Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 7

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 7

US law protecting the Swiss arms

Why does US law provide special protection for the arms of the Swiss Confederation (US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 3, Section 78)? DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The footnote at this copy of the statute (which most of you probably can't see) seems to imply that it's been around since 1940 (or maybe 1936; it's hard to tell). The only thing I can think of is the similarity to the Red Cross, which is protected by section 706 (and more recently, 706a). Buddy431 (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 33 seems to be primarily about preventing someone passing themselves off as an official of any of various sorts. Keep in mind that the Swiss are always neutral and commonly used as intermediaries between states that have broken diplomatic ties. We don't want some corporation adopting the Swiss flag as a logo and then trying to pass itself off as a neutral party in order to gain some kind of advantage over their competitors. That would (a) be unfair, and (b) damage the credibility of the Swiss as neutrals. --Ludwigs2 08:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the last paragraph in the US Code excludes the Swiss knifes. Is that right?--Quest09 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what was in their heads when they debated the law. I suspect the idea was to not inconvenience established companies in general without need. If I'm correct in thinking that the law is intended to prevent deceptive practices, then a company with a long-standing usage of the arms as part of their trademark could not reasonably or easily pass itself off anew as having some sort of diplomatic status, and so it would be a non-issue. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This law was based on an older law enacted by the 74th Congress on June 20, 1936 "To prohibit the commercial use of the coat of arms of the Swiss Confederation pursuant to the obligation of the Government of the United States under article 28 of the Red Cross Convention signed at Geneva July 27, 1929." (74 P.L. 729; 74 Cong. Ch. 635; 49 Stat. 1557). You can read article 28 by following the link at Third Geneva Convention. That article has to do with the disposition of profits associated with a canteen (place) for prisoners of war. We can only speculate what Congress was thinking in limiting the use of the coat of arms in light of this obligation. To find out for sure, we would have to go to the legislative history for 1936 leading up to this bill. I'm not certain what sort of law libraries would have that, but one would exist in Washington DC. Gx872op (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the bill was discussed in the Congressional Record. I'm guessing a large college library or regional government depository library would have Congressional Records going back that far. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember that in Chicago "Red Cross Spaghetti" was my favored brand; I see that it was exempted from the law because it dated back to 1872.[1] The most bizarre case (that I know of) involves a 2007 Johnson & Johnson suit against the Red Cross enjoining them against using the logo on first aid products. Apparently when the Red Cross was first set up J&J snatched the trademark before they thought about it. In the end the case was settled. Wnt (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles E. Whitmeyer

I came across the article for Charles E. Whitmeyer and am looking for any sources that can confirm his existence and exploits. Particularly of concern are the claims that he was illiterate, invented the child leash and used moonshine as an embalming fluid. A search for the only reference used in the article only brings up Wikipedia and its mirrors. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one book reference, cited in the article. I can't find anything online, but that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, or isn't notable. He very well could be. I have done some research for Wikipedia before on long deceased North Carolinians; next time I am at the Library I can look him up. --Jayron32 03:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Child leashes" have existed for many centuries, called leading strings... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Identify this novel

I remember reading a novel back in grade 6 where the main character is named "Alex" and the story is set in the Soviet Union, with some of Alex's family members being arrested by Soviet authorities. What was this novel titled? 66.212.129.130 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can answer your question, but if it was anything like Red Scarf Girl, which I read in the 7th grade, it is all a bunch of propaganda. schyler (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear what you mean by that, schyler. Sure, Americans love their propaganda re: communism and I have no doubt this book has its own share of it as well, but the book reviews I read on Amazon about this book were basically of two sorts: "this book is great for civics class, I use it all the time with my pupils" and "gawd, this book is so boring, our teacher makes us read it and I haet it, and there's not even a red scarf in it, duh." TomorrowTime (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, in reality, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were great places to live. If your hierarchy of needs was very short. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was The Wild Children by Felice Holman. Gobonobo ^{T C} 09:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing Nietzsche

Various websites credit Friedrich Nietzsche with the following quote:

Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.

Anyone know if this is legit and if so, the origin? 83.70.229.15 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly legit, yes. It's ch. 4, §169 of his Beyond Good and Evil, which you can find at Wikisource. Antiquary (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

in this PDF what was the "December 25th incident"?

Resolved

 – 63.17.41.3 (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In this PDF: http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

What is the mentioned "recent incident (on December 25th)" (near bottom of third page)? 84.153.207.135 (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The pdf twice caused Chrome to freeze, so I can't help. DuncanHill (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Duncan, for the conspiracist in me, will you write a disclosure of whether you have any interest in the matter? 84.153.212.109 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a very interesting document, a "letter of concern" to the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology from some faculty members at UCSF, dated April 6, 2010. The passage in question is:

"Lastly, given the recent incident (on December 25th), how do we know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?"

Presumably, this is in reference to the Christmas Day bombing attempt in which the would-be bomber concealed explosives in his underwear. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate history

Would it be an even remotely plausible PoD to have Mexico take back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California during the 1930s when the American military was weakened by the Great Depression? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Plan de San Diego may be an interesting read to you. The Great Depression weakened the US economy in all sectors, including the military, but war (and especially invasion) has historically, in all nations, contributed to a sense of a collective "we can do it" spirit. I seriously doubt, even with the large Mexican-American population at the time, that Mexico would have been able to conquer these lands. Most Mexican-Americans' families at the time had fled to these areas because of the political unrest in their native country and were usually already second generation Americans; assimilation had begun. Some other articles you may wish to look at: History of Mexico#Part VI: The PRI and the Rise of Contemporary Mexico (1929-present) and Zimmermann Telegram. schyler (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually worse than just a "we can do it" spirit. Wars stimulate economies and do wonders for politics. Had the US gotten into a border war with Mexico at this point, they probably would have pulled out of the Great Depression faster and earlier than they otherwise did. As it happened, it took WWII to get the US out of it. We would have to be talking about very remote assets to imagine the US not deciding it was "worth" mobilization to reclaim them. Texas and California in particular were pretty valuable assets, though, and would be well-worth reclaiming. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wars are best at stimulating economies when the stuff getting destroyed is not yours. WW2 was not very good for the French economy in the first half or the German economy in the second half. Googlemeister (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It really wouldn't matter how far away or useless it was. How important were the Falkland Islands? China and India fought repeatedly over mostly uninhabited and worthless land. The United States simply wouldn't stand for it because it would lose an enormous amount of prestige if it didn't do anything. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very plausible to me, unless in connection with the Zimmermann Telegram and a WWI that turned out very differently... AnonMoos (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty hard to imagine. Mexico had trouble keeping itself intact. The Maximato was a time of great social and political tension in Mexico. The government had just acheived nominal control of most of the country after the Cristero War and the Escobar Rebellion, in which a third of the army deserted to Escobar's side. Hundreds of thousands of anti-government Cristeros became refugees in the US after the war. Mexico's economy also suffered during the depression and its military was poorly equipped even before then. It relied completely on American aid to equip the tiny air force which it used to great effect against Escobar's forces. They also only managed to raise 100,000 or so soldiers for the Cristero War which indicates they might have serious trouble raising a large invasion force. Mexico was also regarded its own military as immature and was in the midst of a major military reformation under Defence Secretary Joaquín Amaro. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz

I've been trying to find a source for this quote: can anyone help? Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote seems to be attributed more often to Solomon Schechter (see this example).--Cam (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

what is fat people's psychology?

Like, when I see them buy three donuts, why do they do it if they know it makes them fat? 84.153.212.109 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See obesity.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Under "causes" it doesn't list pyschology except to say "Certain physical and mental illnesses", meaning something more serious. I don't mean a mental illness, I mean the simple choice. If I, who weigh 160 pounds, and am not on a diet, know I don't need more than one donut, and so I don't buy one, why does someone weighing 300 who knows they don't need more than one donut, then buy three? Like, I don't understand this. Also, sometimes nobody on the train is eating, it might be a very dirty and disgusting metro that is totally unappetizing. Only one person will be eating, who is grossly overweight. What is the psychology behind eating at this time? I mean, if people who aren't working on losing weight are grossed out enough not to even consider eating (even if they have food), doesn't it follow that someone who is working on losing weight would definitely not be eating in that situation? But the observation is just the opposite: even from 80 people, they might be the only one eating in that situation. Or, while walking somewhere. Etc etc. So, what is the psychology behind it? I'm not talking about people with mental hindrances who don't realize that they should not eat 5 donuts if they are not trying to quickly gain weight (the only situation in which someone would eat 5 donuts, or an eating contest) -- I'm talking about people with a normal IQ who know this fact, but still do it? I've removed the ref desk alert after adding this clarification, hopefully you will now understand the exact perspective I have in asking this question. It is totally bizarre to me. It would be like if the only people building a house in this city this week are people who don't want a house. This doesn't make sense to me on pure utilitarian grounds, and so I would like a psychological explanation. Thank you. 84.153.212.109 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Behavioral addiction might be one explanation. Very few people behave purely rationally or, despite what economists teach us, in ways that advance their self-interest, particularly when compulsions are involved. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Food addiction. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does anyone buy doughnuts? The OP makes unwarranted assumptions: First, that someone buying three doughnuts is necessarily planning to eat them all, instead of, say, donating them to anorexic friends. Second, that fat people are unanimously resolved to become thin, and that they are therefore stupid or insane to eat pastries. In fact, many fat people don't consider weight loss an urgent priority, or consider it an impossibility, or don't want to lose weight, as scandalous as that might seem to a respectable conformist. Some of them don't even care what random strangers think. LANTZY^TALK 18:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about you or me, but the people weighing 300-500 pounds at five foot three. And the reason I know that they're eating all three donuts is I seen em! 84.153.212.109 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It takes more than three donuts to get there... and, then, how do you know whom you were speaking to? East of Borschov 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no definitive or universal answer to this question. it may vary from biological consideration, to psychological, to cultural, to simple disagreement with your personal beliefs about what is attractive and appetizing. please do not remove alert templates; they serve a particular purpose. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Compulsive overeating. This is a tough question about a tough situation and there are millions being spent to try to figure it out. The people that compulsively overeat don't necessarily have good answers themselves, either. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also see disinhibition, otherwise known as the "Oh, what the hell" phenomenon. An obese person may think that getting to a healthy weight is impossible, so why not enjoy the doughnuts? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For a general description of why people do things that they *know* aren't in their best interests, see akrasia. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm talking about

It seems people are thinking I'm applying some particular idea of what is attractive! I'm not talking about debatable things, and I'm also not talking about "overeating" i.e. 12 or 24 donuts eaten on the spot! I mean 500 pound people, and three donuts when they could eat one. Not 12 or 24. 84.153.212.109 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you find uninformative about the article I linked to already, Food addiction, and the other articles linked to by others above? And please do not troll the Ref desk. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

food addiction would be appropriate for someone buying two cartons of donuts. I'm talking about three donuts. I'm not trolling you guys, I want an actual answer, a real reference. The answer you're giving me, "Food addiction" is an inappropriate answer because everyone needs food, and 3 donuts is not out of the ordinary. It is just that the 500 pound guy should be buying 1, and not 3. What is his psychology? Note: is it an "addiction" if you have a glass of wine a week? Obviously not. But, if you have two glasses of wine instead of 1, you won't be a 500 pound guy, whereas if you eat three donuts, instead of one (same for everything) you will be. Obviously you don't want to be a 500-pound guy, and obviously you know that, although it is normal to eat 3 donuts, you should eat 1 in this case. Why do you still eat 3? What is the psychology behind that? Again: I'm not talking about addiction. I'm not takling about obsessive/compulsive behavior. I am simply talking about making a certain choice every time you buy a donut. Why? This is a perfectly reasonable question, and so far the answers have been totally unhelpful. 84.153.212.109 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I gave you an actual answer. you assert "the 500 pound guy should be buying 1, and not 3" which is your own personal belief about his behavior. He may have a psychological urge he can't control, or he may have a biological issue he's dealing with, or he may just want to eat 3 doughnuts, in which case he should be buying 3, not 1.

In other words, you are trying to assert that someone has a dysfunction simply on the grounds that you find their behavior problematic. If I find your behavior problematic, should I assume you have a psychological dysfunction? --Ludwigs2 19:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't make any assumptions. If the guy buys 3, he might actually be cutting back. Maybe he used to buy 6 or 12. As to why anyone eats donuts instead of, say, liver - it might be because donuts taste good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There's academic research out there on this subject if you do a Google Scholar search. Much of it requires a subscription for the full version, but the abstracts can be quite illuminating: this one, for example. Our article section Eating_disorder#Causes also offers clues to the motivation of individuals with abnormal eating patterns. What you're asking for is a simple explanation for a complex phenomenon, which may vary from individual to individual. Most of the suggestions so far link to articles which, in some way or other, suggest that the fat guy eats the third donut because it satisfies a need, whatever that need is, however short-lived it may be, and whatever else may be going on with him. It seems from your clarification that you draw a clear distinction between the fat guy who bolts bags of donuts at a sitting and the guy who is just fat and lacks the insight or self-control to eat only what he needs, and who makes a clear, conscious choice to eat that third greasy snack. I'm not sure there's any evidence that the distinction is that clear, or that conscious choice plays any part in the transaction. If reading the research doesn't help, you could always try buying the fat guy a bag of donuts and asking him. Karenjc 20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Ludwigs2. I think the questioner's initial wording was infelicitous and offensive to some, but the underlying question is a tough one. We've had many interesting, provocative questions asked by IPs in the 84.153.xxx.xxx range but this one is a stumper (stick to string theory and other easier topics in the future!) I believe that a morbidly obese person eating 3 donuts is doing something very dysfunctional given his circumstances. Most doctors would agree. Someone who weighs 500 pounds is likely to be dead in a decade or two, even if they're under 30 years old.

There are about 200-250 kcal in one Krispy Kreme donut.[2] Tim Hortons' donuts have similar numbers. If a person is maintaining their equilibrium weight eating a diet that includes one of these per day, then increases their intake to 3 per day; they'll gain about 40-50 pounds per year with that one behavioural change.In fact, as they become more obese, they'll metabolize calories more efficiently, making the situation worse. As for why they do this, it's just really, really complex and poorly understood, as I wrote already. More accurately, many people understand the reasons -- they just don't agree at all on what they are. In North America alone, there are millions of people daily making these kinds of choices and slowly dying of complications from obesity. The U.S. military recently pointed to the high incidence in obesity as increasingly impacting their ability to recruit enough physically qualified soldiers.

I'm not sure you're going to get a satisfactory answer here -- just pointers to articles that touch on the question which in turn have references that go into greater but often contradictory detail. Check back in a decade and hopefully we'll have better answers. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who's still confused as to why it's claimed when it comes to their health, a fat person should be eating one donut but not say 2, 3 or perhaps even better none? Is there some requirement for a fat person to eat one donut but not any other number I'm not aware of? Is this a daily requirement or what? Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you're not alone in wandering about that. It appears there is some arbitrary rule that fat people should only eat one donut, but I got no further than that in comprehension. Basically (and this has been said before in the above discussion), the OP set up this arbitrary rule and is flabbergasted because fat people don't follow it and that is, in my view, the reason why this debate is not really going anywhere, even if there may be a good question in there somewhere. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, why don't you help me out like this. What do you think the good question in there somewhere is? The reason I think it's "obvious" that the person should still eat 1 donut, is because just because he's fat doesn't mean he shouldn't be eating! Further, it is perfectly normal to want a donut. There's nothing wrong with that (unless he's insulin-dependent diabetic or something). But what my question concerns is the difference between me at 180 and him at 500: I would not give my body 3 donuts, but he does. I get the same satisfaction from my donut that he gets from his 3. So, why does he do it? Maybe if there were as many people smoking 7 packs of cigarettes per day as there are 500-pound people, and I observed them doing that all the time, i could ask you guys "why do these people smoke 7 packs per day and not just 1 or at most 2?" Then you would see the point of my question. (yes, it is better not to smoke at all, but if you are smoking, why would you smoke 7 packs instead of 1?). But I can't ask THIS question, because there aren't as many people smoking 7 packs per day as there are 500-pound people eating 3 donuts. So, there is no analogy to draw. Do you see? I could ask about that situation, if it were real, but I can't, because it is not real. So, why is it real in the case of 3 donuts but not in the case of the 7 packs of cigarettes? What is the psychology of the 3 donuts, that does not apply to the 7 packs? Thank you. 84.153.212.109 (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a much clearer question than what you started with, 84.153. I don't know the answer, but thanks for the clarification. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If I wanted to eat 3 donuts, I would. I would probably want to go jog a few miles later in the day to reverse the weight effects of the donuts, but sometimes it is nice to let loose a bit and have some fun. Googlemeister (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There are people who smoke 3 packs. They could smoke just 1 pack, but noooo, they have to smoke 3. Then you talk to them, and they say that they want to stop, but they can't. Some causes have already been linked: obsessive compulsive disorder, habit, physical addiction, etc. Smokers are addicted to nicotine, maybe those people are addicted to sugar. They know that eating only 1 donut will give them craves for more sugar, so they directly go and eat 3.

And, yes, some people can smoke 4 or more packs a day, but smoke causes more damage quicker, and they have to stop very soon. And that's another reason: 3 donuts don't cause too much harm to the body. They know that eating 7 donuts would clog their arteries very quickly and cause them to feel bad, so they eat the maximum possible amount of donuts that won't cause damage that is easy to see and feel. In order to eat 1 or 0 donuts they have to make a conscious choice to reduce donut intake. Until then, they will eat as many as they can afford (3 donuts). Some of them have made the conscious choice, but they don't have the will power to carry on with their decision and buy only 1. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No one said anything about stopping eating. And trying to survive on one doughnut a day, and nothing else is not a healthy diet. In fact I would go as far as to say for most people, 3 donuts a day and nothing else is far better even if still very bad. However doughnuts aren't the healthiest of foods, and have little that you can't get from other foods which also more micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals. There's no reason why you can't have a very healthy diet without a donut. In fact I would go as far as to say in terms of pure health, if you construct a diet with a doughnut a day, you can construct a better/healthier diet without said donut. I'm not of course saying you need to cut out doughnuts for a healthy diet. But there's no reason why that diet has to have one, and only one donut (a day?) either. For example, a diet where the person doesn't eat any doughnuts on most days but eats 3 every Saturday fortnightly is probably better then one where they eat one donut every day. You've also concentrated solely on doughnuts. For example, someone who eats 2 or even the dreaded 3 donuts a day, but has a otherwise healthy diet full of whole grains, nuts, vegetables and fruits along with sufficient protein from whatever source and in appropriate quantitites etc likely has a better diet then someone who eats a KFC 10 pack every other day and 3 BigMac upsized meals and 3 McChicken upsized meals the other day but no doughnuts. Less extreme, someone who eats 2 or 3 donuts a day but has the otherwise healthy diet is probably better off then someone with the same diet minus doughnuts but with 1 bag of chips, half a 250g bar of chocolate and a large slice of chocolate cake smoothered with whipped cream every day. You can of course compare other examples like 1 donut+bag of chips+half bar of chocolate+healthy diet cf 3 doughnuts+healthy diet. In other words, if the person's unhealthy food item is donuts but they have an otherwise very healthy diet, eating 2 or 3 a day isn't the worse diet sin of all time. I haven't even mentioned exercise... P.S. What gave you the idea you get the same 'satisfaction' from 1 doughnut as 3? Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One sensible question that seems to be trying to get out is: why can some people stop eating after one donut while others carry on? Personally, I think of this in terms of addictive behaviour. Why do some people gamble just now and again, while others have their lives destroyed by it? Why do some people have just one beer now and again when they feel like it, and others drink to excess? Our articles probably contain everything that is known about these questions. Researchers are still working on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From the CNN article on the Twinkie diet yesterday, maybe the guy is trying to lose weight by eating donuts. Googlemeister (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If only people would switch to eating three apples instead of one apple, or three carrots rather than one, then a lot of these problems would be solved, I think people should habitually fill up with fruit and veg, instead they have been taught to fill up with other kinds of food. 92.29.112.73 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Experimental" suicide

Another suicide question. (Is it necessary to state that my interest is academic rather than practical?) The majority of people who commit suicide do so for fraught emotional or social reasons: to escape from an intolerable situation, to gratify a powerful self-hatred, to make a point, even to spitefully wound one's survivors ("They'll all be sorry!"). A smaller number commit suicide as some sort of extreme altruistic sacrifice, by such diverse methods as life insurance fraud and suicide bombing. But in all the aforementioned instances, whether the suicide was selfish or altruistic, the motive centers on the world of the living, and death is merely the instrument. So here's my question: Is there any recorded case of someone committing suicide in order to satisfy an overwhelming curiosity about death? It's certainly common for human beings to meditate on the concepts of death and mortality, and people have certainly committed murder in order to "see what it's like". Why not suicide? The closest I can find is someone like Yukio Mishima, but that doesn't really work, because curiosity wasn't his motive. I'm looking for a Faustian type who was so eager for the subjective experience of death that he hastened the process. Is this fantastical, or did such a thing ever happen? LANTZY^TALK 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't quite what you are asking about, but, around one century ago, the Romanian scientist Nicolas Minovici hanged himself multiple times out of scientific curiosity. Albeit not with the intention of dying; in fact he made sure he survived every experiment, and his curiosity wasn't about death and the afterlife, but about hanging and the sensation of being hanged. (Don't try this at home). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As with David Carradine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the movie Flatliners or the book Les Thanatonautes and other similar plots (see TV Tropes on "Flatline Plotline") are related too. In all of these examples, however, the actors only wish to come as close to death as possible, without experiencing one of its key characteristics: its irreversibility. Perhaps there are examples of scientifically (or Faustian) minded people suffering from a terminal illness? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to perish before publishing? (Perishing in order to publish is a bit extreme, and self-defeating to boot, however admirably devoted to research the motivation may be...). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The first thing htat comes to mind of Plato's Phaedo. Socrates says, "...the soul of the philosopher utterly disdains the body and flees from it...," "'death'-a release and parting of soul from body," "when death attacks a person the mortal part, it seems, dies; whereas the immortal part gets out of the way of death, departs, and goes away intact and undestroyed." So, Socrates seems to not fear death in any way, and is, like you say, curious. schyler (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is the case of Armin Meiwes, the cannibal who found someone on the internet who consented to being killed and eaten. I don't know much about it but the victim seems to have wanted the experience. Although he might have been more interested in being eaten alive than death itself. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate (religious group)? 63.17.41.3 (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

kjv paraphrase?

Recently I heard that the King James Bible was not a translation but a paraphrase. Can you shed any light on this for me? RON VAUGHN (e-mail address removed) --Patronala (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bible version debate - subsection:"Types of translation" sheds some light on different approaches to translating the bible (or any text for that matter, see also dynamic and formal equivalence). The King James Bible, however, is usually listed as an example of comparatively formal equivalence, not a paraphrase, so I guess those articles can't shed any light on what you recently heard. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jason BeDuhn's most recent book Truth in Translation highlights how "contemporary Christian views are anachronistically introduced into the Bibles most modern English-speaking Christians rely on." A good read or use as a reference. schyler (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The KJV was translated from the Greek. That means it is a translation of a translation. Whereas, there are other versions like the New Revised Standard Version whose editors attempt to find the oldest sources in Hebrew and Aramaic so as to be as close in time to the described events as possible. It doesn't really matter what version you go by. The whole thing is a patchwork of redacted material edited after the fact so as to portray a particular political point of view. At a point in history about when the book of Dan occurred some editors from the priestly class (Levites) went through and added material portraying some kings as "doing right in the eyes of the lord" and others having done "wrong in the eyes of the lord." Invariably, the kings that waged war and conquered new lands were the good ones, and the ones that didn't were the bad ones. It didn't matter if they were otherwise just, decent, or had prosperous economies. Greg Bard (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 1) The KJV translators certainly made use of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. In fact, that was one of the most important points of Protestant Bible translations into English ca. 1600 (as opposed to the Catholic Douai Bible, which was pretty much a straight-up translation of the Latin Vulgate). 2) There's no "Book of Dan" and no evidence that I've ever heard of that such a book existed (unless you count the rather obscure subsection of Testaments_of_the_Twelve_Patriarchs#Dan). AnonMoos (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You know I'm so familiar since Dan and I go way back. I'm talking about the Book of Daniel.Greg Bard (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's nice; however, Dan and Daniel are separate and distinct names in Hebrew. AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's quite a cynical view Gregbard, but I'd like to see a reference for the claim that the Levites "added material," in the sense of which you are speaking. The Levites were not political, but were solely spiritual. They had no vested interest in war because they would not receive anything from it (Numbers 18:20). The Levites were not in charge of any kind of editing of Scripture. "The work of the Levites was highly organized under David.. to assist... with the offerings, sacrifices, purification work, weighing, measuring and various guard duties;" "setting up, dismantling, and carrying the tabernacle was the work of the Levites;" "the Levites needed to be well versed in the Law, often being called upon to read it in public and teach it to the common people" (Insight On The Scriptures, v. 2, p. 241).
The books in which the phrases "did bad/good in the eyes of the LORD" occur in the Books of Kings and the Books of Chronicles. These were written by Jeremiah and Ezra, respectively, and were works compiled and researched to give a summary of national history. Indeed, the study of history is bias, but it is not Man's bias, for, the two men involved in transcribing the works were humble servants of Jehovah, and doing bad/good in the eyes of the LORD would be accurate beyond first perception. schyler (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cynical? Well that's one way to look at it. I guess I'm a bit cynical about Jefferey Dahmer too then, but he only killed a handful of people. Whereas, the Jews embarked on a genocide of the peaceful Canaanites, and then wrote a book promulgating the idea that god wanted them to do it. That worked like a charm. Perhaps Dahmer just needed a better PR department.

For a reference, you may want to read Bart D. Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet. I would say that your childlike faith that the Levites weren't political is very naive, as well as the belief that Jeremiah and Ezra were mere transcriptionists. Greg Bard (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some informed criticism to bring forward, or just a concatenation of semi-randomly-chosen derogatory epithets? And "peaceful Canaanites" is rather historically ludicrous... AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not "ludicrous" in the least. The harshest criticism of the Canaanites is their practice of child sacrifice. They were a peaceful agricultural society minding their own business. The Jews went in and slaughtered every man woman and child. That's genocide, and there is no denying that. Greg Bard (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to get all sensationalistic about it, especially when it's not even on-topic. Is there a ref for how peaceful the Canaanites really were, Greg, or is that just your POV? Surely they were not radically more "peace-loving" than their contemporaries, Israelites included? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sensationalism? We're talking about genocide. I am pretty sure that if you are going to gloss over a genocide the burden of proof is going to be on YOU to provide some reason to think they weren't peaceful. For instance some war THEY started, or some other atrocity. I mentioned the child sacrifice issue. However The Jews really do lose all credible moral authority, if they go in and kill every man woman and child (remember it wasn't a political conquering --the intention was to kill everyone.) That doesn't exactly address child sacrifice in any sensible way now does it?Greg Bard (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay: you don't have a ref. That's all I wanted to know. And I don't have any burden here, because you are no longer making any attempt to answer the question, so please take any further comments you may have that do not involve answering the question elsewhere. Thanks. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me! I provided the Ehrman reference. He is a well known, credible biblical scholar from the scholarly (not confessional) perspective. Why exactly are you ignoring that? Yes the burden of proof is on YOU if your claim is that it is "ludicrous" that they weren't peaceful. Think about it. PROVE YOU are peaceful. Lets see some credible sources. Oh wait, that is ridiculous because if my claim is that it's ludicrous to call you peaceful, the burden of proof is on me to provide a reason for saying so. That's also how Wikipedia works. Remember: assume good faith?! Please do tell me what justifies this well known, undeniable genocide?!Greg Bard (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The source for the only point I am making here is the Reference Desk guidelines, which say:

• The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate.

Please try to abide by those guidelines, as you understand them, here. In this case, that means bringing it back to directly attempting to answer this question according to those guidelines, and not continuing to engage in this attempt at a not-too-neutrally framed off-topic debate. Thanks again, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Montreal Airport Bus

Hello. Was Montréal's airport bus named Route 747 after the Boeing? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that on the whole STM system the next highest route number is 535, I think that's a pretty safe assumption. --Anonymous, 08:34 UTC, November 8, 2010.

When was that bus route's number assigned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

American south

Do people in the American south pronounce "oil" "owl"? Where can I hear a pronunciation? Albacore (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't. Some of them pronounce it something like all, and they might pronounce all something like owl. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you might pronounce "owl" the way someone with a Southern (American) accent pronounces "oil", I don't know. We have an article on Southern American English, though I am not seeing anything there right now about that particular sound, and I've never really noticed that word being all that affected by a Southern accent myself. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say since there are regional variances to the Southern accent. I lived in TN for several years and met a few people whose accents were so thick that other Southerners would say they couldn't understand them. Most of the people that I dealt with at work, and the word oil would come up regularly at my workplace, would pronounce it somewhere between all and owl. Dismas|^(talk) 00:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.forvo.com/ and http://www.howjsay.com/. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded Trovatore's comment; like Awl. schyler (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Never heard it as "owl". As "awl" it's pretty common. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what the OP is referring to. It's less of a southern accent and more of a (I can't identify which of the Wikipedia articles are on point) "west Texas" or "Western" (as in Montana, Wyoming... not California, Oregon or Washington) way of speaking. I think our Southern accent article's a little indiscriminate when it's talking about Texas; there's a lot more variation in that state than the article suggests. Shadowjams (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My mother grew up in Dallas, Texas and she pronounced oil just like JR Ewing did on the celebrated soap opera Dallas, which was awl. Just watch reruns of the programme to hear it pronounced thus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what distinction people are making between all and awl. Note that I do distinguish cot from caught, so it isn't that (both all and awl have the caught vowel; it would sound very strange to use the cot vowel for either of them). --Trovatore (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I thing a strong southern accent would pronounce "all" more like "owl". "Awl" is fairly unambiguous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that is true. Once when my parents visited my mom's sister in Mississippi, my dad was confused at being offered "Owl Bran". But here I was assuming all was being pronounced in General American. --Trovatore (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The a in all is not drawled as it is in awl. Actually Texans use the term y'awl for you all. This is likely derived from their Ulster ancestors' colloquial usage of youse as a plural for you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is correctly spelled y'all. A more common misspelling is ya'll. --Trovatore (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is spelled y'all but pronounced y'awl.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No clear difference has been adduced. Both vowels seem to be /ɔː/. Are you just talking about the length of time the vowel is held? --Trovatore (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good way of putting it. The a in awl would be dragged out longer than in all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That ubiquitous expression even has its own possessive form: "Y'all's". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Y'all" ain't standard English where I'm from, but "You'ens" is. —Kevin Myers 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The question noone seems to ask themselves is: how does the OP pronounce "owl"? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I did (up at the top). I've found the discussion since very interesting. I've mostly been exposed to a Virginian southern accent, and am still not sure there's a very great distinction in that variation from "standard American". But I agree with Jeanne that where there is a distinction it seems in part an elongation of the vowel sound, maybe in some cases making it almost two syllables: "aw-el". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a nit — I think you mean General American here. There is such a thing as Standard American, but it's not an accent; it's a bidding system at bridge. --Trovatore (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the OP wants to know the answer to this question, but there is a wealth of videos that can teach a person how to speak with a 'Southern' accent. I use quotations because they speak different in Mississippi and Texas or Alabama and Louisiana. I'm 'er defaul t'Texan speakin' cause it's'r bit easer t'unerstan'. I would suggest this video. Watch the intro and then skip to 5:15 to see Texas. Quite informative; plus, all the links on the side to related videos have other examples of native Texans speakers.
A good example of Southern English is the name of a street in the city I grew up in. It was called Hard Wood when it was first started (supposedly because the area was a source of good hard wood). Its name soon enough changed to Harwood and the sign on the stoplight reflects that eas'r speakin' Texan drawl. schyler (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of curiosity, Texans call toilet paper Tawlit papah. I used to always try to correct my mother, but to no avail.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard "oil" pronounced "earl," as in Duke of Earl. That pronunciation I've heard in New York City. Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Or as it "terlet". Or the time-honored, likely apocryphal story when Waite Hoyt suffered an injury, and the Brooklynesque teammmate hollered to the trainer, "Hert's hoyt!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to hear it, you're in luck. Fortunately there is a forum, the US Senate, where a number of Southerners are regularily recorded talking about oil. Here's one from Kentucky[3] and one from South Carolina[4]. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Kentucky clip (at 1:14) sounds just like "oil" to me. The South Carolina sample (at 0:08) does definitely sound like a Southern-accented "oil" but nothing like any pronunciation of "owl" that I can recall having heard before. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with those clips is that these men have been educated (presumably). It takes some ignorance and isolation to be colloquial. schyler (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Schyler, but my mother was well-educated. Both of her parents attended college; her father had articles, poems, and stories published. All of her grandparents and great-grandparents were highly literate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In the US rural south, "Oil" may be pronounced differently from "awl." The latter would be the same as "all," with one simple vowel sound before the consonant. "Oil" might be pronounced with a rapid sequence of two slightly different vowel sounds before the consonant, something like "aw-ull." Someone might say "Han me at-thar aw-ull" "Hand me that oil") and be clearly understood to be asking for the oil rather than the awl ". If he said "oy-ull" it might sound odd, like he was making fun of a northerner's pronunciation. This is in regions where "Light my fire" is pronounced "Laht mah fahr," and where a "light bulb" is a "lahp bub." This degree of "lazy mouf" speech is becoming more rare among rural southern whites than it was decades ago. Pronunciation can vary among social classes, generations, and geography, just as in England. Edison (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Edison's last sentence is correct. My mother had a strong Texan accent but she never made grammatical errors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)