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

February 11

What is the tax rate on ill-gotten gains?

This isn't my question, I'm reposting someone else's, but I'm curious...

"Hypothetical, say you are a criminal, but want to avoid the fate of Al Capone and get busted for not paying your taxes. Can you use the capital gains rate if you have some sort of fraud that takes more than a year for the payoff?

The best would be some sort of crime that pays off after the statute of limitations, and you only have to pay the lower capital gains rate. Win Win Win!"

what do you guys make of it --80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The period for the tax authorities to claim begins when they become aware of a potential claim. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Kitty, I think two things are being conflated here. The part about statute of limitations applies to the original crime (hence "ill-gotten"), not to the tax fraud. The context I copied this from was about large-scale bank fraud, sorry I didn't make this clear. So the part I copied in quotation marks is this: "What if you commit a crime that results in you getting a payoff 15 years later, after the statute of limitations expires." I don't know what kind of crime would pay off after such a long time. The point is, can you just drop off a sack of money at the IRS, saying, "Here's 30 percent of a bunch of cash I just got from crimes 15 years ago. It hasn't paid off until now." So, say it really is capital gains (you put money into committing the crime): then is that 30% really the capital gains percentage? Would this happen as the poster imagines? Do you have to tell the IRS how you got your money? I think the poster I quoted is raising an interesting idea... --80.99.254.208 (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You can, but you are very likely to be audited. And remember, what you tell the IRS can be conveyed to law enforcement.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure about that? I thought there was a pretty significant wall of confidentiality between the IRS and other agencies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as a general rule, but if there are so many exceptions that if they really want to, they'll find one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There are often legal means to avoid applying the statute of limitation. Ib30 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

For example, the clock often starts not from when the crime is committed, but from when a report is filed on it. The goal, after all, isn't to make life easier on criminals, but on law enforcement, by removing the burden of cold cases when the prospects of solving them seem dim. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It might also be argued that the goal is to make life easier for innocent suspects. For one thing, the more time has gone by, the harder it is to establish your alibi. —Tamfang (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Inventing, but not for the army

If a company invents something which has a double civilian and military use, does it have some means of restricting the legal use to civilians? Ib30 (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's real recourse is limiting distribution to companies they know will not resell to the military, putting that in their sales contracts, and refusing further orders to resellers who violate those terms. I don't think the courts will go very far in enforcing it, not for political reasons, but because it is hard to show damages from unwanted sales, so it is mostly on the company.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But, any government, even from 'reliable' countries, would be able to produce it someday (maybe when the patent runs out),wouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ib30 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The state has to put limits on the usage. The company cannot restrict "legal use" by fiat, other than maybe tying it up in contracts in some way. But that's a pretty weak method. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's clear to me that the company cannot just put a tag on something and say "do not use if you are the army". But, which are the legal ways of restricting the use? How do chemicals, for example, get included in the Chemical Weapons Convention? Is it really necessary that their potential for harming people be demonstrated in the practice? Or, could a chemical company, that just invented a new chemical, try to get this chemical included on the grounds that its chemical is equally dangerous to other banned chemicals? This hypothetical scenario is, of course, excluding non-legal use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ib30 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a private company could become aware that a chemical was particularly useful in military action without having a contract with the military; think of the testing. There has been controversy that states were importing sedatives used in lethal injection execution, which are no longer made in the US, and the European companies that make them have taken steps to tighten distribution to try to make sure that their products are not used for a legal governmental purpose with which they disagree.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If it was the US government and they wanted it bad enough, they'd reverse engineer it privately; you might never know. Salve your conscience by tripling the price.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you "salve your conscience" with money? Ib30 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If not, then don't market your invention.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is an international body that gets together every now and then and can add chemicals to their lists of prohibited munitions if they want to. Private companies don't do this. As for trying to increase the cost on things, be aware that governments usually have some powers for compulsory licensing, meaning they can exploit your patents without giving you more than "fair" compensation. The US government even has the ability to declare your invention secret and then license it for itself, all without your input or approval whatsoever. Note that in certain domains (e.g. nuclear technology of any sort) the US government has very strong statutes in place to allow them to compulsory license the technology and even prevent you from using it yourself! --Mr.98 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A patent would be the most obvious way, but as you said, that's for a limited time. I suppose you could restrict the distribution chain of a product somewhat, if you were the only one to manufacture it, through various contracts. But at any time Congress (assuming the U.S. here) could pass a law and get around those contracts or other restrictions. There's also patent provisions to keep patents secret in the interest of national security, and there may be similar features there that'd allow the government to use them. I'm no expert on patent law, but I think that the federal government/military generally respects patent law, and can be sued for it (see sovereign immunity for the big picture), but there may be exceptions to that. Finally, absent some sort of intellectual property protection, or similar restriction, a design or method is almost impossible to keep restricted once the cat's out of the bag. Shadowjams (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A company with an American presence would be running a great risk refusing to sell the government something it needs. In addition to being labeled anti-American, they would also run afoul of the fact that the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. In short, if the company refused to sell their products to the government, the government might ban their product outright. Not a good business strategy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Number 27 and Isis

I read that the number 27 - the sacred number of the Egyptian goddess Isis. Where can I find confirmation or source? Странник27 (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll start, hopefully someone else will provide more info. Numbers in Egyptian mythology says "2, 3, 4, 7, and their multiples and sums" were sacred numbers in Egypt. (So presumably 27, as 3x3x3, could be a candidate.) The cite is to a book called "Meaning in Many: The Symbolism of Numbers," Symbol & Magic in Egyptian Art, by Richard H. Wilkinson, Thames and Hudson, 1994, page 127. That might be a place to start.

Searches on Google Books and Google Scholar for "sacred number" +Isis generally turn up references more than a century old. This doesn't mean that there was not really a concept of sacred numbers in ancient Egypt, but may mean that the idea doesn't have much weight with current scholarship - which would mean there may not actually be a lot of evidence for it.--184.147.128.151 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that this subject was more fully developed in Greek culture, so if 27 (i.e. 3³) was sacred to Isis, it probably would have been the Hellenistic-then-Roman cross-cultural "oriental mystery cult" Isis, not the old Pharaonic-period Isis... AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Isis' attributes became a lot more diverse and complicated in the Greco-Roman world. For instance, Plutarch's book De Iside et Osiride, which is about Isis and Osiris, contains some numerological interpretations of aspects of those gods and their myths, but most of those interpretations seem to be from other Greek and Roman writers and have little to do with Egyptian tradition. On a quick scan of the book, though, I can't find anything about 27. There is something of a focus on 28, the number of days in the lunar cycle, because Osiris and Isis both had lunar aspects, at least in Plutarch's time. A. Parrot (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

February 21 Language Day

What is the point if whole world except Bangladesh doesn't celebrate February 21st? Different ethnic groups doesn't celebrate their language on that day. If I am wrong about that point, then proof me that one ethnic group or more that does the celebration of February 21 like Punjabis, Gujaratis, Tamils, Assamese, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baloches, Marathis, Oriyas, Telugus, Kannadas, Malayalis, Persians, Azeris, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Swedes, Norwegians, and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.8 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Because "the date represents the day in 1952 when students demonstrating for recognition of their language, Bangla, as one of the two national languages of the then Pakistan, were shot and killed by police in Dhaka, the capital of what is now Bangladesh", which has nothing to do with the rest of the world, and when the UN creates a 'World [insert random words here] Day', people around the world rarely celebrate it en masse. A few people here and there may observe it, but it never becomes a national holiday for all nations globally. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, never heard of February 21 Language Day. But I do know that the UN has packed the calendar full of celebratory days that rarely recieves any kind of celebration outside the narrow field of specialists that are connected to the particular celebration on each individual day and of course some folks at the UN who decided what to celebrate. This being said with the disclaimer that I actually do think that the UN does more good than harm. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Official name is International Mother Language Day... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Migrating to New France

That's a lot of territory...

Why weren't the French as eager as the British to migrate to the New World? Were peasants and generally poorer Frenchman allowed to leave the country to move to other colonies? And if so, why didn't more of them move there? Help would be great! :) 64.229.180.189 (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure "the French" were not as eager? French colonial empire mentions that French colonists emphasized the fur trade over agricultural settlements, though I'm sure that's only one factor of many. The British captured most of the French colonies at the beginning of the 1800s. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the French were not as eager. At the time of the French and Indian War, the French population of New France was about 70,000 while British North America had a population of over 1 million (and concentrated in a smaller area). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have less knowledge of the American situation than my own part of the world, Australia. Here, the key French and British explorations of the late 1700s seemed to happen around the same time, and they bumped into one another quite a bit, but while the British seemed keen on both settlement and science, the French seemed to often only be interested in the science, so they didn't stay. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comet Tuttle -- French Canada was captured in 1759... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd put it at 1763, with the Treaty of Paris. And, of course, a good portion of New France remained French until the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. StuRat (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't wrapped up for a few more years, but 1759 was the most decisive battle. And the remaining (Missisippi valley) territories had some good trade prospects, but little realistic possibility of establishing dense European-populated agricultural settlements, given the conditions of the second half of the 8th century... AnonMoos (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

64.229.180.189 -- French control over much of the green area in that image was in fact rather nominal at best. Also, the French government insisted that only loyal Catholic citizens approved by the government should settle in New France, and live there under quasi-neo-feudalism, while Britain was only too happy to allow political and religious malcontents and dissidents to ship out to the British colonies... AnonMoos (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Settling in New France was not considered as attractive as settling in New England. The French government had to exercise ingenuity to get any women to go to Quebec, hence the filles du roi. BrainyBabe (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The French were primarily interested in the fur trade in North America, and across most of the continent, their presence was limited to a few trading posts and garrisons at most. They had little interest in settling the interior and the Mississippi Valley for fear of antagonizing the native peoples on whom the fur and deerskin trade depended. They only area that they attempted to settle was Quebec. As AnonMoos correctly says, this was a top-down colonization by the royal government, in which settlers would have to accept a semi-feudal relationship with a landlord. (See Seigneurial system of New France.) Furthermore, life in Quebec was hard. Winters were brutal, much colder than anything in France, the growing season was short, comforts were few. In short, there was little to attract many Frenchmen to the place. (And less to attract Frenchwomen as BrainyBabe has pointed out.) By contrast, opportunities for English colonists in North America were often much more promising than those in the home country. They could hope to own lots of land outright and were free to do largely as they saw fit. Marco polo (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

They did attempt to settle areas outside Quebec, such as New Orleans. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Much of New France was also in a state of war between the various natives who already lived there (exacerbated, of course, by the French presence, and the English too). Since the French population was so small it was dangerous to venture outside the little colony. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It was also the case that the British had severe population pressures that led to their encouraging colonization. With a little indentured servitude, just about anybody could "start over" in the New World. Add to that the untold riches of tobacco cultivation (the "killer app" of 16th century North America) and you have a strong motivation to emigrate. Add also the way in which religious factors played into British emigration, owing in part to the very different religious situation in the UK at the time. The French didn't have similar pressures. Their colonial holdings in the New World were more tied up in the sugar trade than in anything in North America, and that's a very different sort of economic endeavor and had different sorts of pressures (e.g. rampant malaria) affecting it. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

StuRat is correct that there was a small French settlement of a few thousand people in Louisiana centered on New Orleans. However, it was the same tightly controlled, top-down colonization effort that had such limited success in Quebec. Marco polo (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A few thousand is small today, but was that considered small for a North American colonial city, at that time ? StuRat (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article on Louisiana_(New_France) suggests that the rate of settlement in the Louisiana area of New France was 100X less than the British in New England. Not especially surprising given the issues with malaria and yellow fever that would have been rampant there at that time. It would be fascinating to know what the death rate of Europeans from disease was, but it likely was pretty high, much higher than New England or Canada. (Unsurprisingly, the French seem to have imported about as many slaves as they had colonists, which would again support the malaria-was-killing-them theory, as that was the standard labor model in malarial areas.) --Mr.98 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Another aspect was that France is much larger than England, and the population was about the same. So the French had some opportunities to grow a larger population within France, which the English didn't. --Lgriot (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

February 12

Mitt Romney

President Obama’s father was from Kenya and his mother was a white American. Even though Obama is mulatto, he is considered to be the America’s first black president, which is truly historical in the U.S. I’ve heard Mitt Romney, who seems at the moment to be the most likely to become the Republican nominee; say in several several times his father is from Mexico. I didn't know this before. So, if Obama is considered to be America’s first black president even though he’s of mixed race, would it be right to say that if Romney were to become president (for the sake of the question), he would be America’s first Hispanic or Latino president even though he is of mixed race as well (half white, half Hispanic or Latino)? If so, would that be very historical too? If so, why isn’t anyone talking about the historical aspects and implications of this? Is it a non-issue and if so, why? Everyone was talking about the historical aspects and implications of Obama becoming the first African American president in American history, and rightly so. FYI, I'm Hispanic. Willminator (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some points...

From our article on Mulatto, "modern implications of the term are derogatory", so let's just drop that.

Being honest about this, race is a very vague and imprecise subject. Most people just see Obama as black, and the nice, politically correct term for that at present is African-American. It's also what he self-identifies as. So that gets Obama out of the way.

As a non-American I can't see what the difference is between Hispanic and Latino, and have sometimes wondered if they all just become White when they have kids with "normal" American accents.

Anything we write about Romney has to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for the biographies of living persons. This means following what (very) reliable sources say to guide what we say. Race being such a sensitive issue for Americans, it's really necessary that we use what Romney says about himself. Self-identification is critical here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, which by the way had no need of identifying yourself as a non-American, the distinction between Hispanic and Latino is primarily a political argument within that community itself. I don't understand all the nuances, but one of the issues seems to be that Hispanic is an English word and some activists prefer a Spanish one, and another issue is that, in the eyes of some, Hispanic is overly connected to Spain as opposed to Latin America. Then the term Latin America brings up its own briar patch — does it include Portuguese-speaking Brazil? Usually yes, but what about French-speaking parts of the Caribbean?

Anyway, in California, Latino seems to be the safer term, whereas in Texas, the usual word is Hispanic — that's just my personal observation; I don't claim to understand the logic, if any, behind it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not necessarily anything inherently wrong with mulatto as a word,[1] but it's considered to smack of old-style racial stereotyping, so it's not used. It's as obsolete, or maybe even more so, as "Negro" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Romney's white grandfather fled with his wives to Mexico to avoid the prohibition on polygamy. (just answer the question without all the drama) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama would be traditionally considered black under the "one-drop rule". Romney's ancestors in Mexico were an American-Mormon-English-speaking enclave, and it would be rather problematic for Romney to claim "Hispanic" heritage... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I just watched [this video] and read [this CNN opinion piece]. When I first heard Mitt Romney say that his father was born in Mexico, I assumed that meant that his father was Latino. Now, I learned that my assumption was wrong. I'm always willing to learn new things. However, based on these links, the question about whether or not Mitt Romney would be America's first Hispanic American president if he were to succeed in becoming so is apparently on the table and still valid. Willminator (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't valid unless he personally self-identifies as "Hispanic". I've not heard any statements to the effect that he does. --Jayron32 04:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, Latino and Hispanic are basically synonymous. The terms refer to people with deep roots, typically going back several generations if not centuries, in Spanish-speaking Latin America (some might extend the terms to cover Brazilians as well). Romney does not qualify as Latino or Hispanic because his ancestors were all English-speaking people of generally British descent who spent a generation or two in an English-speaking enclave of Mexico for political/religious reasons. Calling Romney Hispanic would be like calling Rudyard Kipling Desi or South Asian. Marco polo (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that Michigan has now had a Mexican governor (George W. Romney) and a Canadian governor (Jennifer Granholm). We really take this free trade stuff seriously. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Although George Romney was born outside the USA, he is considered a "natural born" American citizen, because his parents were American. If he were not, he would have been ineligible to run for the Presidency, as he did back in the 60s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nitpick: He would have been ineligible to be elected president. Anyone can run, but eligibility issues only come into play once the election is held. He wasn't elected anyway, so the issue was never tested. It might be a more perfect system to confirm the elgibility of all candidates before the election is held, to avoid the issue of someone getting elected and then having their election overturned on the grounds of ineligibility. Obama has gone to the trouble of producing his birth certificate after his election, to shut up the birthers. How much argy-bargy might have been avoided had he done so before the election. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Obama's citizenship wasn't an issue during the campaign. In fact, he was born in a US State while McCain was born in a then-territory of the US, the canal zone. Some extreme right-wingers started broaching the subject as election day approached, but the somewhat-broader conspiracy theory didn't really take hold until later. Back to George Romney, if his citizenship were in serious question, the Republican party would not have allowed him to run in their primaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I went looking for this on Google,[2] and there have been fringe candidates such as Roger Calero who ran for President despite not being an American citizen. He did not appear on some state ballots because of laws within those states keeping him off the ballot. You would think there would be some uniformity there, but no. In any case, a major party would not allow a non-citizen to run for President, since that non-citizen would never be allowed to hold the office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's easy enough to prove one's citizenship, and if one is clearly not a citizen, they'd be justifed in shutting the door on any candidate who had no hope of being validly elected. But one must be not only a citizen, but a "natural-born" citizen. Where there's any doubt about this more stringent requirement, political parties don't get to determine who does or does not satisfy it. In the case of the Romneys, the Goldwaters and the McCains of the world, the balance of opinion seems to be in their favour, but ultimately it's only opinion. The only body, as I understand it, that can definitively state exactly what it means to be a "natural-born citizen" for the purposes of presidential eligibility is the Supreme Court, and they've never been asked. Who knows, maybe they'll repeal this discriminatory part of the Constitution before the SC ever gets into the act at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be in favor of that, but it's not going to happen in the forseeable future. Remember that you need 3/4 of the several states, which means it takes only 13 states to block such an amendment. There are easily 13 states where this is a non-starter.

As regards the supreme court, it's not clear they're competent to judge the matter at all. They might find it to be non-justiciable. The constitution, if I remember correctly, says exactly nothing explicit about who is to enforce the natural-born requirement, but the procedure for challenging a candidate's qualifications in general appears to be limited to the tallying of electoral votes in Congress. If a president were found not to have been a natural-born citizen after that procedure is finished, I don't know whether there's any remedy. --Trovatore (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Political parties don't get to decide who's a citizen, but they do get to decide who their candidates are. Supposing for a moment that Roger Calero's politics were sufficiently aligned with one of the major parties to be considered as a potential candidate otherwise, he would not have been allowed to run under the party banner, because he was clearly not a natural-born citizen of the USA. The Socialist Workers were free to run him because they knew there was no chance of his getting elected, so his entry was merely as a political statement of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, he claims that the Hawaiian authorities wouldn't cooperate, because there is no established procedure for releasing the "long form" certificate and they were reluctant to invent such a procedure just for this. That may be true. Another possibility that occurs to me is that Obama had a deliberate strategy of making this particular group of opponents stick their necks out as far as possible, so they would look as foolish as possible when he dropped the axe. Who knows. Doesn't matter much now. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

African American and Latino Muslim women marriage

Is there a study where African American Muslim women (meaning new Muslims) and Latino Muslim women (meaning new Muslims) marrying Muslim men from Muslim-majority nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Arab World, Africa, Turkic World and Malaysia and Indonesia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.4 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Studying what ? StuRat (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP means to ask whether there is there a study of how many African American or Latina Muslim women marry men from the Muslim-majority nations. I doubt if there are many good studies of that topic. You would do better to ask in a mosque or an Islamic association. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Help me find an Indian story

I remember reading this great short story in a Reddit comment a long time ago but I can't find it now. The story is about a man in India who falls in love with a girl in his class. Since the girl is much richer than him, he does not have much chance of marrying her. One day, he bribes the person that drives her to school to reveal her address. He goes to her house, chains himself to a gate, and starts screaming for her hand in marriage. Many people from the girl's household come outside to tell him to shut up and stop making a scene but he refuses to give up. He continues his screaming. Finally, the girl comes outside and agrees to marry him if he will be quiet. He looks up and sees that it's the wrong girl. The driver gave him the wrong address. The man marries her anyway and does not reveal to anyone except strangers on trains that his wife is not who he wanted to marry.

I remember that this story was written by an Indian author. I would like to reread this story. I have searched but I have not been able to find the story. If someone could find it for me, it would be greatly appreciated. -- Metroman (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Harpsichord sustain pedal.

Does the harpsichord have a sustain pedal, like hte one on the right side of the piano?186.31.47.119 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, a harpsichord has no pedals. Lindert (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

the jack; note the damper at the top

(ec)At least not on a conventional harpsichord, no (there's all kinds of weird harpsichord-like things that I don't know much about). The damping on a harpsichord comes from a little damper that's on the top of the jack - when you release the key, the jack falls and the damper damps the string. One can think about how one would implement a sustain pedal (how one would prevent the damper from falling when the key is released). The naive way would be to have the sustain pedal jam the jack in the top position. But this would hold the plectrum part of the jack too (because they're just all on the one sliver of wood). So with a sustain like that, you couldn't play the same key twice (without dropping the sustain pedal to release the captive jacks). A more complex mechanism would be to break the rigid link between the plectrum and the damper; a conventional harpsichord doesn't, but the damping mechanism of a piano (where the damper and the hammer are separately articulated) does. It wouldn't be especially hard for an instrument maker to replace the hammer mechanism of a piano with a plectrum mechanism, thus producing something that sounded a bit like a harpsichord but with a sustain pedal. There are modern harpsichords with pedals, but these switch which sets of strings sound. There are also harpsichords with pedal keyboards (though I imagine one has to drink lots of coffee to be able to play that very effectively). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You see, the problem is I'm composing something for this instrument, but I had fooled myself into believing that it had a sustain pedal. Would you know how to write the piece in a way that the performer would understand that he has to hold down the notes (by holding the finger until the chord changes, since it is mostly arpeggiated)?186.31.47.119 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're trying to sustain a note - press it once and it sounds until it's released - I think you're out of luck. As a harpsichord's strings are plucked rather than struck (as piano strings are), the sound cannot be sustained merely by holding down the key. Maybe rewrite for a different instrument. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Harpsichords sustain just fine by holding down the key. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Moonlight sonata is, at least in theory, written for piano or harpsichord, with the sustaining part written for the left hand (I don't know how well that really turns out in practice). But compared with a piano, it's a rather inflexible and inexpressive instrument, and it's hard to not sound like a plinky-plunky Bach knock-off. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by your opening sentence, Finlay? I've never heard of the Moonlight being played on or even composed for the harpsichord. To my knowledge, Beethoven wrote not a single note for the harpsichord. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Beethoven and the harpsichord - Nunh-huh 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the things you learn. Thanks for that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I must take issue here. Surly the plinky-plunky you're referring to is that of the clavichord Youtube. It was louder than the harpsichord and don't get me wrong , the piano (hence its name) was louder still and a superior instrument, enough to deafen Beethoven ( OK, I jest but you get my point about progression). The harpsichord however, when played in the intimate confines of the parlour was a wondrous sound and barely one mortal step away from angelic harps of the heavens... youtube (Please ignore the smug expression on the ivory-ticklers face -it his rendition that's important) Nothing plinky-plonky about that -is there?--Aspro (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I must take issue with your taking issue. The harpsichord is unquestionably louder than the clavichord. A clavichord produces about 50 dB at a 2meter distance, making it of necessity a chamber instrument, whereas a harpsichord can fill a concert hall and compete with an orchestra. You'll find many harpsichord concertos, but damn few if any clavichord concertos! I also very much think the "plinky-plunky" refers to the harpsichord (an instrument where the player cannot vary the volume of individual notes, because they are plucked) and not the clavichord (where the strings are struck by metal tangents directly embedded in the keys, and where variation is exquisitely possible, though over a narrow dynamic range). I'm with you on preferring the harpsichord, next to which the clavichord sounds like rubber-bands strung across a cigar box. - Nunh-huh 03:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this page has some links where the information you require can be found. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

...how to write the piece in a way that the performer would understand that he has to hold down the notes". Bach's Goldberg Variations, for harpsichord, is written out with note lengths carefully indicated. That is, he clearly indicates when one should press a key as well as when one should release it. The piece is full of notes being held over other changing notes, creating various harmonies. The same is true of other harpsichord or clavier music Bach wrote, like the French Suites and Partitas for keyboard. Our article on the Goldberg Variations has many examples of the music notation. Pfly (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

February 13

Last monarchs in war

List of reigning monarchs who died in battle is currently a red-link.

Three questions: Who was the last King to die in war? Who was the last King to fight or lead an army in war? Who was the last Queen to fight or lead an army in war? George II of Great Britain and James IV of Scotland are not answers.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Czar Nicholas II was probably the last king to die in war. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean battlefield, I guess, in active participation not as a result of a war.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

He didn't even die as a result of a war. He died during WWI, but in circumstances that had no direct connection to the war at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I always considered the Russian Civil War to be a war, and didn't mention WW1, Jack. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rani Lakshmibai in 1858 (disputed) during the Indian Rebellion of 1857? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yohannes IV of Ethiopia (1889)? ---Sluzzelin talk 03:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Muammar Gadaffi? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

He was a colonel, not a monarch. Clarityfiend (talk)

Did HE know that? Dbfirs 09:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The last king of England to die on a battlefield is Richard III, surely...--TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If we are limiting this to Europe... Although Napoleon was not (technically) a "King", he was a crowned Head of State... and he did personally lead his troops in battle. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget Yaa Asantewaa (1900). Marco polo (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia appears to have led troops in battle as late as 1920. Marco polo (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Leopold III of Belgium acted as commander-in-chief of the Belgian army in May 1940. Iblardi (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read that King Gustavus Adolphus, in the 1630's was the last head of state killed in battle. Edison (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't even the last Swedish head of state killed in battle; Karl XII was killed by enemy fire while leading his army's siege of a Danish fortress. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Grasshopper

Resolved

Who took over the Grasshopper banking house of 68 Lombard Street, London and when, please? I came across a note: " Note: dating approximate; 'Andrew Stone was the first of nine generations at the Grasshopper and no less than twenty-one of his descendants became bankers there' ‎(ODNB)‎". Kittybrewster ☎ 09:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it. Martins Bank. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Our local Barclays bank (formerly Martins) still has, carved in stone, both a grasshopper and a Liver bird above the door. Martins Bank was obviously interested in its history. Dbfirs 09:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Marxist sense of "exploitation"

Exploitation, in the context of Marxism, is a technical term usually used to mean something like "the extraction of surplus-value". In the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote of "the exploitation of children by their parents". Did he mean "exploitation" in this technical sense (I imagine at the time of writing, it was not uncommon for parents to rely upon children as a source of unpaid labour), or was it meant in a more colloquial sense? --superioridad ^(discusión) 10:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

At the time Marx was writing compulsory education was quite new, having been brought in by the Education Act 1870, and then only compulsory until age 12 from 1880. So children were expected to undertake paid labour from a very early age, and therefore Marx probably meant it in the technical sense. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC) EDIT: I'm referring to the UK as Marx was writing here. It may have been different in different countries at that time. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

He's pretty specific about what he means:

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. ... The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

It's about child labor, which was still pretty common in the world at the time that Marx wrote the Manifesto. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's nominally about child labour, but I'm going to go full Autonomist Marxist and note that the context is the bourgeois family. Marx could be making a Selma Jamesean or Mariarosa Dalla Costan argument about circuits of reproduction of labour power within the family and society. Remember "exploitation" isn't just capitalist exploitation. It is also feudal exploitation, and the extraction of social wealth from society in any class society. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What's this picture called in English?

On-wiki image

I think the Spanish name is "el estudio flotante", but in English I don't know: this is a link to the picture (link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.96.44 (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've hidden the long URL in the question The painting is Manet's Claude Monet peignant dans son atelier (unreferenced article on the French Wikipedia), which I would translate as "Claude Monet painting in his studio". It also seems to be called Claude Monet in his Studio Boat. "El estudio flotante" just means "the floating studio". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.96.44 (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

conservative cities and liberal cities in Lebanon

I recently read about Sidon and it said that the city is conservative city in Lebanon. Is there any other cities in Lebanon that are conservative and are there any city in Lebanon that are liberal? -- 18:49, 13 February 2012‎ 70.53.230.148

Which definition of liberal are you wanting us to use? The American one or the one the rest of the world uses? HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that any western definition of those terms would be too useful in discussing Lebanon, since they don't correspond very well to the main lines of division in that country... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

acharya chankya spoke about ...we need one more acharya chanakya in 2014 for india

Dear Sir I want to know above mentioned statement through Wikipedia thanx & regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.24.107 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody else will understand what you are asking, but I must say from my perspective that I have no idea what your question means. I guess it relates somehow to the person Chanakya, but I don't understand beyond that. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The question may relate to the 2014 general election in India: maybe someone has expressed the wish for a figure with those qualities, but I doubt the "above mentioned statement" is covered on Wikipedia. Sussexonian (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus

Did Jesus really exist? --108.225.117.174 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Historicity of Jesus --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Christ myth theory -- Heiro 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Historical Jesus --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Jesus Christ in comparative mythology--Heiro 00:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

His existence is about as well-established as that of any ancient figure who was not a ruler or high government official, and who is not mentioned in contemporary inscriptions... AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul the Apostle and some of its links also make for interesting reading. The conversion of Paul is not unlike the conversion of the Emperor Constantine. Paul, in particular, either stuck his neck out (literally) for some fantasy he both invented and totally believed in - OR, being a contemporary, he was well aware of the existence of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the NT Paul persecuted Christians before his conversion, so he wouldn't have "invented" him as a "fantasy". I don't know if that necessarily leads to the conclusion that Jesus must have existed. Iblardi (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. The vision or miracle or whatever it was he experienced, it's unlikely that he invented anything - he was persecuting those who might have "invented" it, and then he switched courses and bought in - and was eventually executed for it. That raises the question, which I have not researched, do we even know that Paul, Peter, etc., actually existed too? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Their existence is about as well-established as that of any ancient figure who was not a ruler or high government official, and who is not mentioned in contemporary inscriptions... AnonMoos (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

February 14

Yelling In Lower Chambers (Govenment) When Someone Is Talking

In the Canadian House of Commons and British House of Commons there is yelling when a Member of Parliament (which is what representatives are called in both polities) is talking. Why is this? Should there not be decorum when a person is speaking so he/she can be heard? Is it not disrespectful to talk over someone?Curb Chain (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant point is that this happens in the Commons, which, after all, is supposed to be composed of commoners. So, you'd expect less decorum from the average commoner than a member of the House of Lords, wouldn't you ? StuRat (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons is traditionally a combative environment in Westminster systems and Westminster-influenced systems. Commons has a right of freedom of speech, a rare right in most Westminster system countries, and commons has traditionally used it. Commons culture operates based on the Speakers' involvement. Quite often Commonners swore the moon blue before television broadcast of parliament, A conga-line of suckholes indeed. Now TV has made commons dull and boring. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

But what about Hansard, and the prohibition on unparliamentary language such as swearing? Both of these long predated TV or even radio broadcasts of parliament. The Australian House of Representatives is also notoriously rowdy, and the televising of proceedings, particularly Question Time, has not dampened them down one iota but if anything has spurred the members to even greater heights of immaturity. The Speaker has the thankless task of endlessly but fruitlessly calling for order. All interjections are technically out of order, and the Standing Orders are occasionally invoked and members are dealt with, but these represent a vanishingly small proportion of all interjections. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Small point to correct a mistaken impression - the 'House of Commons' is an English version of 'House of Communes' because its members represented the communities of the Kingdom; it isn't named because it is the Commonalty as opposed to the nobility. But it is quite right that behaviour has improved markedly since the TV cameras have arrived. There seems to be a big difference for MPs between having their misbehaviour described in print, and realising that their constituents will actually see it. This improvement in behaviour is quite contrary to what many people thought when cameras were introduced, when the fear was that MPs would misbehave in order to draw attention to themselves. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any references for the 'House of Communes' etymology? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of that etymology before, but it's mentioned in House_of_Commons#History_and_naming. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify Fifelfoo's point, if the heckling is harming the ability of the member in question to address the house (and hence the parliamentary timetable to be kept to), the Speaker will almost always intervene to achieve hush. However, tradition - prompted by the physical arrangement of seats and the accordingly clear "government/opposition" dichotomy - is that members will signal their like or dislike of statements made verbally. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not really yelling in the House of Commons. Usually you can hear supporting MPs saying "hear hear", indicating their approval of what is being said. If an MP wishes to object or ask a question, it is usual for them to attract the attention of the Speaker and wait until the Speaker invites them to say what they have to say. Of course, if the issue is particularly contentious, the opposition might start booing, and if that gets too bad the person holding the floor might appeal to the Speaker to be allowed to continue. Astronaut (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Have a look at this YouTube video - "Funny House of Commons Moments". In the first example, the Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, tells an MP not to wait for quiet "because the Honourable gentleman is not going to get it". In the third clip, when Gordon Brown accidently claims to have "saved the world", he is drowned out by a chorus of artificial laughter from the opposite benches - a common tactic to highlight any gaffs or to support jokes by your own side. Over the years, there have been many attempts to move away from "Punch and Judy politics[3]" but it just makes things so dull. I think the answer is that most of us like it that way. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Could The Yelling Be Coming From The Galleries?

• UKCanadian parliament
• CanadianUK parliament

In both pictures, there are people setting in areas above the MPs which I presume is so that the-public can observe the debates. Could the yelling be coming from these galleries?

The upper house for UK would be the House of Lords, while the upper house for Canada would be the senate. So there is no yelling in either of these chambers? I thought they were open to the public?Curb Chain (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No. We have a similar structure in Australia. If the public in the gallery behaved like the members of the house, they would be thrown out. I've often wondered at the irony of that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been many instances of people in the public gallery being removed for interjecting. Only today, the Speaker warned the advisers who sit on the floor of the House of Reps near the front benches, that if any of them spoke up during proceedings, as one did today, they would be banned fron the chamber for the entire duration of his speakership. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Simon Blackburn's interpretation of Matt 10:5-6

According to this article, it cites that Simon Blackburn claims that Jesus Christ is a sectarian, which means that people may believe that their own salvation, or the success of their particular objectives, requires aggressively seeking converts from other groups; adherents of a given faction may believe that for the achievement of their own political or religious project their internal opponents must be purged. I have checked out this quote myself by doing a casual search on Google and read the quote from Twelve Apostles, and I am confused about the interpretation.

"5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead,[c] cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9 Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, 10 nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.

11 “Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. 12 And when you go into a household, greet it. 13 If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!"

From my interpretation (it may be a little far-fetched), I really see no hint of sectarianism. I think the passage is trying to say that Jesus wants the twelve apostles to go on a mission: to help people in some foreign city that needs help. It relates to how modern-day evangelical Christians use faith to relieve poverty in poor countries... and also seek new converts in the process. Well, if one is in a desperate condition, and there is some religious missionaries coming at one's door, then the desperate one would probably accept help as soon as possible and be willing to convert, even though the new religion may completely different from one's former's beliefs, right? How is it about aggressive sectarianism? Merely helping others does not sound very aggressive to me. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be the "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" part. Since Christianity, at the time, was just a sect of Judaism, they are being commanded to poach people from other sects of their own religion. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article on Sectarianism describes the sense in which Blackburn uses the word when he describes Jesus as "sectarian", an approach which involves bigotry and hatred of those who are not "of us", then it is not who the disciples are to go and help, but who they are not to help that is at issue: the Gentiles and the Samaritans. They are directed only to help those "of the house of Israel". Bielle (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Constitutions and Capitalism

The French constitution includes the Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen which itsel includes article 17, which protects property unambiguously. Similarly the American constitution is amended by the bill of rights and the 5th amendment which also protects "property".

It is frequently said that Western constitutions do not have an economic theory built into them (unlike the Soviet Union, which had one economic theory / policy built into its constitution).

I am wondering However if these 2 examples are a little dent in that "no economic theory in Western constitutions", in the sense that property in these article/amendment do not mean your house, but anything you own, including money, and therefore capital. By protecting capital in such a fundamental way, how can we still assume that it is possible for an economic system other than Capitalism to be legal within those countries? I am not asking for opinions but pointers to economic or constitutional theoretitians which have addressed the issue. Many thanks in advance for your help. --Lgriot (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles A. Beard developed the "economic interpretation" of the United States constitution, which became rather famous and somewhat influential during most of the 1910s-1950s. However, beyond the fact that the 1787 formulation of the U.S. constitution came down firmly on the side of creditors (in opposition to debtors), and that there was a desire to encourage national trade by sweeping away certain state restrictions, most of the specifics of the "economic interpretation" haven't held up over time... AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This book by Colker may be relevant. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that free countries are automatically capitalist. Even without any protection of contracts, even without any protection of property, as long as citizens in good standing are more or less free, you automatically have capitalism. This is pretty obvious to see: if you do not make an example of anyone successful and lock them up, then people can follow their model and live better and better by being clever. As they live better, are healthier, and better-educated, they will be in a better position to use anything and everything (including simple thoughts) and you will have a capitalist state of affairs. You pretty much have to lock talented people acting within their means and within the law in order to prevent capitalism. I can't think of a single country in the world that isn't capitalist, now and in the past, and also isn't totalitarian. Indeed, it is pretty easy to see why this would not be long possible. --84.2.175.230 (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You're taking for granted a lot of infrastructure. The means of protecting private property. Common currency. Markets at all. Production from monopoly by said "clever" people. Without those, you don't have capitalism, you just fall into something else. You need rules to create capitalism; even Adam Smith knew this. Somalia isn't capitalism. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say capitalism associated with classical liberal thought is based on the non-aggression principle. Somalia is an example of warlordism where many regional warlords take the role of authority and create their own quasi-states. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, capitalism requires, at a minimum, a state that enforces a monopoly on violence and that upholds and enforces property rights. Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It requires institutions that discourage violence and protect property; not everyone agrees that a monopoly state is the most effective such institution, let alone the only one possible. —Tamfang (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The question was whether an economic system other than capitalism would be legal in the USA or France without a constitutional amendment. I would say yes, so long as the new system had some legislation to back it. Some varieties of democratic socialism could legally be introduced, as they would retain ownership of property, within socially-defined limits. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant bits of the 5th Amendment seem to be "...nor be deprived of ... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". The first part just seems to say they can take your property so long as it's legal, which is scant protection. The second part specifies that if it's taken "for public use", then "just compensation" must be paid. However, this doesn't seem to prevent it being taken, by the government, and given to somebody else, AKA redistribution of wealth. In such a case, I'm not sure any compensate is required. Likewise, note that "just compensation" isn't necessarily the "true market value". They may be able to say that a penny is "just". Also note that income tax, as approved by the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, means they can tax you at any rate they see fit, and seize all your property if you don't, or can't, pay. So, with this in mind, it certainly seems legal for the US to take away all private property, although certainly not politically possible. StuRat (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The government takes people's property all the time -- see eminent domain. The Constitution just says they have to pay for it. (Taxation is considered different from the "taking" of property.) There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents nationalization of industry -- as we know, the US government bought a majority stake in General Motors a few years ago. The government can also start its own business, like the Bank of North Dakota. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a lifelong democratic socialist and I consider the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment to be an important guarantee of individual liberty against arbitrary or capricious coercion by the police or a political antagonist. The important question is how broadly or narrowly the Clause is interpreted. In a recent very important U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London (2005), where the plaintiff sued to prevent the city from taking and demolishing her house to help a private development, free-market pro-business groups like the Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice found themselves joined as friends of the plaintiff by liberal organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Ms Kelo lost her case on 5-4 decision, prompting a wave of state "takings" laws that I think (as a socialist) probably go too far in restricting legitimate eminent domain proceedings for genuine public uses.

¶ Having said that, you really don't need Charles Beard or Forrest McDonald to assert that the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were incorporating an economic theory, because the debates and proceedings that led to the Constitution and its ratification were quite clear about strengthening the rights of property owners (including slaveowners) and creditors in general and in particular against debtors. Their chief opponents, the Anti-Federalists, by and large, also endorsed the rights of property, at least in general, although not the U.S. Constitution of 1787. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

From your description as well as the article, I take it you're referring to anti "takings" laws or laws designed to restrict what happened in the Kelo case? I was a bit confused by your comment at first until I read the article. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much to everyone, I will have a read through all of these links and books, it will certainly take me some time. --Lgriot (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

k.u.k.

According to [4] the company Lohner was in 1876 "Lohner k.u.k. Hofwagenlieferant" quote: ab 1876 war Lohner k.u.k. Hofwagenlieferant.

I can't see any reference to companies in K.u.k. (it seems clear that the company was not acquired by the royal court) - I assume that the title means a company with a royal commision, or some other sign of prestige.

Does anyone know what this means in a company context?Mddkpp (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As you suppose, it means the same as "by Royal appointment". (Or I should say, Royal and Imperial.) "Hoflieferant" translates to something like "supplier to the court".--Rallette (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

See K.u.k. Hoflieferant --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a link to the see also of K.u.k..Mddkpp (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

FOREX.com spreads

On the FOREX website here (http://www.forex.com/uk/pricing-live-spreads.html) a lot of the currency pairs seem to have no spread. Can anyone confirm if this is actually the case or could it just not be updating or properly? Seems odd since my understanding is that FOREX brokers usually make money only through the spread and that seems to be the case for FOREX.com as I see no mention of any fees. --TuringMachine17 (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the spreads you see quoted there are the spreads on the interbank foreign exchange market, which are available only to the biggest financial institutions. If you look at their actual claimed prices, they appear to set a minimum spread for all trades. I'm guessing that this minimum is, in effect, their fee, on top of the actual interbank spread. However, the best way to find out for sure would be to phone them and ask. Marco polo (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The page now shows non-zero spreads for all currency pairs. I imagine there was a gremlin in the works when you first looked at it. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Beach Walk Rear, Honolulu

During his posting to Hawaii (at around 1928) Townsend Griffiss lists his address as "290 Beach Walk Rear, Honolulu" (in his book), an address the BBC suggests was "within yards of Waikiki beach". A modern search of Google Maps doesn't find the address - where (roughly) is that, in terms of current street names? Is Beach Walk just the old name for Kalakaua Avenue? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Beachwalk", one word, seems to be a street near Wakiki Beach, running between Kalakaua Avenue and Kalia Road. I assume Beachwalk Rear was an access road now destroyed by the numerous hotels built either side of Beachwalk. (Looking on Google Maps, it seems the smaller, older buildings along Beachwalk still have some sort of alleyway behind them.) Smurrayinchester 16:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If a US VP becomes President, how much longer can they serve as President?

If a United States president dies, and the vice president becomes president, can he be elected for two additional terms? Computergeeksjw (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

View the text of the amendment -- only if he hasn't served more than two years on the term he inherited... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

For example, Ford, had he won in 1976, could not have run again in 1980 as he served more than two years of Nixon's term.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Conversely, Johnson was eligible for a second reëlection in 1972, because he only served fourteen months of Kennedy's term. The reason he wasn't his party's candidate for president that year was due to other issues, such as the Vietnam War. Nyttend (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering that LBJ, minus the pressures of the office, died 2 days after what would have been the last day of his 1969-73 term, it's a reasonable guess that he might have died in office anyway, had he been re-nominated and re-elected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

He'd withdrawn from the 1968 race extremely early, with: "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President". To come back with renewed interest in 1972 would have been extraordinary, to say the least. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Nyttend meant to say 1968 rather than 1972. Had things been going better in Vietnam, maybe he could have run and won. However, if things had been going better, maybe he would have lived longer anyway. Having your name attached to the slogan, "How many kids did you kill today?" had to sting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That occurred to me too, but then I thought maybe he did mean 1972. He wasn't elected in 1968 (he didn't even run), so he was still eligible for a further term, and Vietnam was very much a live issue in 72. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I did mean 1968. No wonder all of you objected to my statement :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Referring" a US Senate bill

I encountered the following description of a bill in the 1976 index for the Congressional Record:

S. Res. 378 — To refer the bill (S. 2907) entitled "A bill for the relief of innocent victims of the occupatoin of Wounded Knee, South Dakota".

Below the description are only the usual elements about sponsors, committee assignment, cosponsors, and the Senate's vote to pass this resolution. What effect did it have on S. 2907? It doesn't say anything about where it was referred or whatever else "refer" might mean. 129.79.34.222 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually they are referring the bill to a committee for discussion, investigation, or amendment. In this case, though, 94 S. Res. 378 (according to the Congressional Record itself) says that they are referring the bill to the chief commissioner of the United States Court of Claims. "The chief commissioner [of the Court of Claims] shall proceed with the same in accordance with section 1492 and 2509 of title 28, United States Code, and report to the Senate, at the earliest practicable date, giving such findings of fact and conclusions thereon as shall be sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature and character of the demand as a claim, legal, or equitable, against the United States or a gratuity and the amount of any, legally or equitable due from the United States to the claimants. Such report shall specific the amount due to each of the claimants and maximum responsible attorney's fees that should be paid from such amount." (Congressional Record, August 9, 1976, page 26370 — any typos are mine). I note that this is boilerplate and there is an identical worded referral right below it (S. res. 491) for relief of some other group. The article on the Court of Claims gives a good overview of why they had to do this — it seems like standard procedure for any area where Congress is giving monetary relief. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've seen lots of bills getting referred to committees, but I've never before seen a bill get referred without the CR noting to where or to whom it was referred. Couldn't check anything but the index for lack of time. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I'm the original poster; didn't feel like signing into the public computer just to post this question.

See page 6 of this brochure published by the court for more information on congressional referrals. Basically, these are situations when someone is seeking compensation from the Government for something-or-other, but it's not compensation the person is legally entitled to; Congress would have to specially provide for it. But Congress doesn't want to decide whether the person has a just grievance or not; it wants an independent decision-maker to investigate the case and make a recommendation. An Article III court would not have jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion of this nature, but since the Court of Federal Claims is an "Article I courtm," it can. This referral practice has been around for quite along time, though my sense is it's much less common than it used to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Best book on the origins of human morality

What is the best book that traces the evolution of morality from our animal ancestors to our current human society? Are there any books that study animal morality and have sections that describe how this relates to humans? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The articles on Evolution of morality and Altruism in animals have some sources, including The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley, who seems to have written several books on similar topics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. For some early speculation see David Hume at, for example, T 2.1.12, 3.1.1 (paragraph 25) (there's other places, but I'm lazy). See [5] for an example secondary literature. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What if... ? (USA Civil war)

I propose a question of Counterfactual history. What if the Confederated States won the American Civil War. How would the later history of the US (and perhaps the world) be different? Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see the remit for this page, stated at the top. You're asking us to speculate, which is not what this page is for. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed: "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions ... Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." But surely there are counterfactual history texts on this subject? It cannot be new ground. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Harry Turtledove is a popular writer of alternate histories; his Southern Victory Series postulates that McClellan never comes into possession of Lee's general orders prior to the Battle of Antietam, resulting in successful secession, and he builds from there. Things get increasingly speculative as he moves into the 20th century (the butterfly effect, great man theory, and all that), but the early premises are reasonable. It's one path, anyway. — Lomn 17:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That Turtledove series got bogged down considerably, consider his The Guns of the South. There are other examples, but I consider that one the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it bogs, but Southern Victory is more properly counterfactual/alternate history; The Guns of the South is fantasy. Consider, as a parallel non-spoiler case, "the colonies lose the Revolutionary War because Britain breaks the Siege of Yorktown" versus "the colonies lose the Revolutionary War because curious aliens kidnap American leadership". I like Guns better, but it's not useful in this case. — Lomn 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps we can compromise with Bring the Jubilee.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Winston Churchill's contribution to the 1931 If It Had Happened Otherwise, If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg, is perhaps best remembered for turning the genre on its head, being a counterfactual history written from the viewpoint of a historian in a counterfactual world, imagining what would have happened had events played out the way that they actually did in our world. -- ToE 17:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an incomplete list of American Civil War alternate histories. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say a confederate victory would not have resulted in a much different history. Slavery would have been abolished, albeit a bit later, because, with time, a growing intellectual movement against slavery was imminent. SupernovaExplosion (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Err, aside from whether that is probable or not, that's hardly the only variable in thinking about the effect of the Civil War on American history. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think somewhere in the last episode of Ken Burns' The Civil War someone says something like "The South's dreams of building a Confederate empire across Central or even South America were dashed". If my memory is correct (I'll see if I can find my copy), I'd be interested to know who exactly did harbour such a fantasy; evidently the Confederacy was not founded with such grandiose plans in many minds. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it. Last episode, 3 minutes in: "Its leaders had once dreamed of a tropical empire reaching ever southward - to Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Brazil. By April 1865 the dream was gone" - said by McCullough, the narrator. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter -- The southern states in 1860 contained people who favored Caribbean expansion as well as those who opposed it, but many people (both North and South) assumed it would be more or less inevitable, given the United States' recent history of territorial growth. The Crittenden Compromise pretty much fell apart over the issue of slavery in territory to be acquired in future -- many Republicans were prepared to allow "New Mexico" (then meaning both New Mexico and Arizona) to enter the union as a slave state (on the understanding that all other existing territories would eventually become free states), and guarantee that the federal government would never interfere with slavery within slave states, but influential Republicans (including Lincoln) were rigidly and inflexibly absolutely 100% opposed to allowing slavery in any territories that would be acquired by the U.S. in future. For grand dreamers, you can see Knights of the Golden Circle... AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very informative. It didn't occur to me that folks considered Manifest Destiny to be quite so expansive (but then that article too talks of adventures beyond CONUS). Ah, the Knights of the Golden Circle, who I so fondly remember from that super-accurate Nicholas Cage documentary (of which they're making two more, so we'll get to find out about Nathan Bedford Forrest's adventures on the Moon). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And you should specify what you mean by "won". Do you mean the South achieves a stalemate and everyone returns to their pre-war lines, as in North and South Korea ? That seems plausible. If you mean the North surrenders to the South and is occupied by it, that requires a great deal of imagination. The North had far more resources available, and would have brought them in, had they thought it necessary. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent counterfactual resources exist in the USENET archives of soc.history.what-if and in current forum based discussion groups' archives, such as the archive of alternatehistory.net. The quality of these histories vary from hard to soft within a kind of sci-fi paradigm of "hardness," though I find the examples given at the link I just posted incredibly soft in general, for my tastes there are two further "harder" scales lying above almost all of the examples given in terms of "hardness," such as the academic counterfactual which relies significantly and only on proposed but neglected plans that were achievable (or had the potential to fail); or, densely cited detailed analysis. The counterfactual you propose has previously been widely considered. Wikipedia is not a place for discussing counterfactuals. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

While obviously completely fictional highly unrealistic and only tangentially related, I once played a round of Victoria II as the US. In the years prior to the Civil War, I took a vastly different strategy than the US actually employed. I invaded, extorted and otherwise undermined most of Central and South America, forcing it into my sphere. Meanwhile slavery related tensions grew and the Civil War eventually broke out, although considerably later than it did in reality (sometime around 1885), mostly due to the amount of wealth coming in from my imperial expansionism. By this time my empire of latin client states was completely secure and came to my assistance in putting down the rebellion. It is a bit of stretch to imagine Venezuelan, Columbian and Mexican troops troops marching on Richmond but hey it's a video game. --Daniel 03:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Trusts questions (UK)

Imagine there is a house held in a trust by trustees. I think the trustees would register the deed of trust at H M Land Registry. Would the deed be visible to all and sundry? And if the trustees took it into their heads to exclude a class of beneficiary, would they be bound to tell HM Land Registry or anyone else? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

what philosophers/schools of thought discuss this view of ethics?

I'm a linguistics student who's taking a class on the philosophy of language and some of what we've looked at in the class about the nature of lying has made me wonder something about ethics which, as a linguistics student, I feel unqualified to deal with fully. I realise what follows is probably riddled with all kinds of fallacies and nonsenses, but hopefully you can humour me enough to point me in the right direction.

Basically, it occured to me that taboos against lying could be said to serve two purposes. The first is the obvious one. It establishes that, generally speaking, all communication takes place with the underlying assumption that a speaker is not trying to create a false belief in the mind of a listener. Essentially it allows us to assume honesty.

The second purpose, however, is more sneaky. By having a taboo against lying (communicating something you know to be untrue) it implicitly allows other kinds of communication that have the same effects of lying, that is, creating a false belief in the mind of a listener, without breaking the taboo. People can selectively withhold information, tell "half-truths", "white lies", etc etc. There's a million different things we can do in speech that have the effect of lying but that we feel aren't in the same moral category as out-right lying. In effect the strict and specific rule against lying doesn't exist to stop us from doing something, it exists to allow us do it while at the same time maintaining a useful feature of communication, the assumption of honesty.

It seems like a lot of other taboos can be explained the same way. For example taboos against murder also establish situations where taking the life of another person is allowed: in war, in self defense, as a punishment, etc. The rule exists not to simply disallow the taking of another person's life in any circumstances, but to allow us to create situations where we can do so without undermining our assumption that, as a general principle, we shouldn't kill people.

Perhaps a great deal of taboos have this dual purpose. First, to explicitly create an assumption about what is and isn't appropriate behaviour in order to enable normal social interaction. Secondly, to implicitly create situations in which this seemingly inappropriate behaviour can take place without disrupting that assumption. It protects society as a whole while at the same time recognising that, in reality, these actions are extremely likely to occur.

Now you've read my undergraduate nonsense I'd be grateful if anyone here could point me in the direction of writers that discuss similar ideas in a properly philosophical way. In fact, does this even count as a philosophical idea, or is it more of a sociological or anthropological one? --129.11.249.164 (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My initial thought is to check out virtue ethics. There may well be something more specific to what you describe, but virtue ethics focuses on why you committed the action, rather than hard rules on the rightness or wrongness of actions or the rightness or wrongness of consequences. Perhaps pragmatic ethics might assist as well? I'm not sure if either approach is entirely where you're going, but they might be a good start point. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems parallel to the Gricean Cooperative principle... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no reference for this, but I would dispute that a taboo by itself implies that other behaviors are allowed. I think the other behaviors being allowed are just part of the ten thousand little cultural rules that each culture maintains (the taboos being included in their number). Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

February 15

Being in the army and the navy at the same time?

Hirohito's article claims that he was a commissioned officer in both the army and the navy at the same time.

• Did he actually perform military duties in both armed forces or were the titles purely ceremonial?
• Are there any other people with this special distinction?
• Is this practice limited to Japan or does it happen in other countries as well?

Note that I'm not looking for cases where the army and the navy are a single combined armed force (Canadian_Forces e.g.); the IJA and IJN were separate (and sometimes even conflicting) organizations.99.245.35.136 (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just an anecdote here, but my father-in-law was briefly in both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army at the same time, mainly through a bureaucratic glitch. He enlisted in the Navy, and had gone through his Navy Recruit Training. Because he had enlisted after graduating college, he was eligible for Officer Candidate School, which he applied to after Recruit Training. Because he submitted his OCS application, the Navy deferred his enlistment so for a few months he wasn't part of the armed forces. During that time, he was drafted by the Army. When he contacted his Naval Recruiter, they basically said "Well, since you haven't been accepted to Naval OCS yet, there's nothing we can do. Looks like you're going to Army Basic Training". So he packed up and went through Army Basic Training, at the conclusion of which is application to Navy OCS was accepted, and he went off, (in probably the best shape of his life!) to Navy OCS. Probably not exactly what you were looking for, but it's close.

On the question of Hirohito, my guess is that his commissions were ceremonial because of his role as Emperor places him as ex officio member of all of Japan's armned forces, much as the U.S. President is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military; though he usually takes no active role in direct military planning as real officers do... --Jayron32 03:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting story. Hirohito's commissions were before he became the Emperor. In fact, this was even before he became the Crown Prince. Furthermore his initial commission in the navy was sub-lieutenant, quite a low rank for ceremonial role (I think colonel Gaddafi had the lowest ceremonial rank ever?). 99.245.35.136 (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On closer reading you're right, it's purely ceremonial. He was 11 when he was "formally commissioned in both the army and in the navy as a second lieutenant and ensign, respectively". From his's son, Akihito's article, we have: "Unlike his predecessors in the Imperial Family, he did not receive a commission as an Army officer, at the request of his father, Hirohito." So now my question becomes, is there any royal family out there that automatically receive a ceremonial officer commission? I don't mean cases like Prince Harry where it's dutifully earned, but "free commissions" that you receive without undergoing the proper training. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just picking around randomly, I think Hirohito may have been a bit of a slacker in the multiple-commissions-by-a-royal department. See Carl_XVI_Gustaf_of_Sweden#Youth_and_education. The current King of Sweden was concurrently an officer in three different armed forces. The article makes it seem like all of the commissions were genuine and earned, but its a bit sparse. A line of inquiry for you to follow. --Jayron32 04:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Prince William is a serving RAF helicopter pilot, but was recently married wearing the uniform of the Grenadier Guards. British Royals have numerous honorary military titles, but have usually served "for real" as well. In 1945, Queen Elizabeth was a Second Subaltern in the Auxiliary Territorial Service but at the same time was an honorary Colonel of the Grenadier Guards. Her current appointments run to a very long list and include Colonel-in-Chief of the 48th Highlanders of Canada, Captain-General of the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery, Colonel-in-Chief of the Corps of Royal New Zealand Engineers and Air-Commodore-in-Chief of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

An example of a serving officer who had "real" appointments in two services was Colonel Frederick Sykes of the Royal Flying Corps. In 1915, "Sykes visited the Dardanelles to investigate the confused air situation and after writing a report he was appointed as the Officer Commanding the Royal Naval Air Service Eastern Mediterranean Station with the naval rank of captain, having briefly been appointed Colonel Commandant in the Royal Marines." It didn't work very well as "relations with other naval officers remained strained and many refused to recognise Sykes’ naval rank"[6] Alansplodge (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Prince Radu of Romania was made a Colonel of the Romanian Army, even though he never served, and even though we're living in a republic :( 109.97.189.88 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Major Gaddafi promoted himself to colonel after the coup.
Sleigh (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

According to our article, he was actually a lieutenant who promoted himself to colonel and was later given a honourary promotion by someone else to major general by someone else which he chose not to use.

Prince Felipe (heir apparent of the Spanish throne) has military ranks in all the three Spanish armed forces. And although he is not deployed, he is in the chain of command. 188.76.228.174 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought Qaddafi was a colonel before he took power? If so, we'd have to go with Master Sergeant Samuel Doe as having a lower rank. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Chinese pentatonic scale

bonsoir all (or perhaps I might say ni hao :D ). Music has always been one of my interests, especially music of other cultures. I have just now begun examining the Chinese pentatonic scale and apparently not only are the "distances" between the notes different, but the notes themselves do not exactly correspond to any notes on a Western instrument when tuned the traditional way. What I would like to know is: would this non-correspondence be likely to bother someone with absolute / perfect pitch, and if so, how much? merci-grazie-gracias-arigato :) 213.118.213.177 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

La Bayamesa = Cuba's National Anthem

Why does the music of Cuba's National Anthem sound so much like one of Mozart's arias in The Wedding of Figaro? Could it be that Figueredo adapted it from Mozart's aria rather than compose it outright? I am not trying to discredit it. On the contrary, I was born in Cuba and consider myself Cuban American. But the first time I heard Mozart's aria, I recognized it immediately. It cannot be just coincidence. Also, I understand that this aria by Mozart had been adopted by the same regiment that does the changing of the guards at Buckingham Palace, and I saw a video of them playing it. It sounds exactly like La Bayamesa (except for the introductory notesto Cuba's national anthem, which were composed by somebody other than Figueredo). I really would like to know the true history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitinamartin (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Having checked out La Bayamesa, I presume the Mozart aria you're referring to is "Non più andrai" from The Marriage of Figaro. I can see why they remind you of each other, but to my ear they're sufficiently different so as not to be mistaken. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

was the bible ever written

was the bible ever written, and could another one be written. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well we can deduce from its existence that it was written. Others have been written; think Quran, Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism), etc. I think it depends upon your definition of "bible" --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the first edition of its books was comprised by oral texts. 188.76.228.174 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of them, but presumably not the epistles. Warofdreams talk 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that there is no universal understanding of the word "bible". Is the New Testament in the bible? Is the Old? Is the Book of Esther? Different people have different answers to these questions. See Biblical canon for more information. On the substance of your question, see Authors of the Bible and Mosaic authorship. As far as 188.76's answer goes, yes, many scholars hold that opinion. But many do not. --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is slightly more difficult, at least the last time I read catholic authorised textual origins literature. Many of the books comprise multiple written and/or oral traditions wedged together in a process called "redaction." Each of these could have been composed of further oral and written sources that were redacted into a text that was redacted into the copy that became transmitted by copying tradition to us. At each point of redaction, more and more of the "oral text" may have been lost (or was lost if the text isn't holy to you, and you apply normal contemporary scholarly approaches to documentary transmission). So the Bible is in fact an excellent "Hypertext." It is densely self and cross referential, especially the bits attributed to Jesus. The Jesus character closely cross references previous texts in the bible. But the Old Testament collection densely cross references itself anyway. And each of these texts (including three of the four canonical gospels!) was produced by reauthoring and merging of texts, and oral traditions, and texts made from oral traditions and texts. It's as messy as Wikipedia page histories. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

followup

could a bible be written today, or would it have to be oral tradition first. what if there was a conspiracy to agree to witness things that didn't happen, by a small group of people intending to create an intentinoal religion. would it be possible, and could they write a bible.

i'm asking because apparently there are conflicting stories, for example that joseph smit found some plates, and so his bible was not written, ony translated, or that the bible fell from the sky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.254.208 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

note that I'm not just asking about actually printing a "bible", i could do that myself in one sentence ("In the beginning, God created everything just as it is now; it's still the beginning.") i'm asking about somethign that would be the word of God and accepted by millions. could that be written today, or is it impossible for some theoretical or practical reason.--80.99.254.208 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, there are people who claim to have heard the voice of God, and have written down what "He" said. Depending on whether or not you believe the people involved, the events behind the Three Secrets of Fátima may be exactly what you describe: three Portuguese shepherds claimed to have seen an apparition of the Virgin Mary and wrote down what "she" told them. The secrets are now part of official Catholic Church doctrine and are widely believed in certain Catholic communities as part of the word of God (or at least Mary). Smurrayinchester 15:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I rather doubt they are part of official Church doctrine. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

hey, thanks for the response but I mean something totally different from christianity, not something jesus and mary based. could that be written today, with millions accepting it, and why-why not. a good candidate would be steve jobs and stories around him, for example. so the idea is that a bunch of guys just invent a whole new religion by pretending to have witnessed things that never happeened. coudl this happen for practical or theoretical reasons? --80.99.254.208 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think something starting as an oral tradition is difficult nowadays. We don't live in an oral culture, everything is recorded nowadays. Even insignificant events can be traced back many years through newspapers, not to mention internet fora, blogs, twitter etc. Something is not likely to be believed if there is no documentation whatsoever.

A conspiracy, yes, I think that is quite possible. It can be quite profitable to scam people into believing a made up reigion, just look at Scientology, which is based on science fiction stories. However, the more people involved in a conspiracy, the more difficult it is to keep the story straight. Most major religious scams were started by a single person, who came to be the ultimate authority (e.g. Muhammad, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard)

However, the bible as we know it was not written as one book of course. It is actually a collection of books by multiple authors living centuries apart. The contents of the bible existed long before there was an actual 'bible', so that's quite a different scenario. -- Lindert (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The plot of the film The Invention of Lying might be relevant here. Astronaut (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• There are still ephemeral cultures; and, while many working class people are literate, few working class people are authors and predominantly produce oral or ephemeral texts rather than permanent texts. While some of these texts are preserved despite ephemerality (consider Know Your Meme's rather pathetic attempts to curate one small corner of internet culture) larger reasons for the lack of new religions seem to be based around increasing irreligiosity and the market being cornered by existing devotional practices. On top of this, new religions in the past fifty years or so either have strong literary traditions (Scientology), or are something less than lying (Sub-Genius, Discordianism, some interpretations of Satanism and of course Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicornism). Fifelfoo (talk)

• People are a lot more sophisticated now than in Biblical times, so, while there are always a few idiots who will believe anything some nut says, getting a religion started on the scale on Christianity, Islam, etc., would require some serious proof of miracles. "Some guy says he saw some weird stuff" isn't going to be enough to start a major religion, these days. If some woman claims a virgin birth, we're going to want to do a DNA test on the paperboy who happens to look just like the baby. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like a reference for the claim that "people are a lot more sophisticated now". Educated, yes; but there are a lot of credulous people out there today, too. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The sophistication isn't just education. We now have ways to verify things which didn't exist in Biblical times (like DNA tests). We also have access to experts around the world who can tell us how any particular illusion might have been pulled off. And we have ways to record things for experts not present at the time to evaluate later. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Another side of sophistication is the demand for a different kind of incredulous fact—ancient aliens are more credible within our cultural schema than invisible sky fathers. Yet another side of this is that not all religious practices involve faith. Many involve devotion, which doesn't require credulity, only a pleasant feeling of worship. Religions are also social spaces, so there are reasons to religious adherence other than faith or devotion. Finally, some religions claim to, or can evidence, modes of practice that are believed to have inherent benefits regardless of devotion. If you wish to extensively sit down in quiet and play mind games, then Western Zen may be for you; etc. Many of these reasons for religiosity have substitutes: why meditate when there's Shark Week? Why seek miracles when you can get an MRI? Why cultivate an internal structure of sin when you can simply be neurotic and medicalised? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

---

80.99.254.208 -- For scriptures created in modern times whose authorship has generated controversy, you can look at Urantia Book and yes, the Book of Mormon, etc. Using the word "bible"[sic] in lower-case when you really mean "scripture" does not add clarity to your questions. In any case, an idea which you seem to have vaguely in mind (i.e. that it is thought that the text of the Jewish/Christian Bible was handed directly from heaven without any human intervention) hasn't ever really been a formal doctrine of traditional mainstream or "orthodox" Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

reference check

is this story true: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c65_1291178670

(someone arrested for having an orgasm over TSA groping). if it's true what was the result of that case? I've never heard of liveleak before and want to know if it's legitimate also. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a spoof, but one that was so titillating that it has been spread around the Internet as if it were fact. Marco polo (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Snopes says it is not true: [7] RudolfRed (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up! I had my doubts... --80.99.254.208 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You can tell it's a spoof by the guy's name... "Percy Cummings" indeed ;-)) (ref: here) Astronaut (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL, "orgasm", "spoof" and "Cumming". This thread certainly has a lot of spunk. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on, you guys are all nuts. I'd better get off this topic before I lose control. That's it. I'm spent. It would only have been better if his first name was Skeeter. Ok. Fer real. I'm done now. --Jayron32 19:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you like a cigarette? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't ask them if they'd like a fag. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I usually have a couple of fags, and when I've finished I have a cigarette or two.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What's a good way to sell a short domain hack domain name for big bucks?

It's less than 8 letters so it's easy to remember, and the word, without the dot of the domain hack, is a very common word, and would be intended for many great causes.

I want to buy it and resell it to a corporation or someone for far more $. However, I have an aversion to ebay (high selling fees and poor customer service.)

What other places are great to resell the domain at? Moreover, how is this process done? Thank you. --129.130.209.247 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

sorry to disappoint, but usually the process is to buy it and wait, wait, wait, up to 15 years. You (probably won't) get offers from time to time, and would end up accepting one for probably $5k-$10k. It's an OK investment at 3, 4, or 5 letters, but at 8 letters it's just pure speculation on your part, especially since it's not .com. Sorry to disappoint you. 94.27.166.132 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but should you wish to auction it immediately and take that risk, there are a number of specialised domain name auction sites out there; I'm sure the internet has something to say about which is the best. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Which one is it? 88.9.105.3 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

February 16

T.S. Eliot's word count?

How many words did T.S. Eliot write? I remember reading somewhere that it was very low, but I can't remember the number. Thanks! --Think Fast (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I downloaded the works of T. S. Eliot that are available at Project Gutenberg with T. S. Eliot listed as author, merged them in a Word-document, and did a word count. Result: 38 662 words. This number includes some Project Gutenberg-specific text that was not written by T. S. Eliot (copyright info, disclaimers etc), but still, I doubt that every word written by T. S. Eliot is available in Project Gutenberg, so I consider the word count to be a reasonable estimate. Therefore, a direct answer to your question is, approximately 38,000 words. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talleyrand plan

Just a question on the Talleyrand partition plan for Belgium. The article says under Consequences: "The Talleyrand plan was rejected by European powers". Which ones rejected it? Did some accept the plan? And what were the reasons for some of their rejections? Thanks! 64.229.180.189 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See Treaty of London (1839) for more details on the specific treaty that established it. During the 19th century, Europeans Great Powers met infrequently during meetings known as the "Congress system" or the Concert of Europe. Belgium is usually counted as one of the major outcomes of the Concert system outside of the first Congress of Vienna. The Great Powers are generally taken to mean the main signatories of the Congress of Vienna treaties, being the UK, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and France during the first half of the 19th century. This group of nations was roughly analogous to the "UN Security Council" today. Presumably, since Tallyrand proposed it, France backed it, but the other four nations apparently opposed it. --Jayron32 03:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The main reason for rejecting the plan is that it would have increased the size and power of France. The other European powers were still wary about French ambitions in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars. Another reason is that Britain, then the dominant European power, wanted a strong buffer state on France's border as an impediment to French aggression. At the Congress of Vienna (1815), the territory of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands had been defined to include what would become Belgium precisely to create a relatively strong state on France's northern flank. Even at the time of the Congress of Vienna, France still had troops positioned in the Southern Netherlands and hoped to retain all or part of it, and at the time when Talleyrand proposed his plan, France again had troops in the region Talleyrand proposed to annex to France. Britain and the other powers would have preferred for Belgium and the Netherlands to remain united, but since that was no longer feasible after the Belgian revolution, the next best solution for them was to maximize the size and power of Belgium by including the Flemish-speaking areas. Some of the discussions of this question are detailed in this source. Marco polo (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Most popular delusion

What delusion is believed by the greatest percentage of human beings on earth? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably, that they as an individual mean anything in the grand scheme of things, which is believed by (I would say) 100% of human beings on earth. See Total Perspective Vortex. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

For further insight, read the Dilbert book called The Way of the Weasel. Author Scott Adams says that in addition to being weasels with others, we are also weasels with ourselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Another example would be from this Paul Simon song: "We work our jobs / Collect our pay / Believe we're gliding down the highway / When in fact we're slip-slidding away." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The God Delusion? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Or for that matter, the Atheism Delusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an article List of common misconceptions... AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No clear answer can be given. It varies a lot what people consider delusions. Delusion says: "A delusion is a belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception." PrimeHunter (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The The God Delusion has already been mentioned. Surely all religion fits the definition of "a belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence". (Faith isn't evidence.) Even if you have a religion and don't regard your own as a delusion, without a lot of word twisting and philosophical gymnastics you have to believe that the adherents of other religions are deluded. Can we label all religious people as suffering a pathological condition "(the result of an illness or illness process)"? HiLo48 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

One could make a similar argument regarding avowed atheists, who are blind to anything that disagrees with their "faith" that no God can possibly exist and that religion has no positive value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Heyup, where do you get the idea that atheists believe no religion has positive values? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

, Bugs. Sloppy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the OP is talking about the clinical concept of a delusion, but the broader, colloquial usage, as Will Rogers said, "...what they know for certain which ain't so." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Religion. It fits that definition perfectly. It's faith, not evidence based, yet many (far too many IMHO) act as if it's known for certain. What I have just said is not an atheistic position. HiLo48 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that necessarily follows. The atheist-free/relgious-free position is the agnostic one that "no evidence could either prove or disprove the existence of a god(s)". That is to say, religious believers build their belief, as you imply on no evidence. The definition above says "superior evidence": this is implied by the colloquial "what they know for certain which ain't so" quoted. To call religion a delusion would be to show that it "ain't so". I don't think there's ever been any solid evidence that it "ain't so" - my position in the second sentence was that there was no evidence. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose the delusion that, as Travis Bickle had it, "one of these days I'm gonna get organizized". It comes in many variants, but at bottom they're all the same.--Rallette (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, we can't really answer. As the previous discussion has demonstrated, no one will ever agree on what is and is not a delusion, so we'll never get anywhere and end up arguing over religion for hours. I'm not convinced that was the purpose of the question. Anyway, we do have a list of hoaxes, which might being to answer the question. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I note that widely held beliefs are generally of the sort which can't be disproved, or at least have not been disproved, the closest we can get to disproved statements are List of common misconceptions. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Christian god delusion followed by the Muslim god delusion. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The every god but my own delusion. They simply can't all be right. HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but that doesn't disprove 100% of them. You said above: Surely all religion fits the definition of "a belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence". Just what is this "superior evidence" of which you speak? Where is the evidence that there is no such thing as God? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would humbly submit that the most popular delusion, believed by 100% of humans since shortly after birth, (perhaps I am the world's first and/or only exception) is that there is ever an objective answer to "why", or, in other words, regarding the false misconception of a a cause-effect relationship existing at all. In every language on earth one of the first words anyone would learn is "why" or the answer "because" - and it is, I submit, a delusion. Let's take a simple example. Please read this article, or just the part begining with the third large dropped capital O and reading "On October 30, 1935, at Wright Air Field in Dayton, Ohio, the U.S. Army Air Corps held a flight competition for airplane manufacturers vying to build its next-generation long-range bomber."

Go ahead and read that part if you want. I may spoil it as follows:

!Then it stalled, turned on one wing, and crashed in a fiery explosion. Two of the five crew members died, including the pilot, Major Ployer P. Hill."

This pilot was extremely well-trained. But the article reports "An investigation revealed that nothing mechanical had gone wrong. The crash had been due to “pilot error,” the report said."

So, we can ask a simple question: why did this plane crash. We arrive at a simple answer: pilot error.

But is it so simple?

What about these answers: 1) This type of pilot error should not have been possible. the plane should not have been engineered to start this way. 2) The pilot should have performed a dry run five times in a row on five consecutive days, without taking off. why wasn't this done? 3) the pilot should have taken his methamphetamenes and been chosen for his OCD properties, so that even a procedure 10 times more intricate for starting the plane would have been error-proof.

The third one is outside of our social norms. The first two are OK. So, in my humble opinion, this idea of "cause" or an answer to "why" or statements beginning with "because" is a mass delusion.

I believe there are facts. You can say, the computer had a core temperature of 104 degrees when it crashed. You can say, the patient had a stopped heart shortly before reaching clinical death. I believe that "why" is a mass delusion. Let's say it was diet. Was it McDonald's advertising? The way they were raised? Personal weakness? A poor doctor who was not a good psychologist and got the patient to change habits after the first heart attack?

Thre are no whys, it is a mass delusion. Asking "why doesn't America speak French, Spanish, or Portuguese, as other parts of the Americas, is a delusional question that can be answered simply. this simplification is simply wrong.

i don't believe in causes. even in such a simple case as this: a nurse takes blood from an HIV positive subject to do some blood tests, then pricks herself, and contracts aids. Why did she contract aids?

Here are ten answers off-hand: 1) she shouldn't have been a nurse. with an attentiveness like that, she should be in a different profession. 2) it should not be possible to prick yourself with a used needle after taking blood. the design is flawed.ű 3) HIV patients should not be handled without prick-proof gloves. 4) HIV patients should take their own blood, and do their own tests in specially quarantined equipment. 5) The nurse was overworked and should have worked half as many hours, but there is a nurse shortage due to lack of funding. Major funding is needed to avoid this type of situation. 6) The man should not have had HIV, and if not for stigmatization of gay sex in the sixties and seventies, HIV would not have become a gay pandemic. it could have been stopped extremely quickly. Historically, history will view aids as a failure of ethics and a disease that had as its main vector prejudice and bigotry. 7) If sufficient R and D had been invested in nursing, then hyperdermic needles would have been long-since a thing of the past, an drisk free pneumatic blood drawing would have long-since been the norm. While saving money overall, society does not care about medical costs, as it makes medical companies richer, who lobby for the status quo. 8) HIV would be curable if the medical industry did not have as high vaults as it does, if it were more like math, and readily available online. Due to the restriction on talent, many people with bright ideas in the medical field are unable to participate meaningfully in it, and not only due to lack of laboratories. The nurse who contracted HIV contracted a curable disease whose cure is locked away behind ivory towers operating on medieval structures of study. If the medical industry were like the open-source security industry, there would long-since been real antivirus physical AV hardware that can eliminate aids. The academic closed structure and privatization and lack of openness is the reason 9) the patient was not as important as others to whom the nurse pays more attention, such as celebrities In this case it was a homeless man the nurse wanted to get the procedure over with ASAP. 10) the person should have chosen the less expensive and less error-prone home test-by-mail, but didn't know about it. It would actually have saved him money. The reason he didn't do it this way is lack of information. It's an information problem.

So you see, the most simple occurrence, a nurse pricking herself and contracting HIV, from a patient she knew to be HIV positive, does not have an answer as to why. Why is a human construction, because even more so, and it is a delusion on the grandest scale. Of course, it's easy enough to say: "because she pricked herself" but then, you have to add, with a needle that had HIV, and then you have to add why it had HIV, and why she pricked herself. Pricking herself with a fresh needle doesn't cause the same result.

Also maybe she could have done something afterwards. Maybe thew hole sentence is: "she pricked herself with a needle she should have known had HIV in it, and didnt follow procedure to immediately cleanse as much blood from the pinprick as possible.." etc etc etc ad infinitum... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.254.208 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

But under your explanation almost anything can be dismissed of responsability. Massive accidents (like the Chernobyl nuclear disaster) can be dismissed as just that would/could/should happen. Almost everything has an obvious and logical explanation. Flamarande (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not a WP:SOAPBOX for your original research, 80.99. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

But I think that his lack-of-causes-explanation is interesting. However I must add that I have a friend (here where I live - Portugal) that has a similar approach. I'm a guy that believes in law and order, cause and effect and he is always contradicting me on many issues but he explains me things under another perspective. Sometimes he and I totally disagree, but on many issues I begin to slowly analyse his approach/explanation of certain issues and on some he has indeed changed my opinion because I'm unashamed to tell it he is right after-all. And if the gaining of knowledge is the true goal of Wikipedia then I'm hereby invoking the unofficial Ignore:AllRules because I want to learn. Flamarande (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This question is impossible to answer objectively. A "delusion" is something stupid someone else believes. To a religious person, atheism is a delusion, and vice versa. Anyway, "delusion" is a psychiatric term, and psychiatrists (except for perhaps militant atheists among them) don't consider religious people to all be delusional. This website says the most common form of delusional disorder is the persecutory type. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and some people believe that the Earth is flat, or that the United States is ruled by a cult of amphibians. I humbly suggest that it would not be wrong to categorize those people as "delusional" beyond all reasonable doubt. Ditto with religious people, except their beliefs are even more ridiculous and improbable than the flat-Earth theory, or the amphibian-cult conspiracy theory. --140.180.4.56 (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hang on. Isn't the conviction that (global) economic growth can continue forever a delusion which is believed by most people? 202.177.218.59 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is "most people"? It can't grow forever, but it can grow for a long, long time: until all the matter in the observable universe is used up. --140.180.4.56 (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Original text for the Oath of Supremacy

Can anyone find the original text for the Oath of Supremacy 1559? Our article on it, which has no sources whatsoever, uses language such as "do utterly testify and declare in my conscience", which is definitely not the way that 16th-century English was spelled. An identical modernisation of the spelling appears (again, without citations) at Act of Supremacy 1558. Looking around on Google produces tons of results that refer to the original text but don't quote it. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The text quoted in our article seems to come from a source published in 1896 and cited here. Whether that is the original spelling, I can't say. Very possibly, the 1896 publication regularized the spelling. There is likely not an exact transcription of the original document available in electronic form and perhaps not even in print. The only way to know the original spelling might be to examine the archival document itself. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The original parliament rolls are available at the National Archives, Kew. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

aroused by cartoon characters

Is there a term or label or diagnosis for people who are sexually aroused by cartoon characters? I don't mean the kinds of cartoons that are supposed to be arousing. Rather, characters like Wilma Flintstone or Tinker Bell. 99.250.103.117 (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

False premise. It is difficult to see how either Wilma Flintstone or Tinker Bell could be described as being designed to be anything but arousing, given their scanty attire, overt sexuality etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The premise is nowhere near false. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

See Rule 34. --Jayron32 04:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if there's a name for the fetish, but see hentai. --140.180.4.56 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)