economy Act is a hot-button topic in some quarters. The future of public transport is another. UKIP would like EU membership to be treated as important; the Greens feel the same way about the environment.

As for comparison with the US - all three main parties are no further right than the Democrats, but there's still reasonable difference between them. The Conservatives are fiscally and socially 'right-wing', the Lib Dems are fiscally right-wing and socially left-wing, and Labour are slightly (but not very) left-wing in both areas. Oh, and 'socialise' is what you do when you go down the pub; government-owned industries are nationalised. The use of 'socialize' by Americans to describe this is regarded with some curiosity here - trying to damn thnings by association with 'socialist' doesn't really work so well over this side of the pond. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As with above, the main issue is economic reform, although I would say that once you get past the superficial stuff, like NI, it centres on whether that should be state supported, Keynsian, and where the investment should go. Labour say yes, Tories say sort of and Lib Dems say not really but keep the momentum.

General priorities are similar; health education, welfare, immigration and the parties differ on how to deal with each of those. Tories and Lib Dems tend to want to encourage private sector engagement and competition, Labour want to maintain state control. Labour and Tories are very authoritarian, Lib Dems tend not to be although the lunatic wing would roll back the policing/ judicial/penal triad quite far.

Two emerging themes are around civil liberties and electoral reform. Labour has presided over state sponsored intrusion on privacy and oppressive security to an excessive level, cheered on by the lunatic wing of the Tories. Centrist Tories and Lib Dems talk about rolling some of that back, the balance between security and liberty is skewed quite badly. With respect to Electoral Reform has only really come up in the last week since the leaders debates, highlighting the structural issues with our electoral system that put parties in power that reflect neither popular support or appropriate share of the vote. That's one of the factors that's driving down democratic participation in the UK.

The big differences between the main parties are around authoritarianism and state involvement in service delivery.

ALR (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, of course, the US parties differ more by rhetoric than by action. You typically hear the more radical voices, but you elect more centrist people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a detailed and balanced comparison of the policies of the three main parties (and, if you want to see them, all the minority parties too) at the BBC's election web site here. Note that none of the three main parties is proposing to abolish gun control or civil partnerships, make abortion illegal, dismantle the National Health Service, remove evolution from the national curriculum or restore the death penalty. So on the US political spectrum they are all somewhat left of centre. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In the 1990s, all three main UK parties realised that to win a General Election, you had to appeal to the cemtre ground. A new type of voter had emerged who was neither working class nor middle class, had no ties to any particular party and would vote for whovever they thought was best representing their interests. Referred to as collectivly as Mondeo Man, the parties realised these were votes they needed in order to get a majority. Since then, all the main parties have been competing to sound moderate and sensible. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

what do you call this literary device?

lets say we have a poem about economic inequality in a country. the poem may show a rich person with branded clothes, then the poor person who is so badly dressed cannot afford to buy proper clothes. then the poem shows a rich person eating in a high class restaurant, then a poor person eating leftovers. next the poem shows a rich person going to his bungalow home while a poor person has to sleep in the street. maybe its a form of juxtaposition but im looking for a more specific term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.113 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Economic disparity juxtaposition" sounds like the right term, to me. StuRat (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

lol, i mean, the poet wants to draw parellels or comparisons between the state of the rich and the poor. theres no more specific term than juxtaposition?

Is "class juxtaposition" better ? (It's a bit more general, though, as some socially upper-class people are broke, and vice-versa.) There's no term for specifically comparing the rich and poor. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

i mean, its not so important what is being compared, but the way the parellels and contrasts are drawn. i know its a generalisation but i guess that is also the way the device works —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.113 (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "social/class juxtaposition"?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Though not a literary term, "cross-cutting" comes to mind. (The article even mentions a rich/poor juxtaposition that's very similar to yours.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be considered an elaborate form of antithesis. Deor (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If the point of the depictions in your example, is to highlight economic inequality then juxtaposition or contrast seem to be the most appropriate terms. If, on the other hand, the aim is to set the condition of the poor man (or, rich man) in relief, then foil would be a more appropriate term. Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alison FitzEustace's mother

Does anyone happen to know which of Rowland FitzEustace, 1st Baron Portlester's three wives was the mother of Alison FitzEustace, the first wife of Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare. FitzEustace married firstly, Elizabeth Brune on an unknown (at least to me) date; he married his second wife, Joan Bellew in about 1463; his last wife Margaret Dartas, he married after 1467. Most genealogists have narrowed the possibilities down to the first two, as dates make it almost impossible for the third wife to have been Alison's mother. I appreciate any help I can get as I need the information for an article I recently created. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Fitzgerald, the great earl of Kildare (1456-1513) by Donough Bryan, doesn't mention anything about Alison Fitzeustace's mother (it calls her Alice). The Earls of Kildare and their ancestors by Marquis of Kildare (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, 1858.) says:

His [the 8th Earl's] first wife, Alison Eustace, who died 22nd November 1495, was buried in the New Abbey, at Kilcullen. She was daughter and co-heiress of Rowland, Baron of Portlester, by Maud, daughter of Jenico d'Artois. She brought into the family the manor of Portlester, in the County of Meath. By her he left one son, Gerald, his successor, and six daughters. (p.71)

Since this contradicts both modern thoughts as to Alison Fitzeustace's mother, and also the number of children she had (Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare says 1 son, 4 daughters), I'm not sure now helpful it will be. According to the author's note in the endpapers, the information was collected from "historical works in the Libraries at Carton and Kilkea" and the book was originally printed for private circulation. --Kateshortforbob _talk 11:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of Maud D'Artois having been one of his wives. Burke's Peerage names Joan/Genet Bellew as the mother of Alison. According to Eleanor Hull in her A History of Ireland, Alison FitzEustace had one son and four daughters. Perhaps there were originally six daughters, but only four reached adulthood.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered if other research had turned up more information than the Marquess of Kildare had access to. I think Maud d'Artois = Margaret Dartas. At least the ODNB article on Roland Fitzeustace - seriously can no-one settle on a spelling for any of these people :-) - says:

Roland married, first, Elizabeth, daughter of John Brune; second, in 1458, Joan Bellew, widow of Christopher Plunket, Lord Killeen; and third, Margaret Dartas (or Marguerite d'Artois), widow of John Dowdall and of Thomas Barnewall. In 1455 he built St Mary's Chapel in St Audoen's parish church, Dublin, and later erected there ‘a goodly monument’ with recumbent effigies of himself and his wife Margaret, remains of which survive.

--Kateshortforbob _talk 12:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha, D'Artois=Dartas! Thank you. I had thought Dartas a rather odd name, instead it was just the poor anglicised version of d'Artois. It's no wonder the French cringe when they see how we manage to butcher their beautiful language. Alison married FitzGerald in about 1478, her daughter Margaret, whom I created the article on, married in 1485 when she was obviously a child, but had to have been born by then. OK, if Rowland married Maud d'Artois/Margaret Dartas after 1467, that pretty much precludes her having been Alison's mother as the dates are too close for comfort. A 1464 birth would be plausible, however, which fits Burke's claim of Joan/Genet Bellew having been her mother. OK, this is now verging on OR, but I might add a personal insight: Elizabeth Brune datewise could have mothered Alison, but I notice out of all Margaret's daughters, there isn't an Elizabeth among them, although there's a Joan and Margaret (this could be after herself). I'd put my money on Joan/Genet Bellow; what do the other editors think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Political elite in totalitarian countries

Totalitarian countries such as North Korea are, in practice, ruled by a political elite, often with a large contrast to the general public. But this political elite also consists of people. How does one become part of it? Does one have to be born into the elite caste, or does the elite seek out new recruits, or does a normal member of the general public have the opportunity to rise into political ranks on their own efforts? JIP | Talk 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is about the US, but our Power elite article says sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote that "the governing elite in the US primarly draws its members from three areas: (i) the highest political leaders (including the president) and a handful of key cabinet members and close advisers; (ii) major corporate owners and directors; and (iii) high ranking military officers." (I'm quoting the article's paraphrasing of Mills, not quoting Mills directly.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Check out the Communist Party of the Soviet Union#membership. Evidently, people would start out as children in the Young Pioneers, join the Komsomol, and perhaps eventually join the party itself (with the proper connections). The article says that in 1986 about 10% of the population were party members, so obviously not everyone was part of the highest tier political elite. Buddy431 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

North Korea's elite, from what I understand, is highly family-based. If your great-grandfather was on the wrong side in the 1940s, you can forget about getting into the top schools or becoming a member of the Workers Party. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, then North Korea in practice seems to be the exact opposite of what it purports to be. The "Workers' Party" is really only reserved for the equivalent of rich, powerful noble families. If you really are a worker then the Workers' Party will have nothing to do with you. If this is true then it's kind of ironic but also a little tragic. JIP | Talk 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There were supposedly many slightly different variants of Kim-Il Sung badges (worn obligatorily by all adults during at least ca. 1970-2004) which indicated different categories of people ("reliable", "unreliable", and many gradations in between). Not sure the code was ever fully cracked, and we don't seem to have much about it on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess the conventional English translations for the main North Korean government classifications of the North Korean population are "core", "wavering", and "hostile". Nothing about this on Wikipedia that I can find... AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Recruitment policy would depend on needs and targets of the govt. That is, an expanding militaristic system entertaining wars, world revolution, massive industrialization etc. will need massive inflow of new people and effective policies for recruitment and promotion. A system that sets very challenging targets (as Stalin's Union did) will also need a mechanism for quick assessment of recently appointed men and, when necessary, their replacement.

On the contrary, a stationary system that contained itself behind an iron curtain can do for decades without any inflow of fresh blood. Here, the objective is not selecting new leaders, but suppressing capable men of low standing who have no place in existing hierarchy. I think that NK system is firmly in this class, and far more conservative than Brezhnev stagnation was. NVO (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

UK political journalist, pundit, editor or author?

Who am I thinking about? He is highly intelligent, articulate, aged about 70, not so tall, jewish (I think), gay, has appalling forward-thrusting teeth and looks rather like Nigel Farage. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Howard? - [11]. Married and C of E, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That is the fellow. Well done. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

April 23

online psychopath test?

is there a test I can take online to see if I have the proclivity to be a murderous psychopath (like Hitler, Stalin, etc). Thanks. 84.153.204.118 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are probably joke tests that do something like that. However, if you want a real psychological evaluation, you need to see a real psychologist in person. In other words, make an appointment with a properly trained psychologist and ask for a proper evaluation. One should never self-diagnose oneself based on random stuff found on teh itrewebz, and one should also never ask for nor believe any medical advice one gets on teh interwezb either. --Jayron32 00:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, is "murderous psychopath" a proven diagnosis for Uncle Adolf and Uncle Joe? Or is it just demagogue-haters blowing smoke? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, neither Adolf nor Joseph ever killed anyone. It's called personal responsibility. They may have facilitated tens of millions of deaths combined, but I can't account them indecent for their facilitation of death. Perhaps that is just what made sense in the world they inhabited. Vranak (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw a comment once, possibly an urban legend, that an American reporter somehow once asked Stalin, "When will you stop killing people?" and his answer was, "When it is no longer necessary." Truth or fiction, I expect that was both Stalin and Hitler's view of the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Selmer Bringsjord worked on simulating psychopathy with a computer, and developed some criteria.[12] I don't know if there is an online test. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking the question, you're probably not. Sociopaths (the correct term you're looking for) think that they are more or less normal, and are generally unconcerned about behaviors that society defines as aberrant. from what I've read, they usually think that they are just more honest than most people, doing things that everyone else would do if people weren't such sheep. true psychopaths, by contrast, usually are aware that they are disturbed, and have bizarre behaviors that would make it impossible for them to survive the kind of scrutiny that people in positions of power get. --Ludwigs2 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion of fugitives from embassy properties?

We all know that police from country A are never allowed to follow fugitives into an embassy of country B. However, are there any restrictions at all on country B's diplomats being able to expel said fugitives if they so desire? For example, let's say a person is convicted of murdering French citizens in the USA and (for some crazy reason) flees into the French embassy; is there any reason that the embassy staff wouldn't be allowed to hand him over to the D.C. police? Moreover, let's say that the embassy staff are allowed to hand him over but find themselves physically unable to remove him from the building; is there any reason that they wouldn't be allowed to call in the D.C. police and have them remove him? The closest parallel I can imagine is the Japanese embassy hostage crisis, but our article seems to suggest that the Japanese government didn't permit Peruvian troops to go in with the use of force. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Physically unable"? I don't get. Obviously, major acts of terror are unique and governments are extremely cautious of consequences. But, apart from a major armed incursion, I cannot see anything that will prevent the embassy guards from seizing the trespasser. "Physically unable" may be the case of a very small embassy (which then needs to call in local police, example: Iranian embassy in Washington, 1963), not the French embassy to the U.S. There are definitely no restrictions on expulsion of seized trespassers. NVO (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Countries without capital punishment (like France) typically won't extradite anyone to countries with capital punishment (like the US), unless they are given a guarantee that the extradited person will not be subjected to the death penalty. See also the death of Yvonne Fletcher for one example. Gabbe (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything that specifically states this in either extraterritoriality or diplomatic immunity, but I'm sure that embassy officials can invite the host authorities in to make an arrest if they wish. Certainly they can waive diplomatic immunity for an individual - see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2228/whats-the-story-on-diplomatic-immunity. --ColinFine (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Gabbe: The French were criticized for being selective in applying their standards [13]. "Guarantees" are fine for unique high-profile cases, not hungry mobs. Perhaps it needs more research. So far all significant recent cases of embassy trespass occured on the territory of a third country (that is, North Koreans storming Spanish embassy in China). I still haven't found cases of North Koreans storming an embassy in North Korea, which would place the diplomats and the trespassers in a far worse scenario. American embassies in similar circumstances give away the trespasser without much hesitation [14]. NVO (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Where in those articles does it say that France extradites people who are likely to be subjected to the death penalty? Gabbe (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, French was the first country that came to mind. Take any tiny country that may not be able to have much of any guards and whose entire embassy staff is a few diplomats that may not have much more than a few muscles, and let's have our intruder be a very strong man who is able to resist being carried out of the building. My point was to emphasize that I mean a simple criminal, not someone who was likely to be seen as a potential political prisoner. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in that case the embassy would likely ask the appropriate authorities of the host country for assistance. Gabbe (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Side note, but you don't have to reach for the death penalty when using France itself as an example — under French law, France does not extradite French citizens for any reason (see Roman Polanski), whether the penalty is death or a 5 year prison term. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My example was intended to be an American individual. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Irani example; this is a perfect example of what I was asking about — someone goes into the embassy against the will of the diplomats, diplomats call in local police, police arrest, and there's even a court case agreeing with the legality of the situation. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As referenced in the other question below the treaties that apply are the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations and the two on Consular Relations.

None of those require a countries diplomatic or consular representatives to protect a fugitive and they can be handed over to the authorities.

Embassies and significant consulates would normally have an organic security organisation, smaller consulates or trade missions may not and would depend on the host nation for protection, there is nothing in the treaties that prevents the host nation security or policing force entering the premises.

ALR (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate for children to sleep with their parents?

Considering that so many children have a fear of the dark, why is it considered inappropriate for children to sleep with their parents? When did this peculiar "moral" develop? It couldn't always have been this way; I can't imagine any parent 20000 years ago leaving their children alone during the night, when predators were everywhere. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not inapproprite for children to sleep with their parents. It's inappropriate for children to "sleep with" their parents. See Co-sleeping for the less icky kind. --Jayron32 05:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you in North America? Here, it IS inappropriate for parents to "cosleep", even with seven-year-olds. Obviously, it's not more disgusting than incest. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lived in North America for all 33 years of my life. Never heard that its inappropriate for parents to sleep with small children. It would not be unusual for, say, a seven year old who had a bad dream to spend the night in mom and dad's room. Never heard of that being a problem. --Jayron32 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I know a woman who was afraid of the dark and slept in the same room as her parents till she got married at the age of 20. I wouldn't consider this normal at all!!!! It's OK for small children up to a certain age, then they need to learn self-reliance, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP asked about small children. Yes, at some point, it becomes wrong. I think 19 year olds sleeping in mom and dad's bed every night is probably not looked upon favorably in most Western cultures, but for small children, its probably less of an issue. --Jayron32 05:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My point was had this woman been sent to sleep by herself after a certain age she wouldn't have continued with her neurotic fear. It took place in Italy. Parents need to draw the line at about 8, I think. I slept on my own when I was very small, only sleeping with my parents after a nightmare.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotally, in Australia, it's common for infants and occasionally toddlers to sleep in the same room as their parents. After that, it's expected that they'll spend most nights in their own bedroom (which may be shared with other siblings). It's not unusual for children to go to sleep in their parents' bed until perhaps 7 or 8, maybe even 10, but they wouldn't admit it to schoolfriends or anything. It would be considered shameful for a school age child to admit doing it. Steewi (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think when people say it's "inappropriate", they mean that it's a social taboo. They don't mean that it's inappropriate in any kind of ethical or judicial sense. So, if you're wondering why it's taboo for children to co-sleep with their parents, I believe the answer is that it seems too close to incest, which is one of the biggest taboos in North American society. This might seem illogical, but taboos are not always grounded in reason and common sense. Gabbe (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think its a combination of the incest taboo (especially for children nearing puberty), coupled with the desire to see children attain developmentally appropriate independence from their parents. Many women who breastfeed keep their children in the same room; often in the same bed, for convenience purposes. However, as childen age, there is an expectation of growing independence; I suspect this has a greater effect than does incest fears, especially for younger children. --Jayron32 06:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. It's also considered inappropriate for siblings of different sexes to share a room after puberty, although, here in Italy it is done, because most of the houses have only two bedrooms. My teenage son and daughter do have their own bedrooms, however. Being an American, I happen to think it highly inadvisable for different-sex siblings to sleep in the same room after puberty.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There's something to be said for keeping desperate people out of situations where their foresight and wisdom isn't fully engaged. Although, people can deal with just about anything, in the last resort. Vranak (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed in the Uk with Council houses (Public housing to others?) there are rules around the maximum age different sex siblings can be 'forced' to share a room. That is to say if you are a 2 child family in a 2-bed council-house, if you have 1 boy and 1 girl you will be higher priority for moving into a 3-bed house than a family that has 2 boys. By way of anecdote I shared a room with my brother pretty much up until he left home (he left when I was about 14) and my sisters did the same. Not ideal but needs-must and all that. In terms of 'sleeping' with parents it would seem surprising if at some point in a child's life they haven't ended up in mum & dad's bed because of a bad-dream or whatever...even if it's just until they get to sleep and the dad carries them back to their own bed. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What I've always heard is that it's inappropriate for the parents to have sex while the child is in the room. It tends to upset even infants who are too young to have any idea what's going on--they seem to think that something bad and violent is happening, and they try to make the parents stop. I've never heard there was any problem letting the child in bed with the parents as long as nothing was going on but sleeping. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Parents should never have sex in front of their children, even if they are just infants. When a baby is sharing the parents' room, the parents need to wait until the child is fully asleep before engaging in sexual activity. This is why kids need their own bedrooms as early as possible. For their own sake and that of their parents' privacy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne - while many people might agree with your last statement, until you give some references it remains no more than a personal opinion, and not an answer to the question in reference desk terms. --ColinFine (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should there be a reference to say that it's wrong to have sex in front of kids?! I would have thought that was just common sense. It's like providing a source when one says that day follows night.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

With the outside possibility that having sex in front of your children is a good thing (good for the children), a source couldn't be a bad thing. Bus stop (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all obvious that parents shouldn't have sex in front of infants; the kid's not going to remember it, so what's the harm? And frankly, though it's a minority opinion, there are some who believe that kids should be exposed to sex earlier than they are now. Buddy431 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For example, Wayne Tucker (A United Methodist Pastor!) doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Buddy431 (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And "Wayne Tucker's" opinion should matter why? Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@Bus Stop: I was just pointing out that it's not universally accepted that parents shouldn't have sex in front of their kids, and thus it is appropriate to ask Jeanne for references supporting her assertion that "Parents should never have sex in front of their children, even if they are just infants", as ColinFine did. Buddy431 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that sources are more than welcome. My comment was merely meant to convey that your source was not all that authoritative. It may be hard to get an authoritative source on this, so I give you credit for finding at least something relating to the topic. I did read it. But I am not convinced that the issue is put to rest. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Children aren't always exiled from the "family bed" because of some morality-based reason. They are often exiled because they kick and elbow the parents in their sleep, and toss and turn all night. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Dr. Phil has to say about the subject: [15][16] which I found by googling ["dr. phil" children sleeping with parents]. He generally opposes it, and says why, but he also lists arguments for both sides. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In North America there's generally a distinction between regular sleeping with the parents and the occasional instance. Regular co-sleeping generally ends around the time nursing is finished, while the occasional run for mommy and daddy's bed after a bad dream or a "sleepover" as a special event is up to the family's discretion until the child reaches puberty. Even then, the case of a mother and a pubescent or post-pubescent daughter sometimes sleeping together would probably only raise a couple of eyebrows. A pubescent boy who still wanted to sleep with mom and dad would face a huge amount of societal pressure to stop, while a pubescent daughter sleeping in the same bed as her father (and the two are alone) might net a call to a children's services outfit. With regards to never having sex in front of an infant, etc. I think this is largely from a position of affluence and circumstance. Certainly poor folks crammed into a single-room tenement still find the time and place to make more little ones, likewise with various non-tenemented peoples such as hunter-gatherers, nomads, etc. Further, long houses have been used for centuries all over the world - and they typically have no interior walls... Matt Deres (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A proponent of the "family bed" on Salon once stated that the parents found it exciting to sneak around and find an opportunity for sneaky sex with one another, when the children normally slept with them. I guess it made them feel like they were teenagers again getting it on the the basement rec room or a parked car somewhere without getting "caught." I expect that most Americans would think it was perverse for parents to have sexual intercourse with children present in the room, and that the judicial system would regard it as inappropriate. Edison (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Babies sharing a bed with their parents apparently increases the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (which is a catch-all term for sudden unexplained infant deaths and, in this case, is just a nice name for parents rolling over in the night and accidentally smothering their children). That doesn't really apply from toddlers upwards, though. --Tango (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere that in premodern societies, in which families and sometimes strangers shared beds (or straw mats), bedsteads were not thought of as places for sexual interaction. Instead, in those societies, people typically had sex in hidden spots outdoors. In colder climates, people would remain mostly clothed while having sex, except for necessary unwrappings or unbuttonings. It is the sexualization of the bed that brings up issues of incest when parents sleep with children. Marco polo (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

on all of this stuff you read somewhere. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

embassy guard question

Are guards in embassies permitted to carry fully automatic weapons if such weapons are illegal in the country proper? Are there bilateral agreements on these things, or do the laws of the country who "owns" the embassy in play and they can do whatever is permitted in their nation of origin? Googlemeister (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been to US embassies in three different countries where it is illegal to carry weapons and in all three emabssies the Marine guards were armed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That embassies are "part of" a foreign country and subject to their laws is a myth; the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations protects diplomats from prosecution and missions from intrusion, but it also requires diplomatic missions to obey the laws of the host country. Therefore, whether guards can carry weapons will be a matter of agreement between countries. Note that the convention also requires host countries to provide security, so external security at US embassies is performed by local police, not by US Marines.FiggyBee (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly one referenced view, but most books at Google Book Search disagree, and state that an embassy is the sovereign territory of the nation represented. See [17], [18], Statement by President Carter in 1980 that embassies are sovereign territory of the country whose embassy it is, [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], Sec of State George Schultz stated the US Embassy in Moscow was US "sovereign territory", [24], [25] states that the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was its "sovereign territory"], [26], [27], [28], [29], but on the other side there is just (seems to go with the argument that the embassy is the sovereign terriroty of the receiving not sending country). Your statement is too broad and absolute, and might better be stated as "according to some sources" or "technically speaking." It is generally accepted that the opposite is true. Edison (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and your sole "on the other side" reference seems to be the only one which is actually a legal opinion, rather than a politician or author playing loose with the language. If embassies really were the sovereign territory of their states, then they would be allowed to do whatever they like; never mind semi-automatic rifles, they could put machine guns on the roof and anti-aircraft missiles on the lawn. But they're not. They're allowed to run an embassy, that's it. What's "generally accepted" to be the case by the general public is irrelevant. FiggyBee (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not call Presidents and Secretaries of State "the general public." Edison (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither would I. FiggyBee (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, the officers of SO1, who provide embassy security in London, are among the few British police officers who are routinely armed. FiggyBee (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Convention requires that diplomatic missions obey the laws of the host country when outside the embassy/consulate grounds. The embassy/consulate is not the property or soil of the host country, so their laws do not apply. Woogee (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says;

Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.

That's it. No "unless you call base" caveat. Furthermore, it says,

The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of

the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by

any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State.

Doesn't sound very "sovereign territory" to me. FiggyBee (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All embassy guards I've seen use semi-automatic weapons. However, an anecdote that may help: At the U.S. Embassy in Bogata, Columbia, the guards carry semi-automatic rifles. When I was deployed into Columbia, I could only carry a handgun, not a rifle. My shadow, a Columbian guard, carried a semi-automatic rifle. The restrictions on what could be carried by the Marines changed once they left the embassy. -- kainaw™ 15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Although that doesn't answer the original question, whether they were allowed rifles within the embassy by agreement, or because Colombian law didn't apply. I expect it was the former. FiggyBee (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty much been answered above, the legal position is covered by the various embodiments of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations. These are multilateral treaty arrangements and the details are enshrined in national law.

The basic premise is that the Host Nation grants access and autonomy within the diplomatic or consular facility however the laws of the Host Nation remain applicable unless revoked through local arrangements, either bi-lateral or as a matter of policy. The implication of that is that embassies or consulates will have bar facilities and the like where the HN is ostensibly dry.

The embassy or consulate must be protected by the HN, so what you'll normally see is local security or policing forces outside, national security inside who may or may not be armed subject to the local laws or other arrangements.

The example of London has already been cited, but in the case of the US Embassy the USMC security team are not permitted to be armed in transit to the embassy but may be armed with a sidearm inside. The legislation covering that is the more general HN agreements related to US basing in the UK.

ALR (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think it's possible that, even if they are subject to local gun control laws, embassy guards/staff may elect to ignore those laws and arm themselves anyway. In the case of Iran after the overthrow of the Shah, for instance, the Iranian government was in collusion with those who took the US embassy hostages, so relying on Iranian government protection would have been/was a serious mistake. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's possible however in normal circumstances would be a serious breach of diplomatic protocol and could reasonably lead to significant operational difficulty for the ambassador and supporting staff. Essentially if embassy staff arm themselves in breach of their countries treaty obligations the Host Nation could reasonably eject the mission.

Diplomatic relations are very carefully managed.

ALR (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian Reservation

What reservation is the wealthiest in the US? The poorest? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the richest, but I believe the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota is the poorest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A book about the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, which owns the Foxwoods Resort Casino, is entitled Hitting the Jackpot: The Inside Story of the Richest Indian Tribe in History. —Kevin Myers 14:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe they are richest per capita, being a small tribe with a large casino. But, do they also have the highest total wealth of any tribe ? StuRat (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

They very well may likely be the richest in terms of total wealth as well. Foxwoods is a huge casino that makes massive amounts of cash, I can't find proof that it is the richest ever in terms of absolute cash, but I would not be surprised if it were so. --Jayron32 15:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Even poorer than Rosebud may be the Crow Creek Reservation, also in South Dakota — its boundaries are mostly equivalent to those of Buffalo County, the poorest county in the country, while Rosebud is mostly equivalent to Todd County, which is "only" the fifth poorest. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Osage County, Oklahoma, coterminous with the Osage Nation Resevation, has a median income of $34,000. I'm not sure how that compares with other reservations. There are quite a lot of mineral rights agreements on the grounds. Woogee (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Our article seems to be Reservation poverty - it has several references at the end that you can also check. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

PS re more references - the US statistics sites are baffling me, but perhaps if you are an American you'll have better luck understanding the proper search terms. Here are some starting points:

• The Bureau of Economic Analysis gives personal income rates for a range of areas, but it'll be up to you to determine if any are reservations. You can also look at single counties (also here in a ranked list).
• The US Census Bureau lets you download income data at the school district level. You have to determine which school districts are on reservations, though.
• The Census Bureau also can provide 1999 income for one tribe at a time through tribes are not the same as reservations.
• This looks like the central Census page for tribal statistics.
• US residents can phone: 1-800-923-8282 for help using the US Census site. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

US of A (counties)

How many counties are there in the US including Hawaii and Alaska, what is the average size there of and how is it administered? Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau lists 3,140 counties or county-equivalent administrative units in total. Average area of 1200 square miles, population a bit under 100,000. County (United States) does a good job answering these questions. Googlemeister (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as adminitration goes, it varies greatly state to state. In some places (New England for example) counties are essentially meaningless. They have no governmental administration, or nearly none, in most of New England. However, in other states, counties are the primary form of local administration, and only the largest cities are given home rule while the county provides services and administration for most people. So the answer to "how are counties in the U.S. administered" the answer is, it varies A LOT from state to state. --Jayron32 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In the northern New England states, counties do something, especially in areas that are not parts of towns; however, counties have been entirely abolished (except for the purposes of geographical reference) in the three southern New England states. Conversely, in Hawaii, there is absolutely no government at all except for counties (Honolulu County and the city of Honolulu are consolidated) and the state government. In Alaska, many county-equivalents have no governmental power: the Unorganized Borough is divided into census areas that have absolutely no official purpose except for statistical analysis by the United States Census Bureau. Alaska's boroughs, on the other hand, are also county-equivalents, but they have significant governmental power. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For an example of New England county government, read Part 1 of Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated; there are many links to subsections, but you can realise that almost all of the subsections are one or two sentences. You'll notice that most of the county officials are either judicial or purely administrative. Chapter 1, which deals with the counties themselves, includes only (1) a list of counties in the state, and (2) a list of the cities, towns, and gores in each county. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not accurate that counties are meaningless in most of New England, or even in all of southern New England. Counties certainly have fewer responsibilities anywhere in New England than they do in most other parts of the United States, but there are county-level responsibilities and at least vestigial county governments in four of the six New England states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and my own state, Massachusetts. Connecticut and Rhode Island have abolished county government. In those two states, below the state government, there are only municipal (city and town) governments. However, in those two states (and in Massachusetts) every square inch of the state is within the borders of a city or town. New England towns also cover rural areas. In Massachusetts, county governments are presided over by several elected officials who run a county-level court system, sometimes one or more county-level schools, and repositories of public records, particularly the registry of deeds. I believe that county governments in the northern New England states have similar functions. Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're right; I'd forgotten that a few (is it five?) of the Massachusetts still have governmental existence. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated than that. Every Massachusetts county still exists as an administrative district, and each has elected officials whose election district and whose area of responsibility correspond to the county boundaries. Each of these countywide elected officials (for example, the Essex County District Attorney) presides over an office that could be called a piece of county-level government. (The state government provides funding and handles payroll and other such services for these offices.) What most Massachusetts counties apparently now lack is a county government that acts as an umbrella for these various county offices. In every statewide election, voters in Massachusetts also have to vote for county-level officials, whether or not their county has an umbrella county government. So even though most Massachusetts counties now lack a county government per se, they have not ceased to exist as political units. Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, no U.S. counties seem to have a Count in charge, unless coincidentally. Edison (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but they almost always have a Sherrif (Shire Reave), which comes from the older English word for county, Shire, as in Hertsfordshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, etc. and still appears in such terms as Shire town. In England, which has counties, they also have never had Counts either. While Sheriffs were the chief civil servants in charge of running a county, Earls were the nobles who ruled Counties as fiefs. --Jayron32 01:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

However, the wife of an earl is a countess. Go figure. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that's because when the somewhat Frenchified ex-Scandinavian Normans (who had relinquished their own original term 'Jarl') took over England from 1066, the system of Earldoms (from the Anglo-Saxon 'Eorl') was too entrenched for them to rename the rank with its continental equivalent of Count (from the French 'Comte', itself from the Latin 'Comes'). The wives of Earls had had no specific title beyond being addressed as "Lady" (from Anglo-Saxon 'hlǣfdige'), so when the need or desire for one arose, the existing and fashionable (because Norman) 'Countess' was adopted. In the latter period of Roman rule, what would later become England did have the rank of Comes, as in the Count of the Saxon Shore, but this fell into abeyance. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then there is the county which children (under 16) are forbidden to enter … ---Cam (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

award for entrepreneurs

a few days ago, i asked a question about existence of any award for businesspersons. since capital gain or earning a lot of money in a legitimate way is a skill, why there is no recognition for this skill? While authors receive awards for writing skill, journalists receive awards for journalistic skill, actors receive awards for acting skill, why businesspeople don't receive awards for business and money-making skills??? --Gortpok (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think various organizations give out a "Small Businessman of the Year" award. And you don't even have to be a dwarf to apply. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, there is The Queen's Awards for Enterprise[30]. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not the general idea that amassing wealth, prestige, and power is an end in itself? So why on earth would there have to be any additional recognition? It would almost be obscene if the US Treasury handed out yearly awards to Mr. Bill Gates, on account of his 'winning ways'. He gets enough esteem as is. Vranak (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See Deming Prize, awarded to business for "quality" improvement. Edison (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was awarded the Business Woman of the Year 2007 by a local newspaper. Woo hoo! I thought. However, I soon found that it was a scam for them to got thousands of pounds worth of advertising out of me for the next 12 months, none of which actually got me any new clients or extra business. So for what it's worth, I'd say that any of these awards aren't worth the paper they're written on. I might be biased of course! --TammyMoet (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

April 24

Blue porn

Why Indian people call porn films "blue film"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic The Xtreme (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed duplicate question --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason as English speakers elsewhere call them "blue films" or "blue movies": because one of the meanings of "blue" is "indecent; obscene" (OED). The earliest example quoted is from a dictionary of slang from 1864. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the etymology ? StuRat (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

According to references at the article Blue law, the term "blue" to refer to "immoral" may have been invented out of whole cloth by Samuel Peters, who first used the term "Blue law" in 1781. He claims the term had existed since Puritan Colonial times, however later historians and etymologists have found no evidence of this, instead falling back on the conclusion that he invented the usage himself. --Jayron32 05:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We've had this exact same question before. I still think my answer was best! [31]--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When you underexposed the (pre-digital) film involved, because the budget was as small as possible and hence did not include using movie lighting, it would get a blue tint. Hence blue movies. 78.148.48.230 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this statement. I have developed a lot of film, and I hev never seen underexposed film look blue. Do you have a reference for underexposed film looking blue? Edison (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither Shantavira nor this IP have provided sources for their answers, and it's citationless conjecture like this that leads to those "everyone knows" facts that everyone gets wrong. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

EO has some theories:[32] The one about "blue books" meaning "books of questionable character" might well be the joke W.C. Fields was making in Poppy: "Perhaps you've read my book on the evils of wagering?" (Mayor) "No." (Fields) "It has a blue cover. Perhaps that will recall it to your mind!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. In Chinese, or HK at least. Pornography is associated with the colour yellow (黃)[33]. --Kvasir (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Try http://ask.yahoo.com/20031003.html 89.243.213.182 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A fit of swearing is said to "turn the air blue".--Wetman (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Germanic Rome (Modern Rome) versus Ancient Rome

In most legal jurisdiction in the US which have many laws starting with concepts and notions based on ancient Egyptian and Roman law, most of these concepts and notions have been updated with revisions from Germanic Rome following the Germanic "Migration" and now in the US have been updated to fully reflect modern thinking. An example would be laws prohibiting culpable negligence versus laws which support codes of silence. On occasion, however a judge not trained sufficiently in the law will revert to the old (ancient) thinking or standards and make decisions which do not support modern thinking or updates but which instead reflect ancient law. (My solution BTW is to publish the law in the form of a polychotomous key so that such occasions can be quickly corrected or prevented from occurring at all.) What Wikipedia articles cover this topic of judges appearing to be in complete compliance and support of the law by only supporting and being in compliance with ancient thinking and laws? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In America and the UK, the relevent concept is Common law, which holds that judges and courts may act on legal prescedent and tradition. The opposite concept is that of codified law, for example Code Napoleon, which is the French legal system established in France by Napoleon, and adapted throughout much of Europe. The two systems often work together by varying degrees, for example there are no purely "common law" legal systems in the world, and insofar as judges and juries are required to interpret legal codes, there will be some common law elements in codified systems. But as ends of the legal system continuum, those two systems would be a good place to start thinking about these things. If you want historical legal systems, you could start with the Code of Hammurabi, and also look into the article Early Germanic law which lists many such Germanic law codes, as well as Roman law, which never fully disappeared, but was instead adapted locally after the fall of the Roman Empire. --Jayron32 05:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these articles will help reveal why this problem exists but I am also looking for articles which already recognize the existence of this problem and discuss prior solutions which have been tried to dissuade revolution and terrorism beyond incorporating a political system which entrusts elected officials to adapt the law to change. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, I really don't know what you mean by "ancient Egyptian law" having had a significant influence on modern legal systems in the English-speaking world. Roman law has had a certain influence, but its influence is generally considered to be much less on the development of Common Law systems than it was on various forms of continental European law. In the 19th century, people such as Frederic William Maitland (as I seem to remember) had romantic theories about how the Common law preserved the spirit of early Germanic tribal quasi-democracy (as opposed to Roman despotism), but I'm not sure how that's held up in modern scholarship... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jayron's reference above to the Code of Hammurabi is what I meant by "ancient Egyptian law". 71.100.1.71 (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

71.100.1.71 -- Hammurabi was Mesopotamian, not Egyptian, and no one knew about his law-code for probably at least 3,000 years before 1901 A.D., so obviously it did not have a direct influence on the development of English Common Law. The Code of Hammurabi has some interesting parallels with provisions of the so-called "Laws of Moses" found in the first five books of the Bible, but I strongly doubt whether it exerts any significant influence on the decisions of judges today... AnonMoos (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is s wasted distinction for the purpose of the question. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't care much about fact, then this whole discussion would appear to be fairly pointless... AnonMoos (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that water is a compound made from two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen but not relevant to this discussion. You can measure the coastline of England in miles or inches depending on how precise you want to be. If you do not need to be more precise that miles then you have wasted valuable time on measuring it in inches. If the discussion is about the difference in modern and ancient only and you are trying to disrupt it by pealing off about the difference between Egypt and Mesopotamia then move your comments to the discussion page and anyone interested can follow them there. In short... Grow up. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you seem to be somewhat impervious to disconfirming evidence in your idée fixe determination to find support for your pet little theory that the dead hand of ancient laws from thousands of years ago is the most determining factor in 21st-century Common Law legal systems (something which would appear to be false). If you don't want to listen to any answers which don't perfectly agree with what you already thought, then some might wonder why you asked the question in the first place. AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand your question. US judges are bound to follow the law and the Constitution. Can you cite an example of what you mean by a US judge using "ancient thinking" as the basis for a ruling, rather than the law? Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I cited an example in the question. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your "example" was totally vague. Could you point to a single actual court case as an example? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It happens all the time - that ancient thinking is part of the law. When there isn't a statute to cover a particular situation the courts will rely on common law, which is usually very old (not always ancient, per se, but often at least based on ancient principles). --Tango (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In English law, (if I recall a rather cursory module of a course many years since), judges are allowed to fall back on the principle of Natural justice. However this can only be used if there no statute, precedent or common law principle which bears on the case. Alansplodge (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with allowing this to be done in America is that we have immigrant judges from Italy, France, Germany, Poland, the Middle East and Asia all of which would have the right to fall back on completely different foundations. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please supply a concrete example of an actual court case so we aren't all just waving our hands discussing vague possibilities. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Kioa v West is the (Australian) case cited in the WP article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The "polychotomous key" (aka decision tree) is 1.71 (aka User:Pce3@ij.net)'s solution to the endemic corruption of the legal system[34] (as well as being the basis for a religion and philosophy [35]). However, the reason we have human lawyers to argue cases and judges to decide them is because there's no way the written law can take every possible circumstance into account; you could spend 50 years compiling a billion-page decision tree of common and statute law, but it'd only be out a week before a case comes along which doesn't fit it (or someone comes along who disputes the meanings of words in one of the steps). On the other hand, judgements in our current system are bound by precedent and subject to appeals, which keeps the whole system fairly consistent and fair. FiggyBee (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Homeless people in UK

In a forum someone said

A large percentage of those in the UK are ex forces people. People who joined up at 16 and have spent their whole lives with a solution to every problem. In return they have put life and limb on the line.Society stopped caring about them the day they stopped taking the queens shilling.

Why are those people so stupid that they delibrately stop taking the Queen's shilling and become homeless people on the streets of UK. Isn't the army suppose to train you to be a good person instead of a vagabond? 122.107.207.98 (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read our article on homelessness. Your premise is flawed. Don't believe everything you read in a forum. It's a long time since I saw any homeless people in the UK who might have been ex-servicemen. Also the army doesn't train people so much to be good, as to obey superiors, to survive in a hostile situation, and to kill.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Uncritical slavishness and willingness to kill are plainly antithetical to 'being a good person'. Vranak (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a high proportion of ex service personnel in both the homeless segment and in prisons, but that simplistic point conceals a high degree of complexity. Some of those ostensibly ex-servicemen will have served for short periods a long time ago, some will have come into the service with a number of societal and cultural issues that may contribute to their situation. Some will have been dismissed for crimes whilst in the service.

Once one starts to look into the detail it's clear that very few will have completed a full career, essentially 22 years. The transitional arrangements at that level of experience are pretty good and you'd tend to find people going into reasonable jobs.

I would agree that society per se doesn't really care about those that serve them, whether military or civilian. There is an expectation that in volunteering people give up any rights to reasonable treatment, but that's more of an indication of a wider malaise than specific to the military.

Essentially very few would choose to be homeless, but circumstances can conspire to lead them there.

All that said some long time servicemen do struggle with the transition to civilian life and that can lead to problems. Civilians don't understand the humour, approach, demand for high standards etc and that can be challenging. For some it means job losses.

One cultural issue that does tend to reinforce this is that one has been trained to be self reliant, and it's common for ex servicemen in trouble to refrain from seeking support and assistance. There are a number of mechanisms in place, both formal and charitable, but frequently they're not known about or the individual prioritises himself, or herself, out on the basis that theyd consume resource that someone else would benefit from.

ALR (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This page has the details[36]. "The percentage of veterans in London's current non-statutory (single) homeless population had reduced from 22% in 1997 to 6% by 2007".

Perhaps it makes more sense to look at the proportion of veterans which are homeless, rather than the proportion of homeless who are veterans. Otherwise, you're sure to see a rise whenever a large number of veterans are released from service, like after a war ends. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's London, not national. Although I would agree that the Legion has done a lot of good work in addressing the issue, but more to do.

ALR (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Other aspects of your question have been answered above, but I want to address one incorrect assumption of yours that hasn't been explicitly answered. In peacetime, people usually sign up for the UK's Armed Forces on various fixed-length terms of engagement, ranging in the Army, for example, from 3 to 22 years. At the end of a term they may or may not be offered the option of signing on for one or more of a range of further terms, depending upon the Forces' then current and projected future personnel requirements: many are therefore compelled to leave even if they would prefer to stay in. My own father completed a 22-year term and would have preferred to remain in the Army until the normal retirement age, but was only offered the option of a series of (I think) 3-year terms with no guarantee of renewals: he therefore chose to leave in order to start a second long-term civilian career.

My father was ultimately successful but some, as already mentioned, find the transition to civilian life and employment too difficult to cope with, especially if they develop some mental disturbance (that might stem from their military experiences). I myself knew a former Warrant Officer from my father's own Corps who became a local street person (and who was perfectly unobjectionable and innocuous).

I also find your assumption that homeless people are necessarily not 'good' highly questionable. Many people become homeless from some combination of bad luck, family breakdown and personal problems, but that doesn't make them 'bad'. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And in the UK a homeless person includes those living in hostels and possibly b&b, and only a minority, I think, are rough sleepers. 78.149.153.174 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lord of the rings

In the fellowship of the ring movie, there is a scene where the Ring utters a harsh chant. Gandalf suddenly stands up and also begins the chant in Black Speech. Thunder crackles as the sky darkens. The Council stare around them in fear and confusion. Is this taken from the book or does it appear in the movie only?

It's in book 2, chapter 2, The Council of Elrond. — Lomn 14:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I went through that (long) chapter twice and I can't find that scene...

I've answered over on the Entertainment desk, where the question was unnecessarily cross-posted. Deor (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Economy questions - Greece

Please help with 2 questions about the current financial situation with Greece and the Euro: 1) Is it possible to eject Greece out of the Euro currency union? 2) Did the Greek crisis really originate in governmental corruption, in which case is it possible to prosecute responsibles? Thanks for info, --AlexSuricata (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

1) I don't know if it's formally possible by EU rules, but all the other members could always withdraw and form an "EU2", which excludes Greece. Of course, to do so would impress all the other members that they will also be abandoned if they ever get into trouble, so would weaken the union in the long run. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Several newspaper articles have said that according to the current existing rules, it would be almost impossible to force Greece off the Euro unless it also withdraws from the European Union. If Greece still had a separate currency, it could devalue the drachma with respect to other currencies and undergo a short sharp economic shock which would probably leave it in a relatively good position for long-term recovery. As it is, no one seems to know how to put Greece on a sound economic footing without either a huge external bailout, or forcing Greece to go through a prolonged period of such austerity that it would be more like a depression than a recession... AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For #2, see 2010 European sovereign debt crisis. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Party support for UK identity cards

I do not like having identity cards for British people. I understand the LibDems will scrap them. What will the other two mainstream parties do with them? Thanks 89.243.213.182 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives are against them - "ID Cards - Labour's Bad IDea"[37]. Labour says "The new biometric ID scheme which already covers foreign nationals will be offered to an increasing number of British citizens, but will not be compulsory for them." They go on to claim that the scheme will be self-financing[38]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your link says the Cons will scrap them too. 78.149.153.174 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

constableville,ny

trying to find any history from the early 1700's to previous and the sirounding cemeteries..who was the founder? is there any ghost stories?

can someone explain "everybody draw mohammed day"?

can someone explain this movement to me? Thanks. 84.153.190.165 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's a reaction to extremist Muslims who threaten to kill anyone who depicts Muhammad (there's a Muslim ban on drawing him). Obviously, they can't kill everyone, though. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To be a little more precise, there is a belief by some Muslims that Muslims should not depict Muhammad. Similarly, there are some Christians who believe that Christians should not adorn the church with pictures/statues of Jesus. The extremists take this view to an absurd level and believe that everyone is actually Muslim (even if you don't know it yet) and therefore everyone falls under Muslim law. So, anyone who depicts Muhammad is breaking Muslim law and must be killed. The idea of an "everybody draw Muhammad day" is just to tell the young nutjobs who are behind this idiocy that we don't care what they say. They need to find another means of working out their sexual frustrations. -- kainaw™ 22:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

all white canadian place

is there a place in Canada where the population is all white?

I'm sure there are many, mainly towns with tiny populations, do you want us to list them all ? StuRat (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This might sound nit-picky, but define place. Do you mean town, neighbourhood, province, region? My parents house is all white. The Canadian census results can help. Statscan results for % visible minority 24.83.112.118 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

black and white people together

Is there a place in US where the population is only black and white?

Perhaps you could explain what you're getting at, rather than asking little questions bit-by-bit? You might get a more useful answer. FiggyBee (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There are many small towns which have populations that are all the same - black, white, chinese, hispanic... whatever. What is the real question? -- kainaw™ 22:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A weirdly specific question regarding the Byzantine empire...

I know Justin I was Justinians uncle, but was he his maternal uncle or paternal uncle? 83.250.239.198 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

According to our article on Justinian, "His mother was Vigilantia, the sister of Justin" - so maternal. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)