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

November 1

unattractive women

I know some young women who are nice and have attractive qualities but who aren't much to look at. One of them, for example, has (her words) "terribly unattractive breasts". They are single and have found a certain logic that keeps them that way: they say, "If I loved a man enough to want to be with him long term/marry him, then I would love him enough to not want him to be stuck with someone as unattractive as I am."

The difficulty for me is that I found this hard to argue with. What advice should I give them, when it seems that perhaps more people should be self-aware/selfless like that? Are they so wrong that they need correcting? 24.101.18.83 (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not that they are selfless, but that they don't love themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the same thing. See The Virtue of Selfishness. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's very similar to the logic: "I'd never want to join a club with such low standards as to let somebody like me in". And how can a young woman's breasts be unattractive ? Varicose veins ? Different sizes ? StuRat (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That was one of the questions that passed through my mind as well, Stu. I know one woman who is completely flat chested. Which in today's society is generally not something that is lauded or desired. She is very happily married to what I would guess is a very attractive man who is successful and is very attentive to her. She's also, IMO, very pretty. So there's that also to consider but my point is, breasts aren't everything. As for the OP, I can't remember where I saw it. Some documentary I found on Netflix one night, that much I know. Anyway, the documentary was about people's attractiveness. And in it there was a study where people were asked to rate those that they would date and those that they thought were "out of their league" and such. Time and again people were matching each other up with someone who was of similar relative attractiveness. I know that probably won't go a long way to console some unattractive woman, as the OP refers to them, but it's worth keeping in mind. Dismas|^(talk) 01:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Small breasts are not universally considered unattractive. And they are also easy to "fix", between push-up bras, falsies, and implants. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I believe that she used to be very overweight (well into the obese category) and lost it all to now be considered thin/slim. While that is very laudable, it's left her 'droopy', I believe considerably so. She is very distressed that almost all young women have nice breasts apart from her, and that even her post-menopausal mother has more conventionally attractive breasts. She sees her breasts (and other 'unattractive' features) as deal-breakers, and as there is such a culture of attractiveness, I don't see how I can dissuade her, as it is something that men actually do care about. I tried to tell her that not all men care about such things, and she said that it would mean being with someone who therefore wasn't interested in sex, and that she'd rather be single (with the possibility of having one-night stands) than in a passion-less relationship. 24.101.18.83 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Physical infatuation lasts for the first 30 days of a sexual relationship. After that, if you are two mature people with shared values an adult relationship is possible, assuming you have been brought up to value respect and affection. See oxytocin. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your "friend" has a very sad view of herself and of others that I think is well beyond the capability of the respondents on the Ref Desk to address. How she gets from "don't care" about conventional measures of attractiveness to "uninterested in sex", I don't know. I am having difficulty in seeing this as a serious question. (And I am curious as to where Medeis's "30 days" comes from. My own experience says it can be longer or shorter, and by quite a large margin.) Bielle (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Men are not traditionally known for their ability to look past physical appearances. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a young and inexperienced woman to think that either a man cares about physical appearances and therefore about sex, or he doesn't care about either. Is there much evidence out there to the contrary? Not really. And why does she have such a sad view of herself? Isn't she . . . well, kind of right? Put a nude picture of her on the web, for example, and she'll be harshly criticised in the crudest of terms by any man passing by. Is she supposed to delude herself into thinking she's okay? 24.101.18.83 (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

la nuit, tous les chats sont gris. --Trovatore (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure men can look past physical appearances:

"By then her once smooth skin was wrinkled and her former auburn hair had turned grey, but fortunately I was able to look past all that ... and see her pretty daughter standing behind her." - Montgomery Burns. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your own response, Bielle, indicates that you see it as an a average, which is obviously what I meant. On the close mean order of a month. μηδείς (talk)

If we were all looking for the same things in our partners, there would be one very long line up, and almost all of us would be doing without. Take a look around at the real world. We don't live in advertisements or magazines or TV ads. Bielle (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, but men wish that they did. 24.101.18.83 (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not in my world. I think yours must be very young and inexperienced. Bielle (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bielle -- "Almost all of us would be doing without" only if no-one was willing to "settle". See Assortative mating, Matching hypothesis... AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in either of your links, AnonMoos, speaks to "settling"; quite the opposite, in fact. They speak rather to individuals being attracted to (not "settling for", whatever that may mean) others at their same level of attractiveness. (I am still not certain how those levels are determined or by whom.) We aren't all attracted to the same characteristics no matter what advertisers (and inexperienced young men and women say) say and do and not all of attractiveness is about physical appearance. Bielle (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Shallow people can quickly size up how "hot" someone was, as in Hot or Not. I once encountered 3 girls walking down a sidewalk at a college, and each would utter a number from 1 to 10 as they passed a guy walking the other way, as if they were judges at a diving competition. I resented their "negative" comments. Edison (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

To the OP: why do you think your friend's view is a problem? Is she obviously unhappy about herself, and does she obviously want to marry? In any case, your friend's logic is fallacious because men do not all fall into the cookie-cutter stereotype she seems to have in her mind. I'm only slightly older than the average age of a first date, and people of my age are stereotypically portrayed as much shallower than adults. Even so, I know boys who prefer flat chests. I know boys who prefer droopy breasts, or disgustingly gigantic breasts (for my taste), or the type of breasts you see in magazines. I also know boys who like nerdy girls, almost regardless of her looks. Even more oddly, I know boys who like tomboys, in the sense of physically and emotionally tough girls. My point is that human sexuality, just like most other human preferences, is bizarre, diverse, deviant, and abnormal in countless ways, and none of those words is a judgement. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you know this. Young men who sit around discussing sex don't talk about how they like droopy boobs! Most guys would be ashamed of that. And they wouldn't say they like 'em flat, either. It's cool to like the perfect ones in magazines, or the fake ones in porn. That's why a lot of girls are in a hopeless situation, because men are being fed a warped perception of female beauty that exists in not so many girls. I think you're guessing. 24.101.18.83 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You accuse me of guessing, yet your entire post is one enormous guess about what young men I know, what young men do, and what young men are ashamed of. You also use the phrase "most guys" numerous times, whereas the entire point of my post is that not all guys act in the same way that "most guys" do. Your claim is similar to saying "most guys aren't smart enough to invent relativity. Therefore, everyone who says Einstein invented relativity is guessing." --140.180.252.244 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking solely and exclusively for myself, I like well-proportioned breasts -- and I really do not find breasts grotesquely disproportionate to the body to be attractive. There are also changing cultural ideals -- the 1920s favored a somewhat small-breasted ideal, while 1950s media depictions played up large breasts. Many 1950s sex-symbol models and actresses would be considered "fat" today... AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, what makes a woman beautiful is primarily her face (and I know I speak for a lot of guys saying that). Sure, men like breasts, but they are of lesser importance, especially when it comes to long-term relationships. (see e.g. [1] and [2]) - Lindert (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would tell them that in the long term, character is much more important for a happy relationship than looks. I would be far less afraid to be 'stuck' with a less attractive wife, than with a gorgeous but nasty wife. As Solomon said: "Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife." (Proverbs 21:9) - Lindert (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The unfortunate looking girls might be nice and easy to get along with, but they know that there are plenty of nice, easy to get along with girls who are also good-looking. That leaves them at the end of the queue, and probably better off single. And even then, men feel entitled (by virtue of their biology) to stray. A happy home and a mistress in a hotel, I guess that's what men want. 24.101.18.83 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The 'plenty' part is simply inaccurate. There are just as many, sometimes even more men than there are women. You may be right when it comes to men who are rich, successful, handsome etc, but just like with women, there are plenty of guys that fall short in one category or the other. For them, choices are much more limited. What it comes down to is that women who are not 'perfect' in every way will just have to settle for a guy who is also less than perfect. It works both ways. And about men being unfaithful, maybe you are being too pessimistic. There are decent guys left and I know plenty of them. (And it's not like there aren't any women who cheat either.) Try to view each person individually and don't judge them before you know them. - Lindert (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with that. We all know very successful and intelligent men who have married airhead wives, or successful and attractive women with apparent fat scumbag husbands.--46.7.146.24 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Beauty between the ears trumps most everything else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone once wrote a song about that... AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And a few years later, Flip Wilson made this to-the-point comment: "You marry a beautiful woman, after a while she turns ugly. Marry an ugly woman, get a few drinks in you, and she starts lookin' good!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Body Dysmorphic Disorder. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

24.101.18.83, you seem to forget that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not all men consider a Gisele Bundchen or an Angelina Jolie to be the pinnacle of beauty, and may find their plainer girlfriends/wives to be much more attractive. Society may try to establish a standard of beauty, but not everyone abides by it. Ultimately, you can't dictate taste, and personality is the deciding factor for what makes one attractive enough to be worthy of love for many people. I mean, not even disabled or disfigured people are perpetually single, so it tells you that much. 70.55.109.152 (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the opinion of men is important to a woman's sense of self-worth is what I'd like to know and should be explored at length. Most women sadly believe that having guys look at you with a hard-on in their eyes is the pinnacle of achievement. Sad pathetic creatures and most don't even exploit it financially.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

One does not simply walk into Mordor!

Is there an original Tolkien quote on which this dictum of Boromir in the movie is based on? If yes, what is the wording? --KnightMove (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. In fact during the Council of Elrond—when Boromir says this in the movie—in the book Aragorn mentions ([3]) walking within sight of the Black Gate and in Morgul Vale, neither of which is technically in Mordor but are close. And a page later Gandalf says Gollum "went to Mordor", although he was caught. I suspect this little speech of Boromir's, which goes on to mention the unsleeping Eye, etc, was put into the movie in order to summarize quickly what takes a lot longer to make clear in the books—not only the "folly" of trying to sneak into Mordor but also Boromir in particular rejecting this plan, or accepting it only grudgingly. This goes with his idea that the Ring should go to Gondor as a weapon of war, and/or his rapid falling prey to the lure of the Ring. In any case, the Council of Elrond chapter was much rewritten for the movie, unsurprisingly. Pfly (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The closest thing I could find from Boromir is "The only plan that is proposed to us is that a halfling should walk blindly into Mordor and offer the Enemy every chance of recapturing it for himself. Folly!" (Said shortly before he tries to take the ring from Frodo). Later, Gollum puts it this way: "It's not sense to try and get into Mordor at all." - Lindert (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"One does not simply walk into Mordor." ... "Quite right, but with proper assistance, two should have no trouble at all." StuRat (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

My favorite variation is http://www.ooblick.com/text/tomordor/ (though some of the roads mentioned seem to have been in extreme disrepair at the end of the third age)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. The lengths people will go to to avoid baggage fees for magical items. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Satire artwork interpretation

What does the last one mean[4]? (The one with the sandwich covering a calendar.)24.246.85.20 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the general drift of the others: that the single sandwich is the only food for that month, and thus is being served as one small piece per day. It does not work as a stand-alone carton since it lacks context. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Also note there is only butter in the weekend, and only cold cuts on Sunday. That could be interpreted in different ways but is certainly different from the expectation in rich countries. I don't know whether there is any significance to the calendar being from March 2005. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Location of street address in California and attributes

In Los Alamitos Unified School District I'm trying to determine if "THE BUNGALOWS - LONG BEACH 90815 Claremore Lane 2900 - 2972 (even #’s only)" is within the Long Beach City Limited and/or the Los Angeles County City Limits. Long Beach is supposed to be entirely within Los Angeles County (but I'm trying to see if 2900-2972 Claremore is in Orange County)

• 1. The addresses 2900 and 2972 show up on the Los Angeles County clerk database. The database says that it is in the city of Long Beach and the Long Beach USD (another school district).
  • http://www.lavote.net/OnlineDistrictmapApp/default.cfm?p=313202&c=LONG+BEACH&a=2900&pre=&s=CLAREMORE&t=LN&z=90815
  • http://www.lavote.net/OnlineDistrictmapApp/default.cfm?p=313202&c=LONG+BEACH&a=2972&pre=&s=CLAREMORE&t=LN&z=90815
• 2. However Los Alamitos School District says that "THE BUNGALOWS - LONG BEACH 90815 Claremore Lane 2900 - 2972 (even #’s only)" is within the district limits. A search of thesea addresses on the LBUSD school finder gets nothing: http://www.lbschools.net/Schools/school_finder.cfm
  • LBUSD states "2901 - 2927 CLAREMORE LN " Odd numbers are within the district, but we are talking about the even numbers.
• 3. Los Alamitos School District does not show up in the LA county list of school districts: http://www.lavote.net/PRECINCT_MAP_NEW/default.cfm?abbr=11
• 4. I'm trying to see if the addresses show up on the Orange County Clerk site http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Clerk-Recorder%20-%20Tom%20Daly/Services

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears from a topo map that the county line cuts through at least some of the buildings on the south side of Claremore Lane. —Tamfang (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see how the buildings are classified, if they vote in LA County elections but get services from Orange County or if they vote for LBUSD schools but can send kids to Los Alamitos schools... WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In some similar cases, cross-boundary buildings pay taxes and receive services from the jurisdiction in which their main entrance is located (have no idea if that would apply here)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

One has heard of doorways being moved in Baarle for that reason. —Tamfang (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2

How much did Thomas Peterffy pay for his seat on the AMEX in the 70s?

How much did Thomas Peterffy pay in "70's" dollars at the time for a seat on the AMEX? Was this something only already extremely wealthy people could do, roughly speaking? According to his article, he got to the US in 1965, so had only been there 15 years by the end of the 70s, and his jobs there were first draftsman for highway projects, and then computer programmer at the same engineering firm. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer your question but this was the sort of thing that got printed in the Guinness Book of World Records. I seem to remember it was in the mid-six figures, with the NYSE more expensive than the AMEX. I suppose not necessarily extremely wealthy, possibly you could swing a loan, but you'd have to be successful.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you do not need to be extremely wealthy to buy a seat on the Amex. You just have to pay the asking price. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Which was in the ballpark of _____ in the 70s (just suppose 1975 if that's too wide an interval)? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This said that a seat sold in December 1974 for $72,000. this (scroll to bottom, not a free article, I'm afraid) says that one sold for $60,000 on January 29, 1975 and one for $50,000 on February 13, 1975. this (also) says that a seat sold for $44,500 on August 7, 1975 and another for $52,000 on September 8. This said one sold for $35,000 on March 24, 1975. [5] This (same comment)] says on March 2, 1976 a seat sold for $64,000 and one had sold for $63,000 on March 1. That should give you enough to get going. Buyers and sellers are not identified in the sources. All of these except one are NY Times articles which has a pay archive, so you most likely would have to pay for full text. Other articles show the market peaked early in 1970 at $185,000 which was not approached again until late 1980. I would guess that the instability in prices was caused by the recession which was then going, and which hit New York City particularly hard, that was how Ford to City: Drop Dead got into the lexicon. But I suspect that 1975 was the bottom of the market. If he bought then, he showed his potential.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Punjabi Sindhi Pashto Baloch Universities in Pakistan

Which universities of Pakistan offer lectures or courses in Punjabi only?; Which universities of Pakistan offer lectures or courses in Sindhi only?; Which universities of Pakistan offer lectures or courses in Pashto only?; Which universities of Pakistan offer lectures or courses in Baloch only? --Donmust90 (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

HA, you ask too much of Pakistanis. Yes a very obnoxious answer I know but Pakistanis respect the crown too much and are too impressed by it despite being enslaved by it. The English left but left English behind. So since its independence English (both in Pakistan and India) has always been considered the language of the elite. You are only taken seriously, you are only considered educated, and worthy of respect if you speak English (yes, I am exaggerating but very little). People are impressed very quickly even if you throw random English phrases here and there in a conversation without any hint of their true meaning. Hence, if an institution of any kind (especially educational or a business) wants to be taken seriously, it has to work in English. It may not be 100% English (English medium) but English must be there. The irony is that there are school in which you are actually punished for NOT speaking English. Even if someone heard you having a conversation in Urdu with your friend in the library, you get in trouble. If there was a university which taught only in Punjabi/Sindhi/Balochi/Pashto in Pakistan, people will laugh at it and no one would enroll in it. You are asking Pakistanis to love their culture and embrace their roots too much. But I will check just to make sure.70.58.0.141 (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

bengali punjabi gujarati Marathi Assamese Telugu Tamil Kannada Malayalam Oriya India Universities

Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Bengali only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Assamese only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Oriya only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Gujarati only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Marathi only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Punjabi only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Telugu only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Kannada only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Tamil only? Which universities of India offer lectures or courses in Malayalam only? --Donmust90 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be extremely surprised to find a university in India that does not use English together with the local language(s) in its area. Roger (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Are each of these your sole language? μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

FEMA centralized displacement city

Why hasn't the govt ever developed a centralized ghost city to be used for disasters where all people can go until their hometowns are restored or at least safe to inhabit again?. It seems like the real issues with natural disasters is the weeks to months after with no food energy shelter in that location. In other words simple logistics. Other places have ample and even excess of those necessities but it is getting the two (people and necessities) together that is the real problem. Instead of trying to force the necessities into the ravaged locations why not evac the people to the necessities in essence waiting for them? 68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered how much such facilities would cost vs. how seldom they would be used? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The initial cost would be great but it could be "turned on/ off" when not in use. It could also use all the new tech with green energy and buildings. Prisoners could maintain it when not in use. Old cargo containers stacked. Seldom? It seems like once a year these days! Just another ounce of prevention vs pound of cure argument if you ask me. I think the cost of how it's currently done Is greater.68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Where would you build it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, without actually researching ....in general some place in the middle of us like Missouri Iowa Illinois ?68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

How much population capacity would it need? And how would you transport the people there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

More unresearched off the cuff answers but....1...million sounds like a good # to start or start with 1/4 of mil to start then add more throughout the years to better fit w budget. Plane, train automobile limo taxi helicopter.68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What if it's something midwestern that needs escape from? Such as a massive tornado outbreak? Would you build the homes tornado-proof? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Im sure i would. It would only be logical.68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Or do some research and find the least prone location to natural disasters, boom.68.83.98.40 (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Here is a map . I would say Wyoming Nebraska area. This map says PAC NW. But I'd rather stay a little farther away from the mt St. Helens super caldron.GeeBIGS (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mt St Helens is a mere pimple compared to the mega-volcano that underlies Yellowstone. Of course, if that blows up, we're all dead anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Portable shelter and facilities (clinics, water purification, electricity generators, etc), are much more cost effective. Roger (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Unihabited buildings very quickly become decrepit. Also the town would have no fresh food, no supermarket, not gaz station etc. as no one would want to keep running these services in a ghost town with no customers. --Lgriot (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Such narrow-minded knit-picking negativity. So pick a better location(s)!Stacked Cargo ships dont get decrepit that quickly if properly sealed. Yeah, Roger, lets keep doing it like we are: bottlenecking rescue efforts and supply shipments into dangerous areas where people are disgruntled hungry tired and cold. Did you notice the lines for gaz? generators only work with gas in them! Hmm? Where should we put the mobile clinic? right between the downed power line and the leaky gas main.165.212.189.187 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty foolish to criticise realistic objections as 'nit-picking negativity'. Simply being phrased negatively doesn't make a thing bad - that's a clear fallacy. The simple truth is that moving people is more costly than moving other things, because people need a range of life-support while on the move. This is precisely because of the point you make about the durability of preserved food. So deporting up to a million people some 2-3 days journey across country would be much less efficient than moving them a minimum safe distance from the disaster area, and then bringing resources to them. And the point that Lgriot makes about how rapidly buildings decay is of crucial importance here: the towns of Pripyat, Varosha, Tomioka and Centralia show what becomes of cities that are not maintained. And the main way cities are maintained is by people living in them. Otherwise, wild animals find a way in sooner or later, the weather takes its toll, and a city becomes a ruin. In a country where many thousands are homeless day by day, and there is no effective federal assistance for them, why would the federal government blow billions of dollars on building an empty city that will begin rotting the day it is finished? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the others, but Centralia didn't decay by natural causes. The buildings have been very eagerly demolished, in part because there's a large company with mineral rights to whatever coal is left under the town, which can be accessed economically by strip mining if no residents remain. Wnt (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, when you put it that way it sound exactly like something the govt would do!165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is not realistic. And second, if the government were to build such a city, how could it justify it remaining empty while people are homeless? (also how you empty it after something like Katrina in prep for the next one)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Only an idiot would build a town like that, but idiots seem to have all the money nowadays. Of course, the unwashed refugees from some disaster would not be welcome. Wnt (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That proposed fake city at least had some specific purpose in mind. I've been trying to hint to the OP that such a concept would be prohibitively expensive. It makes sense to keep the shelters as local as possible, to keep various costs minimal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Th main problem seems to be the inefficiency of the authorities who's job it is to help during disasters. I'm thinking of FEMA being "unable" to get water to people after Katrina when private individuals got the job done at their own expense.If those in charge did a better job no such cloud cuckoo idea would even be thought of. Hotclaws (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hotclaws, I've moved your comment: it didn't need to go in front of all previous comments, and the lack of a ':' or blank line resulted in its forming a single paragraph with the OP. Maybe there's an even better place for it, I don't know. —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Weapons of Mass Destruction

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/01/letter-continuation-national-emergency-respect-weapons-mass-destruction

How many national emergencies are we in right now? Hcobb (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Voting in hurricane ravaged areas

Why haven't we heard more about postponing the election? The arguments that I've heard say its not fair to one party or another, but what about it not being fair to those that can't vote, regardless of who they would vote for. I think it would add extreme insult to injury not to postpone the election. I mean gov christie was able to reschedule Halloween so that all the kids got their candy but te US can't reschedule election so that all citizens can exercise their right as an American? A travesty if you ask me.GeeBIGS (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no real provision for moving election day. Congress would have to pass a new law and force it on the states and much lawsuit-ing would ensue.[6] Rmhermen (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It would actually require a Constitutional amendment. Also, because of the Electoral College system where the votes are tallied separately in each state, if some states postpone their vote unilaterally, the election might well be decided without them. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. When this was discussed a few days ago, none of the source suggest a constitutional amendment was likely to be needed. Nor does the source in what you're replying to. The constitution gives Congress the ability to set the date which they have done, in law, so they will need to pass a law to change the dates but a constitutional amendment would not be necessary. In fact even the date of electors meeting is only fixed in United States Code. However the date the president is to take office is fixed in the constitution so everything including the meeting of electors would need to be completed before then. You're right it's likely to be controversial given the problems and issues that would result and could lead to lawsuits if any of the dates are changed even if technically it could be done without a constitutional amendment. (Definitely the date for the electors to meet should be changed before the elections.) In any case, as all the sources suggest, the chance this is going to happen is close to zero so it's a moot point. (And the close it gets without something happening the less likely it is to happen.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

NJ and ny probably will postpone their presidential elections. GeeBIGS (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Given the answers to this question, and to an earlier one on a similar theme, it seems highly unlikely. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

According to this source, a postponement in any state is highly unlikely. Probably, the worst case is that the polling place for battered waterfront precincts is moved to less damaged places nearby and, in places without electricity, paper ballots are substituted for electronic ballots. Counting ballots might take longer in seriously affected places, but the places where the storm had its greatest impact are in securely Democratic states and thus unlikely to affect the electoral vote anyway. Marco polo (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• NJ will be using military trucks at regular polling places in order to provide power at locations that do not have it back on election day. The regular polling places will be used. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Church, County Down

Where is the St. Patrick's Church, County Down exactly? Does it still exist? Is the Norwegian King Magnus Barefoot still buried there?

It seems to be the one in Downpatrick. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Although St Patricks Church, Downpatrick was built in 1868, replacing an earlier church of the same name built in 1787[7]. It is the main Roman Catholic church of the city. Down Cathedral (Church of Ireland) is dedicated to the Holy Trinity and is on an ancient religious site reputed to be the burial place of St Patrick, so probably this is the church referred to. However, the Cathedral's website history page doesn't mention Magnus Barefoot. One of the other proposed burial sites of King Magnus is reputed to be under a mound outside the city; a memorial stone was unveiled there in 2003.[8]

This scholarly article; MEETING IN NORWAY: NORSE-GAELIC RELATIONS IN THE KINGDOM OF MAN AND THE ISLES, 1090-1270 by ROSEMARY POWER (p.18) says; "Magnusís name survived, among the Ulaid who buried him at the ancient monastic site of Downpatrick according to the Chronicle, and also in two Gaelic ballads (Christiansen 1931, 131-71, 401-06). The place where he died is described in Morkinskinna, Fagrskinna and more fully by Snorri, indicating a landscape of dykes and ditches, of scrubby copses on low hills, of freshwater and saltwater wetlands. It seems likely that this was not the landscape of Magnusís own day, but that developed later through land reclamation by the monks of the Cistercian abbey of Inch founded on the banks of the River Quoile in the 1180s, and described to the Norse writers by contemporaries who had seen it (Power 1994, 219-21)." Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

How many legitimate male-line descendants of Gundakar, Prince of Liechtenstein are there?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the English Wikipedia article, he had two male sons that themselves were married. However, the German Wikipedia article only lists one son. So, I don't even know which is correct, but you have those two as leads. --Jayron32 13:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Gundakar's article leads to [9] and [10], apparently the work of an amateur genealogist but highly detailed; if this can be trusted, I count 318 in all, 121 living, 66 male. —Tamfang (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia lists Gundakar's issue [11]. Say 100+220=320 (-1?) on the Czech genealogy site and say 76+216+23=315 (-2?) in the German WP (without guarantee). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I meant alive today. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-denominational Christians and Bible Studies/Prayer Meetings

Here in the Philippines, we have several so-called "Born Again" churches (Non-denominational Christian churches), which frequently advertise a Bible study or a Prayer meeting. While Catholicism also has Bible studies and Prayer meetings, they aren't as common as they used to, and they aren't mandatory (although Bible studies at least are encouraged). I'm not saying that non-denominational churches give emphasis to such programs (being a Catholic, I'm not sure if members of such churches are required to attend such meetings), but it makes me wonder: why do non-Catholic churches seem to give a lot of importance to such meetings? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Because historically, protestantism was a reaction against the centralised, hierarchical, ceremony-driven approach of the Catholic church, and instead emphasised direct Bible study (see sola scriptura) and personal salvation (see five solae). And, from a memetic point of view, regular meetings are good for forming a sense of community and spreading the meme. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The pattern holds true in the U.S. as well. In fact, "High Church" Protestants are seem likely to have such than Evangelical and Pentacostal churches. Rmhermen (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Axis natural resources

During World War 2, what resources did Japan have that Germany didn't? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Rubber for one. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Silk; Germany's advanced chemical industry made parachutes from rayon and an early form of nylon because they couldn't get silk from Asia, although Italy had a modest silk industry. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And, if you don't mean to limit "resources" to natural resources, they also had a more substantial surface fleet, at least at the start. On the human resources front, they had a lot more people willing to die for the cause. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I was asking specifically about raw materials. I'm researching for a World War 2 historical/military thriller, and I'm trying to come up with some ideas for raw materials that could be used for a chemical weapon, for a secret "conventional" superweapon and/or for the German nuclear program, but would have to be imported from Japan (that's how the good guys will find out what exactly the Germans are making at their secret underground factory in the Hurtgen Forest -- they will have known that a U-boat has docked in St. Nazaire, and after having ambushed an eastbound train from that base, they will discover crates marked in Japanese and filled with the material). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese experimented extensively with biological weapons (mainly on Chinese civilians), so your plot could be them having weaponized a superbug, and shipped it to Germany, where it's to be put on board V-2 rockets and launched against England. The Japanese characters could spell out "Unit 731". StuRat (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence early on in the war suggested the Nazis already had a large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons by 1941, which was later evidenced by the Holocaust. The Germans would not have been able to put chemical or biological material on a V-2, for a number of reasons: 1) They were extremely unreliable, and most of them fell in the sea, missing the country entirely; 2) The launch mechanisms were unstable, and very often they exploded whilst still on the ground (often destroying the launch area and killing the scientists and personnel watching it; 3) An explosion from a V-2 would probably destroy its payload of biochem weapons (citation needed, of course). The only semi-reliable delivery would have been by plane, and after the Battle of Britain, this became less and less feasible as the war went on. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the Nazi's used biological weapons on a major scale. As for the rest of the details, this is fiction we're talking about here, so we can imagine that the V-2 had been perfected to solve all those problems. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose 6 million jews and millions of other 'untermensch' being gassed or experimented on medically is not a major issue in your book, then, Stu. Even Saddam Hussein didn't kill that many with his WMD. In fact nobody has, before or since. My point is, the Germans would not need to get any of these weapons from Japan, as they already had them, in large quantities. Your first point about extra manpower and the possibility of tying up a UK ally (the US) in the West was the only major reason Germany allied itself with Japan, besides the fact that Japan was attacking UK interests in the Far East, and this was causing problems for us, is the only thing I can think of that Japan had, so I agree with you on that point. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're distinguishing between chemical weapons, which only kill those they contact, and biological weapons, such as bacteria and viruses, which have the ability to spread. This makes biological weapons potentially far more dangerous, to both sides. StuRat (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So you don't know about Erich Traub and Riems. Erich Traub was a specialist researcher in biowarfare, and Riems Island on the Baltic Sea was the location of the research facility where he worked. The bioweapons which were developed were not used against enemy troops, but certainly they were used on prisoners, to test their capabilities. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I said they didn't use bioweapons on a major scale, then you replied with 6 million Jews being killed, as if they were all killed with bioweapons. Many were killed with chemical weapons, and in particular Zyklon B, but few were killed with bioweapons. StuRat (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! With regards to comments by KageTora and StuRat: Yes, I could put in an improved version of the V-2 rocket, which would fit very well with my plans. (In fact, Germany did have at least two improved V-2 designs -- the V-9, which was essentially a V-2 with wings that could glide to the target, and the V-10, which was a two-stage version of the V-9, designed to hit the eastern USA; both of them had much longer range than the basic V-2, but I don't know whether or not they were also more reliable.) And in fact, Germany also had a large stockpile of nerve gas, but did not use it against the Allies for fear of retaliation. What I'm looking for, though, is some kind of chemical weapon precursor or chemical catalyst (or some kind of special metal that could be used for a secret "conventional" superweapon) that was abundant in Japan, but scarce or unavailable in Germany. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Effective use of chemical weapons requires delivering large quantities of the chemical directly on target. German missiles, on the other hand, could only deliver small warheads, inaccurately. With biological weapons, though, accuracy and quantity is less important, as even a few infected people can then spread the disease widely. StuRat (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The V-2 had a 1-ton payload -- and a ton of nerve gas would ruin your whole day. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Only if it managed to hit the target. A ton of nerve gas in the woods would only kill a few animals. And, to increase the range, you'd need to reduce the payload. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey wait a minute, I have an idea. Did Germany have a large supply of the following raw materials: phosphorus, pine alcohol, organic fluorides, arsenic, or selenium? And if these materials were unavailable, scarce, or even overly expensive in Germany, could they be obtained more cheaply or in larger amounts from Japan? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're at it, what about their supply of copper, silver and lead? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Japan and Germany were virtually cut off from each other during WW2. They could conceivably manage to get a sub through enemy waters, but large-scale shipping of war materiel between them was out of the question. StuRat (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I have in mind -- have them bring in the material on a U-boat. Obviously it would have to be a material that they need in small-to-medium quantities. BTW, I looked up some statistics on the above-mentioned resources: phosphates and fluorspar (the raw materials for phosphorus and fluorides) were plentiful in Germany, but arsenic and selenium were more scarce there (but abundant in Japan). I think I'll go with selenium, to be used as a catalyst for nerve gas production (of course, it was never actually used for such a thing, but it's an exotic enough material that the readers might actually find this plausible :-P ) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more "minuscule to tiny" quantities. StuRat (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's why I want to use it as a catalyst and not as a raw material. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Traffic went the other way: U-234 tried to deliver uranium oxide, while U-864 carried mercury. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Language attitudes in Islam

I know clearly that there is a consensus in mainstream Islam about non-Arabic languages. Simply speaking it is forbidden to pray aloud in non-Arabic and any translations of Quran are treated as corrupted interpretations.

But what are attitudes to non-Arabic prayer, Quran translations and to the religious use of of non-Arabic languages generally in Reform/Liberal and Quranic Islam?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

First let me just explain a few things. Prayers (if you want them to count I mean) must be said in Arabic yes but use of non-Arabic languages is not as strict as it may seem. Most Muslims don't have Arabic as their first language. But of course if you want to read the Quran, you need to know how to read Arabic so non-Arabic speakers learn arabic. That does something interesting. People learn how to "read" and pronounce arabic but they don't know what it means. So they can "read" the Quran but they have no idea what they are reading. So Qurans do include translations in whatever the native language may be. The point is to read the Quran and understand it but learning another language is hard but then you have to "read" it in Arabic for it to count. So people read it in Arabic, don't understand it, and then read the translation right underneath it.

The same thing happens for sermons (khutba) for the Friday prayers. The sermon is supposed to be in Arabic too. But chances are that the attendees don't know Arabic. So the speaker gives first a longer sermon in the native language, then quickly say it in Arabic at the end. In addition, if the congregation is mixed then just use whatever language is most common. So in the USA for example, the sermon is always in English followed by quick one in Arabic at the end right before the prayer begins.

The translations are considered corrupt only in the sense that a translation should not be regarded as the Quran itself. And this was done to prevent what had happened to other books where translations were presented as genuine word of God. And religious authorities just kept changing it to suit their needs and presenting it to others. I mean just try to count the different version of the Bible out there today accepted as the GENUINE word of God and not just a translation or a variation. In Islam it is perfectly okay to read a translation of the Quran and believe it. But then that also depends on the authority of the translator. The more well-known & educated he is, the more people believe his translation to be accurate. Nowadays, there are dedicated governing bodies (some are gigantic, even across international borders) who standardize the translation (and publish copies with their seals). So if you are a Sunni Muslim regardless of where you live on the planet, just walk into your local Saudi embassy and pick up a copy of the Quran (with Arabic and whatever language you can read). If you are Shia then you might have a problem with that translation so you would go elsewhere.

And now to actually answer your question, I haven't heard anything like what you are asking about. So I don't think that this is on the reform/liberal agenda. As far as I know, they all do the same and pray/read Quran in Arabic. I guess they think they have more important issues and then this kind of (minutae?) stuff can be taken care of IF anyone has a problem with it.70.58.0.141 (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The exact same question was asked on the Language desk, please respond to that thread instead of starting a seperate discussion here - Lindert (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

These two desks have slightly different subjects and are followed by different people. So I do not see any problems here in two parallel themes.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Many questions to the reference desk are applicable to multiple RD sections but questioners still properly follow the no-double-posting rule. You and your question are not entitled to special privileges to break that rule.A8875 (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, 70.58.0.141, I have already known about these theological issues. But you still cannot loudly pray in your native language (let's say it's English). You cannot loudly pronounce all the time (not only at the begining of your conversion) an English translation of al-Fatiha while doing the salah. If you do you will be blamed as a heretic if not sent to prison (an example).

I do not consider the Quran being God's words, sorry. This is one of the greatest books, but it was not send from heaven, it was written down by people like all other books. I do not consider its outer Arabic form and the Arabic language itself as the "holly cow". Its translations are equal to the original in the sense of its meaning (like an English translation of "Iliad" are equal to the Ancient Greek original). And the Bible is not direct words of God, it is was only inspired by God, this is why it can be scientifically and theologically criticized without being persecuted by any law (like Shariah) or simply public opinion.

I only want to know who from modern liberal Islamic scholars or what Islamic movements think the same.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no respect for either the Quran or the Bible, but very few people would consider English translations of the Iliad to be equivalent to the original. In particular, the Iliad is written in dactylic hexameter, and it's very difficult to write even one line of English poetry in that complex of a meter. It's also very difficult to translate Homer's meaning without losing the beauty of his poetry, changing the tone, or being incredibly hard to understand. I've yet to see a translation that reasonably balances all of these criteria. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It was just a rough example which came first to my mind, you can substitute it for any other. Do Christians (except for obscurant medieval ones, maybe) think that singing in the church the Lord's prayer or Psalms in English, French etc. rather than in Hebrew, Greek or Latin is blasphemous? I believe they do not. I do not defend Christianity, I just want to know what Islamic movements do like Christianity in this aspect. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In general the Western and Catholic position is that there is a sense behind the words which is what is their essence, separate from the form of the words, which is an accident. That is, the message outweighs the language in which it is conveyed. Understanding that requires you study Aristotle or Aristotelian philosophy, also known as scholasticism. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that modern Islam lacks such philosophy and is bound to outer formalism?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am no expert, but since the Koran is considered the literal word of God uncorrupted, it does seem most Muslims don't separate the two. I know there was quite a bit of theological controversy historically over the use of matres lectionis in Arabic and Hebrew, although our article doesn't seem to address that. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Penal Servitude in the UK

I'm puzzled by the concept of penal servitude as it existed in England and Wales (and probably other parts of the UK before 1948). It was clearly somewhat similar to imprisonment with hard labour, but the two penalties were clearly not the same; for instance in the Criminal Justice Act 1948 section 1 (1) abolished penal servitude and section 1 (2) abolished imprisonment with had labour. Moreover in various Acts of Parliament the two punishments had been shown as alternatives. For instance the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 specified the penalty for Bigamy as "to be kept in Penal Servitude for any Term not exceeding Seven Years and not less than Three Years,—or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour." So could anyone please explain the differnece betweemn penal servitude and imprisonment with hard labour, as online sources (including our own articles) seem to imply that they were one and the same. rossb (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Penal servitute is penal transportation to penal colonies for penal labour.
Sleigh (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct - see Penal_servitude#British_Empire, which says "The Penal Servitude Act 1853 ... substituted penal servitude for transportation". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

[ec] 'Hard labour' involved hard physical work; penal servitude did not necessarily (non-authoritative source: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/DERBYSGEN/2010-05/1275317467 ). Also penal servitude did not require imprisonment as such; those performing penal servitude after transportation were as I recall often not imprisoned (having nowhere to run). Henry^Flower 13:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

From the article, it looks like penal servitude was an umbrella term encompassing both hard labour and Non-punitive prison labour. Rojomoke (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A few quotations

I saw these "inspirational" quotes in a trending post on Google Plus, and some of them sound anachronistic or stylistically wrong to me. Does anyone know if they are accurate or are misattributed or have been paraphrased? If they are accurate, what are the respective sources?--

1. Shakespeare: "Never play with the feelings of others because you may win the game but the risk is that you will surely lose the person for a life time."
2. Napoleon: "The world suffers a lot./ Not because of the violence of bad people./ But because of the silence of good people."
3. Einstein: "I am thankful to all those who said NO to me / It's because of them I did it myself."
4. Abraham Lincoln: "If friendship is your weakest point then you are the strongest person in the world."

PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Number 2 is a bit like the famous saying 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing', dubiously attributed to Edmund Burke. There's also 'Not only will we have to repent for the sins of bad people; but we also will have to repent for the appalling silence of good people', attributed to Martin Luther King. I've taken the liberty of moving your signature to the end of the list of quotations.AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, that's interesting. Both of these seem to be likely sources of inspiration for #2. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that all of these quotes are recent - probably less than five years old - and that none of them can be reliably attributed to anyone famous. All Google searches for them seem to turn up nothing but copies of this same email. I'm wondering who would be foolish enough to believe these attributions. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Many people on Google+ at least, it seems. Pretty sad?

The other two quotes in the same post were from Mahatma Gandhi and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam whom, I admit, I had never heard of until I searched for him just now. So I'm guessing that this particular compilation at least originated in India. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As Einstein once said: "be a skeptic, do no believe anything you read on the internet." OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Everything on quotes is legit" -Henry XII.203.112.82.2 (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Einstein? Wasn't it Confucius who said that? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You are confuciued. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm just a visitor from the Forth Dementian.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the purposes of a good liberal education is to teach why and how those supposed quotes are ridiculously bad English and obvious recent illiterate forgeries. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Verily. One does not need to believe that "Shakespeare" was Shakespeare to know that quote #1 was not from either of their pens. It may perhaps be a modern day paraphrase of something one of them wrote, but then, it's no longer Shakespeare. Or even "Shakespeare". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The one allegedly from Napoleon is about as likely as this one:

Violence is justified in the service of mankind. -- Attila the Hun

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Or "I am totally committed to peace, and I'll kill anyone who stands in my way of achieving it". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously they're quotes from Fred Shakespeare, Alphonse Napoleon, "Jersey Joe" Einstein (the "physicist of fisticuffs" and "professor of pugilism") and Abraham Lincoln Continental. What, no bluelinks? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's easy to dismiss them as made up, but I was hoping for anyone who has any thoughts on whether these might have been paraphrased or synthesised from real quotes - even better if by those people, along the lines of AndrewWTaylor posted above. (Though I doubt Napoleon would ever express a sentiment like that.) But - any thoughts? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Those "quotes" are so badly written they'd make perfect fodder for two day's worth of instruction in a high school English class. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Reporter: What do you think of British culture, Mr. Gandhi?"
• "Yes, that would be a great idea."

KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Shortest branch line

Today I had the pleasure of riding what is widely claimed to be the shortest branch line in Europe at 0.8 miles (1.3km). This raises the question of what is the shortest branch line in the world? All my Googling just comes back home to Stourbridge. I'm talking main line scheduled services only.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There's the 42nd Street Shuttle in Manhattan, which is the same length. It is one of the least pleasant train rides available. Much, much nicer is the Dinky, but it's a bit longer. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a subway line, which doesn't meet Shantavira's criterion of a "main line" service. I suspected Japan might be able to rival the Stourbridge line, but the shortest branch line I could find was the Miyazaki Kūkō Line, which is marginally longer. Marco polo (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain the difference? The princeton Junction line is a train but it requires one transfer from one train to the other at the station. That seems no different from a subway. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The concept is really British, so I'm not 100% sure I get it. Maybe Shantavira can chime in. However, I think the main difference is that a main line branch needs to be physically connected to a national passenger rail system so that rolling stock can move from the branch line to the actual main line. That is the case for the Princeton Branch, which is connected by a switch to the main Northeast Corridor branch, even if passengers have to change trains at Princeton Junction. I don't think that the New York City subway system is integrated in the same way with the national rail system. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's the case for the Princeton Junction connection, but it abuts a concrete platform at the actual station, with no physical track connection there. Maybe there is a track connection elsewhere, but I don't know, having only ridden that side line once, and transferred by foot. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, "main line" means "normal trains", as opposed to a light rail or metro-style railway like the London Underground. Basically, anything other than what Wikipedia calls rapid transit railways. The difference is purposive rather than necessarily physical, since in some countries main ine and urban rapid transit trains can and often do share tracks and even stations. The 42nd Street Shuttle would definitely not be "main line" in the UK sense. Does the "Dinky" run subway-style trains or Amtrak-style trains? That may be a good indicator. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It has been so long I am not sure. The line it connects to is an Amtrak line (North East Corridor Line) but I suspect the Dinky is slightly smaller. I rode it once maybe 15 years ago. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is the free will?

Pick two imaginary women, who are identical and give birth at the same time. The first, motivated by oxytocin and other hormones, get attached to her baby and develops maternal instincts, the second, also motivated by hormones drops the baby in a the first garbage can. Should be punish the second and praise the first? What they are doing is just part of a kind of "biological program." How do modern day philosophers deal with this? Even just 100 years ago, philosophers were not aware of the existence of hormones and similar stuff, so I suppose the concept of "free will" didn't take enough bashing as it should. But nowadays, isn't it a discredited concept among educated researchers? Philoknow (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Free will is a huge topic. I even have my own goofy ideas I've advanced at a previous discussion, but of course there's a wide range of viewpoints. [12][13] Wnt (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I don't expect to get an answer about what it free will and what it is not, but what about how academic philosophers integrated the discovery of hormones and neurotransmitters into their philosophy. It looks like more and more things are being explained in plain mechanical terms. How does philosophy deal with that? Philoknow (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't know (or really care) how philosophers deal with your example... but I know how the police would deal with it. In most countries the woman who tossed her baby in the garbage would be arrested for child endangerment. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but it says nothing about moral, just about how the law codified the norms. Philoknow (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as free will. Our bodies just do things according to their nature, and we punish others' bodies when they do bad things. Lucky for us we are not the same thing as our bodies, so we can give our minds credit for things the body hasn't done, and when our bodies are punished it doesn't affect our minds at all.</irony> μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is. You chose to write the above statement, just as I am choosing to write this one. No one is compelling us to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that just your private opinion? Where should this </irony> tag start? I wanted to know specifically how academic philosophy deal with this discovery of the physical mechanism of decisions. Philoknow (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how philosophers would deal with it, but scientists would say that there isn't any reliable means of mind control. A person hyped up on methamphetamine or PCP or Hunter Thompson's legendary adrenochrome doesn't have to commit any crime (apart from drug law technicalities...). The most that a hormone or genetic factor can do is impart a predisposition - and usually, a very small one. Wnt (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a reliable means of mind control right now, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, a fungus, can mind control ants and make them climb up a plant before they die. You'll have a hard time convincing many scientists that there's a fundamental difference between the brain of humans and our animal relatives that makes the latter mind-controllable, but not the former. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between simple behavior and moral choices. You can douse someone in sneezing powder and make them sneeze or itching powder and make them scratch, but is that the same as denying them free will? Wnt (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

@ Philoknow. Basically, you are your body, and your body is able to act in complex ways that aren't strictly determined in a yes or no fashion by the immediate inputs of the environment in the way that plants and bacteria are. People who claim that they don't have free will because their bodies have forced them to do things are claiming that they are ghosts imprisoned in a body, which is a rather silly, if common delusion. See the links Wnt gave in the second post above, which give my arguments at some length and links to previous discussions. (Basically my point is, yes, you have free will and responsibility for your own actions, but most people define free will in a rather ridiculous fashion.) μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering any possible mechanism allowing free will has never been discovered, it makes little sense to dismiss the idea there is no free will. Also to claim that certain organisms' actions are determined by their environment yet humans are not makes little sense without going into religious beliefs like souls or other ideas that somehow separate humans from other organisms.

That said, to answer the OP, see Hard determinism#Implications for ethics. There are some philosophers, who, like you, question whether one should be held responsible for their actions in a world without free will. In a determined world without free will a person is born with as much choice for their future actions as they do for their skin colour, none. The real world consequences are complicated, but I guess we would/should continue to punish immoral behaviour (even if any punishment is immoral) just to lower the total number of immoral actions - punishment deters immoral behaviour.50.101.137.171 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to define wht you mean by free will before you can complain there's no mechanism for it. We do know people make choices and can act independent of outside inputs. Nothing makes you get out of the bed in the morning other than you. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The question is not really about free will, it is about the morality of punishment. They are often taken to be the same thing, but that is a conclusion that needs to be demonstrated, not just taken as obvious. Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the question is about free will. That's why it's "where is the free will?" Where is the fair punishment is just a logical secondary question to the first one. Philoknow (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In your example, the first woman chose to be a loving mother and the second one chose not to be. It ain't rocket science. As to why they chose to do things, there's a lot more to it than hormones. There's also upbringing and consequence development of a good conscience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are the results of plugging the search string +"free will" +hormones into google scholar - this should give you some idea of how current philosophy approaches the problem. Taknaran (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Neuroscience of free will refers to a few contemporary philosophers dealing with some of the questions of compatibility too. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Free will occurred for the first ten minutes following the big bang, but you are still experiencing it.[14] Paum89 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• The real mistake here is treating the hormones as something separate from the mother. The mother is the hormones and everything else that makes her up physically as well as the causal history that got her that way, which includes her own past choices. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Modern quantum physics, specifically the uncertainty principle, proves that noone can determine the future based on past events. God does indeed play dice with the universe. The Newtonian mechanics everyone interprets their everyday world through predicts a deterministic world, but newtonian mechanics are wrong. For more details see this 2 minute video by Michio Kaku.--46.7.146.24 (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That must account for the apple I saw fall upward and re-attach itself to the tree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Free will just floats nearby the brain. (Dilbert ;-) ) 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I should thank Sluzzelin for posting Neuroscience of free will - the funny part is, I don't feel like many of the experiments cited there are relevant. What I feel like is that it is possible to think without knowing what you're thinking - for example, if you're trying to remember something, you only know what you've remembered after you've remembered it, at which point the presumably difficult task of picking out that particular memory from all the others has already been completed. My impression is that a person "unknowingly" thinks of what must be millions of things all at once, usually slowly though the rate can be increased by attention to a particular area. I think of creative ideas as developing out of the soils of the mind like fetuses in a womb, and becoming known only after their birth, or to use another analogy, that they are assembled like televisions in a factory, and awareness of their contents is like the cardboard wrapping material they are shipped in. It seemed to me that marijuana was capable of moving up the delivery date, but that ideas released in this fashion were underdeveloped and readily forgotten; I didn't approve of this, and was convinced that the creativity it seemed to evince was false, only a haphazard release of what was already present. So when a person is asked to decide which way to move or look, for example, then of course the seeds for this decision are already present within him; it could be no other way. That does not mean that the process is not free. I see that the article cites [15] as the expression of what looks like a similar objection... though so far I'm not really seeing it. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any European Far-Right Parties that support Iran?

Are there any European Far-Right Political Parties that support Iran? --Gary123 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Austrian Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) and the German NPD. Both are also against Islam in Europe, but recognize Iran as a force against Israel and America. Philoknow (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

References that support those claims would be helpful (and funny). μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For a link in German: [[16]].Philoknow (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As it concerns the FPÖ this is definitely wrong. To the disgust of many of its voters, the party's current Middle East policy is actually pro-Israeli. --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, nothing is wrong. FPÖ is able to unity contradictory opinions. In 2000, Israel declared Austrian politician Jörg Haider persona non grata following the Austrian legislative election of 1999, due to his anti-antisemitic speeches, but they are also able to praise the perceived fight of Islam against foreign interference. Philoknow (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm missing something. Why would Israel want to keep him out for anti-antisemitic speeches? --Trovatore (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already corrected it. Philoknow (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The National Front had a stint in the 1980s went it began to praise Gaddafi and Khomenei, as part of its turn away from classical fascism to Third Position. They are all history now, however. --Soman (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Animism

Why is it that, other than Japan, every society with an animist religion has failed to advance as much as other areas? (Sub-Saharan Africa, Native Americans, etc.) --168.7.234.172 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Define "advance." There is a case to be made that what you imply is advancement could be seen as regression: Neither of the cultures who you mention ever came to the verge of engaging in nuclear holocaust, and those cultures who remain animist often see the rest of the world just that way. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Then we'll never know if they would have done better or worse in the circumstances. It's the same technology which will spread the seed of the organism we call Earth throughout the cosmos, until the species is quite literally as numerous as the stars of the sky. Until recently humans have been living unquestioning in the garden of eden. It is us who must eat of the tree of knowledge.--46.7.146.24 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Native Americans had pretty "advanced" societies by 15th century standards. They didn't advance beyond that because they got wiped out by germs and conquest, but their religions didn't have much to do with that. Some animist societies, such as the Mongols, managed to put under the yoke plenty of non-animist societies, as well. Certain religions strains historically have seemed to confer advantages to their societies (I am not positing anything divine in this — they just result in different sorts of mass behavior), but I'm not sure that one can so easily conclude that it is a question of monotheism vs. polytheism vs. animism in a strict way. Historically the monotheistic religions have been the ones that have urged their followers to convert or murder others, which drove several centuries of world history and development (for better or ill). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Pretty advanced societies by 15th century standards"? What are you talking about? They didn't have sailing ships, metallurgy to speak of, writing, mathematics. As far as I can see they can't compete with Europe, North Africa, China, or Japan, during the same time period. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Some did have writing, but I agree that technologically they were quite behind a number of Old World civilizations. - Lindert (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Some people think that "native american" is equal to US native American, but it actually refers to all indigenous peoples of the Americas, South and North, and some indeed were civilized. Philoknow (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the civilizations in modern Mexico and points south had a little more technology than their northern counterparts, but they still didn't have seafaring, metallurgy beyond primarily decorative uses, firearms, or mathematics beyond simple arithmetic. --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right that technologically they were less developed, however, since they were aborted by an external force, we cannot conclude that there were something internal, like their animist religion, limiting their development. We don't know what would have happen. Philoknow (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming it had anything at all to do with their religion. I just don't agree with Mr.98 that they had "advanced societies by 15th century standards". --Trovatore (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to define "advanced". It's been noted that Roanoke had a problem with settlers "going native" [17], and Benjamin Franklin himself wrote: "no European who has tasted Savage Life can afterwards bear to live in our societies". So yes, the monotheistic societies had a clear advantage in technology, but many who encountered these "primitive" societies concluded they had a superior way of life. So perhaps they were more advanced in the individual-happiness department. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

More at home than in a terribly led, brand new and tiny colony probably. More at home than where they were born, I doubt it.--46.7.146.24 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

---

168.7.234.172 -- "Animism" is a vague catch-all term (maybe a little old-fashioned by now) basically referring to religions of mostly non-literate peoples without any recognizable affiliation with a "major" or "world" religion. So the religion of a civilization or empire with major world influence would pretty much by definition be unlikely to be called "animist"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Like AnonMoos pointed out, a flaw in your question is the presumption that "animism" is limited to the unsophisticated religions of illiterate peoples. Not really. Animism are religions which attribute spirits/souls to the natural world, including forces of nature, abstract concepts, animals, geographic features, or plants. i.e. If someone thinks that this rock, or that tree, or the sky, or that dog, or this emotion has a soul, then they are animistic.

Most polytheistic religions are animistic or had roots in animism. Indeed polytheistic (and even monotheistic) deities are oftentimes merely the highest "ranks" of the nature spirits in their pantheons. i.e. the lesser spirits became less and less important until only certain spirits of the most important natural concepts were retained and elevated to gods. Compare for example, Zeus (originally a sky god) with the dryads and other nymphs and satyrs. And yes, Ancient Greece was animistic, having certain spirits guarding specific groves, streams, rivers, etc. The Middle East before the rise of Islam was animistic, and still retains remnants of those older beliefs like the djinns. Pagan Europe (including Norse and Celtic paganism, see Vættir) was animistic. Pre-dynastic Ancient Egypt was animistic. Modern Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism arose from animism and in some areas still practice animism. All of which resulted in pretty impressive civilizations.

They did not "fail to advance", they merely morphed into something else through convenience, politics, or simply the eventual solidification (e.g. the establishment of tenets or rigidly selected clergy) of the vaguer religious concepts of animism. The question better asked perhaps is why religions tend to become more and more anthropocentric with fewer and fewer deities, and more and more homogeneous in terms of practices, the older they become. I think it has something to do with sociological control. You can control a civilization who worships one god easier than you can control civilizations which worships thousands of sometimes opposing spirits with different motivations.

Akhenaten attempted to forced Aten, the sun disk, as the only god among ancient Egyptians. Aurelian also attempted to impose Sol Invictus over the Romans. The Ilkhanate Mongols converted to Islam to better control the Muslim majority of their conquered lands. Constantine I and Constantius II imposed Christianity over the Roman Empire to enforce religious unity. Shia and Sunni Islam have a historical conflict originating from the Battle of Karbala spanning centuries. The Roman Catholic Church reacted with massacres to the splintering off of protestants, etc. etc.

The decline of animism is the result of the invention of heresy.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry of Robert Browning

I am looking for the ancestry of poet Robert Browning, especially in his Browning line, but can't find anything beyond his father (also Robert) and some mention of his grandparents. Is there any compiled genealogy going back many generations? Edison (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at this, or this, or this. Apparently Frederick James Furnivall (a friend of Browning) published a biographical essay in The Academy for 12 Apr 1902, but I haven't found an on-line edition yet. Zoonoses (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Robot president

Simple hypothetical. Say in the future, robotics gets to a phase where they are sentient enough to take on certain tasks, analyze the needs of citizens, and wanted to become the president of the United States (provided it was manufactured there.) Constitutionally, could the robot run for office? 64.229.183.165 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No possible way of knowing, but I'd suggest that governments all over the world would be forced to define "human being" well before such a possibility was ever realised, and to make it clear that eligibility for certain offices did not extend to other beings. Of course, that would open up a huge can of worms: such as, when does an unborn foetus become a human being? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the question is about the US, and that the US already requires a minimum age for presidential candidates, and that an unborn fetus will never reach that age (35) by definition, your last question would be mercifully academic. But the only future I can predict is one where this question will be hatted. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For the United States, see Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office for the requirements. It strikes me that making such a clause viable for a robot AI would require a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution. (Plus, it would have to be a 35-year-old robot — it'd surely not be the most up to date model at that point!) You would have to argue that the robot was 1. a person, 2. natural born, and 3. a citizen. Not one of those things is a distinction currently given to non-living objects. Long before any Constitutional question about robots running for President would be the clarification of the legal code for robots or AIs of significant advancement to qualify for any one of those distinctions. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

But for a few votes in Florida, we might have had one starting in 2001. --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, Al Gort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

For many social procedures, you need personhood. There is nothing new to be defined. Non-humans are not allowed to obtain it. And for many other procedures you need legal personality, which a robot could be, if a person creates a company that owes the robot and put a straw man director at charge. But a legal personality cannot be president, so you won't go that far with your autonomous robot. Philoknow (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any court precedence, US or otherwise, that explicitly established that only humans are people? Perhaps a case regarding animal rights? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be careful in this context to say persons rather than people. People is not quite a plural of person; it has other nuances. --Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it's all about being a legal person. There are certainly many laws and court precedence which clearly imply a difference between humans and non-humans. If you kill a dog, you won't be charged with murder. Birth certificates cannot be issued at will either and many legal procedures depend on a birth certificate. Philoknow (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the specific court case right now, but it had something to do with an animal-artist (Congo, Pierre Brassau, Tillamook Cheddar or Ruby, perhaps?), animals not being persons, and non-persons being ineligible to hold (and originate) copyright. Gabbe (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There have been some small efforts in Europe, actually. Check out Great ape personhood. (There is also, conversely, corporate personhood.) --Mr.98 (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In Alexis Gilliland's Rosinante trilogy, sentient machines are legally corporations ... —Tamfang (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bicentennial Man didn't run for president, but perhaps some other robot following in his footsteps could have done so. 24.23.145.28 (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Robots at that level don't run for president because accepting power over humans conflicts with the first law. A robot would never put itself in a position where it might be necessary to order the deaths of humans. Paum89 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In one of Asimov's other Robot stories, a journalist is trying to establish whether an ex-President was in fact a robot, or merely a very ethical human. I won't spoil the ending, but one of the story's points (in my personal reading) was that, in the context of Asimovean robots, the answer didn't really matter. Paum89's point about First Law does not apply, because Zeroth Law (the ultimate greater good of humanity), as later developed and applied by Daneel Olivaw but anticipated in this earlier story, can be applied by an advanced robot to trump it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.19 (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Asimov was a great writer, but a fast one, and his stories only have a certain depth to them. Show me a robot that applies the Zeroeth Law and I'll show you a machine teaching people Scientology at gunpoint. (Because after all, it believes what it was told, because it was told to...) I haven't tried it, but I really do wonder if I could speak any statement at all to a lie detector and have it be either true, or false, because the truth of things is in how you look at them and think about them. The same should be true for robots following laws. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In The Simulacra, the president was an Android (robot). Mitch Ames (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If it were possible to build into the robot concepts such as ethicsand honestyand intelligence then I foresee a real advantage in your idea.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.56.105.253 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

How about a vast database like IBM Wilson that analyzed all decisions of past presidents and all world leaders throughout history to determine a successful course of action. The advantage is being able to say what decisions achieved their goals and which failed. It could also compare the intention of the actions. So you wouldn't really need a sentient robot just one with a lot of capacity to compile all the intentions, decisions and outcomes. We could quite literally have all the past presidents be the president at the same time!GeeBIGS (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Define "success" and "failure". Or provide an example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The decision to storm the beach at Normandy or not. What was the intended result and was that realized? The decision to bomb Pearl Harbor or not. What was the intended result and was that realized?GeeBIGS (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the trouble with trying to quantify history: We don't know yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. So limit the actual result to 10 or 15 years after the decision. Are you actually trying to say that we still don't know whether the outcomes of the two examples I gave achieved the respective decisionmakers' intended goals or not?!165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. A good President needs to have a long-term vision of the future. Warfare always has unintended consequences. Would you call the Gulf War of 1991 a "success"? It accomplished exactly what the coalition intended it to do. But what was the longer-term consquence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My EXAMPLES just happened to be about war. U need to see past the trees for the forest. Somehow you are misunderstanding a basic concept that is not whether the decision was altruistic but whether the decision (how ever moral or immoral it moght be) was successful based on how well the outcome matched the intention of the decisionmaker. Then you can begin to decipher what action lead to what outcomes and correlate that with the intention. Is that clearer?165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't quantify history that way. It might be centuries, if even then, before you can say that some action by a President was successful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You obviously are what I would call hopeless. You asked me how I am qualifying success and I explained that "success" is simply realizing the intended outcome. Decision: storm beaches of Normandy ; intention: to stop hitlers nazi Germany from taking over Europe and world; outcome (drumroll...) : SUCCESS! You are claiming that hitler could still take over the world, or that te intention of the decision to storm beaches was somehow to save the world from all evil everywhere ever and thus it failed. Usually presidents have to make real life decisions that are far from perfect in order to do what is in their power to lead their citizens to the optimal outcome not the utopian one.GeeBIGS (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And if further consequences of the SUCCESS are negative? —Tamfang (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Still missing the bigger picture. What no one mentioned to my suprise is how do we know the true intentions of the decision maker to begin with, that is the real key to this database. You seem to suffer from analysis paralysis. So to go along with your line of thought: We can't know if bombing Pearl Harbor was a failure or success for the Japanese because ..... we don't know if their intention was to have nuclear bombs dropped on them or not? please, enlighten me.165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What about Decision:Enter World War I; intention: stop the Kaizer from taking over Europe; outcome (drumroll...): SUCCESS! (y'know, except for the punitive measures of the Treaty of Versailles leading to the economic downturn of Germany, which led to popular support of National Socialism).

Why stop there??165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It also bothers me that this algorithm would be based on success/failure, and not talk about the merits of the intent itself. The US's second foray into Iraq. Intention: Topple Hussein's regime. Outcome: Success. It just seems like "pass/fail" is a bad way to rate decisions. Achowat (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that I have at least one person this far: AGAIN, this is to correlate intent with outcome through/with decision. Input these three aspects of every known event in history and, voilee. I really should be charging for this.165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Supposing that the robot makes the "correct" short-term decision, and it proves disastrous in the long run, what's the advantage in having a robot? Humans are quite capable of that already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Supposing that the robot makes the "incorrect" short-term decision, and it proves to end all war and human struggle in the long run, what's the advantage in having a robot? Humans are quite capable of that already GeeBIGS (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What if the robot reasoned that war is good? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that is science fiction, bugs. that should be on the entertainment desk.I really don't know why I'm even bothering but the database would be used by a real person(s) as a benchmark or sounding board. You put in a desired intention with desired outcome and the database goes through all the events in history to correlate whicht decisions worked and which failed.165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Stays of executions in the United States

The article on Ted Bundy reads as follow Minutes before his execution, Hagmaier queried Bundy about unsolved homicides in New Jersey, Illinois, Vermont (the Curran case), Texas, and Miami, Florida. Bundy denied involvement in any of them.

My question is, if Bundy claimed responsibility in some of such cases, could his execution have been halted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.143.191 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's the norm to answer a question with a question, but my question is "Why did they wait till so late to ask him?". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Guessing: Hagmaier (whoever he might be; I haven't looked it up) probably figured that Bundy might be more forthcoming, having nothing more to lose (and possibly wanting to clear his conscience). To the original poster, I would ask, why would you think that would delay the execution? --Trovatore (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing they meant so that Ted could have time to give the details, burial sites, etc. Somehow I doubt that such a delay would be granted, as it's obvious he could have given the details earlier, without a delay. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

An execution can be halted at any time by the Governor or a judge. They are not legally forbidden from halting an execution after previously declining to do so, they just usually don't. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they probably asked him several times before, that was just another chance of obtaining the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philoknow (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, But if he had answered in the affirmative, and he said he was the only one who knew where the bodies were, and if they executed him today they'd never find out, wouldn't that have been enough reason to call a halt? One could argue that he could have been lying in order to postpone his death, but then, why ask him in the first place? Knowing that he committed the murders but knowing no other details, would almost be worse than not knowing at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he could have said: "wait, wait, don't execute me, I still have something to say", get a postponement and the next time the same thing all over again. Ted Bundy got information for a handful of postponements. Philoknow (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. So again I ask: Why ask him the question? It couldn't just have been for him to shrive his conscience. Could it? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Conventional wisdom at the time was that he was trying to stave off the execution by suddenly deciding to spill some details. The authorities didn't buy, and he fry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not really responsive. Jack wasn't asking for an explanation of Bundy's actions, but of Hagmaier's. It seems perfectly plausible to me that Hagmaier just wanted to clarify the facts, and figured this was the moment he might get the truth. --Trovatore (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The OP's actual question was whether the execution could be halted. And since the possibility was debated at the time, it's clear that it could have been halted if someone in authority had decided to do so. And as I said just above your snippy and useless comment, those who were in position to make that decision concluded that he was just stalling, so they decided to let the execution go on as planned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

By indentation, you were responding to Jack, but your comment was not responsive to Jack. If you don't like that being commented on, then either indent correctly, or respond to the people you're responding to. --Trovatore (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If you had actually said that the first time, I could have change the indention. Or - here's a news flash - you could have fixed it yourself. In fact, you could do that right now, and then erase both your snippy comments and my perplexed responses to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Boys, boys! Please don't fight over me. There's more than enough for both of you.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me: Have you ever seen "The Chipmunks" version of Il trovatore? The highlight is when they try to cheer up the under-the-weather troubador by singing the "Alvin Chorus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You might want to run that question past an attorney instead of eliciting speculation from people who claim to not give legal advice. Paum89 (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

When did "legal advice" become a euphemism for "anything even remotely related to the law"? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless the OP himself is on death row for being a serial killer, it's not really a request for legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

See also Scheherazade, after whom all such postponements should be titled. :) Wnt (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

November 3

Hypothetical Cannon.

Is it possible that the construction details highlighted in the Turin Canon, have been misinterpreted?" As in, is it possible that the details provided by the Canon are more by way of a reference to Reconstruction work or Renovation, as opposed to their original manufacture? If, as some suggest, the Pyramids were constructed around 10,500 BC, then during their 8,000 year temporal journey to Khufu's reign, they would undoubtedly have experienced a similar number of earthquakes as they have on their trip from Khufu's time to present day. As a result of these earthquakes, back in Khufu's day, they may well have looked a lot like they do now, in need of a good face lift. Perhaps Khufu looked from his palace balcony one morning and realized that if they were left as they were, then one day they wouldn't be there any more. So, he instigates their Renovation in order that future generations and even Civilizations, could stand in their shadow and marvel at their splendor. This Reconstruction Hypothesis goes well to explain why Khufu's name appears but once inside the Great pyramid, (by way of saying Khufu had something to do with this pyramid, but not its original construction) and not painted on every wall and carved in to every block of stone in order to leave future generations in no doubt whatsoever.

Jaaar. (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Placing a stone in place every 5 minutes isn't impossible, if you assume many teams were working in parallel. At least on the lower levels, this would have been easy to do. StuRat (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no intellectual war. There are actual archaeologists doing actual archaeological research, and there are crazy pseudoscientists screaming from the sidelines. The actual archaeologists don't even argue about one stone every five minutes being too fast. In fact, many have argued this is too slow, and could have been done once every two minutes. See Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. As for the idea of resurfacing, not all stone is made equal. I have a feeling it would be quite obvious if the surface stones were quarried 8,000 years after the underlying ones. Just look at something more modern. The Washington Monument was surfaced with marble quarried from two different locations just 20 years and a few miles apart, but you can see the difference (see File:Washington Monument (from Jefferson Memorial) IMG 4731.JPG). Yes, it's a different stone, but that was actually the closest the builders could get to making the new stones look like the old ones. I doubt that Khufu could have done such a spectacular job that modern archaeologists couldn't spot an 8,000 year difference. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the current estimate for the number of blocks is about 600,000. If it took 20 years to build, that averages out to about 3 blocks per hour. Given that the great majority of stones were in the interior and didn't have to be matched perfectly, that doesn't seem impossible. Looie496 (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, one (pronoun) does not take a capital. Nor is it a synonym for "I". Marnanel (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

One must respectfully agree with Maranel's first point, but disagree with his/her second: in some stylistic contexts it may be so used.

On a different point: as a small aid to the OP, the relevant spelling is "canon", not "cannon". Substituting the latter for the former might lead to misdirected searches, etc; one is now led to speculate as to what historical weapon a "Turin Cannon" might be. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.19 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

... which had tricked me into clicking into this question with a mental image of a gigantic monument of cannons stacked into a pyramid located in Turin... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the Turin Canon is the Turin King List, since we haven't mentioned that yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's also important to note precedence. The pyramids of Khufu weren't built in isolation, there are numerous other pyramids from different time periods. Each betray their origin in history separately, and you can arrange them historically and clearly see the progression of design and construction techniques. The first dynasty mastabas for example, were simply rectangular tombs. In the second dynasty mastabas were already showing designs reminiscent of stairways. Until the the third dynasty architect Imhotep revolutionized it by building the first pyramid, the Pyramid of Djoser. With its distinctive steps, it was really just a pile of mastabas. But the achievement was monumental enough that Imhotep was immortalized as a demigod in Ancient Egyptian religion. After that was a succession of more and more refined pyramids during the Old Kingdom ("the Age of Pyramids"), including three clear transitional and experimental ones built during the reign of a single pharaoh, Sneferu. This included the Bent Pyramid and the first true pyramid, the Red Pyramid. Sneferu also attempted to finish and renovate the Meidum pyramid (originally designed as a step pyramid for the previous pharaoh, Huni), as another true pyramid. Though he apparently ultimately gave up after it collapsed due to engineering errors. Khufu's pyramids were built after Sneferu's.

All these, makes it clear that the design of pyramids were a series of innovations building upon earlier innovations. And there are over a hundred pyramids, built in a span of 3,500 years. If the pyramids of Giza were really built more than 8,000 years earlier, then it follows that all of them were. Unless these pseudoarcheologists are also suggesting that the other pyramids were merely copycats. In which case, the existence of mastabas, stepped pyramids, and other transitional forms would be nonsensical. A mastaba doesn't look anything like the pyramids of Giza.

And If later pharaohs simply reconfigured and restored them to become tombs, well... almost all pharaohs were buried in pyramids during the Old Kingdom, correct? If they simply took over ancient structures, then why didn't the earliest pharaohs pick the best of them all? Why didn't the pyramids of Giza belong to Djoser instead of Khufu? Why not even Menes or the older long forgotten kings of the Naqada culture which arose merely a half or so millenium before Khufu?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

American School of Design, New York

I am writing an article on illustrator Adrienne Adams and my sources (http://theartofchildrenspicturebooks.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/going-barefoot.html & http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=58180908) say she attended the American School of Design in New York, is this likely to be the National Academy of Design ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Proof of chastity

On our article about the Dominican Order, there is a picture of Aquinas with the caption:

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), considered by the Catholic Church to be its greatest medieval theologian, is girded by angels with a mystical belt of purity after his proof of chastity.

What is a proof of chastity, in this context? The link leads only to Chastity, which doesn't explain. Marnanel (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a story that Thomas' brothers invited a prostitute for him, but he angered and threw a firebrand. Brandmeister^talk 12:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do campaigns bother with internal polls?

Every major political campaign (Presidential, Senate and House AFAIK) has internal polling, polls which they pay for and get to choose whether to release. But why bother? If there's one thing that 538 and so on show us is that you can get all the information you need from publicly available polls which are common. Given the campaigns, especially the smaller ones need to spend every dollar they can on advertising and so on, why do they persist in wasting money on frequent internal polls, even when the public pollsters are providing the information for free (from their perspective)? They aren't even very accurate from what I've seen. 86.163.43.112 (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Because the polls for internal consumption ask a lot of questions about potential campaign strategies. It is useful to the campaign to know which of the issues it is campaigning prominently on are ones which voters care about (especially enough to change their vote). The public polls do not always ask these questions. Polls also allow the campaign to discreetly test out new issues and see if they are likely to be successful, without risking damaging the campaign if they turn out to be harmful. The public polls can't test that. Remember that voting intentions are usually only one of a multitude of questions in a poll. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Building in Toronto

Is it possible to identify this building in Toronto at 2:29 (and from 2:19)? Looks like some official or governmental. I'm not 100% sure whether the city in the beginning of the video is Toronto, judging by Vegas ads and signs, so would be also thankful for that clarification. Brandmeister^talk 12:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looks like Toronto. In your edit to the article, you claim it shows the Metro Theatre, but Metro Theatre doesn't have that neat archway thing seen in the video (nor have one opposite it), at least according to Google Streetview. Incidentally, unless the video is in the public domain, that YouTube link shouldn't be in the article. Matt Deres (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The inscription below Metro Theatre in the video reads "Toronto Cinema" and at 3:14 you can spot the inscription "Don't forget to see the rest of Toronto". Also, one of the flags on the building at 2:29 is Canadian. Even if that particular building isn't in Toronto, I bet it's somewhere in Canada. Brandmeister^talk 14:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a TTC streetcar at the beginning (around 0:25), so that's Toronto. The thing around 0:40 that says Metro Theatre also says "Zanzibar", although that's doesn't look like Zanzibar Tavern. At 1:04 you can see the Sam the Record Man sign. (So basically this is the same part of Yonge Street that passed for Harlem in the Hulk movie...) The prostitutes or whatever they are around 1:20 look like they are outside the Princess of Wales Theatre (and again at 2:15). The parts you are asking about at 2:19 and 2:29 looks like Union Station, at least the inside of it, even though she seems to be outside...several other street shots look familiar, but it's in black and white and sometimes washed out, so it's hard to tell. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if maybe it's the entrance to the old post office building on Front Street shown (barely) at the top left of this photo. The windows at 2:25 look like those in the picture. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This image matches the upper arch squares, although some of the other architectural details don't quite match. The title says Union Station. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the old post office building part of Union Station now too? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Union Station (Toronto) says so. I just always thought of them as separate. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Account

Hi, please help me before I'm wrongly blocked. I created account User:Kharzaii but I missed an I, so I created this new account. But it's not a sock account, can anybody please eliminate User:Kharzaii? Kharzaiii (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The prohibition on sock puppets says that you may not use them to edit disruptively, which includes getting around blocks and faking the appearance of multiple people agreeing on something. What you've done is far from being disruptive, so you're not going to be blocked. Based on your statement here, I've redirected Kharzaii to Kharzaiii; if you change your mind and want to use it, you can switch around the redirect. FYI, for the future — the Reference Desk is not the best place to come for this type of issue; you'd do better at the Help Desk. This isn't because it's a bad place to come, but because the Help Desk (unlike the Reference Desk) is designed for problems you encounter with the editing process. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Where and when should I cast my vote?

Hi, I have a residence in Oklahoma but live in New York. Where should I vote? and secondly, I have a scheduled appointment with my psychiatrist, can I vote earlier? When do polls open? Thank you indeed. Netwwork (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

On the latter question, according to the City of New York polling page, the polls open at 6am and close at 9pm. If you are not in New York City, Google "election polls open" with your city name. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd need to vote by absentee ballot, but it's probably too late to get one now. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You vote wherever you are registered to vote. If you are registered in New York you vote there, if registered in OK, you vote there instead. I think all states require advance registration, so if you are not already registered, it is probably too late. RudolfRed (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Some states let you register and vote on the spot on the day. (You can definitely do this in the District of Columbia, anyway.) I don't think New York does, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Same-day registration. 24.23.145.28 (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be able to ask for a Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, although our article says it is for overseas voters. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The ballot may be downloaded here: [[18]]DOR (HK) (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Minority-Majority Congressional/Electoral Districts

Are there any countries besides the United States of America which are required to create minority-majority districts by law? Futurist110 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a direct answer, but many nations handle the issue of minority representation by allocating a certain number of seats in congress/parliament to certain minorities, and perhaps some positions in the executive branch, as well. These minority members can be elected "at large" or appointed. Also note that it would be difficult to avoid creating minority districts in the US, due to the level of segregation of minorities. StuRat (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of this. I know that Iran, for instance, has a seat in Parliament reserved for Jews. And while some majority-minority districts would need to be drawn in the U.S. even without the Voting Rights Act, some of them might get abolished, such as the ones in Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, or the ones in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio if the Democrats control the redistricting process there in the future. Futurist110 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this all seems weird from a UK perspective. Here, electoral districts are drawn by independent commissions which must not take note of either party affiliation or ethnic profiles. Right now there's controversy about the impending redrawing of boundaries to equalise the populations of rural and urban constitutences - effectively removing the UK's equivalent of the population/electoral college discrepancy in the US. This is regarded as highly political because it will slightly tip the balance in favour of the Conservative Party (as the Labour Party holds a large majority of the lower-population urban constituencies). Draw district boundaries along racial lines? Most people would be horrified. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that way as in the linked article, but here in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein we have a Danish Minority (recognised national minority). They have a party of their own South Schleswig Voter Federation, and as long as they put up candidates only in those counties where live a "significant" number of Danish, they are freed of the 5%-of-all-votes-threshold any other party has to pass. So - they are not guaranteed representation in the parliament. But in some way presence of a minority in certain counties is recognised and a special ruling is installed. So maybe (very roughly) along the lines of what you asked ? Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty interesting. If they don't need 5% like the other parties, how much percent in the polls do they need in order to get represented in Parliament? Futurist110 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I could not find exact data, but at their historical minimum in 1983 they got one seat with 1.3% of the popular vote[19] and currently they have 3 seats with 4.6% of the popular vote (after the seat allocation has been changed to the Sainte-Laguë method, but that had only minor influence). There are 69 seats in total, so unless I don't understand the method, 1.45% should guarantee you a seat. If there are enough parties, in theory you can get a seat with an ε of votes, although you then run into boundary conditions of the law (what do you do if there are 160000 parties, each with one vote?). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Do any other German minority parties for other minority groups get the same preferential treatment as Danish-Germans do? Futurist110 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. There are additional recognised national minorities, namely the Frisians, Sorbs, Sinti and Roma which enjoy special protections. But none of them seems to have a special election privileges. The special status of Danes in Schleswig-Holstein goes back to two matching declarations by the German and Danish governments in 1955. The German minority in Denmark enjoys similar privileges. Schleswig has long had a mixed population and belonged to different states for a very long time. The de:Bonn-Kopenhagener Erklärungen have more-or-less succeeded in stopping nationalistic arguments about poor oppressed minorities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Do UK electoral boundaries have any overt criteria other than compactness? —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Harmony with local government boundaries where possible; equality of population; 'special considerations' (such as the Western Isles being pretty isolated from everywhere else). AlexTiefling (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I never quite understood how you can stop Gerrymandering. Just saying you shouldn't do it can't be enough. I suppose setting specific limits on the shapes of districts might help, like having them all be rectangular, but there would still be ways to "fix" rectangular districts. You can set up a "nonpartisan commission" to set the boundaries, but how can you find members who are not susceptible to political considerations ? StuRat (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What about an automatic rule? Like:

• Start with the smallest available units (census tracts?).
• Make a list of pairs of adjacent units.
• While the number of units exceeds the desired number:
  • Find the pair with the smallest total population.
  • If these two units can be merged to form a compact district (by some reasonable geometric definition):
    • Merge them and adjust the list of pairs.
  • Else:
    • Strike that pair from the list.

(This algo will probably require some backtracking and other tweaks.)

In a bicameral state, one house could be districted by longitude and the other by latitude. —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

UK boundary drawing is done in public - here are the current proposals for Northern Ireland, the Commission makes proposals, political parties and members of the public comment and make submissions on the proposals, the Commission takes account of the submissions and amends the proposals - the current proposals are out for another 8 weeks of public comment. In the past, not breaching local authority borders when drawing Parliamentary constituency boundaries (and in Northern Ireland, Assembly boundaries) was a sacrosanct principle, but for the current round of boundary drawing the Government has decreed that all constituencies (except for a very few exceptions like the Western Isles) will have a similar number of electors (to within quite a narrow band) so that has gone out of the window. The Commission will still try to produce constituencies that have a commonality of interest (easy road communications, etc) though the English boundary commission notoriously managed to produce one constituency which has territory on both sides of the estuary of the River Mersey and no obvious means of travelling between them without a diversion of many miles. Small-scale gerrymandering is possible - I was active in local politics when local authority boundaries were redrawn about 15 years ago and remember the local Labour Party made proposals to the commission for moving a few wards here and there in a way which was advantageous to themselves, and the other parties didn't object, so the consequences were their own look-out! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Legislative district drawing is done by different methods in different US states. As the result of a recent change in the law, California uses neutral district drawing. This was pushed by the state Republican Party because of a long history of Democratic Party control of the state legislature, which gerrymandered for years. The result, to the dismay of the Republicans, is several even more Democratic districts. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the new California law keep all or almost all of the minority-majority congressional districts? Futurist110 (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The new law requires the people who draw the districts to consider ethnic interests. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

November 4

How would Romney improve healthcare and education?

1) How will Romneycare improve over Obamacare?

2) What does Romney plan to do with higher education - costs, student loans, etc.?

3) How would Romney help college students and anyone shortly out of college? How would he harm such demographics?

I haven't decided who to vote for. Your answers could sway it! Thanks. --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 00:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I numbered your items. However, his answers are all quite vague, so nobody really knows. His argument is basically "I haven't worked out the details, but trust me, I will". In my case, I don't trust politicians that much. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to give only answers that come with references. Otherwise this is going to descend into partisan bickering, name calling, and just get hatted or removed immediately. It's a good question and an important one, but if we the answerers can't treat it with some seriousness we know what will happen to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to Political positions of Mitt Romney.A8875 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That article must be getting pretty long by now. Isn't it about time to split it up into Political positions of Mitt Romney on Monday morning, Political positions of Mitt Romney on Monday afternoon, etc.? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with the trouble; the article will be gone pretty soon. Romney only has 4 days of relevance left in him. A8875 (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you folks just imagine what all this looks like to non-partisan non-Americans. Bring on Wednesday I say! (And delete this pointless thread now.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) It's a tragedy that the impartiality and NPOV I presume is evident in the Romney article and similar ones is not being practised here. We really ought to have a rule about not advocating for or against either side when it comes to answering political questions. That's if we want to consider ourselves a credible and professionally organised reference desk. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The jokes are clearly set out in small text, and follow after a serious, non-partisan response. Then there are two complaints about the jokes, I guess, and last (so far) this summary. I'd be very happy to everything, including this comment, starting from A8875's first comment on down, hatted or deleted. Opinions? All In favour? Aye Bielle (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd hardly call the first post (StuRat's) non-partisan. He wasn't necessarily supporting the other guy, but he was definitely passing judgement on Romney's campaign. The "nobody really knows" bit was quite inappropriate, and totally inaccurate. I'm quite sure many of Romney's supporters could tell you in great detail whatever it is he's on about. Hence Mr 98's comment. If Stu doesn't know, he should leave it for those who do have some idea. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at Romney's proposed budget, we get this statement from the first Presidential debate ([20]):

'ROMNEY: Which is -- which is my experience as a governor is if I come in and -- and lay down a piece of legislation and say, "It's my way or the highway," I don't get a lot done. What I do is the same way that Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan worked together some years ago. When Ronald Reagan ran for office, he laid out the principles that he was going to foster. He said he was going to lower tax rates. He said he was going to broaden the base. You've said the same thing, you're going to simplify the tax code, broaden the base.

Those are my principles. I want to bring down the tax burden on middle-income families. And I'm going to work together with Congress to say, OK, what -- what are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That's one way one could do it. One could follow Bowles-Simpson as a model and take deduction by deduction and make differences that way. There are alternatives to accomplish the objective I have, which is to bring down rates, broaden the base, simplify the code, and create incentives for growth.'

It's quite clear from this statement that he doesn't actually have a budget to present, but just a a set of general principles. The same is also true in the areas the OP asked about. Romney just hasn't released much in the way of details, saying he will work all those out later. So, the OP then has to decide if he trusts Romney, or indeed any politician, to "work out the details later". The only opinion I offered is that I don't trust politicians to do so. StuRat (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course, we haven't had a budget for three years or so, so surely not setting one out in detail for the next four isn't going to count against either candidate. - Nunh-huh 13:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

But not passing a budget isn't quite the same as not even proposing one. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty much identical in terms of effect. A budget proposal that can't get even a single "yes" vote in the Senate isn't a serious budget proposal. - Nunh-huh 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I even have my doubts about the original question. It was inevitable that opinions would comprise the majority of answers. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The link provided by A8875 was fine; exactly what we're supposed to do in answer to such a question. Odd that Bielle says that's one of the ones that should be hatted. Can you explain your thinking, Bielle? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. It's obvious that what some Americans (and most of the rest of the world) would regard as an improvement to health care, many Americans regard as some sort of infringement on their human rights. So the word "improve" was provocative. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. "Improve" was the wrong word. "Change" would be the right word. Not that it's necessarily much more answerable, but it's got possibilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

1) One thing which should be clarified is that Romney wants "Romneycare" to be passed by individual states, not the Federal Government. That is, he wants to repeal "Obamacare", then leave it to the states to handle the uninsured. So far, of course, very few states have done so. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be voting if you are unfamiliar with the constitution, which gives responsibility to the states or the people for local issues like education. See the tenth amendment, and stay home until you comprehend it. μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution overrides the 10th to a significant extent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's why there's no Department of Eduation at the federal level. - Nunh-huh 13:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

How smart is it to vote without being aware that, in practice, the Tenth Amendment has been shredded? —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That's democracy for you! HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It could be worse - the ignorant ones who normally don't vote might live in a country where they're required to vote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it's good to know that only the well informed vote in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the USA we have freedom of choice. Voting is a right, not a requirement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of that. HiLo48 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

People's squeamishness over plot details

While I would normally ask a question about spoilers on the Entertainment ref desk, I hope to get more relevant answers here. People tend to avoid reading about plot details before seeing works, or from disclosing such details to people. However, according to an article an article I've read, this habit is actually relatively modern and did not exist or was more subdued during historical times. The same article also suggests that many people actually enjoy a work more after learning the ending, because it allows readers/views to focus on the details and events leading to that ending. Basically, my question is, from a psychological perspective, exactly why do people avoid spoilers? I know that it's usually to enjoy a work better, but this would contradict the findings of a study in the aforementioned link (although I'm not sure how reliable it is). That is, why do they avoid them, from a psychological perspective rather than a practical perspective? Also, at around what era did people start avoiding such plot details? Did it coincide with the arrival of the internet, or around the increase in popularity of movies in the early 20th century? And have there ever been studies on the psychological effects of spoilers? (apart from the aforementioned one) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1) Not everybody does. There are perennial favorites we watch over and over, although by now most of us have figured out that Scrooge turns over a new leaf in the end. (If he got hacked up with an axe, by Bob Cratchett, just once, it would be a refreshing change, though.)

2) Surprise endings only work without spoilers. A typical Hollywood film, where you know how it's going to end before it even starts; not so much. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily... I don't know if you have ever seen the movie The Sting... but most people find it even more enjoyable the second time around... when you know how it ends, and the surprise ending isn't a surprise. (You are now on the "inside" of the con, and see the plot from a totally different perspective.) Blueboar (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Perfect example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I remember being surprised again by the false ending of Vertigo, enough years having passed that I'd forgotten about it. It's now one of my top-three all-time favorite films and it's hard to believe I could have. --Trovatore (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think I enjoyed Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (the first time I watched it) far more (eg, than episodes I and II) because I knew what was to become of Anakin. There were a lot of nuances that I probably would have missed if I hadn't know the outcome. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that was actually part of the reason that 4, 5, & 6 were released first.165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet both die. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My sister tells that, on the way out of the theater, having just seen Romeo + Juliet (the modern-set Leonardo di Caprio version), she overheard a couple of high-school girls behind her, one of them sobbing "I can't believe they died!" --Trovatore (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I guess there was a first time for me too. Can't recall sobbing though. And I wonder if that girl would watch it again? HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to sob in that anecdote is over the fact those kids had no idea what the plotline of Romeo and Juliet is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare clearly didn't care about spoilers, because the prologue of Romeo and Juliet summarizes the entire plot. Here's a quote:

"A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;

Whose misadventured piteous overthrows

Do with their death bury their parents' strife.

The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,

And the continuance of their parents' rage,

Which, but their children's end, nought could remove"

Even if you somehow miss the first reference to death, you'd have to try very hard to miss the other 3. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Good for Will. Most people want happy endings, and will be upset by sad ones. It's good to warn an audience that what they are watching is a tragedy, because then they can expect the ending and deal with it with a bit of detachment. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I read (and enjoyed) the book First Blood - in which John Rambo dies at the end. I was thus very disappointed when I watched the movie and he didn't die. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what we call "the magic of Hollywood". The magic being that of making a decent, law-abiding citizen disappointed when a character doesn't die.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Nihilism and violence

Is there any necessary association between both? Comploose (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Nihilism is a primarily philosophical concept and does not attempt to achieve its goals through violence. Nihilist movement instead utilized violence. Brandmeister^talk 02:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, a concept doesn't attempt anything ... —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. Comploose (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, but why many people associate both? Is that a kind of "anarchism = nihilism => violence" way of thinking. Or nihilism = nothing => destruction. Comploose (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Violence? Why bother? —Tamfang (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Very funny II, but the question was not what nihilist think of violence. Comploose (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think proper nihilists should respond to a proposal of violence by saying "what's the point?" While the Russian group was associated with "propaganda of the deed", how many Russian political movements of the time were pacifistic? I think it was a harsh society in all its manifestations and ideologies. Wnt (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles VIII of Sweden

How is Charles VIII of Sweden, a descendant of Canute IV of Denmark's daughter, and how is an ancestor of Christian IX of Denmark? Can someone help me compile a lineage? Thanks.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The information may well be buried in [21]; you could ask that site's author whether there's an automatic way to extract it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a little advice it will not be because that deals with royalty and German nobility mostly. That site won't touch Scandinavian lesser nobility. See [22].--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we know if Knut IV had a daughter? And that she left progeny? Anyway, some of the ancestry of Karl VIII of Sweden is here, and that of Christian IX of Denmark here - Nunh-huh 12:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ingerid and Cecilia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I found it finally. It was through Christian IX's Oxenstierna ancestors and through their female line ancestor Beata Eriksdotter Trolle, who was the great granddaughter of Bonde.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What did the people of Post-Roman Gaul call themselves before they became French?

Ok, I've been writing a little alternate history project in which the main turning point is that the Muslim Arabs won the Battle of Tours (732 AD) and the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties are destroyed as a result. In my story, Southern France becomes Muslim and Northern France is divided between (post?)Latin speaking post-Roman native peoples in the centre and the Germanic Franks in the North. Basically the issue is that in this timeline there will be no "Frankification" of the population of Gaul, no language called French (Old French apparently didn't form as a distinct language until about a century after this time) and no country called France (since the Franks in the North will already be called "Francia", or whatever the Germanic equivalent of that is), but they will mostly still speak some post-Latin romance language. I what to know what would be a plausible name for this people and their language? I've tried looking through all the Wiki articles I can on what the post-Roman people of France called themselves before they become "French", but I can't seem to find any relavent info on that. I mean obviously I could go for something like "Roman", but that wouldn't make them distinct from the rest of the Latin peoples. What about "Gallo", or "Gallico"? Do those sound like linguistically plausible endonyms? --Hibernian (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's some good info: [23], "By 700, to all intents and purposes, everyone north of the Loire was a Frank, everyone in the southeast was a Burgundian, everyone in Spain was a Goth"; [24], "The situation never really changed in Aquitaine before the 8th century; the Aquitanians never became Franks. Instead, from the seventh century many of them increasingly adopted a Basque, or 'Gascon', identity." So it seems the people of Post-Roman Gaul weren't ethnically united under a single heading. If you need a heading under which to unite them all geographically, yes, I guess "Gauls" would have to be it. But I think you could go a long way in referring to different groups specifically as "Franks", "Burgundians", "Goths", "Basques", etc. As for language -- this question came up earlier: [25]. Certainly, what many of them spoke might fairly now be called "Occitan", but that name is new. But at least according to AnonMoos in that post just linked to, their language would have been known as Latin. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What I was mainly discussing is that most literate people didn't understand that they spoke differently from the ancient Romans. AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ferengi. μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

By the end of the Roman period, Gauls were already thoroughly Romanized and would have probably retained the Roman name and identify as Romans (as has happened with Romania). You can try using the name of the specific surviving province or even city, like the aforementioned Aquitania. You could throw their lot in with the Burgundians, or you could merge them with fleeing populations from Iberia, the Basque regions, and southern France. I suppose they'll be speaking Vulgar Latin at the start, but yeah end up with something like Occitan or Catalan or even the closest living language to Latin - Romanian.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• I do not remember where but I have read that the Roman and Frankish languages were called "lingua romana/rustica" and "lingua francisca/teutonica". So from the linguistic point of view they would call themselves "Romani". But I strongly doubt that there was a single ethnic identity in the modern sense. More probably there were pluralistic identities (religion, state, locality, family, language, social class, profession, etc.) and none of them prevailed. As for "Galli(ci)", it is seems to be artificial. The Gauls had no unified identity so (if I'm not wrong) "Galli" is an umbrella term invented by the Romans from Rome.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was the Greeks who started using it first. See Gaul for more information. Essentially, the word has the same root as modern English 'celt', and the 'Galatians', and the celts were invading Greece and Turkey while Rome was still trying to unify Italy, so they were well known before the Romans started building an empire. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am of Frankish descent and live in post-Roman Gaul, now called Saarland. We call our post-Roman neighbors "Welsch", which you find under Walhaz. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I know but I strongly disbelieve that the Romans would use such exoethnonyms to designate themselves in their native tongue. I can only recollect Wallon, but it seems to be a post-medieval term and to come into French from Dutch.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the help everyone. I think I'll go with either some variation of "Roman" or "Gallic" for the French people in my scenario. But I do have some other related questions, for instance, what would be a good term to describe the Occitan people, before that term came into use? (i.e. in the Dark Ages or Middle Ages, since I understand it's a modern scholarly word only). Also what do you think would be a term for a hybrid Occitan-Muslim/Arab culture in Southern France? I'm going to use the already existing terms "Andalusian" or "Mozarabic" for the Spanish Muslims in my scenario, but I'm not at all sure what to call their northern neighbours. Any ideas? --Hibernian (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Already mentioned. Much of the area would have been Aquitania/Aquitanica. The rest of the southernmost regions would have been Septimania, which was actually already under Umayyad control in the "normal" timeline, consisting of Viennensis and Narbonensis (colloquially "Provincia" to the Romans and Romanized Gauls). All of them part of what was Roman Septem Provinciae. This is assuming that what was Gallia Lugdunensis would be where you would be placing your "Gallia" and thus wouldn't be under Moorish control.

For a Muslim culture, you can simply retain the names and "Arabize" it as was the norm. You can play with it, remembering that written Arabic has no vowels. Roman Gallia was probably "Al-Gala" in the same way that Narbo was "Arbuna", Cordoba was "Qurtubah", Avenio was "Abinyun", and Lugdunum was "Ludhun", etc. So... probably something like Al-Qitan or something.

Also, it might interest you that Frankish-controlled Gaul was "Al-Ifranj"/"Ifranja"/"Faranj" to the Moors, which incidentally became the generic Moorish name for all Europeans north of Andalusia, in addition to "Salibiyun" for crusaders. It might be useful as a Moorish exonym for the Frankish-controlled territory.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Whence Ferengi. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I tried typing the Latin "Aquitania" into Google Translate and turning that into Arabic and it gives either آكيتن or آكيتاين, which this site says is Romanized as "Akytn" or "Akytayn". So is that what Southern France would be known as to the Muslims? If so, what would be the name of people from this area, Al-Qitan? I know nothing about the Arabic language, is there any general site has this sort of information about old names for countries and peoples in Arabic? --Hibernian (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a modern attempt to transliterate the name and not historical. Not to mention that it utilizes vowel diacritics, which would probably be unheard of during your time period as the first versions of which were just very recently invented (incidentally, at the instigation of an Umayyad caliph). But you can already see the mechanisms of how such a name could be spelled in Arabic. So yes, Al-Qitan, Al-Akitan, Al-Khitan, Al-Oqitan, etc. are all probable. Also, in case you didn't know, "Al-" simply means "The", cf. "Al-Quti" for the Visigothic settlers of Iberia and Septimania.

But yeah, as evident by the use of the catchall "Al-Ifranj" for the Franks and Frankish Gaul, they obviously didn't know much about Europe north of the Pyrenees, and I doubt if they cared much. Franks and the unconquered Gauls then would have probably been rightly regarded as little more than "barbarians" (albeit militarily annoying ones) by the comparatively more civilized Umayyads, probably similar to how Romans once viewed the Germanic hordes. So I doubt if they had any "official" toponyms for these regions besides attempts to transcribe European toponyms in Arabic. There are, of course, plenty for Iberia (see Arabic language influence on the Spanish language) which you can use for comparison. Even then, note that most of the names retained the older Roman/Gothic/Celtic/etc. names, even if spelled differently. And I don't know of any compiling them, just single mentions here and there. If there are, they would probably be in Arabic, and sorry, I don't speak Arabic myself. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"Salibiyyun" is a modern calque of "Crusaders", I think. "Crusader" itself is not a medieval word. Crusaders were almost always called "Ifranj" in medieval Arabic. They weren't all from France, but enough of them were that that Muslims didn't bother distinguishing them further (well, the very well-informed ones did). Sometimes they're called "Nasrani" or something similar, "Nazarenes" or simply "Christians", and very rarely they might be distinguished from the native Christians in the Middle East, who weren't Roman Catholic like the crusaders. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Yeah, first attested only in the 19th and 20th centuries it seems.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll read as many articles and other sites that have info on this as possible and try to come up with a set of (hopefully) plausible names for my scenario. Again, thanks for the help. --Hibernian (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Voting places for people displaced by Hurricane Sandy?

I am looking for sources that tell those who have been displaced by Hurricane Sandy where they should go to vote on Tuesday. A friend of mine was evacuated from a "Zone A" section of New York City... (one of the areas hit hardest by the storm). He is currently living in a Hotel miles from his home. The school building where he normally would go to vote was flooded and is currently closed. He has no idea where to go and cast his ballot. Any suggestions? Blueboar (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are two websites I found for the Board of Elections that could help you, once they are updated: [26] and [27] The second link has updated locations for some locations, and both say more updates are coming soon RudolfRed (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I find this or this which might be of interest even though it doesn't specifically answer your question. Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

pointless sharing of opinions instead of facts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He really shouldn't worry. A whole lot of other people will be voting. Millions, in fact. It's not like there will be a shortage. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Medeis, that's the second time I've seen you suggest someone not bother to vote. Do you think that's appropriate on these pages? Rojomoke (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC) I'm guessing that's an attempt at humor. Or at least it better be. Because if serious, it's wrong-headed and inappropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC) I don't think voting is superior to not voting. Medeis' comment may be off-topic but I don't find it "wrong-headed and inappropriate." Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Urging people not to exercise their right to vote is an example of free speech. And it's an example of wrong-headed and inappropriate advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC) If I hadn't read RD/H today, I might not know how important Bugs considers it to ratify the system. Makes ya think, eh? —Tamfang (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC) "Ratify the system"??? Or are you aware of some other legal way the public can install or remove elected officials? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC) If I wanted to argue opinions on the RD, contrary to policy, I'd say: The government doesn't care about legality, so why should I? —Tamfang (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Is abstaining from voting something to be ashamed of? I wouldn't say so, unless the person later complains that the wrong candidate was elected. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC) You can abstain from voting if you choose to. Telling others not to vote is not good. You can't say, "Don't blame me, I voted for nobody." Well, you can say it, but it's a cop-out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Rojomoke, Medeis didn't say "Don't bother to vote," she said "Don't feel too bad if you can't." —Tamfang (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

See here. There is also some kind of executive order for NY allowing affected people to vote by affadavit from anywhere in the state.[28][29] 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Annexation of Rapa

Does anybody know how (in detail) Rapa Iti came under French control?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The sad history is recounted on pages 236-7 of Tahiti and French Polynesia. Essentially disease decimated the population (over 3/4 lost between 1824 and 1830), followed by Peruvian slave traders and a smallpox epidemic. Then the French annexed it to combat English influence. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I can find documents that proclaimed the protectorate over Rapa and annexed it to Tahiti similar to File:Procès-verbal de l'établissement du Protectorat de la France sur l'île Rurutu.jpg, File:Procès-verbal de l'établissement du Protectorat de la France sur l'île Rimatara et dépendances.jpg, {[:File:Procès-verbal de Prise de Possession de l'Ile Rimtara et Dépendance (Ilots Maria) par la France.jpg]] and File:Procès-verbal de Prise de Possession de l'Ile Rurutu et Dépendances par la France.jpg. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can the president of USA change his/her religion while in office?

Can the president of USA change his/her religion while in office? Will he/she loses his/her office if he/she does? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Constitution of the United States does not prohibit the President from changing religion while in office. To my knowledge, it has never happened, but there's nothing necessitating a president to step down if they were to change their religion while in office. You might also be interested in the article "Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States". Gabbe (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

More so, the Constitution prohibits any law that would concern itself with an office-holder's religion (see below). —Tamfang (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

See No Religious Test Clause --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the OP appears to be in Australia: Is there any law on analogous questions in Australia? —Tamfang (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Australian head of state cannot be a Catholic. I am not sure what would happen if she were to convert to Catholicism. But AAUI this is not really a matter of Australian law, per se. Maybe Jack can clarify. --Trovatore (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Although AFAIK there's no religious requirement for either the Governor-General of Australia otr the Prime Minister of Australia, who share the powers and duties vested in the President of the United States. Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The mapping of roles between the Westminster and American systems is really sort of unconvincing. In practice, both the Queen and the Governor-General seem to have only ceremonial roles, which really don't interest me; as far as I'm concerned all such ceremony could be dispensed with and it would make no particular difference. In theory, they also have reserve powers, which interest me more, but they don't map to anything in the American system (for example, the US presidential veto, unlike the royal veto, is a normal political tool). --Trovatore (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia establishes what is often called "freedom of religion", by forbidding the Commonwealth from making any law for the establishment of a religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the exercise of a religion, or religious discrimination for public office. This applies to the Governor-General and her ministers including the Prime Minister. It does not apply to the Queen of Australia, because she occupies that office by virtue of the Statute of Westminster and a pile of UK laws, which do discriminate on the basis of religion, even though that would be totally illegal if it was anyone else. Go figure. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The monarch of Australia (and a bunch of other places) is ex officio head of the Anglican church. Roger (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not nitpicking, but I think you mean the Church of England. She is not the head of the Anglican Church of Australia, for example. The Church of England is the mother church, but still only one member, of the Anglican Communion, and the Queen's role is limited to the C of E, as I understand it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The freedom of religion is limited: it applies only to the federal parliament, so did not restrict the ability of the states and (at the time the Constitution was made) the imperial parliament at Westminster to make laws applicable to Australia that discriminated on the basis of religion. As the royal succession is determined by laws not made by the Australian federal parliament, it doesn't apply to the monarch. Also, if I recall correctly the High Court has interpreted the clause in rather limited ways, for example it permits discrimination against non-religion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In the USA, there is no law restricting a member of any faith, or for that matter a non-believer, from running for office or holding office. However, the people can vote for whoever they want to. We've only ever had Christians (actual or nominal) in the office of President, and only Protestants until 1960. No Jewish, no Muslim, no Buddhist, etc. The law cannot stop a federal official from switching his religion, nor can the people. But they can vote the guy out of office. The UK is different. The Queen cannot be Catholic, because it would be a conflict of interest - unless the C of E and its membership decided to rejoin the Catholic church. I doubt that's happening anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You say the Queen cannot be Catholic — but obviously she can, if she wants to. She could contact a priest and convert. They might cut off her head (the only criminal sanction, as far as I know, that has ever been applied to a British monarch), but they can't stop her from doing it. So what happens? I haven't been able to figure that out. The Act of Settlement 1701 apparently removes a royal from the order of succession if he converts, but what happens to a reigning monarch does not seem to be explained, at least in our article. --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no precedent, but I think the UK government would deem her to have abdicated by virtue of having placed herself in direct conflict with both her Coronation Oath and at least the spirit of the Act of Settlement, and they would introduce a law to confirm said abdication. All 15 other Commonwealth realms would have to agree with this line, otherwise there'd be westminstrous chaos. This is where the stupidity of parts of the Statute of Westminster would be shown up; the stupidity of people in Tuvalu and St Kitts-Nevis and Papua New Guinea etc having to unanimously decide whether or not it's ok for a nice lady in London to still head the Church of England if she's a member of a different church, when they themselves are probably not members of either, and even if they were, so what. It's as insane as the appointments of bishops in the Church of England being a matter for the Prime Minister, when he or she may well be a member of a competing Christian denomination, or a non-Christian religion, or no religion at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So if the Queen becomes Catholic, and the various legislative bodies are unable to agree on what to do, then she would remain Queen and would also remain Catholic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say something else would happen. But exactly what is the question. It could be bloody revolution. It could be mass expressions of fervent and passionate indifference. As I said, there's no precedent that would help people decide what feelings they should have. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The great glory of the British Constitution is that we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The probability of Queen Lizzie converting to Catholicism is about as likely as her willingly jumping out of an airplane. But it could come up in some future generation. The better question to ask than "would they convert?" is "why would they convert?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? Maybe because she sincerely came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was the true representative of Christ on Earth, and the organism that could most effectively procure her salvation. People always seem to assume that conversions are either political, in service to some Earthly goal (such as for marriage), or else to escape persecution. But religious bodies make actual claims about the true state of affairs, and it is possible to come to the conclusion, for whatever reason, that the one closest to the truth is not the one you currently follow. Why can't it be that? --Trovatore (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that Bugs's scenario (in the unlikely event of it coming to pass) is the most likely, that we would end up with a Catholic queen. After all, the only hurdle to be overcome is the Queen's relationship with the Church of England, who are themselves world leaders in the art of compromise (just look at the "Flying bishops" comedy). There could easily be some sort of fudge, and I'm sure we'll think of one if it ever happens. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Does jumping out of a helicopter count? ;) 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's perhaps also worth remembering even if it does come to pass the the Queen or some other future monarch wishes to convert and the law hasn't changed to make it clear it's okay or otherwise provide for such a conversion, there's a very good chance it isn't going to be something the monarch suddenly announces one day after the conversion. Far more likely the monarch will inform the respective governments before their intended conversion, the governments will then discuss among themselves and perhaps with key Church of England figures whether to allow it (perhaps with a law change to make it clear it's okay). If they decide it isn't okay, they may advise the monarch they don't think the conversion will wash and the monarch will voluntarily abdicate perhaps under some pressure but before the conversion, something similar to the Edward VIII abdication crisis. Even if the monarch doesn't inform the governments, it's fairly unlikely they will go about it in complete secret, particularly not when it becomes likely they will convert so the governments (at least the UK government) are likely to become aware of it and will go about advising the monarch as per above. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Lamar Smith's approval ratings after SOPA

Well SOPA's pretty much dead in the water now. But anyway, were Lamar S. Smith's approval ratings severely affected by SOPA? And how are his current approval ratings doing? I tried a search but I couldn't find anything relevant. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably neither Ron-Paul-style libertarian Republicans nor progressive Democrats have ever liked him very much. I'm not sure the issue has a lot of resonance among many of the local conservative Republicans who cast most of the votes which elected him... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

SOPA isn't dead, it's just resting. Few enough people care about it to affect any politician's electoral prospects one way or the other. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Easter - Passover

Hello,

I wonder why do Germans and English still call the Christian feast Easter Easter. Are those the only countries which equate a pagan feast with the Christian feast? And why wasn't it changed to date? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Because they're Germanic languages, and that's their word for it? What would cause them to change it? Yes, Bede claimed it was derived from the name of a goddess, Eastre, but it's just as likely to correspond to "East". And the substitution of Christian holidays for pagan holidays is the rule, not the exception, with Christmas = Saturnalia, Halloween = Samhain ; May Day = Walpurgisnacht =Beltane, etc. - Nunh-huh 13:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

However, there are Germanic countries which use derived versions from the Hebrew word "Pesach". Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

But like all etymologies, these are based on happenstance and history; they're contingencies, not logical or doctrinal decisions. - Nunh-huh 15:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it (and I understand Koine Greek hardly at all, so take this as you will), Pascha (the word commonly used in Greek Rite churches for the Resurrection feast) is actually derived from the same Greek word whence comes Passion (a reference to the crucifixion) and only coincidentally sounds like פסח. (This guy told me that.) On that note, does anyone know how the Septuaint translates פסח? I imagine that would have some bearing on this discussion. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. There is a highly-suppletive ancient Greek verb πασχω - πεισομαι - επαθον - πεπονθα, meaning "to be affected (by something), to suffer", but the other words connected with this verb generally begin with ΠΑΘ- ("pathos" etc.). Also τα Πασχα as neuter indeclinable doesn't seem like an ordinary Greek-internal kind of word derivation. Anyway, Liddell and Scott say it's a "Hebrew word" (meaning Passover or the lamb eaten at passover during the chronological period that Liddell and Scott is mainly concerned with). AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"Easter" is a convenient nickname, but aware Christians call it "Resurrection Day". Variations on "Pesach", which means "Passover", are also used - but Passover is not Resurrection Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So anyone who calls it Easter and not Resurrection Day is somehow "unaware"? Unaware of what? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Unaware that Easter is pagan and Resurrection Day is Christian. The point being that the OP is making some unwarranted assumptions and generalities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never even heard the term 'Resurrection Day', and my family is Irish catholic. Is this a made-up American thing? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

An editor with a Japanese-sounding username that even includes a Japanese glyph, but who lives in Hungary and claims to be Irish Catholic, is the best cross-cultural thing I've seen in a while. Top o' the mornin' to ye, O'Torä.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of generalities, I think vast numbers of educated Christians know all about the pagan origins of many of their current feast days, but still choose to use the word "Easter" because it is the accepted terminology. This choice does not make them unaware. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Then that's the answer to the OP's question: Those who call it Easter call it Easter because they've always called it Easter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just like having a day of the week called Wednesday doesn't mean that you're a worshipper of Wōden. Alansplodge (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What about wearing a necktie? —Tamfang (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me there. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Tamfang has become a little prone to making enigmatic utterances that do not yield to questioning. Isn't that right, Tamfang? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of my enigmata yield readily to questioning if anyone should bother to question. That one also yields to a glance at my personal website. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Necktie = noose, something associated with Oðin. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, you're referring to the Hávamál, verses 138 to 139.[30] [31] Of course - silly me. Alansplodge (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Christmas is also called Yule and Halloween Samhain. That don't befront Jesus. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

British Empire

Why was Britain able to conquer so much of the world? --168.7.230.131 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article British Empire has a lot of information about its origins. You may want to look at that and come back if you have anything more specific to ask. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ultra brief answer -- reasonably consistently a strong navy on the seas and a strong economy at home; never went into an absolute decline (though obviously the UK went into a relative decline starting in the late 19th century, when a number of other countries began to catch up in industrial capacity)... AnonMoos (talk)

You might want to look at a few other modern empires, for comparison: the Mongol Empire, Byzantium, Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, Ottoman Empire, Napoleonic wars, Third Reich, Empire of Japan, Empire of Brazil, Sardonic Wrath, Spanish Inquisition, Islamic Caliphate, human culture and globalization, for starters. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 06:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sardonic Wrath?? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisition? Did you mean Spanish Empire? Spanish Inquisition? I didn't expect that. --Dweller (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think being a large island on the edge of Europe is the most important part. Once they developed a substantial navy, this made them relatively safe at home, and thus able to devote their energies to colonization. They had the advantages of being in Europe, like access to technology, without the negatives, like constant invasions. StuRat (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Navigational skills played a part. Some charts prepared by James Cook and Matthew Flinders were still in use well into last century. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A really crucial factor was Britain's early start and lasting pre-eminence as an industrial power, which gave it the world's strongest economy from the late 18th through the late 19th century. That economic power was what paid for Britain's naval power. Another factor, after the mid-19th century, was Britain's ample supply of coal, which gave it "energy independence" and fuel for its mercantile and naval fleets. The empire reached its greatest extent around 1900, just as Britain's economy began to be eclipsed by the economies of Germany and the United States. Britain's aging industries faced a crisis of competitiveness during the early 20th century, aggravated by two very costly conflicts with Germany, and Britain's ability to finance its imperial project suffered as a result, forcing its retreat after World War II. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I just want to tip another hat into the intertwined financial innovations and navigational expertise. The latter is often over-emphasized though it was dependent on the former — without doing a number of very clever things with state financing (really making good use of such things as national banking, credit, stock markets, bonds, and so forth) the British empire would be limited to one particularly small, cold island. Instead, they managed to invade 9 out of 10 countries over the course of world history. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The brief personal union with the Netherlands was also pivotal in allowing Britain to develop its maritime stature so as to eclipse the Dutch. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Highlanders

Is [32] the same as Francis Mackenzie, 1st Baron Seaforth ? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be Hugh Montgomerie, 12th Earl of Eglinton. For future reference I found this using Tineye. A8875 (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)That's a portrait of Hugh Montgomerie, 12th Earl of Eglinton by John Singleton Copley, found in the collection of the Scottish National Gallery (link). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Who is the chap in armour please? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Where's the chap in armour? I suppose the scene bottom left in your link does look like an armoured guy in a big metal helmet, but the Scottish National Gallery version linked above is higher resolution and reveals it to be two non-armoured Scottish soldiers. Or am I looking in the wrong place? - Karenjc 11:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I mean the man in the picture next to the Copley. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to follow Finlay's link and flick through all the paintings - I had a quick look but no joy. There's an awful lot of them. Alansplodge (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

November 5

Dine for America

There were two different Dine for America events. One was done for 9/11. The other was done for Hurricane Katrina. All of the money raised from those two events went to the American Red Cross disater relief efforts. Please note I'm not using this site as a crystal ball or anything like that. But, what I'd like to find out is will another Dine for America event, this time for Hurricane Sandy?142.255.103.121 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you contact the Red Cross? A rep there will gladly give you the address of their corporate office. Write them a letter suggesting it. But do be aware of the criticism they have faced. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jT8b7dms_gADWqtLKJQFzc1Xz0pw?docId=f7ddb41fc2eb4956992b1267ae573fbe. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I did, and they suggested I contact my local American Red Cross chapter. That was no help. I have a feeling the American Red Cross probably might not have time to respond if I write them a letter suggesting a Dine for America event in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.142.255.103.121 (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

economic crisis

If the whole world is in debt, who are they in debt to?

86.15.83.223 (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the world. However, I'm not so sure your assumption is true. Check Balance of trade, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the world is, then, if not all. 86.15.83.223 (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Aside: if there is redistribution of wealth, why no redistribution of debt? IIRC, Earth is in $52 trillion debt to our empire while the world's total healthcare deficit is close to $47 trillion. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 06:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The IMF is working very hard to redistribute debt to third world nations. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in the books Whoops! Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay by John Lanchester and Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber. Both of them discuss this question, albeit in different ways. Gabbe (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Every dollar of debt is counted as a dollar of assets by the debt's creditors. To the extent that the debt cannot be repaid, those assets are overvalued. In other words, if we have a real debt crisis, the world is less wealthy than it claims to be. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

But say that I owe a company that owes a company that owes me, and each of these debts is actually first in line - the next time I pay the company it will right away pay the other company that will right away pay me. That doesn't mean I actually have $1 to pay that with, and yet it also doesn't mean that I am "less wealthy" than I claim to be. I suppose this is a circuitous way of saying that in fact a lot of this debt could be unpaid simply due to the velocity of money and transactional friction, as well as liquidity. In other words, if for a moment God allowed an instantaneous great purge, where there were no transaction costs, accounting costs, or delays, and anyone could borrow money out of thin air provided they returned it to thin air at the end of the great purge, then a lot of debt could "pop" out of existence, much like x + 2 = 7 + 2, the 2 term can just "pop" out of both sides and you are left with x=7. So the indebtedness of the world could indeed be instantly reduced without affecting wealth one iota. Perhaps it is simply accounting, liquidity, and so forth, that keeps this from happening. Also the agents might not even want it to happen, for whatever reason. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In your example lets say they are for the same amount: you owe a co. ($1k @ 17%) that owes a co ($1k @ 10%) that owes you ($1k @ 3%) , but see the rates are different? Only the party(s) getting a positive margin (you: -14%, co 1: +7%, co 2: 7%) will want to "keep it separated" yes, offspring. Also if you are borrowing money at 3% but you can put it in a stock that you think will double over the next year, which also happens to owe you in your round-about example you would not want them to cancel the transactions because you want the potential gain. In some cases it is borderline unjust enrichment.165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• First, not all nations are in debt; second, nations are typically in debt to individual people or to institutions such as banks, not directly to other nations. Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, unrelated?GeeBIGS (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

OP, by “the whole world,” do you mean governments? If yes, then recognize that governments borrow from people (and institutions). If you mean households, banks or corporations then understand that households (et al) borrow from financial institutions and the public. If you mean all of the above, then consider that I may own a government bond (i.e., I lend to the government), but also have a mortgage. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

denial of authority

Greetings. While browsing Wikipedia for articles, I was surprised to find that there was no specific article on the "denial of authority". Of course, one may wonder how to reach an objective viewpoint on such a contentious issue, but it is an issue that exists in contemporaneous society. This is not something I/we/humans made up in class one day, and a possible approach to this topic is to analyze the contemporary literature (argument from authority). For instance, it may be plausible to define "authority" and the concept of "power" in human societies, and additionally illustrate power relationships in human dynamics in the study of human beings. There are resources in the areas of cognitive science, theory of mind, social networking, current events, doxology, parent/child relationships, political science, psychology and psychiatry, sleep deprivation, and most notably philosophy, including and up to the philosophy of time. Additionally, we may illustrate how authority and power relationships co-exist on websites like Wikipedia, or on more anarchic anachronisms such as 4chan. While the amount of views on this subject is almost infinite, it likely underlies one of many struggles of the human race. For instance, we may define the denial of authority to be the following:

• The denial that authority has a right to "control" my behaviour.
• The denial that authority exists or is capable of doing anything useful.
• The denial of social classism, such as the refusal to treat a "bully" as a "higher" power.
• Rebellion in all its various forms.
• The denial of the message that authority is producing.
• The denial that said aforementioned message exists.
• Teenage behaviour.
• The refusal to accept the "norms" of youth subculture.
• Denial of cliques
• The denial of an established scientific, societal, governmental, medical, industrial, psychological, or liturgical authority.
• The denial of the concept of any of the above.
• The denial of the following, or labels therein.

If you must inquire as to my motives, I was simply looking to see whether there existed in the human mind an objective quantification of authority and what it means to deny such entity. Also, as the reference desk has historically been intended as a hub to generate ideas for creating articles, my alter-ego wanted to start a discussion that was dissimilar to a debate. Authority, based on the definition, could refer to the status quo (any status quo), the collective manifestation of a group of individuals, unspoken consensus or a silent majority. Wikipedia articles on "soft" subjects are typically quite short. One example, last check about a year ago, was attitude polarization.

Furthermore, in the unlikely event that thou dids't not know how to respond to this thread, one may assume it is from an alien non-human entity resembling a contemporary Jedi, a surrealist proposition, or the effect of sleep deprivation, the last of which is indeed the most accurate. We have excellent articles on specific cases, such as Christopher Smart's asylum confinement, illustrating the vagaries of the human mind, thoughtforms involving existence, and the authorities invoked therein from a moral standpoint. Again, the definitions escape humans, as wars are waged continually for miniscule chaos theory-induced disturbances in the present state. Psychoanalytically, the denial of authority may also involve a "non-seeing-ness" to consequences, psycholinguistic connotations or the product of a delusion (it could also be the undue attribution of bad things happening to good people to a higher order power of some sort, psychological or real), however the latter is defined. According to various definitions, happiness and creativity are essentially psychiatric disorders (this is not a diatribe, and in fact, many previous questioneers have ventured afield to this particular designation). I hope my question is understandable, and whether philosophical thinking is more likely to lead to subhuman neuroses or enlightenment, I do not currently know.

My question: what is the the denial of authority? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 06:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The total rejection of any form of authority is anarchy (although that article says it means something else outside the US). StuRat (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That refers to the rejection of governmental and political authority. It touches very little on the concept of a psychosocial, inter/intra-group conflict or "status quo" authority. Also, I already mentioned the existence of an anarchy.

The position that authority does not exist refers to the idea that it is merely a social construct; that is, there is no direct separating line between an authority and ourselves. That is, it would be possible to talk to an authority as though that authority were one's friend or neighbour (unfortunately, this leads to an infinite regress of what is a friend, what is a neighbour, was is laundry detergent, et cetera). It is plausible that this is one of the premises of the Occupy movement, which demonstrated on our servers that human nature exists. Some other important ideas I did not refer to in my opening paragraph were the concepts of love, justice, responsibility, hyperbole and empathy.

Another example of this behaviour is blaming the system (again, no article). The denial of blaming the system would be the idea that the system is created by ourselves and therefore, is the responsibility of individuals to maintain and construct on a daily basis. Here, I am listing some possible views that humans may have, and not necessarily expounding mine own. Some notable proponents of this school of thought include Leo Tolstoy, psychological defense mechanism Studies and Christology, including opinions hithertofore understandable therein. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 06:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You should maybe explore the flip side of your first point: "The denial that I have a right to "control" someone else's behaviour." Ask yourself how well that would work out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Many years ago when I studied Deviance and Society as part of a psychology degree, I came across the work of Howard Becker, specifically The Outsiders: also Emile Durkheim. We do have an article on Social deviance and I wonder if this would be a good starting point. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

psychological foundations of education

A. explain the development in relation to the psychologists that believe in inheritance and the environment as influencing a person's development. b.How do these issues influences ones teaching in class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.35.41 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

From this, it looks like an aversion to doing one's own homework is quite a common factor in the psychology of education. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It also appears that illiterates are writing the assignments. —Tamfang (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

We have an article Educational psychology; if you have any questions that aren't answered by it, please come back to us. We're not allowed to answer homework assignments directly, but we can help if there are specific issues that need clarification. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Leo Ryan and Jonestown

Since I'm currently watching the Seconds from Disaster episode on Jonestown, I have three quick but related questions. Hope there's a Wiki article that can answer them though.

1. Did they ever identify exactly who shot Congressman Leo Ryan to death? If so:

2. Was he/she among those who committed suicide later that day?

3. Did the people of Jonestown commit suicide because of Leo Ryan's assassination/murder?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Jonestown article you linked to doesn't say who pulled the trigger, so the answers to your first and second questions must be "no" and "no idea" respectively. As for Q3, I would say probably not. There can be no simple answer, since the suicides were inextricably bound up with the personality cult surrounding Jones. --Viennese Waltz 12:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the highly organized nature of the mass suicide, it is quite likely that the cult (or its leaders) had such a suicide planned for some time. So, the circumstances surrounding the Ryan shooting didn't cause the suicide in the sense that it gave everyone that idea, though the timing of the suicide may have been precipitated by the Ryan shooting, although not the shooting specifically: the shooting and mass suicide were likely part of an orchestrated set of events in response to the heavy investigation by both the Guyanese and U.S. governments. The group probably understood the arrival of Ryan to be the start of the end for the cult, and took matters into their own hands from that point forward. That's at least my understanding from reading a few books and seeing a few documentaries on the subject. --Jayron32 12:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Italic text

Well the Seconds from Disaster episode mentioned that a Jonestown "firing squad" was behind the shooting. Has there ever been any evidence as to what happened to its members after the shooting? Has it been proven or not if the "firing squad" members were among those who commited suicide, or did at least one of them escape? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The shots were fired by members of the Jonestown security detail, who were known as the Red Brigade. Our article says, "There were perhaps nine shooters whose identities are not all certainly known, but most sources agree that Joe Wilson, Jones' head of security, Thomas Kice Sr., and Ronnie Dennis were among them." I imagine all three of those named individuals later died from the poisoning. --Viennese Waltz 13:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Locating a last will and testament

I'm trying to locate a copy of my father's last will and testament, (Theodore C. Ulmer 3rd.). He passed away in April of 2012, in Sarasota Florida. I have been told the will is filed with the county records in Sarasota Fl. but I don't seem to be able to find their listing when I look them up. Thanks for any help, Ted Ulmer 4th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.0.121 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If he wrote the will with the assistance of an attorney, contact them. They should also have a copy on file. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The website is confusing, but it seems the department that deals with probate is Clerk of the Circuit Court and the phone no. is given as (941) 861-7612. If that fails, there's a general county information line, 941-861-5000. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Vouchers

What are they talking about this election season regarding 'vouchers' or 'voucher system'? I don't know if it's good or bad because I don't know what it means regarding health care or Social Security benefits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.243.203.146 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a reference to Paul Ryan's plan to replace U.S. seniors' entitlement to government-funded Medicare, whose funding rises with healthcare costs, with individual vouchers, whose value would rise with the consumer price index, which historically has risen more slowly than healthcare costs. In effect, unless healthcare costs were restrained by some other mechanism, this would mean that seniors would have to pay more and more out of pocket for healthcare. According to microeconomic theory, a resulting drop in demand for healthcare should slow the rise in healthcare costs, but there would be a loss of access for poorer seniors as a side effect, entailing a likely increase in their death rate. We have an article on The Path to Prosperity, Ryan's name for this plan, whose connection to prosperity is arguable. Marco polo (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A voucher means you go out and buy something, and they pay for it, up to a certain limit, much like how food stamps work. One problem is that vouchers alone don't mean much. If you currently get $1000 worth of some benefit, and they give you a $500 voucher to obtain the benefit on your own, instead, then that means you are now getting less. If they give you a $2000 voucher, then you are now getting more. It's a bit trickier to figure out if they give you a $1000 voucher, if that is better or worse. In the short term, buying something individually may mean they charge you more, since there isn't the economy of scale available, as there is when millions of people buy something at once, via the government. So, that would make your $1000 voucher worth less. However, in the long term, vouchers may increase competition, which brings prices down, making a $1000 voucher worth more.

Also note that when Republicans offer a voucher system to replace a system they have previously advocated abolishing altogether, this brings up the suspicion, in the minds of many, that this is just a more politically acceptable way for them to abolish it. That is, that the vouchers will then be steadily reduced, and eventually eliminated, without the obvious photo ops for the opposition, like closing state hospitals and evicting patients. (Those hospitals which did close would be due to "insufficient revenue", and it wouldn't be obvious this was a result of reduced voucher payments.) StuRat (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It is important to note that The Ryan Plan (ie The Path to Prosperity) is NOT what Governor Romney proposes to do if he is elected president. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, it is entirely unclear what Romney proposes to do if he is elected president, since he has proposed many different, often contradictory things over the course of his campaign. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If he wins, he will either do what the GOP tells him to, OR he will do what he feels like doing, and in 4 years he'll know how Obama feels currently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Church emphasis on "personal relationship with God"

Which church denomination or religious movement emphasizes "personal relationship with God", and what does it mean in this context? 140.254.121.43 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Expressed in that particular terminology (or as "personal relationship with Jesus"), it's a fairly modern Protestant thing. The Campus Crusade for Christ has prominently included slight variants of this in its proselytizing; not sure which other groups also use it... AnonMoos (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "spiritual laws that govern your relationship with God" occurs in The Four Spiritual Laws... AnonMoos (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I just read The Four Spiritual Laws, and one phrase caught my attention: the part where it said that Evangelical Christians use this gospel tract to explain their faith to non-Evangelical Christians. What is the purpose behind that? I thought Christians, Evangelical or not, would (or at least should) know something about the faith that they adhere to. 140.254.121.43 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The CCC apparently thinks that "cultural Christianity" and "Biblical illiteracy" are much more serious problems than you do... AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I also wish to know which church denomination or religious movement thinks that Jesus is God or the begotten "son of God". 140.254.121.43 (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Answering your second question first, all denominations of orthodox Christianity identifies Jesus as one of the "persons" of God. See Trinity for a fuller explanation. Disagreements over the precise relationship between Jesus, on the one hand, and God, on the other, (or maybe they're the same hand...) has been one of the primary and earliest forms of heresy-creation within Christianity. The Trinity article covers that well. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC) PS: By the way, that's little-o orthodox, as in "generally accepted", not big-O Orthodox. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the significance of getting the precise relationships of the three persons of God? Why not just say that they are all appropriate structures of God? Sort of like resonance. 140.254.121.43 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

140.254.121.43 -- just look at the diagram... (Insert one half of a smiley symbol here) -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Pick one of the following (or any shade of grey in between) indicators of significance: (a) It is either one of the most important points of difference between the True Believers who will go to Heaven (or at least have a chance of doing so) and the Heretics who are inevitably destined for Hell or (b) it is absolutely of no consequence and perhaps those who fight over it are the ones who are destined for Hell (and that dichotomy begs the question of (c) or it is of no consequence because the Real God is Krishna or Buddha or You or FSM or maybe there is no God or dang straight there is no God). — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Some have decried the whole ancient Homoousianist vs. Homoiousanist controversy as being "over a vowel". However, the number of Christian heretics who were executed as a result of theological disputes which were purely about the Trinity (i.e. which were not also prominently Christological disputes) must be very small (probably negligeable, except perhaps in counter-reformation Hungary)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

How can a dispute about the Trinity not be a Christological dispute? In any case, persecutions by the Roman Empire against heretics were pervasive in the last centuries of the Roman Empire, since Constantine I. Arianism was one of the more prominent heresies, along with monophysitism, nestorianism, dyophysitism, and others I can't remember or name. I don't know how many people were executed due to these heresies, but I'd be surprised if it were "negligible", considering how much of an effect heresies had on imperial policy. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

See filioque, a non-Christological dispute in theology proper. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

140.180.252.24 -- They would be disputes about the separate existence and/or relationships between the persons of the Trinity which did not involve disputes about whether Jesus was human or divine, or had one nature or two natures. In addition to "Filioque", some early transitional forms of historical Unitarianism and modern Oneness Pentecostalism would appear to qualify... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as 'the only Son, the Lord... God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God'. The Athanasian Creed goes into incredibly lengthy detail about how the persons of the Trinity are similar, yet distinct. The original reason for this emphasis was the massive rift between the Trinitarians and the Arians, who taught that Jesus was not the eternal God at all. The definition adopted at the Council of Chalcedon states that Jesus has two natures, human and divine, and that neither of them abolishes the other. However, the late-classical world in which these definitions were thrashed out used words like 'substance', 'nature' and 'person' in rather different ways to the ways we do. It's hard to reconstruct what the people at those councils thought they meant by all these things. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me be a bit more serious than my last answer, though I did not mean for it to be flippant. One significance of the doctrine is the degree to which believers take the Bible to be explicit versus symbolic. The doctrine arguably evolved from trying to reconcile the references in the Bible to a Father, Son and/or Jesus, and Holy Spirit with the Old Testament notion of a unitary, single God which caused the Jews to be differentiated from their often-polytheistic neighbors. Little-o orthodox Christianity made a big deal of taking the Bible as literally as possible, so if it said that there was a single God as well as a Father, Son and/or Jesus who were also, or at least implied to be, God, then you had to come up with some way of putting all that together. The fact that it was pretty darned difficult is reflected by the fact that the Trinity is regarded in orthodox Christianity as a Sacred mystery, one of those things that mere humans just have to accept and cannot wholly understand. Though there were those who tried to explain it differently than The Official Explanation, they were quickly branded heretics and were largely shuffled off to obscurity (or wiped out). By the time the Protestant Reformation rolled around the doctrine, along with the mystery, was so generally accepted that anyone who questioned it was sidelined by both the Catholics and the Protestants, and then there developed enough different denominations that a little disagreement about the Trinity generally was overlooked until the anti-cult ministries and Religious Right came along and started labeling folks like the Mormons, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, and Jehovah's Witnesses as non-Christian, largely overlooking in the process the folks like the Disciples of Christ and other non-creedal Christians who deny creedal formulas (most creeds grew out of various heresies over the Trinity) without (necessarily) expressly denying the Trinity. You can then lump on top of those various creedal/denominational debates the positions of some modern theologians who say, in effect, "hey, maybe we shouldn't take the Bible so literally, yeah, it's a great book of faith but as a history book or textbook or source of dogmatic theology, eh, not so much". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So, that means that modern theologians would probably go with the Sacred mystery notion. 140.254.121.43 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think most would because most theologians are from some part of little-o orthodox Christianity, but I'm hardly an expert about the demographics of the whole body of current theologians. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The importance of the doctrine of the Trinity can be seen by reflecting on the difference it makes to various other Christian doctrines. Take the atonement: we were far from God, Jesus died, and (in one way or another) that allowed us to be right with God again. Given the orthodox position that Jesus is God, then the story is one of love and self-sacrifice. If we assume Jesus to be other than God, we are faced with a horrible story about a vengeful god requiring the human sacrifice of an innocent third party. Marnanel (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Live Stream US election

Dear everyone. Does anyone know where I can watch a livestream internet tomorrow for the US election, when time after time the results are coming in? CNN, ABC or somewhere else? Thanks very much in advance --78.51.38.194 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This site[33] gives you all the major US channels. A8875 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The websites of all of the major news networks will have live streaming and commentary. C-SPAN's website says it will provide coverage of returns with little or no commentary, if that is what you want.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Interracial sexual arousal among racists

I read somewhere that homophobic men are more likely to be sexually aroused by gay porn than non-homophobic straight men.

After all, the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.

So then is it also true that racist men are more likely to be sexually aroused by interracial porn (black men having sex with white women specifically) than non-racist men?

I am genuinely curious about this, I'm not asking this question to be disruptive. Thanks.--Monopoly on Truth (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No. --Malerooster (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I would question the original premise, actually. It's not the first time I've come across such an assertion, but I've never seen any evidence for it, so do you have any studies that support that claim? And how would you define 'homophobic' (as that is in itself a problematic and loaded term)? I would also disagree and say that hate is indeed the opposite of love. - Lindert (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea about scientific studies, but there have been some prominent anecdotal incidents... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Try the following. Homophobia (" self-reported negative affect, avoidance, and aggression toward homosexuals", Bernat, et al., 2001) itself is well-documented and studied. It's controversial only in the sense that most who exhibit it would reject the label because it uses -phobia, the most common objection being "Phobia? I ain't afraid of no dang fairies!". The second study linked below gives an overview for the related body of research.

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. It seems there is indeed some empirical support for the premise, although I would question whether a study with n=29,n=35 can be considered representative. The reason I called the definition 'problematic' (apart from the -phobia issue) is apparent if you read the first sentences of the article homophobia: "Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred". That's a lot of different definitions, and it makes it far from clear what is actually meant by the term. - Lindert (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So does racism and most other behaviors that generally fall under the "bigotry" characterization. Personally, I'd restrict it to irrational reactions to homosexuality, but the irrationality itself means it can be manifested to behaviors as different as benign (but obsessive) avoidance to violent aggression. Yes, accusations of homophobia are sometimes bandied about trivially, but that does not mean it can be dismissed just as easily. Latent homosexuality is also, of course, not the only motivator of homophobia. Not by far. The second study linked above also summarizes several of the proposed reasons for violent homophobic behavior, all of which with varying support from different studies: enforcement of the male gender role, thrill seeking, defense motivation, and group dynamics. Latent homosexuality falls under defense motivation. Though again, this only pertains to violent homophobic behavior.

The sample size might also seem small, but as Anonmoos pointed out, its veracity is reflected quite abundantly in real-life high profile examples. I've lost count of the number of anti-gay politicians and prominent religious leaders who have later turned out to be caught in gay scandals or worse. Ted Haggard, of course, is the most famous. Then there's Roy Ashburn, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Michael Berry, Glenn Murphy Jr., Albert Odulele, Greg Davis, Richard Curtis, David Dreier... the list goes on. Admittedly a few may be political assassination, but there are enough of them around (including those ending in convictions) to know its extent. There are even rankings and a website that counts the days since the last one (apparently 188 days, though in fairness Zachary Wyatt seems to be on the list only by virtue of being a Republican, and not for anything truly "anti-gay").

You can even see the twisted common sense truth to it. If you were gay and wished to deny it, what would be the best way to convince the world you weren't? IMO, Haggard summarizes it best: "I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war."

• (sample size of 784, 6 studies, 2 countries. 20% correlation result)

Anyway, we're veering off topic. I think the OP's question is quite valid, though I do not know of any studies on it. Personal opinion though: no. The mechanism for "gay homophobes" is the fact that admitting to it carries enormous social stigma. Whereas racism generally does not. i.e. A man who shows a stronger preference for women of other ethnicities has no strong reason to resort to racism to hide it. The closest to sexual attraction would probably be motivated by sexual domination of the perceived "lesser race" (i.e. rape), as Nil Einne pointed out, rather than true sexual attraction. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As a reference desk, the idea here is to direct you to the articles that may contain answers to your question rather than to provide an answer directly. Since you've linked the two most likely articles that may contain your answer, and I'm not aware of any more specific article, it would seem you've responded to your own query. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This strikes me as asking "So, when did you stop beating your wife?" Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

NULL is quite incorrect in stating that we are supposed to direct people to Wikipedia articles rather than answering questions. The instructions at the top of this page, as well as the Ref Desk guidelines say that we can direct the questioner to article, or to web pages or to reliable sources. Often we find that the most relevant Wikipedia article is lacking some information which can be found in reliable sources, and in the end the article gets improved. Edison (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

By the same token, one wonders if Richard Dawkins secretly loves Jesus? I mean all that vitriol is clearly evidence of something other than atheism.--Scott Mac 00:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesus is the spicy meatball at the heart of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of different, because it's not something of a sexual nature unlike my original question.--Monopoly on Truth (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

For another perspective on how Jesus figures in a discussion about gay porn, see The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I could find is [34] which is not a study but simply a few anecdotal examples. It's perhaps worth considering that these comparisons even if somewhat different from the Richward Dawkins example aren't really that similar. Whereas sex and sexual attraction (between other same sex partners) usually seems to be a significant part of what homophobic people are seemingly afraid of, it may only be a minor portion of what concerns racist. ([35] is interesting.) And AFAIK, there is often a correlation between racism and sexism [36] [37] [38] (also see earlier link & note some of these also note a correlation to homophobia). So while for example a white supremacist may view a white woman having sex (and particularly a long term relationship or getting pregnant) with a black man as disgusting, they may not necessarily see a white man having sex (but probably not a relationship with) with a black woman as necessarily wrong, particularly if the the white man is in a dominant or controlling position. (It's not that hard to find stories of white supremacists raping black women. The fact that this seems to run counter to the notion of the black brute isn't something they seem to care about.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that seemed to be the single most on-topic response here. Again, if you're not American, like I am, then it's even harder to find relevant information on this topic! Almost all the literature dealing with, say, black-white relations comes from the USA, and as Morrissey once sang, America is not the world... --Monopoly on Truth (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

To everyone not taking the premise of this question seriously, [it's an entire field of psychological study. Many studies have come to this conclusion, although some disagree, and there's a lot of disagreement over what it means. I tried looking for something comparable, studies on the unvoiced sexual preferences of racists, but I haven't found any. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A type of forbidden fruit, taboo, naughty etc ... ≠isn't it obvious?GeeBIGS (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

She Thinks My Tractor's Sexy Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

November 6

Full style of Norwegian monarchs

Does anyone know the full monarchical style of Norwegian Kings: Christian Frederick, Charles XIII of Sweden, Charles XIV John of Sweden, Oscar I of Sweden, Charles XV of Sweden, Oscar I of Sweden.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikisource, the 17 May 1814 constitution says (§3) that the monarch's title is Vi — — af Guds Naade, og efter Rigets Constitution Norges Konge. (We --, by the Grace of God, and under the Constitution of the Realm, King of Norway"). The version as amended following the union with Sweden, on 4 November 1814, omits this part of the paragraph, but it is signed by Carl den Trettende, Sveriges, Norges, Gothers og Venders Konge &c. &c. &c (Charles XIII, King of Sweden, Norway, Goths and Wends, etc. etc. etc.) Gabbe (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Norges Konge translate as King of Norway or Norway's King?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Literally it's Norway's King; noun+s is the Norwegian possessive form. But remember that in English, 'the dog's toy' = 'the toy of the dog' = 'the toy belonging to the dog'. In Norwegian there's only one way to express this - you can only say 'Norway's King' and not 'the King of Norway'. You can say 'the King from Norway', but that's different. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli presidents and Israeli prime ministers by Jewish sect

Out of nine presidents, which one belong to Reform Judaism? Out of nine presidents, which one belong to Conservative Judaism? Out of nine presidents, which one belong to Modern Orthodox Judaism? Out of nine presidents, which one belong to Hasidic Orthodox Judaism? Out of nine presidents, which one belong to Haredi Orthodox Judaism? Which Prime Minister was a Reform Jew? Which Prime Minister was a Conservative? Which Prime Minister was a Modern Orthodox? Which Prime Minister was a Hasidic Orthodox? Which Prime Minister was a Haredi Orthodox?--70.29.35.29 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

You asked a similar question earlier. There have been 9 Presidents and 12 Prime Ministers of Israel (one person has served both roles). To answer any of these questions, you just select the name of each of those 20 people and read the article about each person. It will tell you the answer to every one of your questions. --Jayron32 03:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It has also been explained at least once (by me) that "Reform" and "Conservative" are branches of synagogue-based Judaism (not sects) outside of Israel. Whatever correspondence they may have with Israeli congregations and religious movements, these are not mainstream affiliations in Israel. Besides reading the Wikipedia pages on these topics, you'll find a lot of relevant information with broader coverage and more in-depth information by following the External links with which most WP pages are provided, besides searching the Web on your own. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

non-ashkenazi prime ministers of Israel

Were there any Prime Minister of Israel who weren't Ashkenazi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.29 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Like when you asked earlier about the Presidents of Israel, Wikipedia likewise has an article titled List of Prime Ministers of Israel, of which there have been 12, which is not too many to check individually. If you checked each yourself you'd likely get an answer faster than waiting for someone else to check all twelve for you and report back what they found out. --Jayron32 03:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Japanese royal family

How has Japan managed to keep the same ruling family for over 2600 years when no other country has even come close to that? --168.7.232.50 (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of it comes down to what counts as "same ruling family", or other factors. After all, Queen Elizabeth II counts William the Conqueror as one of her direct ancestors, as well as most of the Anglo-Saxon kings of England. Many of the early Emperors of Japan are likely purely legendary, the first seriously considered (though not universally) to have been real was Emperor Sujin who ruled about 2000 years ago, while other sources consider Emperor Ōjin to be the earliest historical emperor at 1800 years ago, and Emperor Keitai in the 500s AD is believed to be the earliest emperor back to which we have a reliable genealogy. In reality, Japan didn't become an actual unified state with a confirmed Emperor to reign over all of it until 700 AD or so; even if earlier people listed at List of Emperors of Japan were historical figures it would be like claiming an early King of Wessex as King of England, something that they certainly weren't. The Yamato, originally one of a number of "petty" or "tribal" kingdoms in Japan eventually grew into the "Imperial Family", but prior to 700 or so didn't rule anything resembling all of the Japanese people. Also, the Imperial succession hasn't always been patrilineal nor has it always involved primogeniture; certainly all of the historical emperors have had some familial connection to a prior emperor, but there have been Empresses, and some of the Emperors have traced their decent through female lines, which in many European traditions would have marked the start of a "new dynasty". So, yes, broadly speaking the same "ruling family" has sat on the Chrysanthemum Throne for a long time, though probably not 2600 years, and definitely not much more than 1500 years or so, or 1300 years, depending on how you count it, and using a broader definition of "ruling family" or "dynastic house" than European tradition does. --Jayron32 06:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And during a Shogunate the Imperial family wasn't ruling. —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was reigning. The Emperor was never actually deposed. Merely ignored. Something similar happened in the Frankish empire during the Merovingian dynasty, when the real power rested with the Mayor of the Palace. The Shoguns always paid lip service to being servants of the Emperor, even if they really did control Japanese politics during their periods of rule. --Jayron32 07:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

See this recent discussion. Apparently I found an instance of a medieval emperor being forced to abdicate in favour of a distant cousin, which would have been called a new dynasty in Europe. Also, the practice of adopting children into the royal line, which wouldn't have been countenanced in Europe. I'll look for references when I have more time. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The 15th century Emperor Go-Kameyama was succeeded by his "his fourth cousin twice removed", Emperor Go-Komatsu. The Emperor Shōkō was suceeded by his third cousin, Emperor Go-Hanazono. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It would not have been considered a new dynasty because the new emperor and the previous emperor were agnates (sharing the same patrilineal descent). When a European king was deposed by his brother, uncle or other patrilineal relative, as has happened several times, this wasn't seen as a start of a new dynasty because both men belonged to the same royal house. Emperors only adopted children of their male patrilineal relatives (i.e. children who were themselves biologically descended from previous emperors in male line). The purpose of the adoption was to settle the succession on a certain prince. This too has happened in Europe as well; Maria Christina, Duchess of Teschen, adopted a fraternal nephew who succeeded her as Duke of Teschen, which wasn't seen as a change of dynasties becuase Maria Christina and her nephew shared patrilineal descent. I'm sure there were examples of adoptions of much more distant patrilineal relatives but I can't think of any right now. Anyway, the male line has not been broken so far (i.e. the same royal houses has been ruling for centuries), which is why there's all the fuss about future succession. Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends. In many European countries, a new "house" is often started whenever there is a disputed succession or distant succession, even if the new claimant descends purely patrilinieally. Consider that, in common usage the House of Valois and House of Bourbon are considered distinct French dynasties, though all French Kings descend patrilineally from Hugh Capet, and are thus Capetians. However, Hugh Capet is himself descended patrilineally from Odo of France, who is usually considered to be from a different dynasty, the Robertians. So was, say, Louis XIV a Bourbon, a Capetian, or a Robertian? And what to make of modern Bourbons? Is it correct to say that Juan Carlos I of Spain is a Capetian? Is he a Robertian? Eh... maybe. A similar situation existed in England between the houses of Plantagenet, York, and Lancaster: all patrilineally descended from Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. --Jayron32 14:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Such new house is always regarded as part of the "old" house; a branch. The Houses of Valois and Bourbon are considered distinct yet parts of the same royal house (House of Capet). A member of the former could not be a member of the latter and vice versa, but members of both houses were also members of the House of Capet. However, all Capetians (including the Valois and the Bourbons) were also Robertians. Louis XIV was all of those things - a Bourbon, a Capetian and a Robertian. Louis XVI was famously referred to as a Capet during the revolution. Yes, it would be correct to say that Juan Carlos I and Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg are Capetians... and Robertians. The English example is also good; Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, was a member of the House of York and, obviously, a member of the House of Plantagenet. Surtsicna (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That is 100% totally and completely my entire point. The distinctions and differences are arbitrary and not based on any "rules", neither in Europe nor in Japan. We're all part of the "dynasty" of some 200,000 year old clan chieftain from East Africa, and everything else is an ad-hoc justification for why some people had rights to power and others did not. --Jayron32 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that the Spanish Capetians are "Bourbon" rather than "Anjou" (being founded by a duke of Anjou, the younger grandson of Louis XIV, the third Bourbon king of France), while the descendants of Louis XIV's brother are "Orléans". —Tamfang (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's probably because Philip disclaimed the title and because that there have been several royal houses known as House of Anjou. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

168.7.232.50 -- The Chinese have historically had a much more pragmatic attitude. The Japanese theoretical dynastic reverence has been facilitated by Japan's semi-isolation (its main islands were never successfully invaded from outside in historic times), but has meant that there have been many centuries of powerless Japanese emperors manipulated by warlords or shoguns... AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Succession has always been patrilineal. Empresses regnant were always succeeded by their fraternal nephews, patrilineal relatives, etc. That's what the OP meant by referring to the succession within the same family. My answer would be a) the enormous number of children (sons) most emperors had (thanks to a large number of concubines), b) various factors which prevented outsiders from invading Japan and deposing the monarch. Surtsicna (talk)

Also the spiritual or ceremonial role the emperor played and the lack of a concept of similar to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven that prevented powers from within like the shoguns to depose them.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

End of the world

Hey geniuses, when is the exact day of Armageddon the end of the world? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Which one? HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, rephrase. See above. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

See Sun#Life cycle. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

...and theories about the end of the universe. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, various nutcases throughout history have been predicting "The End is Nigh". The relevant articles might be Eschatology and Apocalypticism. Astronaut (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And also List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events. - Lindert (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Psychiatric question

If someone tells his psychiatrist that he plans to embark on a murderous rampage, will the psychiatrist warn the authorities?. It's not me nor anybody I know, just to let you know, it's just a question. Netwwork (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

See the articles Duty to warn and Duty to protect. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Look also Professional_secrecy#Medical_confidentiality which allows the psychiatrist to cover his back. Comploose (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

...with numerous exceptions, like those listed above. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Election question

Where did Paul Ryan cast his vote? Netwwork (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

He voted at the Hedberg Public Library in Janesville, Wisconsin. [39] Marco polo (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fittingly, he used the booth on the far right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Forex trading

Where do serious professionals go for exchanging currency? Why something so essential as currency is not traded on a kind of official exchange? It looks like any online forex platform is a scam of some sort. I suppose there is a non-free gateway somewhere that won't try to scam you. Comploose (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You can always buy your currency at your bank. There area also multiple currencies account, which offer no leverage, but are as secure as a current account. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's decentralized. See Foreign exchange market. Tarcil (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have a cool-off period before elections?

Don't you have a cool-off period before elections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.78.54.110 (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

After what, for what group of people, and in what country? (I have considerable professional experience in election preparations - but only from the UK perspective, so it would be good to clarify.) AlexTiefling (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess you mean an Election silence, and that, given today's fun and games you're interested in the US. Our article says that polling can be limited in the vicinity of the polling stations, but any further restrictions would be a limit on free speech. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

opinions devoid of relevant facts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The United States is a federation of sovereign states governed by a constitution which includes an explicit guarantee of free speech. Why is this so effing difficult? Why must Americans always be the victims of provincial foreignors who think their customs are universal precepts? This incessant xenocentrism could drive one to chew khat. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC) You rant is out of place. The OP just asked a question, he didn't say it should be like that. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC) That was not a "rant". It was an imitation of a rant. It was funny. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Was that just ironic? Medeis is kind of bitchy lately, I wouldn't be surprised if she meant it seriously. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The way the question was asked suggests that the OP believes there is a mandated blackout, and is, not surprisingly, surprised it's not being observed. That's what's called a false premise. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Cooling-off periods are normally after the transaction, not before. What fun we'd have with another fortnight of suspense if users had the opportunity to withdraw their votes... --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Marotiri

Who owned the island of Marotiri prior to French annexation? Was it Kingdom of Tahiti or the neighboring Kingdom of Rapa?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Tubuai and Raivavae

How did the islands of Tubuai and Raivavae became Tahitian territory in 1824 [40]?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

How many children of the American Civil War veterans are still alive?

Thanks for your answer! Netwwork (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, we just answered this question about 4 weeks ago. Here is a link to the answer provided then. There appears to be a website which lists every known living child of Union veterans here, but there is not a similar source (as far as I could find when I answered it then) for Confederate veterans. --Jayron32 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source!. But it fails to answer my question on how many are still alive since there's no record for Confederate veterans' children. Netwwork (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that's the thing. I did a search when answering the previous question and couldn't find any definitive count or list of confederate veterans: even the union list is likely incomplete as it lists only known and confirmed children of Union veterans, without claiming to be the full list of every such child still alive. It may be impossible to get a completely accurate count; though one could do a very rough estimate, given that 2/3rds of all soldiers were Union soldiers, and about 1/3rd were confederate, you could take the total number from the list I gave you and multiply it by 1.5 to get a ballpark estimate for all such people likely to be alive today. --Jayron32 20:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel

Can someone summarize for me the gist of this article? I can't seem to find the purpose of creating a Jewish state anyway. Why does the United States want to support Israel anyway? What's so special about Israel? 140.254.226.201 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a democracy, to start, just like the United States. As that article says "Israeli attitudes toward the U.S. are largely positive. In several ways of measuring a country's view of America (American ideas about democracy; ways of doing business; music, movies and television; science and technology; spread of U.S. ideas), Israel came on top as the developed country who viewed it most positively." I'd say there is mutual respect between the countries. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) There's no really short answer to that question. Some key points, though: what is now Israel and Palestine was previously the British Mandate of Palestine, a post-Ottoman protectorate operated by America's ally the UK. The UK had promised to help the Jews set up a state, and had failed to follow through. At the end of WW2, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Jews were homeless in central and eastern Europe. Despite the defeat of the Nazis, it was still not safe for them to go home - there were anti-semitic murders in Poland after liberation, for example, and the shtetls had been more or less wiped out. Stalin wanted Jews to go and live in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, which is basically a small scrap of Siberia on the border with China. The displaced persons, as the refugees were known, were encouraged by activists to move to Palestine, to bolster the Jewish statehood movement (Zionism) there. Britain relinquished control of Palestine after incidents like the King David Hotel bombing, and America, as a British ally with a relatively high Jewish population, had an interest in stabilising it. There's also a bunch of Cold War era stuff, but I'm less clear on that. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the idea of creating a state for people of a Jewish ethnicity came about because there were many people who didn't want them living anywhere else. One of the principles of the twentieth century was the concept of the nation-state as well as Self-determination. Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, as one example, is rife with the philosophy that a people of a shared cultural heritage (a nation) should have the right to a state of their own. Israel is but one example of a state created under that principle during the 20th century. There were many others. --Jayron32 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't it be so much easier to establish a large Jewish community in the United States? The Jews would get their religious freedom, and the United States wouldn't have to pay so much money to stabilize a separate country. Religious persecution in the United States is after all a violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution. 140.254.226.201 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The country of Israel is not just a solution to a political problem. Israel was contemplated by Theodore Herzl, for instance, long before the inception of that political entity in 1949. Zionism preceded the creation of the Israeli state. The country that the US has present good relations with, Israel, has a genesis separate from the support that the US has lent to Israel since 1949. Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the state of Israel wasn't created to give a place for people to practice the Jewish faith, it was created to give a homeland for the Jewish people. Different concepts entirely. After all, the Russian people and the French people and the Swedish people all have their own homelands. Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. --Jayron32 23:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That last statement is only true if you define "Russian people" to mean "people currently living in Russia", and similarly for France, Sweden, and Israel. Otherwise, there is no definition you can create for an ethnicity, let's say the French, without excluding a substantial portion of the French population and including plenty of people who don't live in France. This is especially true for Russia, which was a small fraction of its current size only 200 years ago, and only expanded via military conquests. Even today, after centuries of religious persecutions, population transfers, and outright genocides, Russia is still a multicultural empire. Your own article on Who is a Jew? indicates that there's no widely agreed-upon definition, and the existing definitions seem made up to suit political or religious biases rather than reflecting objective reality. (Example: Jewishness passes through the mother only? Really? Since when has that been true either culturally or biologically?) --140.180.252.244 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As an American, I can only say what Golda Meir once said: "If the Arabs loved their sons more than they hate us, there would be no war" Israel has the right to exist. It would be nice to know your nationality. Netwwork (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer your questions in order: 1) The purpose of creating a Jewish state is pretty well explained in our Zionism article. Jews faced serious oppression in many countries where they lived. Many sought a homeland where they would have self-determination and freedom from depression. This aim was even more urgent after the experience of the Holocaust. 2) Nations don't have desires, so the United States doesn't want to support Israel. The United States government supports Israel because interest groups within the United States that support Israel are stronger politically than interest groups that oppose Israel. As to why that is, please see Israel-United States relations and Israel lobby in the United States. 3) Every country is unique, so Israel is special, but no more so, objectively, than any other country. Marco polo (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Affidavit without a lawyer

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~

--Jayron32 23:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

senate gavel

Is it possible to buy replicas of the us senate gavel? Its very distinctive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.143.5 (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For the curious, see Gavel#United States Congress gavels. For the OP, I'd imagine that one of the gift shops in the Washington, DC area would carry one. Dismas|^(talk) 03:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of polling stations in America

How many total polling stations are there in the United States for this election? --superioridad ^(discusión) 03:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

According to this report there were 113,754 polling places in 2004. I couldn't find the equiivilent report for a later year, but you might be able to find it at eac.gov. RudolfRed (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)