Revision as of 18:13, 7 March 2015 editMedeis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,187 edits →Was Heidegger a Seminarian?← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:14, 7 March 2015 edit undoInedibleHulk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users127,482 editsm →Who should clean in a utopic fair society?Next edit → | ||
Line 574: | Line 574: | ||
:A truly fair society would pay people proportional to both the importance and the distastefulness of the work. If you pay enough, you'll never run out of folks interested in what we consider low-end (but vital) jobs. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 08:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | :A truly fair society would pay people proportional to both the importance and the distastefulness of the work. If you pay enough, you'll never run out of folks interested in what we consider low-end (but vital) jobs. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 08:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
::Good luck finding ''that'' particular utopia. ] (]) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | ::Good luck finding ''that'' particular utopia. ] (]) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | *In a capitalist society, people who wished to do the job for the wage offered would do the work, with the help of all sorts of nifty inventions like rideable floor polishers and on scaffolds hanging from skyscrapers. What is really interesting here is the premise that under a socialist utopia anybody would be forced to do anything. Is that how socialism works? To me that sounds like a communist dictatorship. ] (]) 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
::The market ] when everything's equal. Who would pay the menial workers, and where would they get enough money to do so, except from working many times more hours in the day? We'd need some sort of special treatment for payrollers, and many other "important" jobs. Utopias shouldn't have currency, I think. Someone always gets hurt. ] ] 18:12, ], ] (UTC) | ::The market ] when everything's equal. Who would pay the menial workers, and where would they get enough money to do so, except from working many times more hours in the day? We'd need some sort of special treatment for payrollers, and many other "important" jobs. Utopias shouldn't have currency, I think. Someone always gets hurt. ] ] 18:12, ], ] (UTC) | ||
⚫ | *In a capitalist society, people who wished to do the job for the wage offered would do the work, with the help of all sorts of nifty inventions like rideable floor polishers and on scaffolds hanging from skyscrapers. What is really interesting here is the premise that under a socialist utopia anybody would be forced to do anything. Is that how socialism works? To me that sounds like a communist dictatorship. ] (]) 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
= March 7 = | = March 7 = |
Revision as of 18:14, 7 March 2015
Welcome to the humanities sectionof the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?
Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages
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.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.
March 2
Turkmenistan
Who controlled what is now Turkmenistan in 1066?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- I infer from the Turkmenistan article that it would have been the Seljuk Empire. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- A bit of northern Turkmenistan wasn't controlled by the Seljuks. At the time, that little northern sliver was probably under the control of various Turkic petty states, probably Oghuz Turks from who modern Turkmen people evolved. --Jayron32 01:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also, since the OP seems to be picking through every country in the world and it's state in 1066, here: File:East-Hem 1100ad.jpg is a map of Eurasia and Africa in 1100AD, which is about as close as we're going to get to a complete map in exactly 1066. --Jayron32 01:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- A bit of northern Turkmenistan wasn't controlled by the Seljuks. At the time, that little northern sliver was probably under the control of various Turkic petty states, probably Oghuz Turks from who modern Turkmen people evolved. --Jayron32 01:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Vanilla Coke
When was Vanilla Coke Zero made and released? Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Somewhere around 1066. Or, check out Coca-Cola Vanilla. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Very funny. (No,really.)Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, really, check out the article. As Prego would claim "It's in there!". Dismas| 11:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ha! Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Seriously though, that just says "2007-present". When's that? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:25, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Nevermind, it actually means present. You never know with Misplaced Pages sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:27, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
- You never know ... sometimes: What a strange language we have! That reminds me of the playground exchange between a teacher and a distressed child:
- Why are you crying, Mary?
- Julie's horrible to me! We're playing fiddle-de-dee but she always never lets me have a turn. -- Jack of Oz 18:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it did sound a bit dumb. But sort of true. With a busy, popular article, it's safer to assume we know. Something that hasn't been in the news for a while tends more toward getting outdated. But strictly speaking, nobody never knows nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:57, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
- You never know ... sometimes: What a strange language we have! That reminds me of the playground exchange between a teacher and a distressed child:
- Nevermind, it actually means present. You never know with Misplaced Pages sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:27, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
Aunts ...
Is it possible to be sexually attracted to your first cousin, half sibling or an aunt? If so, how rare is it? Also whats the correct terminology for individuals who harbour such feelings? I have thought about incestophiles, incesters, cousincest, incestophilia and siblingcest but am unsure. 89.242.85.248 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not just sexual attraction, but cousin marriage. -- Jack of Oz 09:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- There's also accidental incest. If you were closely related to Mariah Carey or Brad Pitt, the word would be "normal". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- In the Book of Common Prayer is a Table of Kindred and Affinity showing those that the Church of England thinks should not marry each other. The fact that they found there was a need for a list suggests that it's not a rare issue. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Are you trying to tell me that if your sister or aunt looked like Jessica Alba it would be normal to be excited? 89.242.85.248 (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sexual attraction, or lack of it, between close-ish relatives is partly determined by how unfamiliar, or familiar, they were with each other while growing up: see Westermarck effect. I recall reading that kibbutzim who, though unrelated, were raised together communally like siblings, tend to feel sexually attracted to one another no more that actual siblings do on average. Conversely, siblings (or other close relatives) raised with little contact in childhood are more likely to feel mutual sexual attraction that if they had shared an upbringing: see, as a dramatised example, the play/film 'Tis Pity She's A Whore. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- In other words, familiarity breeds disgust, not children. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sexual attraction, or lack of it, between close-ish relatives is partly determined by how unfamiliar, or familiar, they were with each other while growing up: see Westermarck effect. I recall reading that kibbutzim who, though unrelated, were raised together communally like siblings, tend to feel sexually attracted to one another no more that actual siblings do on average. Conversely, siblings (or other close relatives) raised with little contact in childhood are more likely to feel mutual sexual attraction that if they had shared an upbringing: see, as a dramatised example, the play/film 'Tis Pity She's A Whore. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Are you trying to tell me that if your sister or aunt looked like Jessica Alba it would be normal to be excited? 89.242.85.248 (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- You might be interested in the general biological concepts of kin recognition, and inbreeding avoidance. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Precedence of Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia
The Wiki article on Maria Alexandrovna states "Queen Victoria granted her precedence immediately after the Princess of Wales." The Wiki article on her husband, Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, says that she was "She was surprised to discover that she had to yield precedence to the Princess of Wales and all of Queen Victoria's daughters". As the wife of the sovereign's second son, surely she would have automatically been entitled to a position in the order of precedence after the Princess of Wales and before the queen's daughters, without the need for the queen to "grant" her this? Sotakeit (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the default order (see this site) is Wife of eldest son > Daughters > Wives of younger sons, but the monarch can always change the order. At the moment, the theoretical order should be Camilla > Anne > Sophie, but Camilla and Sophie have been downgraded to come after Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Alexandria. Incidentally, our article Order of precedence in England and Wales disagrees quite radically with Debrett's (here) - perhaps a matter for the talk page? Tevildo (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- There are multiple orders of precedence (that of Scotland, e.g., differs from that of England): That in which Camilla Parker Bowles follows the lowest-ranked of those born princess of the Blood Royal (Princess Alexandra) in 2005 (when Camillia wed Charles) implicitly demoted those who are princesses only by marriage (e.g. Sophie, Countess of Wessex and, now, Kate, Duchess of Cambridge) but is applicable only "at court", i.e. en famille. On ceremonial occasions which occur beyond the walls of a royal palace (Parliament, weddings, funerals, Ascot, etc.) her rank remains the same as that of her predecessor, Diana (while married). As for Maria Alexandrovna, the confusion is anachronistic, because post-19th century observers deem her birth style as the daughter of an emperor, Her Imperial Highness, to be superior to her marital style as the wife of a queen's younger son, Her Royal Highness. Those same observers then presume that style is always indicative of rank: By that logic, Maria Alexandrovna was "demoted" to mere royal rank from imperial rank, a presumably incongruous and unexpected humiliation. In fact, in royal protocol style and rank did not (and do not) always correlate, i.e. nobody (in Europe) considered that the children of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil or Emperor Meiji of Japan or, for that matter, Tsar Alexander II of Russia actually outranked the children of the Queen on whose Empire the sun never sat. If this had been a matter of concern, it would have been quietly ironed out by diplomats before the wedding or, if deemed a matter of serious protocol, clarified officially in the wedding treaty signed by the UK and Russia prior to the nuptials. But it wasn't, because at the time everyone knew perfectly well (or should have) that the wife of the British monarch's younger son took precedence not only after Queen Victoria and Alexandra, Princess of Wales, but after all five of Victoria's daughters, as well (contrary to popular notion, the wives of the British sovereign's sons have always ranked after the sovereign's daughters, except the Princess of Wales; exactly as the daughters of every peer rank before their brothers' wives, except the wife of the eldest). Now if your question is did Maria Alexandrovna, having been the Tsar's only daughter of six children, enjoy her relatively low precedence once she landed in London and experienced it -- the overwhelming consensus is no, she hated it, just as she hated everything about the bourgeois Court of St James's. But there was nothing unexpected about it, so authors nowadays make of it a tempest in a teapot. FactStraight (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thailand
What wikipedia articles should I read to get a good idea of the political history of Thailand? Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- How far back do you want to go? We have History of Thailand, but also things like History_of_Thailand_(1932–73), which covers that period in more detail. List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Thailand doesn't have much writing on political history per se, but it has lots of links to relevant articles like Siamese_coup_d'état_of_1933 and Khana_Ratsadon. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I want to go as far back as possible, and then from there to the present day.Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Start with History of Thailand and see where that takes you. -- Jack of Oz 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- At the risk of stating the obvious (but since nobody else has linked it), I'd also recommend reading Politics of Thailand, although the tags at the top would seem to indicate some people feel the article may have some issues.--William Thweatt 09:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Do any U.S. politicians, think tanks or pressure groups advocate unrestricted immigration from Mexico to the U.S.?
Or failing that, any academics, or anyone noteworthy? Willy turner (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- There are lots of relevant links here. Marco polo (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Willy turner (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have a book "Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders" by Jason L. Riley (ISBN 978-1-592-40349-3), though I'm not sure how influential he is... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Many (most?) libertarians, e.g. the Future of Freedom Foundation. —Tamfang (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Good careers for people who enjoy helping others
What's a good career for people who enjoy helping people and being a leader? Is operations and customer services management good? Or is charity work better? Clover345 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Charity has the potential to really put the "customer" first, while for a "customer service" worker, the real goal is only to make the customer think you are putting them first, while ripping them off: "We want you to believe your call is important to us, although obviously it isn't, or we would hire enough staff to answer in a timely manner".
- Of course, there are also many bad charities out there, who spend most of their money on a high CEO salary, etc. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Could you name one, and state its total budget and percentage of that spent on the CEO's salary, please? --Viennese Waltz 07:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you're seeking to make a point, Viennese Waltz, you're being a little disingenuous. The majority of the "bad charities" that largely fund their CEO's salary are basically one-man-band outfits, and their names only appear in small print in the newspaper, generally when the charity is being wound up by the regulators. Whilst the larger and more well-known charities sometimes pay ludicrous salaries to the senior executives (see here for a well-known example) these are smaller as a proportion of turnover. Among the smaller charities, I believe there is one that will be well-known to editors who are regular commuters on the London Underground that turned out to be mostly paying the wages of the man with the collecting tin. I'm also aware of one medium-sized and very well known London charity that was, in effect, taken over by the chief executive and his wife; they paid themselves very handsomely, and transferred substantial charitable assets to themselves. (For obvious legal reasons I'm not going to name names.) RomanSpa (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm asking StuRat to come up with a source for his assertion. I'm not holding my breath, put it that way. --Viennese Waltz 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd blow anyone's mind by pointing out that Susan G. Komen for the Cure is also Susan G. Komen for the money. And Susan G. Komen for the "public health education". Did you hear breast cancer is bad, and has to do with breasts? Do you know you can ask your doctor about breasts?
- "At Susan G. Komen, our mission is pretty simple: to save lives and end breast cancer forever. How we do it...well, that’s a bit more complex." (Tip: See how much it spends on treatment.) InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm asking StuRat to come up with a source for his assertion. I'm not holding my breath, put it that way. --Viennese Waltz 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you're seeking to make a point, Viennese Waltz, you're being a little disingenuous. The majority of the "bad charities" that largely fund their CEO's salary are basically one-man-band outfits, and their names only appear in small print in the newspaper, generally when the charity is being wound up by the regulators. Whilst the larger and more well-known charities sometimes pay ludicrous salaries to the senior executives (see here for a well-known example) these are smaller as a proportion of turnover. Among the smaller charities, I believe there is one that will be well-known to editors who are regular commuters on the London Underground that turned out to be mostly paying the wages of the man with the collecting tin. I'm also aware of one medium-sized and very well known London charity that was, in effect, taken over by the chief executive and his wife; they paid themselves very handsomely, and transferred substantial charitable assets to themselves. (For obvious legal reasons I'm not going to name names.) RomanSpa (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Could you name one, and state its total budget and percentage of that spent on the CEO's salary, please? --Viennese Waltz 07:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- With the necessary faith, you can have a career in evangelism (Matthew 9:37, 38), and support yourself financially with work that is adequate for your needs (Acts 18:3). Then you can store up treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19, 20, 21) and experience happiness from giving (Acts 20:35). However, it is important to avoid counterfeit organizations (Matthew 21, 22, 23).
- —Wavelength (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your post mentions the words "good" and "better", which could be understood in various senses (emotional, financial, spiritual, and so forth). You may wish to consult the Occupational Outlook Handbook.
- —Wavelength (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC) and 04:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Though there are a few bad apples, in my experience the great majority of MPs (of all parties) are decent, honest people who enjoy at least some aspects of their constituency work, which is largely about helping people, particularly where their lives are affected by government. Most also seem to gradually develop an interest or specialisation in one or two areas of government or national policy, and provide leadership within those areas. Are they unimpeachably perfect? Obviously not, and they have their worries about their pensions and their egos to be massaged, just like people in any job, but in my experience a very high percentage have a strong impulse towards public service. RomanSpa (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- A lot go into politics with big dreams and good hearts, but the system has ways of stifling that and jading them. Not particular to Canada or even politics. Doctors, teachers, police and humanitarians all eventually stop giving a shit, or care too much about things they can't change. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
- I think "some" or even "many" would be more accurate than "all eventually stop giving a shit". Some of us still care - I don't directly fit into any of the categories above, but do work long hours for below average wages for a charity because I know I make a difference. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- A lot go into politics with big dreams and good hearts, but the system has ways of stifling that and jading them. Not particular to Canada or even politics. Doctors, teachers, police and humanitarians all eventually stop giving a shit, or care too much about things they can't change. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
Dubai
I went for a holiday last summer to Dubai and the weather is extremely hot. However the workday is strangely during the day which results in an enormous amount of energy being spent on cooling systems. Changing the working hours to the evening and nights would result in cheaper energy consumption, so why don't they change their working hours? 89.242.81.32 (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Because people are generally more productive working during the day and sleeping at night. --Jayron32 01:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- 89.242.81.32 -- Traditionally many Mediterranean societies have had a long mid-day siesta, which cuts down on work during the hottest hours. AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
March 3
Jane Eyre
What are some images related to Jane Eyre that have an interesting story behind them or are related to the novel in some way, and that actually exist as images? Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Read this. --Jayron32 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I was looking for some pictures. I'm the OP.2602:306:C541:CC60:51D:B38D:18D2:A14C (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. There are lots of images on http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Jane_Eyre. Is that what you are looking for? --Judithcomm (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Another place to look: Jane Eyre Illustrated: Featuring book illustrations by Ethel Léontine Gabain, Edmund Dulac, Francis Donkin Bedford, and many many more, covers and dust jackets by Lynton Lamb, Emilio Grau Sala, and others, postage stamps designed by Paula Rego and others, comic books and graphic novels by Rebecca Guay and others, audio covers by Leo and Diane Dillon and others, magazine illustrations and miniature books. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Adloyada
Does Adloyada occur outside Israel?—Wavelength (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Where does it occur outside Israel?—Wavelength (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Drinking wine is part of Purim. I don't know about the parade. But "Adloyada" means to "mellow himself (with wine) on Purim". Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Correction: literally the name is composed of three words slurred together, עַד דְּלָא יָדַע (Aramaic), "...until he cannot know ...". The degree of intoxication is that of impaired judgment, and the example of "Blessed be and cursed be " particularly indicates judgment between virtue and vice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- redacted: Deborahjay (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Whoa, back up. You mean there's a day we're actually supposed to get black-out drunk off wine? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 12 Adar 5775 04:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- No need to stick to wine. That specific element is not in the original text. Drink what you like. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I knew I picked the right side of the family heritage! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 13 Adar 5775 00:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- No need to stick to wine. That specific element is not in the original text. Drink what you like. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Correction: literally the name is composed of three words slurred together, עַד דְּלָא יָדַע (Aramaic), "...until he cannot know ...". The degree of intoxication is that of impaired judgment, and the example of "Blessed be and cursed be " particularly indicates judgment between virtue and vice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Drinking wine is part of Purim. I don't know about the parade. But "Adloyada" means to "mellow himself (with wine) on Purim". Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Where does it occur outside Israel?—Wavelength (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you have truly committed to the Jewish faith, then you not be so quick to accept every tradition and festival that is not ordained by the Lord. This one in particular should be considered an abomination; it runs across the grain of Scripture - why would the Lord approve of intentionally corrupting your sense of what is good and what is wicked, even for a day? Take heed,I'm not speaking against becoming mellow, just against stupefying drunkenness, I myself do enjoy a good wine. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- He doesn't. You still have to be fit to fulfil your religious obligations a few hours later, especially praying. Standard interpretation is that what's called for is food+alchohol-aided rejoicing to an extreme, not drunkenness to an extreme. The Hebrew Bible is replete with verses praising the effect of alcohol - and food. As the Talmud puts it: "ein simcha elah b'basar v'yayin" - there's no happiness without meat and wine. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you have truly committed to the Jewish faith, then you not be so quick to accept every tradition and festival that is not ordained by the Lord. This one in particular should be considered an abomination; it runs across the grain of Scripture - why would the Lord approve of intentionally corrupting your sense of what is good and what is wicked, even for a day? Take heed,I'm not speaking against becoming mellow, just against stupefying drunkenness, I myself do enjoy a good wine. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Superficially, that sounds more acceptable. However, I'm not convinced that such indulging extremes is fitting behaviour. The vast majority of my denomination are vegetarian or vegan and abstain from acoholated food and drink, and they are quite content with their quality of life as a result. I am an exception to the norm, as I have a high affinity for meat and alcohol. As an aside, speaking as a non-Jew, I don't have high regard for writings by theologians, since at the basest of levels, such writings are a collection of opinions, and man is not infallible. So please pardon me when I say that I only regard the Talmud with skepticism. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is an opinion that says that the degree of drunkenness called for is sufficient intoxication to impair one's ability to calculate the comparison between the gematria of "cursed is Haman" and "blessed is Mordechai". (These would be Hebrew alpha-numeric equivalencies.)That being a difficult calculation, little wine would be needed to impair it. Another opinion maintains that while there is an obligation to drink, that there is no set amount called for, and that every person should simply determine this for themselves. Bus stop (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Judaism has no tradition of asceticism. Quite the opposite: we're supposed to enjoy the pleasures of this world, but always with a measure of responsibility and control and with acknowledgment to its ultimate source. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm actually an agnostic Jewish archaeologist who adheres to that most venerable belief system of archæo-Judaism (no μεδεις, don't deconstruct that). The prophetess Kenyon (known for being able to easily kill two bottles of gin in one day) said,
"Thou shalt drink happily and to excess in merriment with thine own noble comrades. May your cups overfloweth with the fermented bounties of the earth and may your beds always have a second (or third) occupant. Harken to me though, thou must be ever watchful and certain that in the morning thine own sections be straight and thou risketh not cracking thine own skull upon the holy soil from a 2 metre fall. Woe be unto any that commits that gravest sin of sleeping-in for this is the work of that most malevolent force, Laziness." (Kenyon 6:1–4)
- Personally, I drink for pleasure and social occasions and never just to get drunk. And I've never managed to get drunk to the point where I didn't know good from bad (though there was a day where I did the unthinkable and slept-in whilst on a dig and no one threw water on me). As my fellow Son of Abraham says, we're all about being good people and enjoying the bounties of this universe whilst being ever respectful as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 13 Adar 5775 13:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I've never heard a parade referred to with that word in the UK (as opposed to drinking, which is where the expression comes from), but I've seen Purim parades in the street - without the nomenclature. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Atlas, Atlantic
Of the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlas Mountains, which received its name first? Was one of them named in imitation of the other? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- see Atlas (mythology). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The Atlantic Ocean is named after the mythical continent of Atlantis, which was named, in turn for Atlas, the Greek mythological figure. Thus, the name Atlas has to have come before both Atlantis (land of Atlas) and Atlantic (named for Atlantis and by extension Atlas). I'm not sure whether the mountains or the ocean were named first, but neither directly influence the other. Rather, they were each named for Atlas himself (though through different routes). --Jayron32 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The two words come from the same root. What's going on is that the nominative form in old dialects of PIE, like Greek and Latin, used a shortened form (often with an ess) in the nominative, while the genitive case used the full stem, and it was that longer stem which was used in combining forms and adjectives. Hence the stem of Atlas is Ἄτλαντ-and the adjectival form is hence Atlant-ikos "related to Atlas.
- Likewise, the Greek word for foot is pous, but its stem is pod-, hence podiatry. Students have to learn both the nominative and the genitive of any new noun, as the other cases can be predicted from the genitive form, not the nominative. Latin nom./gen. pairs include:cor/cordis (cordial); homo/hominis (ad hominem); Mars/Martis (martial); rex/regis (regent, regal); nox/noctis (nocturnal); etc. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The early IE languages reduce the final cluster –nt–s (which is common in the nominative of present participles) in different ways: Sanskrit to –n , Greek to –s, Latin to –ns. Similarly noct-s was simplified to nocs, Mart-s to Mars; and reg-s became recs by assimilation. —Tamfang (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is most plausible that the Atlas mountains were named first after the titan Atlas. The Atlantic Ocean was named after Atlantis, which in turn probably took its name from its location beyond the mountains of Atlas. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- See Atlantis, first sentence. It was named after Atlas (mythology) not Atlas Mountains. --Jayron32 19:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've certainly heard before the theory that the Atlantic Ocean was named after Atlantis, but it does not seem to be very well referenced. Our article says: "The Atlantic Ocean was named by the ancient Greeks after either Atlas the Titan or the Atlas Mountains named for him; both involve the concept of holding up the sky." Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th ed.) derives Atlantic (ocean) from Atlanticus, of the Atlas Mountains, which in turn were named after Atlas. However, if Webster's New World is wrong and the Atlantic Ocean was named directly after Atlas the Titan, then it is possible that the Atlantic Ocean was named earlier than the Atlas Mountains. John M Baker (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- OED also supports the Atlas -> Mount Atlas (= Atlas Mountains?) -> Atlantic Ocean etymology. Its Atlantic entry says, "1. Of or pertaining to Mount Atlas in Libya, on which the heavens were fabled to rest. Hence applied to the sea near the western shore of Africa, and afterwards extended to the whole ocean lying between Europe and Africa on the east and America on the west." Incidentally, the first quote it provides referencing "Atlantick Ocean" is from Philemon Holland's 1601 translation of Pliny's Natural History. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Obviously ec'ed with Dbfirs note below. Great minds... and all that :)
- The OED entry for Atlantic says: "Of or pertaining to Mount Atlas in Libya, on which the heavens were fabled to rest. Hence applied to the sea near the western shore of Africa, and afterwards extended to the whole ocean lying between Europe and Africa on the east and America on the west." The etymology is: "from Latin Atlanticus, < Greek Ἀτλαντικός , < Ἀτλαντ- : see Atlas n.1 and -ic suffix." Dbfirs 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, I agree with Marco Polo and John M Baker. We should ignore all scholarly study, philology, and linguistic science, and just use the Stargate theory of history. The Atlantic Ocean is obviously named after Atlantic City, and has nothing to do with Atlas or the Atlas Mountains. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- And The World Book agrees that the Atlantic Ocean was named after the Atlas Mountains, implying that the mountains have primacy. On the other hand, Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia and the Encyclopaedia Brittannica both state flatly that the ocean was named after Atlas. I'm not sure we're going to be able to give a definitive answer here. John M Baker (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of course the Atlantic Ocean was named after Atlantis, and Atlantis was named after Atlas, but obviously a fictional region beyond the Pillars of Hercules was named after Atlantis because the pillars and the nearby mountains that had already been named after Atlas were associated with that titan. It is almost self-evident. Marco polo (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it isn't so self evident. Linguistically, we all recognize they're all related to the name of the Titan. The source of the disagreement is the route we take to get from the name of the Titan to the name of the ocean. Is the ocean "The Ocean Atlantis is located in" or is it "The Ocean past the Atlas Mountains" or is it "The Ocean that belongs to Atlas". The answer to THAT question is what is in disagreement. All the sources broadly agree that the ocean means "yada yada Atlas something something" But it's the specific linguistic route to get there that the sources (and us) can't agree on. It isn't necessarily self-evident what the order of naming of all of the features was. --Jayron32 23:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- But that's not quite accurate. Before the discovery of the Pacific, what we now call the Atlantic was called the Ocean Sea (Mare Okeanos). Only once the rather radical difference between the Atlantic and the Paific was discovered were the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans differentiated. The original stem was Atalanta which is not of PIE form. It referred to a heroine. Then there were the Atlas mountains, the tallest known to the seafaring Greeks, which were associatited with Atlas, whose name is a derivation from the root atalant-, and referred to holding up the sky. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Bills from the UK House of Lords
Both House of Lords and Act of Parliament#United Kingdom Parliament note that either House may originate bills on most topics, but they don't address the reality on the ground. In real life, do the Lords ever introduce bills, and if they do, do those bills ever get passed? Since the members of the Government are all in the Commons, do Lords bills all get treated like private members' bills? Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ may help. --Jayron32 17:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's not true that "the members of the Government are all in the Commons". See House_of_Lords#Leaders_and_Ministers, which gives a current list of ministers (i.e. members of the government) who sit in the House of Lords. However I think it's true nowadays that any government-sponsored legislation would start off in the Commons, and only Private Members' Bills would originate in the Lords. I can't think of any very recent examples, but it's not that long since we had Secretaries of State (i.e. heads of government departments) in the Lords; for example, Lord Carrington was Foreign Secretary between 1979 and 1982 (when he resigned over the invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- More recently than that. Lord Mandelson was simultaneously Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and First Secretary of State as recently as 2010. --Jayron32 20:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also, while there are no current Secretary of State level Lords, there are lower-ranked Ministers who are, e.g. Baroness Anelay. --Jayron32 20:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- More recently than that. Lord Mandelson was simultaneously Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and First Secretary of State as recently as 2010. --Jayron32 20:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- See this page for the current list of bills before the House - I make it 33 Lords bills out of a total of 169 (numbers may be slightly off). Some ploughing through the listings on this page indicates that the last Private Member's Bill originating in the Lords which became legislation was the Live Music Act 2012, compared with 21 successful Commons Private Member's Bills in the same period. Quite a few Government bills are introduced in the Lords, as well. Tevildo (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- See here for the full details of the bill's passage, incidentally. Interesting to note that the last stage is officially called "ping-pong". Tevildo (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Starboard port side
I just watched the Battle of Trafalgar scene in the 1941 movie That Hamilton Woman. In the movie, when Nelson gives the order to open fire, his words are "Starboard port side—fire!" This makes no sense to me. What could it mean, or was it just an error by the filmmakers? --70.49.169.244 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The Victory sailed through the line of French and Spanish ships, so the order was to fire from both sides of the ship at the targets that were on both sides. Mikenorton (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Makes sense, but wouldn't he have used the word "and" then? --70.49.169.244 (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that Nelson spoke those words, Hardy was making the decisions - it was he that directed the Victory to start by running close behind the stern of the Bucentaure, which received the fire of the port side cannon as they swept past. It was only later that Hardy brought the Victory up against the Redoutable and the starboard side broadside was fired. Mikenorton (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that Nelson spoke those exact words, because larboard was the opposite to starboard before 1844, except when giving steering orders. I'm a bit puzzled by that turn of phrase too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe that's it - perhaps he shouted "Larboard (port) side - fire!" - however the transcript on Ark TV - The Hamilton Woman agrees with your version; "01:06:58 Starboard port side, fire!". I had a good search of Google for an actual eyewitness account but no luck so far. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that Nelson spoke those exact words, because larboard was the opposite to starboard before 1844, except when giving steering orders. I'm a bit puzzled by that turn of phrase too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that Nelson spoke those words, Hardy was making the decisions - it was he that directed the Victory to start by running close behind the stern of the Bucentaure, which received the fire of the port side cannon as they swept past. It was only later that Hardy brought the Victory up against the Redoutable and the starboard side broadside was fired. Mikenorton (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Could it need a bit more punctuation? "Starboard! Port side! Fire" —Tamfang (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- If that was the intent, the actor misread the line. Anyway, why say "side" only once in that case? Well, this is looking like an error at this point. (Original poster, new IP address.) --65.94.49.242 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
History
Is there a wiki for political history?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe here would be a place to start looking. --Jayron32 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Friendlessness = disorder?
I'm a 27 year old and I have just come to the realization that I haven't had a single friend since I was 19 years old. Other than my parents, noone ever gives me a call to see how I'm doing. But this is partly my own fault since i rarely have anything to talk about. I recently tried to befriend an associate when he dropped me off in his car but the entire 10 minute car ride was silent since I have nothing to talk about. I get jealous seeing people my age socializing like its second nature. Am I unique? Is there such a thing as a psychological disorder that stops people from connecting to others? I feel like a weirdo who is the odd one out. Keep it truer (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The possibilities are too broad to give a ready answer. If this situation is unacceptable to you, you would be best off seeking professional help of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)There are psychological or physiological disorders such as Asperger syndrome that affect communication with others, but we can't diagnose such conditions here, and you shouldn't try to diagnose yourself. You are certainly not unique. Many people have the same problem with conversations. It helps if you can find someone with whom you have an interest in common, since then you have an easy topic to talk about. If this isn't possible, then keep trying to maintain a conversation -- it gets easier with practice. Dbfirs 22:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- There are a variety of antisocial personality disorders and social anxiety disorders. On the other side, you have dependent personality disorders and histrionic personality disorders. Pretty much everyone's screwed up these days, at least according to the DSM-V. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
- A personality development disorder is not officially a thing, by any manual, but has an article anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
- Interestingly, excessive friendliness can be off-putting, and result in fewer friends. There's even a condition that causes that: Williams syndrome#Social and psychological. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- One thing I do to avoid awkward silences is make up notes ahead of time on my smart phone, of things to talk about. They can be jokes, news, etc. When conversation starts to lag, I ask them to excuse me while I look something up, although I often remember what it was without having to look. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- What are your interests? There are probably Misplaced Pages articles on topics that interest you. The inevitable interaction with others at articles may be helpful, although Wikipedians can also be frustratingly argumentative. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I dont think I suffer from anxiety that much. As for awkward silences, I am capable of thwarting them, but I avoid doing so because I feel like i'm being fake. My mind basically says "why would I talk for the sake of talking?" Keep it truer (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The love you take is equal to the love you make. I think you should read How to Win Friends and Influence People. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I dont think I suffer from anxiety that much. As for awkward silences, I am capable of thwarting them, but I avoid doing so because I feel like i'm being fake. My mind basically says "why would I talk for the sake of talking?" Keep it truer (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have you ever asked yourself "Do sociopaths know they are sociopaths?" I'm not saying you are, but you might be. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
- There has been a lot of discussion here about the variations of natural human personality, psychological "disorders", and the like. You say yourself that you've "only just come to the realization" that you haven't had any close friends for the past eight years, so it seems likely to me that (at least in the past) you weren't particularly bothered by the presence or absence of close friends. If this is so, then I'd suggest not dwelling on this too much, and trying to resist the temptation to "pathologise" your current state. Most people can count their close friends on the fingers of one hand, and there are many people who have none at all, but continue to live happy and productive lives (I know a few!). Many people find it difficult to socialise; sometimes this is part of a broader psychological variation (many people with Asperger syndrome, for example, find small talk pointless or illogical), but just as often it's just not a skill that they've developed much. And that is, sort of, the point: managing interpersonal relationships is to some extent a skill that each of us develops. Just as with any other aspect of human behaviour, we are born with a certain base level of ability, but each of us can build on this. If you don't have many close friends that may be an indication that you're just a bit out of practice. The way to get back into practice is, as you probably already know, by arranging to meet more people and seeing what develops. The usual advice is "join the local church, volunteer for local chapters of charities and service organisations, and join local sports and hobbies clubs"; people give this advice because it generally works, and because by having something in common with the people you meet at these places, you already have something to talk about. If you join a choir you both talk about the music you enjoy singing; if it's a model railway society you talk about whether you prefer finescale standard or something less strict, and so on. Gradually friendships grow out of these shared interests.
- In answer to your specific questions: no, you are not unique in having no close friends at present; no, you are not unique in finding socialising difficult and not having much in the way of small talk; no, you are not the only person who envies other people's social skills (I frequently envy this in other people!); yes, there are psychological conditions that can make it more difficult for someone to "connect" with other people, but there are also plenty of perfectly normal, well, happy people who find it difficult, too. Finally, as for feeling like a "weirdo" or suspecting that you might be the "odd one out", the good news is that this is perfectly normal, and anybody with two brain cells to rub together has this feeling from time to time! RomanSpa (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- RomanSpa, I think you might be underestimating the extent to which I'm a loner. I am not your average loner. You could do a documentary on me on the extent to which I'm a loner. For example: I barely communicate with my siblings even though i share the same house; I don't own a mobile phone or e-mail as I dont need one; one of my hobbies is sitting on isolated park benches at night by myself; I quit my previous job because it involved interacting with a lot of people; sometimes I go to my grocery store or call strangers in directories just to remember what it's like to communicate with others. I have reached extremes that my own family look visibly scared of me. Keep it truer (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Are you happy, or at least content or at peace with yourself? If not, what do you want out of life that you're not able to get? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I am content when I dont dwell on it. I am currently doing a jobsearch for vacancies that involves a job description requiring little interaction with others. Keep it truer (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Night watchman, for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- No. I dislike staying in the same place for too long. I was thinking of something akin to a truck driver or something. Keep it truer (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Night watchman, for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- RomanSpa, I think you might be underestimating the extent to which I'm a loner. I am not your average loner. You could do a documentary on me on the extent to which I'm a loner. For example: I barely communicate with my siblings even though i share the same house; I don't own a mobile phone or e-mail as I dont need one; one of my hobbies is sitting on isolated park benches at night by myself; I quit my previous job because it involved interacting with a lot of people; sometimes I go to my grocery store or call strangers in directories just to remember what it's like to communicate with others. I have reached extremes that my own family look visibly scared of me. Keep it truer (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I find befriending people to be easy, you just need to find a topic which interests both of you and don't be a jerk. Where I work the people vary and so must the conversations I have with them, for example I talk mainly about motorcycles and electronics with one person, I exchange recent personal stories with another, I talk politics and 'in the news items' with another, I talk about girls and cars with another, one person likes Magic the Gathering but he's so terrible at his job I don't want to see his face, and one person is just an ass-kissing parrot so I don't care to talk with him. So just try to have no reason for someone to hate you and try and figure out what you have in common with the person and start there. 70.53.71.219 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't wish to dissuade OP from his quest but I should point out that professional driving (trucking or otherwise) isn't a particularly lonely pursuit, nor an ideal profession for loners (in my view). Yes, there are long tracts of "alone time" but then you're effectively sitting in the same place (which you've said you don't like) while that place moves around you at your direction. But the driving is broken up by pick-up and delivery interactions with often-under-socialised store-men and the like (keen for a chat) and interactions with random people at truck-stops. Then there's the CB radio crackling to life every few minutes with everything from pop quizzes to weather reports and news of lurking highway patrol. A friend of mine worked (for quite some time) in a laboratory testing samples for fairly benign things (not Ebola and such) and he found it incredibly lonely. He rarely interacted with others and when he did, it was to transmit very technical data. Sterile, climate-controlled and air-sealed environments inherently prevent passers-by from dropping in to ask for your thoughts about the latest sporting results. As a bonus, lab tech qualifications aren't that hard to attain. He stayed because it suited his studies but was thrilled to leave when he completed his degree for an environment with a lot more socialisation. St★lwart 08:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you're at a loss for words and feel the need to make small talk, there's always the time-honored subject of "the weather": mundane, non-controversial (as opposed to religion, politics, etc.) If you follow any sports teams, you could bring that up (at some small risk of getting into it with someone who doesn't like your team). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also, you mention trying to befriend an associate, or colleague, or presumably someone you work(ed with. Do you find that semi-formal or semi-impersonal or semi-structured situations, like conducting business, are easier than unstructured conversation, small talk, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The person I tried to befriend is a fellow churchgoer. In answer to your question; yes. Semi-person/semi-formal conversations are much much easier for me. I was doing driving lessons last week and I was able to keep the conversation going with my instructor. Keep it truer (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're an introvert in a world that superficially appears to be populated by extraverts - which doesn't make the latter a normative, prescriptive state. Are you familiar with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? Fully half of the 16 personality types are introverts (though that may not represent their distribution in our culture). There you'll find descriptions that suggest the introvert prefers quality over quantity in social interactions, and a whole lot more. Numerous websites discuss the characteristic strengths of each type, e.g. the web links people have posted on Pinterest contain lots of illustrative content I've personally found illuminating and supportive. (See this about one introvert type, found by searching within Pinterest on "INFP personality" - there are also infographics of the 16 Myers-Briggs types among Disney and Harry Potter characters, etc. :-). You're probably going to be fine once you stop comparing yourself with people whose wants and needs are different from your own. And consider: people who can't bear being alone are a lot worse off than you are. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know any introverts whose lack of communication with siblings in their own home amounts to perhaps five sentences a year; whose favorite hobby is sitting alone in isolated parks at midnight etc. In other words, I have reached extreme levels. Keep it truer (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- By what standard are you judging that you're at an "extreme" limit? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Likewise, is what you know about introverts mainly or merely what you've gained by observation? By speculation? I suggest you investigate the resources I linked above which include findings of studies, discussions and individual testimonies about personal characteristics and different aspects of the social spectrum. You're very likely drawing conclusions based on insufficient sampling. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- You may be too ambitious in seeking to go directly from your current status as a loner to having newfound friendships. I would suggest that you work first on your ability to carry on a conversation. Once you are able to do this comfortably, it will make it much easier for you to form and maintain friendly relationships. There are essentially two keys to being able to do this. First, you need appropriate topics for small talk, things that are of interest to both you and whoever you were talking to. The classic examples are sports and weather. Sports will be unsuitable, however, if you do not have a genuine interest in sports. Weather is of pretty much universal interest, but unsuitable for sustained conversations unless there is a notable weather event going on or imminent. Other common topics include the use of leisure or vacation time, current events, and recent movies or books. Politics is of broad interest, but it risks starting arguments, which is undesirable. Second, try to the extent possible to ask open ended questions about the person you are talking to. People like talking about themselves, and this puts less of the conversational burden on you. "What do you think of ?" Is good. So is "did you do anything interesting this weekend?" Then ask follow-up questions, if it is something they seem interested in talking about. John M Baker (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- By what standard are you judging that you're at an "extreme" limit? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know any introverts whose lack of communication with siblings in their own home amounts to perhaps five sentences a year; whose favorite hobby is sitting alone in isolated parks at midnight etc. In other words, I have reached extreme levels. Keep it truer (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I live in a megacity. This has given me sufficient observation to notice if there's anyone else out there like me. There's not. I know all the loner spots in my city within a 8 kilometer radius and I'm the only one who ever goes to them. Also, my parents call me an isolationist. I used to be called "weirdo" when I was at school. My siblings appear scared of me. One of my biggest resentments growing up was having to go to a public school. I would have preferred to study by myself. Keep it truer (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- What is a "loner spot"? Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is a place where it is extremely unlikely that someone will walk past, where you don't hear the hum of cars, where there are no street lights thus making the stars more visible, where there has been minimal artificial architecture. Only basics like a wall perhaps or a bench. Keep it truer (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can you give me an example of where in a "megacity" it is "extremely unlikely that someone will walk past, where you don't hear the hum of cars, where there are no street lights thus making the stars more visible, where there has been minimal artificial architecture"? Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Lots. For example cemeteries, undeveloped areas near the banks of riverbeds, elevated pavement works near abandoned industrial sites. There are also empty fields, but I tend to avoid those because there's nowhere to sit, especially now that I don't own a car. I would end up having to stand for hours which is not fun. When I owned a car I used to drive up to a sub-urban area and sit near a patchwork at the end of a farm. I know the stuff I'm saying is freaking you out, but it's what I've been doing for ages. Keep it truer (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you're ever in Toronto, try moping here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Lots. For example cemeteries, undeveloped areas near the banks of riverbeds, elevated pavement works near abandoned industrial sites. There are also empty fields, but I tend to avoid those because there's nowhere to sit, especially now that I don't own a car. I would end up having to stand for hours which is not fun. When I owned a car I used to drive up to a sub-urban area and sit near a patchwork at the end of a farm. I know the stuff I'm saying is freaking you out, but it's what I've been doing for ages. Keep it truer (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Citing the Statutes at Large
How does one cite an old act of the US Congress from the Statutes at Large? gives easy-to-understand guidance on citations, but it assumes the presence of Public Law numbers. I'd like to cite the act that begins at the bottom of PDF page 478 of http://constitution.org/uslaw/sal/022_statutes_at_large.pdf (specifically, the paragraph at the top of 480 dealing with postal rates), but I'm hesitant to use the marginal note of "20 Stat., 357." because I don't know what it is, and I don't know what else to use. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- We have Template:USStat, but I'm not familiar enough with legal citations to understand exactly how it's used. Deor (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- "Stat." is just an abbreviation for Statutes at Large, which publishes federal statutes in bound volumes. "20 Stat. 357" (the comma after "Stat." is omitted in current practice) means Statutes at Large, volume 20, page 357. It's customary to provide the first page on which a given statute is printed, and when appropriate the particular page or pages on which the referenced portion of a statute appears may also be given. Here, "20 Stat. 357" appears in the margin of the PDF in order to give a citation for the statute referenced in text ("chapter one hundred and eighty of the laws of Congress, approved March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, entitled an act making appropriations for the service of the Post-Office Department for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty, and for other purposes"). In other words, it's a citation to an earlier statute, not to the statute you want to cite.
- The provision to which you refer should be cited as follows: Act of Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 92, 22 Stat. 453, 455. The date is used for the name of the act, because it has no official or popular name, and the chapter number is given because that was the numbering system given before Congress started calling its enactments Public Laws. John M Baker (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of course, if you use the template to which Deor links, it would be: Act of Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 92, 22 Stat. 453, 455. John M Baker (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
March 4
Georgia
How was the area of Georgia divided when Stalin was born?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Are you asking about its political subdivisions, or are you simply asking about what country it was in? If the latter, see our Georgia within the Russian Empire article, including its useful map from when young Iosif Vissarionovich was four years old. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm asking about political subdivisions.2602:306:C541:CC60:51D:B38D:18D2:A14C (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- According to this map and this article in the Russian Misplaced Pages, what is now Georgia was divided into the governorates of Tbilisi and Kutaisi, the latter including the Sukhumi okrug, the oblast of Batumi, and perhaps a sliver of the oblast of Kars. Marco polo (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Question about ISIS
I don't understand this about ISIS and their videos. Why is it that some of the guys carefully hide their faces (with masks and coverings and such) to maintain anonymity, while others freely allow their faces to be seen (and photographed and videotaped, to boot)? I don't get it. What could be the possible reason for this distinction, which often occurs even within the same video? ISIS seems like a very structured and organized group, where members are expected to follow orders and do as told. So, when they make a video, I can't imagine that the leaders say something like "Well, if you feel like it, you can cover your face. But, if you don't feel like it, then you can reveal your face." What gives? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- A good bet is that those covering their faces come from a Western nation, and would like to be able to return some day, perhaps to launch an attack there. They might also fear reprisals against their families still in those nations. StuRat (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe they aren't as well-organized as they would like us to think. Also, they're not very careful. "Jihadi John" has been identified, and even his own mother confirmed that's his voice. The "fear of reprisal against relatives" is part of their paranoia. But it's a good bet that "Jihadi John" won't be returning home, unless it's in a body bag. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Organized or not, I think that hiding versus revealing one's face is a pretty important piece of their videos. I doubt they just leave it up to the random whim of each member. Their videos are very carefully orchestrated and choreographed. I am sure that hiding/revealing the face is part of the equation that they consider when making a video. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are probably right, in which case the decision in each case is a tactical one. But what they are doing is new, so they are not experienced at it. In the case of Jihadi John, they might have thought mistakenly that concealing his face would have allowed them to send him back to Britain to do something like attack Beefeaters with a machete. If we are right about this, then, based on this new knowledge, either faces will stop being concealed, or some faces will remain concealed while a different person delivers a voice-over. Marco polo (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving them ideas. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- They are obviously more than capable of coming up with ghastly ideas on their own. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving them ideas. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I dunno. I guess that I assumed that it was an "all or nothing" proposition. That is: "Hiding our faces is important, so we all have to do it." Or: "Hiding our faces is not that important, so none of us has to do it." And I can see the individual who "goes against the grain" would suffer reprisal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell , they have no Borg implants, so they are probably just as individualistic as, say, American truckers or French chefs. More seriously, it's a sad and dangerous mistake to assume they are more equal than any other group of semi-organised people gathering around any one particular aspect of their lives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I dunno. I guess that I assumed that it was an "all or nothing" proposition. That is: "Hiding our faces is important, so we all have to do it." Or: "Hiding our faces is not that important, so none of us has to do it." And I can see the individual who "goes against the grain" would suffer reprisal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- They don't seem well-organized to me. Early on they appeared to be planning to allow "nonbelievers" to continue to live in the area, provided they paid an extra tax. There is such a provision in Muslim law for this, and, while unfair discrimination from a Western POV, probably nobody would have gone to war over this. But instead of sticking with this policy, they started massacring religious minorities, guaranteeing that they would be attacked. Even then many nations might only launch token attacks against them. However, then ISIS had to do things like burning the Jordanian pilot alive and posting executions of civilians online, ensuring that the attackers would actually do what it takes to win. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The "extra tax" is usually the Jizya, and in less radical islamic societies it is supposed to compensate for the fact that non-muslims don't have to pay Zakat. It's anachronistic, but at least historically it is not particularly unfair. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- No less fair than favouring married people. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
- In America you can try to get your Congressman and Senators to propose taking away the tax advantage for marrieds. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- And in countries that aren't America, it's acceptable to negotiate with terrorists. Changing either consensus is very hard, though. Easier to just teach other terrorists to kill them. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
- We can't help what foolishness other countries decide to get into. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you can! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
- If we chose to, we could declare war on ISIS and throw everything we've got at them. But they're not sitting there in isolation, so a lot of groundwork would have to be laid. And if the Islamic states in the region decide to take of ISIS, all the better. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see where ISIS is dealing with gays by throwing them off buildings. As bad as that is, almost anything is better than being roasted. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- The groundwork is being laid. Like I said, it's hard to convince Senators. Especially when you're essentially asking for permission to roast people. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
- It's better to be prepared and hope we don't need it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- If we chose to, we could declare war on ISIS and throw everything we've got at them. But they're not sitting there in isolation, so a lot of groundwork would have to be laid. And if the Islamic states in the region decide to take of ISIS, all the better. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you can! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
- We can't help what foolishness other countries decide to get into. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- And in countries that aren't America, it's acceptable to negotiate with terrorists. Changing either consensus is very hard, though. Easier to just teach other terrorists to kill them. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
- In America you can try to get your Congressman and Senators to propose taking away the tax advantage for marrieds. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- No less fair than favouring married people. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
- The "extra tax" is usually the Jizya, and in less radical islamic societies it is supposed to compensate for the fact that non-muslims don't have to pay Zakat. It's anachronistic, but at least historically it is not particularly unfair. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's a fairly significant mistake to assume that Daesh is working towards only one aim at a time (and also to assume that they doesn't care about the proclivities of their members - you can bet your ass they factor who wants to return to their homelands for nefarious purposes or even just who is worried about retribution. Enthusiastic, active jihadis will be more effective at achieving Daesh's goals than a bunch of bummed out ones, so generally speaking they will factor member sentiment in to decisions, even though that obviously won't be the only factor.)
- Daesh didn't initially want Christians to pay the jizya and live in peace and then suddenly shift towards deciding to kill them all. At the same time throughout their existence depending on the needs of the organization and local and member sentiments, multiple methods of dealing with Christians have existed throughout their territory. Some Christians have been utterly left alone - and some fraction will likely continue to be until/unless Daesh actually fully takes over the world (and possibly even then.) Some have been forced to pay the jizya. Some have been killed. And some have been beheaded in propaganda films with incredibly high production values for the whole world to see. Each method serves its purpose, and each will likely to continue. As Daesh has discovered, high production value brutality can be incredibly effective at manipulating foreign opinion (as well as internal morale) and the actions of governments - so when need for manipulation that can be achieved through these means arises, they will likely continue to use them. At the same time, in areas that need funding (or where brutality towards Christians serves no internal or external purpose,) the jizya - Daesh's version is much more confiscatory than the historical jizya - can be a valuable tool. And in an area where the assistance of Christians is needed for whatever reason (or an area where Daesh doesn't yet have the ability to control the population if they brutalize Christians,) some have been left to live without paying the jizya. I would be quite surprised if any of these treatments or the in between gradients disappears, although it's notable that (at least before the rising strength of Daesh - I'm not sure about now,) Al-Nusra - aka al-qaeda in Syria - decided that killing civilians of any stripe was bad for the success of their group, and made significant efforts to minimize both the number of civilian casualties and how much popular attention was paid to them. (This white paper from the Quilliam Foundation gives a very interesting overview of the doctrine and evolution of al-nusra.) I do intentionally keep specifying Christians - Daesh's treatment of Jews, Shiite Muslims, and people not of the book tends to be very different.
- Treatment of Christians isn't the only area where Daesh doesn't follow a uniform policy - in some areas and at some times civilians who try to protect cultural artifacts are summarily executed and the artifacts subsequently destroyed, but in Mosul a large group of civilians formed a human chain around and successfully prevented Daesh from destroying the famed leaning minaret of the Great Mosque of Nur al-Din (and if retribution was taken against them later, it wasn't publicized as such.) Though in some areas Christians have been able to live relatively unmolested, in Raqqa many houses and parts of houses have been seized from Sunnis who had not given particular offense to Daesh - the number of foreign fighters housed in the city combined with Daesh's practice of giving fairly roomy accomodations to most Western fighters presumably made them need a greater housing supply in the area. (Of course, most legitimate governments also hold widely inconsistent practices with regard to at least some things throughout their territories - we just have an idea that consistency should be expected. As an example, just because it's in the news so much lately - in some areas of California some open growers and sellers of marijuana are held in great respect by their local governments (the city governments of Berkeley and Oakland are both engaged in expensive legal disputes with the feds to protect local dispensaries,) and police in the US's capital city have started returning seized marijuana to arrestees, though some Californians are serving long jail terms for selling marijuana - and at least a couple dozen people are serving life sentences in the US for nonviolent marijuana offenses.)
- About Marco's suggestion that eventually we'd see different people doing voiceovers than actually doing the beheading - interestingly, this has probably always been the case for reasons that haven't been fully drawn out. Most people who have done careful analysis of the videos suggest that Jihadi John - despite holding a knife leading up to the beheadings and returning immediately after they have been completed - is not the person performing the actual act. There's evidence that most (or all) of the videos have significant cuts (in the context, I wish I could think of another word) immediately before the actual beheading that suggest that a different militant steps in to perform the actual act or that the actual beheading is performed by another militant only at a different time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think you made many very good points there. To add or re-enforce some of them... While they may have a Caliph and many trappings of a state, it would be foolish to think of them as a monolithic dictorial state where everything that happens is largely at the whims and fancies of one person, not least because they were very few recognised states which even come close to that. Notably, it would be foolish to assume the responses to their videos were necessarily unexpected. Firstly, not everyone has responded by stepping up their attacks. More importantly, if you aren't likely to be killed in any attacks, then you may not mind such stepping up of attacks, if it serves a wider purpose such as keeping your name in the news, drawing more people to fight for your cause or supporting your message (e.g. of being in a fight against crusaders and their un-Islamic allies who are more interested in killing Muslims than in any humanitarian goal). Definitely there are a number of comentators who suggest ISIS wants to draw Western countries, particularly their ground forces, back in to Iraq . Even a temporary loss of some territory may not matter if you feel it fits your wider goals. It's perhaps also notable how discussing surrounding wider problems can either largely go by the way side (e.g. the Iraqi government and the Sunni-Shia divide, or the hellhole and lack of any obvious solution from the Western POV of Syria) or even basically be completely rejected (e.g. the so called "jobs for ISIS"), another thing likely useful to ISIS. And of course people can be wrong about what the ultimate outcome may be, it doesn't mean they didn't achieve their initial goals. Specifically about Jihadi John, while it's impossible to say what the intentions may have been, is possible it was always expected his identity would be revealed. In many ways the recent revealation after speculation etc has probably given more focus than if his identity had been known early on, not a bad thing if that's what you want. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- That Atlantic piece you linked is quite good - it's one of few western sources that aren't incredibly jargon heavy that goes in to much depth on Daesh's actual religious beliefs. There have been some good radio pieces (and some good specialized stuff,) but most of it hasn't touched as heavily as the atlantic on the apocalyptic side of stuff. Tangentially, although I've never gotten my hands on enough information to make an altogether satisfying case for it, I've always kind of suspected that although a lot of their provocations are intentional (ex: they want US ground interention,) they weren't expecting Jordan's reaction. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think you made many very good points there. To add or re-enforce some of them... While they may have a Caliph and many trappings of a state, it would be foolish to think of them as a monolithic dictorial state where everything that happens is largely at the whims and fancies of one person, not least because they were very few recognised states which even come close to that. Notably, it would be foolish to assume the responses to their videos were necessarily unexpected. Firstly, not everyone has responded by stepping up their attacks. More importantly, if you aren't likely to be killed in any attacks, then you may not mind such stepping up of attacks, if it serves a wider purpose such as keeping your name in the news, drawing more people to fight for your cause or supporting your message (e.g. of being in a fight against crusaders and their un-Islamic allies who are more interested in killing Muslims than in any humanitarian goal). Definitely there are a number of comentators who suggest ISIS wants to draw Western countries, particularly their ground forces, back in to Iraq . Even a temporary loss of some territory may not matter if you feel it fits your wider goals. It's perhaps also notable how discussing surrounding wider problems can either largely go by the way side (e.g. the Iraqi government and the Sunni-Shia divide, or the hellhole and lack of any obvious solution from the Western POV of Syria) or even basically be completely rejected (e.g. the so called "jobs for ISIS"), another thing likely useful to ISIS. And of course people can be wrong about what the ultimate outcome may be, it doesn't mean they didn't achieve their initial goals. Specifically about Jihadi John, while it's impossible to say what the intentions may have been, is possible it was always expected his identity would be revealed. In many ways the recent revealation after speculation etc has probably given more focus than if his identity had been known early on, not a bad thing if that's what you want. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Stock Market Traders - How many Globally?
How many people/traders/investors buy and sell shares around the World? Total and breakdown by country/region or continent would be great!
JBL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.25.72 (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Gets the message
When was the expression "gets the message" first used?-Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- You might be better asking on the Wiktionary tearoom (helpdesk) which is here. The related gets the picture has a quote from 1910, but it may well be older. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's an odd phrase. Your related example is almost always metaphorical, so we might well expect the metaphor to have a first use in print. But "gets the message" can also just be standard use of English - "When he gets the message, he'll know when to expect me" - sentences like that are probably as old as their constituent words. But for the metaphorical use of "get the message", i.e. not in regards to an actual literal message being sent or received, OED.com gives a usage from 1959
“ | Jrnl. Negro Educ. 28 142 The..Negroes..huddled together in urban neighbourhoods and border and southern city councils promptly passed ordinances designed to keep them there. The courts got the message and asserted their power to enforce private racial covenants by judicial decree | ” |
- - emphasis mine. This is not necessarily the first ever usage, but it is likely the oldest in print that OED is aware of that illustrates the metaphorical concept. For some reason I can't get a direct link to work, just go to OED.com and type "get the message" in to the search box. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The Google ngram viewer shows a sharp rise in the late 1950s, suggesting that 1959 usage may be correct for the use of the words as an idiom (once that group of words enters the language as an idiom, expect its usage to rise). When I searched the individual date ranges for books earlier for that, all I could find were literal uses of getting a message. Antandrus (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
German stay permit
I am monirul islam, I am writing this letter to inform an unjustified,unprofessional and one sided handling about my German stay permit case as well as my right of residence permit was unlawfully cancelled from Bavarian Administrative court (Bayerisches Verwaltungs gericht wursburg), case no. W 7 K 12.860, Germany. This court has rejected my Legitimate claim all though i had enough evidences as prove. I am still looking for proper justice, please advice me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.113.82 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages has no connection to any court systems. You will need to find an attorney. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- We cannot give legal (or medical) advice, in part because its illegal in some countries, and incase it's incorrect. As Bugs said, you need to find a German (or Bavarian) immigration lawyer. If there is Pakistani (assuming that is the your country-of-origin) community association near you, they may be able to advise you which one to chose. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone who knows, or knows how to find it, could help the OP by linking to web sites for offices that deal with German stay permits, or any WP:RS pages that describe an appeals process, e.g. a page from the Bavarian Administrative court, etc. Here's a FAQ page I found that discusses German visas . Obviously we cannot give professional advice, but we can link to pages that discuss German visa issues. OP might also ask this question at stackexchange. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all you need to understand what the law is. The law is all about procedures and evidence. The law is not about what you believe. If you have all the evidence and you have presented all your evidence in the proper timing and your evidence is clear and unambiguous then you have presented your legitimate case. This is why keeping proper records are so important in cases of law. 175.45.116.65 (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
March 5
Delphic oracle
Our article on the Delphic oracle says:
- “The usual theory has been that the Pythia delivered oracles in a frenzied state induced by vapors rising from a chasm in the rock, and that she spoke gibberish which priests interpreted as the enigmatic prophecies preserved in Greek literature.”
But also:
- “The idea that the Pythia spoke gibberish which was interpreted by the priests and turned into poetic iambic pentameter has been challenged by scholars such as Joseph Fontenrose and Lisa Maurizio, who argue that the ancient sources uniformly represent the Pythia speaking intelligibly, and giving prophecies in her own voice”
I’m confused. If all the ancient sources say unanimously that the priestess spoke intelligibly, why does anyone believe she spoke gibberish? If they don’t say the priestess spoke intelligibly, what are Fontenrose and Maurizio talking about? Also, do historians know if the oracle generally gave straight answers, or deliberately ambiguous ones? Our list of oracular statements from Delphi seems to have a combination of both. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Modern historians disagree with ancient historians. There is nothing straight or deliberately ambiguous about the oracles. Unbeknownth to the oracles, they were under the influence mind-affecting gases and not divine oracles.
Sleigh (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've been under the influence of mind-affecting substances too. Most people who are drunk or high on drugs can speak intelligibly (though not always intelligently); they can also choose to speak gibberish. I don't see why breathing gases implies the priestess was talking gibberish. --Bowlhover (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, though the Pythia would be far from the only person to express sacred truths through speaking in tongues. Religious and psychological motivations aside, it would also make practical sense to do this. Someone receiving a prophecy directly would be liable to ask for further direction or clarification (especially given some of the ambiguous statements on our list). As psychic charlatans of today can attest, it's always helpful to be able to say that the diviner/spirit is not communicating now and to pay up and move along. And of course, good theatre has never once been bad for business. Matt Deres (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Nicholas II
When,if ever, was Nicholas II not effectively governing Russia, and if this was ever the case, who governed in his place?2602:306:C541:CC60:B58B:19BB:85C:5CBD (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages has an article, unsurprisingly titled Nicholas II of Russia, which covers much of his life. Nicholas left day-to-day governance of the country when he went to personally lead Russia's troops in World War I. When he left, his wife Alexandra was left in charge of the regency. --Jayron32 13:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the outstanding point was during World War I, when according to our Nicholas II of Russia article; "In the aftermath of The Great Retreat and the loss of the Kingdom of Poland, Nicholas assumed the role of commander-in-chief after dismissing his cousin, Nikolay Nikolayevich, in September 1915. This was a mistake, as he came to be personally associated with the continuing losses at the front. He was also away at the remote HQ at Mogilev, far from the direct governance of the empire, and when revolution broke out in Petrograd he was unable to halt it". However, his whole reign was a catalogue of errors of judgement and failure to follow moderate advice. In his wartime absence, the government was in the hands of the toothless Duma and the Tsaritsa, herself under the influence of Rasputin until his assassination by army officers. A briefer overview of his reign is here. Alansplodge (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Was Heidegger a Seminarian?
I have heard that Martin Heidegger started his academic career with a few semesters in seminary, perhaps even studying with the Jesuits. Can anyone confirm this? Do you know where he studied theology? Worldinfrontofthetech (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently he entered the Jesuit seminary in Tisis (a subdivision of Feldkirch) on September 30, 1909, and was dismissed from there again on October 13, fourteen days later, without having received the minor orders. He had left because of health problems. Soon after, still in 1909, he started the archiepiscopal priest seminary Collegium Borromaeum in Freiburg, and studied theology (and philosophy) at the University of Freiburg until 1911, when he abandoned theology, and added mathematics, history, and natural sciences to his studies of philosophy. (See for example Religiöse Erfahrung in der Phänomenologie des frühen Heidegger by Mario Fischer, Peter and Paul Matussek's psychoanalytic approach, or German Misplaced Pages's featured article on Heidegger). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- According to this source, Heidegger was a boozy beggar. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Chinese military no longer called PLA?
This site claims that: "Btw, the Chinese military have officially changed its name to just China Armed Forces a few years back." Is there any truth to this? Our article on the People's Liberation Army and Google searches seems to disagree with this claim. WinterWall (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- The official news agencies still use People’s Liberation Army (人民解放军) see, for example, http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2002-01/25/content_254352.htm DOR (HK) (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- So does the MOD "The armed forces of the People's Republic of China (PRC) are composed of the People's Liberation Army (PLA)...." although from the OPs comment, may be they already knew this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- The official news agencies still use People’s Liberation Army (人民解放军) see, for example, http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2002-01/25/content_254352.htm DOR (HK) (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
History 2
Is there a relatively complete site which details the political and geographical history of the world by country?2602:306:C541:CC60:B58B:19BB:85C:5CBD (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 14 Adar 5775 03:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- What's geographical history? You mean history of political bounderies?
Sleigh (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC) - We have History of … articles for most countries, for example, History of the United States — LongHairedFop (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- We also have Category:Territorial evolution which has many articles dealing with geographic and political boundary changes. --Jayron32 12:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Tight clothes
I was wondering since unclothed genitalia is illegal, is a visible cameltoe or blatant bulge in public illegal as well? If not, why not? Go getttttaa (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- In what jurisdiction? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the word you're searching for, as an aside, is moose knuckles which is the male version of the camel toe. --Jayron32 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- 'Moose Knuckles is ballsy and playful with a “no holds barred” kind of attitude.' Plus that logo.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 14 Adar 5775 19:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, jurisdiction is important. Women can legally go topless in NY for instance, but those who try usually get so many looks that they cover-up. It's also not advisable in this weather. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 14 Adar 5775 19:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- There are laws and then there are social pressures. If someone wears inappropriate clothing at any given venue, they are liable to be humiliated for it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Generally in most jurisdiction around the world, a visible cameltoe or blatant bulge in public is legal as long as there are no explicit legislations against it. However you can still be arrested for "disturbing the peace". 175.45.116.65 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ridicule works better. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
MEDIEVAL TRADE OF FOOD ?
In medieval Europe, trade was common between nations/kingdoms, and all sorts of commodities were exchanged... But when it came to crops and food (Wheat, oat, rye, barley, fish, meat and even vegetables etc.), was this common to be traded between nations/kingdoms ???
Reasons I am unsure is:
1) They didn't have the same luxury as we have today of freezing meat and other food that would otherwise rot. I am aware they had salt-barrels for meat at least, but travel-distances and times were often long, be it by ship or caravans etc. Many types of food would surely not last, and instead rot. Grain (or is it more correct to say crops?) could probably last longer I should think, so maybe that would be an exception?
2) Food during those times was obviously more scarce than today and I wonder if it wouldn't be in the best interest of most kingdoms to keep the trading of food more locally and within their own borders to feed their own, rather than exporting it, even if the pay was good.
3) I should like to think that every community at least tried to be self-sufficient and that most food made its way to local markets to be distributed among locals, rather than making its way onto merchant-ships and caravans.
When it came to those who dwelled further north, in semi-arctic regions, such as Vikings, the fact that growing crops was often difficult was perhaps one of the main reasons that they were so aggressive, I should think.. Raiding, sacking, pillaging, plundering and looking for new arable lands. For these people, it would perhaps be even more important than for others to be able to import food from others, if they were willing to part with it. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:5516:F9E7:4262:3D14 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure where you would research this, but it would amount to the difference between a Staple food and a cash crop. Staples are foods that are grown locally for local consumption; cash crops are those grown for trade. At most points in history, I'm sure that at least some edible foodstuffs were traded over long distances, especially luxury items like spices. --Jayron32 20:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Medieval cuisine has a little information on this. Except for spices, there wasn't a lot of long distance food trade. --Mark viking (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Stockfish#Importance mentions dried fish being traded across Europe as early as the 9th century CE. The Vikings supplied much of Europe with fish for centuries. Dried fish has a "shelf life" of several years so long distance trade is entirely possible. Salt cod has been traded internationally since the beginning of the Grand Banks fisheries. Going further back there is ample evidence of widespread trade in olive oil and wine in the form of amphorae in the wrecks of cargo ships from the Roman Empire. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Anglo-Portuguese Alliance mentions some of the items traded between the countries. History of cheese also mentions it 'became a staple of long-distance commerce'. JMiall₰ 21:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Mark Kurlansky's books Cod and Salt are easy introductions to the topic. Immanuel Wallerstein's work has an excellent overview of medieval trade patterns. Don't forget that there was a trade in wine, from the Roman Empire. The Romans also traded in grain, olive oil, salt and garum. Sugar was a cash crop that gradually worked its way west from the eastern Mediterranean. A lot is written about the spice trade but it should be remember that "spices" included salt, alum and dyestuffs as well as pepper, ginger and the other aromatics. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys. You've been helpful. The article about "Medieval Cuisine" was particularly informative, even if it did not focus so much on medieval trade. 2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:40F5:404A:1E78:5E9 (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- According to Phoenicians and wine, the idea of trading it came almost immediately after the idea of drinking it. Not medieval, and not exactly food, but their influence (and new grapes) carried over to then. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:5516:F9E7:4262:3D14 -- There was a certain amount of long-distance trade in foodstuffs that did not go bad quickly, but the bad roads and rudimentary land transport in the medieval period meant that food items usually could not be transported overland for any significant distance unless they could be sold at a high price. As late as the 1600s, it was not economically feasible to transport food into certain landlocked areas suffering food shortages in the quantities which would help ease the famine... AnonMoos (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not feasible for the maritime republics, anyway. Might just be coincidence that the Republic of Venice lost their best of seven series to the Ottoman Empire over much of the 1600s. Caravans and caravanserai were pretty handy for landlubbers. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
Where are the keys of a piano defined?
It's clear that there is some order on the 88 piano keys. If pressed, a key is supposed to strike a cord and generate a concrete frequency. If pressed harder, the sound has to be different. But, where do they defined what is the canonical sound a key x is expected to produce when pressed with force f at speed s?--Llaanngg (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Pianos need to be tuned to a specific pitch, usually so they can play with other instruments, and blend harmonically. It is, of course, arbitrary to pick which pitch to tune to, but the standard is called concert pitch, also called A440, which defines the A above middle C as exactly 440Hz frequency. Once you have set that key to the correct frequency, the OTHER keys are tuned relative to it using. Perfect harmonics would require just intonation as the tuning system; this is actually impossible to do correctly on a fixed-pitch instrument like a piano (well, strictly speaking you could tune to just intonation, but then your piano would only sound correct in one key; which would be highly impractical). To tune a fixed-pitch instrument like a piano correctly, the notes need to be "tempered" so that the circle of fifths actually matches up with the octave correctly. There are several kinds of musical temperaments to do that, but the most common in modern music is equal temperament. To sum up this from a practical point of view, this is how that works: 1) the A above middle C is tuned to 440 Hz. 2) The other notes are tuned to equal temperament, which sets the ratio between neighboring semitones (i.e. neighboring keys) to exactly the 12th root of 2 (about 1.05946). You can thus define the next semitone up from the A=440 Hz note, which would be A# = 466.16 Hz (440 * 1.05946), the next key would be B = 493.88 Hz (466.16 * 1.05946) and so on. --Jayron32 19:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I interpreted the OP's question to be about volume, not pitch, in which case . . .
- In short, nowhere canonically. The sound differs in loudness (but not frequency) depending on how hard the key is depressed, hence the instrument's full name – pianoforte or "soft-loud", but different pianos may well sound softer or louder even when the same forces are used, by design – one would not want the same volume from a piano played in one's front parlour as one would get from a piano on a concert hall stage!
- However, any competent instrument maker will ensure that:
- (a) different individual pianos of the same design or model will be very similar in their properties, and
- (b) different keys on the same piano are consistent with each other (which probably means some smooth variation up and down the scales – it would be very difficult to render keys octaves apart identical in their properties.
- The actual loudness that a given key produces when striking its strings depend on several factors, including the setup of the mechanism and the covering of the hammer. These can be adjusted not only by the maker, but also by the piano tuner. Again, any competent tuner will ensure consistency in a given instrument.
- If these consistencies were not maintained, it would be impossible for any pianist to give an acceptable performance (barring renditions on pub pianos, which are notoriously poorly maintained, but in the specific context of drunken sing-a-longs this does not matter). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- AH, if you're talking about the ability to control loudness (rather than pitch), the correct term is "action", which is basically defined as to how an instrument responds to being struck. We have an article titled Action (piano) which covers the technical details of piano action; there's lots of places for adjustment there. Musicians will also speak of an instruments "action" by how it responds to handling. A keyboard may have a "good action" if the player is able to control dynamics well using how hard he plays. A keyboard with "bad action" would be one where it is difficult to control loudness. A well-tuned piano with good action means that the player has a lot of control over the loudness or softness of each note. --Jayron32 20:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- And just in passing, there's variation not only in pitches and actions, but in number of keys. Though 88 is the standard, Bösendorfer, for example, produces models with 92 and 97 keys (the additional keys being at the bass end). The manufacturers decide all of this; there's no agency to set standards or enforce compliance; it's the choices of the musicians who use the instruments that ultimately governs. - Nunh-huh 20:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also in passing – sometime in the last several years I read a magazine article, roughly "Why you've never really heard the Moonlight Sonata". The score says to keep the sustain pedal on throughout, to make a harmonic mist of the fading notes; but today's instruments have a much longer sustain than those of Beethoven's time, so if you take the direction literally you get mud. —Tamfang (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- In Donald Tovey's notes to playing the Beethoven piano sonatas, he several times recommends simulating Beethoven's sustain pedal by holding down a handful of keys in the bass of the instrument without striking them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- In addition, how hard the hammer hits the strings affects the timbre of the note played, including what overtones of the fundamental frequency are present. I don't have a grand piano to check my memory from fifty years ago, but I seem to recall that some have a shift (soft) pedal that moves hammers to the right to strike only two of three strings for each note, each string having different harmonics, the leftmost string being of heavier material. Each piano design and string will produce a different timbre, but the fundamental frequency should be the same for each note. Dbfirs 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
March 6
Okhrana
During Nicholas II's rule, who was leader of the Okhrana and to what degree was Nicholas involved in its actions? Did it just report to him or did he actively control and decide its policies and actions?2602:306:C541:CC60:E461:E76B:164E:EA4 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
website comparing UK as unitary and Canada as a federation
Is there a website that shows a comparison between UK as an unitary state and Canada as a federation state? Please and thanks. My cousin who lives in UK thinks that UK is a federation but I argued it is not but unfortunately he is a narrow minded person. Please answer my question. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.169 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "unitary state". The UK is a Constitutional monarchy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- And so is Canada - same Monarch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Technically, no. Same human, different monarch(y) Mingmingla (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- And so is Canada - same Monarch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the OP is referring to a unitary state. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 15 Adar 5775 01:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- We also have federation, confederation (for Canada) and federal monarchy. If I remember my high school politics class correctly, Canada is a federation because several different political units joined together to form one state, with the previous political units surviving within the new state; i.e., Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia all still exist, as provinces within the country of Canada. The provinces have their own laws, education, etc. For historical reasons we call this the confederation of Canada, but in modern political science terms, Canada is a federation, not a confederation. Obviously this is not how the UK was formed, but I'm not sure I can explain why it's not a federation...it just isn't. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The status of federation is independent of the way in which a state was formed: yes, often a federation is the result of multiple independent states (or multiple colonies) coming together, but some federations were formed by other means, and some unions of multiple jurisdictions aren't federations. In the UK context, the country is a unitary state because the national parliament is supreme over everything else, and there are no other jurisdictions in the country aside from ones that are its creatures, i.e. it could get rid of any of them or override any of their laws, if it wanted. This is in contrast to Canada and Australia, in which the provincial and state parliaments are independent of the federal parliament, as it is unable to abolish them or override their laws on just any topic. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just to piggyback on what Nyttend says, in a federation, the constituent states have reserve rights which, constitutionally, the national government is not allowed to remove or eliminate except by their mutual consent. Thus, in both the U.S. and Canada, the States and Provinces respectively have constitutionally guaranteed rights and roles which the National governments have no authority to supersede. The U.K. has allowed devolved powers to its constituent nations (such as the Scottish Parliament, and National Assembly for Wales) which are allowed to decide policy for those regions, but those bodies serve at the pleasure of Parliament, and at any time Parliament still has the constitutional authority to override any of their acts, abolish them at any time, etc. Thus, the U.K. is a unitary state, which allows a degree of home rule to some of its regions, but that still doesn't make it a federation, which is a constitutionally very different means of organization. --Jayron32 18:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just to piggyback on the piggybacking, we have to distinguish between Parliament having the constitutional authority to do something and Parliament being politically able to. As Jayron notes, the UK Parliament could abolish the Scottish Parliament tomorrow (or have the Welsh elect the Scottish Parliament, and the Scots elect the Welsh Assembly) if they felt like it; it would be politically unpopular enough that they'd never be "able to pull it off", so to speak, but there's no legal impediment to it, and that's the difference between a federation and a unitary state. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should clarify the mutual consent bit too. Notably, unanimous consent generally isn't necessarily needed to affect the rights of states (by which I mean the entitites constituting the federation), in fact often it isn't needed. What you generally need is a constitutional amendment.
Often this requires the approval of the states themselves (generally meaning their legislatures), but usually only a majority or supermajority, e.g. Constitution of Australia, Article Five of the United States Constitution, Constitution of India (I think for relevant amendments anyway) or Amendments to the Constitution of Canada.
Sometimes this requires a majority or supermajority in a nationwide referendum however there's no requirement for a majority in each state, I think Constitution of Venezuela is an example of this .
But sometimes this only requires a supermajority on the federal legislature/s, e.g. Constitution of Malaysia (mostly), and I think Constitution of Nigeria , and also I think Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Note most of the earlier examples also required this or something similar in addition to the other requiremens.)
Of course it can often be complicated, our articles often don't seem to cover amendment processes that well (they mention historic amendments, but not how the constitution is amended, sometimes this may be mentioned in another article, but I'm not sure it always is). It may not always be entirely clear how courts will intepret amendments which affect rights of states, particularly if the states themselves are in majority disagreement, even if the constitution seems to allow such changes. And it may not always be simple whether the constition allows it, e.g. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany entrenches federalism, but I'm not sure how far this is generally intepreted, can you remove most of the rights of the states?
In any event, in the cases where the states themselves don't get a direct say in constitutional amendments which will affect their relationship with the federal government, some may suggest the countries are to some extent unitary states, but most of the cases are still usually called federations/federated states. (There are other reasons why the country may be said to have some features of a unitary state, see e.g. our article on India, or Federalism in Malaysia.)
But despite the IP's comments below, I'm not convinced that the UK will generally be called a federation even if England get's a devolved parliament.
- I think we should clarify the mutual consent bit too. Notably, unanimous consent generally isn't necessarily needed to affect the rights of states (by which I mean the entitites constituting the federation), in fact often it isn't needed. What you generally need is a constitutional amendment.
- Just to piggyback on the piggybacking, we have to distinguish between Parliament having the constitutional authority to do something and Parliament being politically able to. As Jayron notes, the UK Parliament could abolish the Scottish Parliament tomorrow (or have the Welsh elect the Scottish Parliament, and the Scots elect the Welsh Assembly) if they felt like it; it would be politically unpopular enough that they'd never be "able to pull it off", so to speak, but there's no legal impediment to it, and that's the difference between a federation and a unitary state. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just to piggyback on what Nyttend says, in a federation, the constituent states have reserve rights which, constitutionally, the national government is not allowed to remove or eliminate except by their mutual consent. Thus, in both the U.S. and Canada, the States and Provinces respectively have constitutionally guaranteed rights and roles which the National governments have no authority to supersede. The U.K. has allowed devolved powers to its constituent nations (such as the Scottish Parliament, and National Assembly for Wales) which are allowed to decide policy for those regions, but those bodies serve at the pleasure of Parliament, and at any time Parliament still has the constitutional authority to override any of their acts, abolish them at any time, etc. Thus, the U.K. is a unitary state, which allows a degree of home rule to some of its regions, but that still doesn't make it a federation, which is a constitutionally very different means of organization. --Jayron32 18:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The status of federation is independent of the way in which a state was formed: yes, often a federation is the result of multiple independent states (or multiple colonies) coming together, but some federations were formed by other means, and some unions of multiple jurisdictions aren't federations. In the UK context, the country is a unitary state because the national parliament is supreme over everything else, and there are no other jurisdictions in the country aside from ones that are its creatures, i.e. it could get rid of any of them or override any of their laws, if it wanted. This is in contrast to Canada and Australia, in which the provincial and state parliaments are independent of the federal parliament, as it is unable to abolish them or override their laws on just any topic. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- We also have federation, confederation (for Canada) and federal monarchy. If I remember my high school politics class correctly, Canada is a federation because several different political units joined together to form one state, with the previous political units surviving within the new state; i.e., Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia all still exist, as provinces within the country of Canada. The provinces have their own laws, education, etc. For historical reasons we call this the confederation of Canada, but in modern political science terms, Canada is a federation, not a confederation. Obviously this is not how the UK was formed, but I'm not sure I can explain why it's not a federation...it just isn't. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest that Jayron's definition is a too strong. Suppose that the UK repeated in England what was done in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, by creating a legislature separate from the UK parliament and devolving specific powers to this new body. Then suppose that 10 years later the UK parliament winds back the clock, abolishes the various legislatures, and reclaims all the devolved powers for itself. I say that for those 10 years the UK would have been a federation. --05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.169.183 (talk)
Syrian swastika?
While cataloging a small private library, I encountered this book, about missionary work done by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America in Latakia and surrounding regions of Syria. Published in 1913, the book includes a swastika on the cover. Was this device often used in Syria at the time, or is it more likely to be an example of Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century? The latter seems odd, because the article says that it was a good-luck symbol, and this church at the time typically condemned good-luck symbols as superstitious. Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- See Secret Sects Of Syria: A Consideration of their Origin, Creeds and Religious Ceremonies and their Connection with and Influence upon Modern Freemasonry by Bernard H Springett, London, 1922 (p. 331), which states: "ORIGIN OF THE SWASTIKA... By certain early Christians it was known as the 'Tetragammaton', the unspeakable name of the Deity, as represented by four Gammas...". I'm not sure how reliable a source this is - it doesn't correlate with either our Swastika or Tetragammaton articles - but it does prove that some believed that it could be a Christian symbol. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Nyttend -- The Syrian Social Nationalist Party had its swastikesque "hurricane" or "whirlwind" symbol, but the party did not exist in 1913. Swastika-like symbols have occurred in manyn cultures across the globe. AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- It could possibly be Zoroastrian - Syria is on the western edge of the area where Zoroastrianism thrived. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
historical sculpture
Was there a sculpture of an airplane seatbelt at one point or another? (It was made from whatever was left of Aloha Airlines Flight 243.) If yes, what has become of it?158.222.165.116 (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Entirely unsure if it is what you are looking for, but apparently Honolulu International Airport has a memorial to C.B. Lansing, one of those who died in the crash. See here. Might be a lead. --Jayron32 16:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently the memorial is just a garden named after her, so there isn't a sculpture there. See the bottom of this page and this photo of the plaque to Lansing.
- BTW - Lansing's was the only death, and there was no crash, the aircraft landed normally in spite of severe structural damage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
New communism
From the 50s to the 90s the main enemy of America seemed to be communism. However, I read an article recently stating that starting in the 21st century, the primary enemy of the US is Islam. So is Islam the new communism? Successiontomr (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, Islam is Islam, it's a religion, not a political designation. Saying Islam is the 'new communism' is like saying 'orange is the new black' - total gibberish. What would be a 'new communism' anyway? For it to be called 'new', it would have to be a different form of communism from previous forms, something which doesn't happen. If people are too thick to be able to think of the phrase 'replacement for', then they shouldn't be listened to. KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- You say "However, I read an article recently stating that starting in the 21st century, the primary enemy of the US is Islam." Can you link to the article or quote a relevant passage from it? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- It was in vlog format - here Successiontomr (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- You do know that anyone can write anything, but merely mashing keys on a keyboard doesn't make them true. People can make provocative statements like "Islam is the enemy of the United States" and just saying it doesn't actually make it a fact. I can say "Cheese is the enemy of Bolivia", and that doesn't mean Bolivians are going to invade Wisconsin any time soon... --Jayron32 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Cheese-flavoured cocoa puffs are apparently the enemy of good taste. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
- You clearly misunderstood the video. The point of the video is that Islam (even radical Islam) is not a major threat to the US. It is the "new communism" because just as communists were fired from jobs and ostracized during the hysteria of the Cold War, Muslims today are being discriminated against in the hysteria of the War on Terror. Just as politicians used the supposed threat of communism for political gain during the Cold War, politicians today are using Islam to fearmonger. You might agree or disagree with this analysis, but that's the point the video creator is making. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- To be fair, main enemies don't have to pose major threats. They just need to be the focal points. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
- You do know that anyone can write anything, but merely mashing keys on a keyboard doesn't make them true. People can make provocative statements like "Islam is the enemy of the United States" and just saying it doesn't actually make it a fact. I can say "Cheese is the enemy of Bolivia", and that doesn't mean Bolivians are going to invade Wisconsin any time soon... --Jayron32 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- It was in vlog format - here Successiontomr (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- You say "However, I read an article recently stating that starting in the 21st century, the primary enemy of the US is Islam." Can you link to the article or quote a relevant passage from it? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The greatest threat is officially climate change, at least till further notice. But it can't be a main enemy, because talking about stopping it gets "scattered applause". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Sort of like how advocating the opposite of terrormongering gets "audible grumbling" InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
Pre Indian southeast asia
What was the religion of mainland Southeast Asia before contact with India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Before the introduction of Indian religions (Buddhism & Hinduism chiefly), native religious beliefs include forms of animism and shamanism closely related to Chinese folk religion. See, for example, Vietnamese folk religion, Satsana Phi, Ua Dab, etc. --Jayron32 16:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly animism, shamanism, and folk religion, but the close relationship to Chinese religion came only after the spread of Chinese influence to the region around the same time that contact with India began. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there's a chicken-and-egg problem here. It's not like some alien space ship set down fully-formed Southeast-Asian cultures in place with their own religions already in existence, which lived in total isolation for centuries until China and India suddenly "discovered" them and decided to oppress their native beliefs and supplant them with their own. Cultural evolution is a continuous process, and for thousands of years cultures have been influenced by those that border them. What is "native" is highly contextual, and really depends on what and when you mean. Even so, it is unlikely that there exists a "pure" religion of the area which is wholly uninfluenced by any single other culture, at ANY time in history. --Jayron32 00:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly animism, shamanism, and folk religion, but the close relationship to Chinese religion came only after the spread of Chinese influence to the region around the same time that contact with India began. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Problems Dubai is facing as a developed city
what are the problems that Dubai is facing as a developed city? Such as sea level rising, population growth water shortage unemployment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.14.66 (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please do your own homework.
- Welcome to the Misplaced Pages Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.. If you want to know more information, see the article titled Dubai, which can be used for you to formulate your own understanding of its situation and challenges. --Jayron32 16:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a bit about a very recent domestic water law, and a slightly older foreign program. Might be helpful. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
What System of rule would this be?
Throughout history nations have had all sorts of systems of rule; Monarchy, Republic, Empire, Oligarchy etc. etc.
But what would it be called if a nation has several provinces/holds/regions that is each ruled independently by, say, Jarls and there is no king. But all of the Jarls get together occasionally in some sort of assembly and put down laws and make decisions together to rule the nation, as equals? Perhaps they even elect a 'king' or a leader-type amongst themselves, but it still can't be a republic, since it would only be the Jarls voting, and not the people. The position of Jarl would also follow bloodline rather than voting, so all the Jarls would be Jarls by birthright.
2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:40F5:404A:1E78:5E9 (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be an Oligarchy or an Aristocracy? I'm not sure from our articles what the difference is between the two. Rojomoke (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That's a Monarchical Federation or Federal Monarchy (depending on how you want to put it). What you have described is exactly how countries like the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia run. See Politics of the United Arab Emirates and Yang di-Pertuan Agong for information. Historically, two states which ran that way also were the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Also, while today we tend to think of "Republic" and "Monarchy" as exclusive concepts, there is some historical overlap; in the Federalist Papers, Poland is referenced as a "failed republic" for its badly run elective monarchy, for the writers of the Federalist Papers, Poland was a type of republic merely because it elected its leader, even though that leader was also a King. Another historic example might be the Dutch Republic, which was nominally a republic, but ran like an elective monarchy almost exactly like you describe. See Politics and government of the Netherlands (1581–1795). The various constituent provinces had Stadtholders which were very monarchical in nature. One Stadtholder, that of Holland (also simultaneously of Utrecht and Zeeland) became the hereditary right of the House of Orange-Nassau, by extension they became the de facto (though not de jure) hereditary leaders of the Netherlands. One of these supposedly republican Stadtholders even became king of England, see William III of England. --Jayron32 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just thinking, another example would possibly be the rule of the Twelve Tribes of Israel under the period before the United Monarchy, i.e. the Israeli people during the time period described by the Book of Judges. In that case the "Judges" were the temporary leaders of the entire nation, but under most times each of the twelve tribes managed their own business, being united mostly by religious connection, i.e. the worship at the Tabernacle at Shiloh and the role of the Levites, which held Israel together, since they lacked a central political authority. --Jayron32 18:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for answers. Gives me food for thought, and goes to show how intricate and complex these things can be sometimes. How I have seen these things have mostly tended to be rather black and white, but there's certainly lots of colors in between...
2A02:FE0:C711:5C41:40F5:404A:1E78:5E9 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's important to remember that as humans, we have an instinct to classify things; but at some level every nation is a sui generis creation unto itself which has worked out (and in most cases is in a constant state of "still working out") how to govern itself. When we classify such a diverse group of entities into a small set of categories, there are bound to be many edge cases. --Jayron32 18:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Who should clean in a utopic fair society?
According to socialists, and intellectual creators of any other "alternative" society, who should do the menial work? Some menial work, like shoe polish, could disappear, but what about cleaners? How to distribute work if you give all an education?--Noopolo (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Robots. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have people volunteer for the work they are qualified for and like, with some positions in such demand that hiring is competitive and some people would have to settle for their second or third preference, then distribute the rest by lots, with the least desirable kinds of work requiring the smallest weekly time commitments. (For example, people would be required to list unclaimed jobs in order of preference. Let's say that robots for cleaning toilets have not yet been perfected and cleaning public toilets gets the lowest average ranking among such jobs. The required X hours of public toilet cleaning required in a municipality in a week would be divided such that those assigned that task would devote fewer hours to it per week than other such tasks that need to be assigned.) Marco polo (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- An apocryphal story is told of Holocaust survivor and writer Ephraim Kishon, who as a new immigrant on a kibbutz (egalitarian society) agreed to a regular assignment cleaning the public lavatories with shorter hours as compensation - time he devoted to acquiring the local language so as to more quickly return to his profession. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have people volunteer for the work they are qualified for and like, with some positions in such demand that hiring is competitive and some people would have to settle for their second or third preference, then distribute the rest by lots, with the least desirable kinds of work requiring the smallest weekly time commitments. (For example, people would be required to list unclaimed jobs in order of preference. Let's say that robots for cleaning toilets have not yet been perfected and cleaning public toilets gets the lowest average ranking among such jobs. The required X hours of public toilet cleaning required in a municipality in a week would be divided such that those assigned that task would devote fewer hours to it per week than other such tasks that need to be assigned.) Marco polo (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- This question has been answered in quite some depth by many people who think about such things. Two related topics the OP may want to look into is Tragedy of the commons and Post-scarcity economy both of which approach the problem of "who does work that needs to be done when there's little net individual benefit of doing it". --Jayron32 20:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Even in a non-utopian society job design allows the menial tasks to be incorporated into various occupations. Job enrichment is a related approach, so rather than employ people who only clean, you could employ people who have responsibility for a whole area of estates management. Another strategy, which could be used in combination with those ones, is to expect everyone to start at an elementary level, but provide sufficient training so that no-one stays at that level for long. If you don't already know William Morris's News from Nowhere you'll find that it explores these issues in fictional form. Highly recommended. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I also say let robots do it. They don't mind, and beats giving them powerful positions. If a human really wants to clean, and they don't slow the robots down, I don't see why not. It's their utopia, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
- Cleaning could be split between everyone, I've previously lived at a place where everyone was assigned one rotating chore per week. Cleaning could also be done as punishment for crimes, aka, community service. 184.145.53.236 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- There's not a lot of crime in a typical utopia. Not enough to build a workforce, even in the shabbier ones. But if everyone is rotating shifts, that'd be too many, so I guess not enough complements that ideally. And if everyone's cleaning, the one who doesn't will naturally be looked at as a deviant, written law or not. He'd compel himself to clean or leave, so the spotlessness would sustain itself. We couldn't kill him for it, because we just cleaned. And we couldn't lock him away, because he'd get filthy.
- But your idea makes sense. I'd like to steal it and write a screenplay. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
- One guy we lived with committed the crime of being an asshole so we gave him the choice of double chores or leaving. 184.145.53.236 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- As long as the group isn't big enough for subcultures to sprout, self-policing is good policing. Did he leave? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
- One guy we lived with committed the crime of being an asshole so we gave him the choice of double chores or leaving. 184.145.53.236 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose that if you define a utopian society to be one in which everyone is doing the job they most enjoy, the answer is that the menial work is done by those who most enjoy menial work. To see why, suppose otherwise: if any of the people doing menial work is dis-satisfied with this arrangement then they are not doing the job they most enjoy, and thus you no longer have a utopia (per definition). Trivially, therefore, the only solution that matches our definition is that the menial work is performed by those who most enjoy it. If there are no such people, it must be the case that no menial work is performed. RomanSpa (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- By people, anyway. Robots don't dislike the things they don't like. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
- A truly fair society would pay people proportional to both the importance and the distastefulness of the work. If you pay enough, you'll never run out of folks interested in what we consider low-end (but vital) jobs. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good luck finding that particular utopia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- The market doesn't work when everything's equal. Who would pay the menial workers, and where would they get enough money to do so, except from working many times more hours in the day? We'd need some sort of special treatment for payrollers, and many other "important" jobs. Utopias shouldn't have currency, I think. Someone always gets hurt. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
- In a capitalist society, people who wished to do the job for the wage offered would do the work, with the help of all sorts of nifty inventions like rideable floor polishers and on scaffolds hanging from skyscrapers. What is really interesting here is the premise that under a socialist utopia anybody would be forced to do anything. Is that how socialism works? To me that sounds like a communist dictatorship. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
March 7
Sweatpants
I am in the predicament that even when i'm flaccid, my junk naturally protrudes forward. I enjoy the light feel of sweatpants, but whenever i wear them I feel self-conscious about the fact that the outline of my private parts are visible. Is that feeling of shyness common enough among other men to be notable, and if so, would it be okay to accordingly expand the sweatpants article? Shownashowna (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- If I were in a social situation where I have to refer to the most productive parts of my body as 'junk', I should be more worried about other social factors, rather than which kind of sweatpants to wear. KägeTorä - (虎) (Chin Wag) 15:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- One solution would be to not go commando. Maybe some tighter underwear, even boxer briefs, would be beneficial. Dismas| 15:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is this problem common enough to pass our wp:notability requirements? Or would it fall under wp:undue if i expanded the article?. Shownashowna (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, your personal experiences, no matter how intense for you, are not the basis to add information to Misplaced Pages articles. You do what you gotta do with your own fashion to feel comfortable, but that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. --Jayron32 16:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Any guy with a firm scrotum like me is going to have protrusion in the crotch area. Therefore I wouldn't call it a "personal experience" as you just did. Shownashowna (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Why haven't you uploaded a picture to aid in this discussion? μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Bhagavad Gita
Is there a standard, or particularly well though of, (modern) English translation available? I'm aware that there are many versions free on-line (including on WikiSource); in my experience with other translated works, though, you tend to get what you pay for with that. I was happy to pay for a copy of Seamus Heaney's Beowulf instead of grabbing one of the free ones out there, for example. Annotation would be a bonus, but not necessary. Any suggestions? Matt Deres (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
'Red hot coals' on moon
There was 'Red hot coals' on the moon according to this page. What does that mean? Is it something that could be seen by people? Apparently there was an earthquake then and also a solar eclipse. Any more info anywhere on these events of 1185? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- The entry says "Solar eclipse 'Red hot coals' on Moon. Prominences?". Sounds like an attempt to describe what the eclipse looked like as in our picture of prominences during a total eclipse. Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- (ec)As I understand it, the "red hot coals" were reported to be visible during the solar eclipse. However, according to List of solar eclipses in the 12th century, the May 1st 1185 solar eclipse was more or less in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean, so its surprising that anyone saw it. I'd take the report with a grain of salt... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)