Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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.
1) Works by Van Gogh for example have risen in price. But are there many instances of works of art that have significantly declined in price - where their valuation in the past was greater than it is now? 2) How do economists explain the art market? Particularly for modern art, where you could sometimes buy identical items for a tiny fraction of the price (Damien Hurst's Pharmacy for example, that urinal thing)? 78.151.117.222 (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There is an artist (I have absolutely no clue who it was) who was well regarded. He painted very realistic paintings. They were worth a reasonable amount of money. Then, long after he died, it was discovered that he couldn't draw very well. He used an overhead projector to project photos on his canvas. He traced them and then painted them. When this was discovered, the value of his works fell. They are still considered very nice works of art, but not completely original. Perhaps someone reading this will know exactly who it was and be able to point out the old and current value of his paintings. The only one I remember in the documentary that I saw was one of a boy sitting on a dock. -- kainaw™02:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I see the similarity, but the documentary I saw showed the overhead projector and the transparencies he used in his painting room. They were able to reassemble his most popular works by using the transparencies. -- kainaw™13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In I900, you could have bought all of Van Gogh's paintings for the price of just one by Alma-Tadema. In 1960, you could buy all of Alma-Tadema's paintings for the price of just one by Van Gogh. The market of reputation and of money in art has its dizzying ups and downs.Rhinoracer (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
And there are many examples of unrecognised masterpieces being found in someone's dusty attic and being sold for a paltry sum, but when the real artist is identified, the current owner discovers they're an instant millionaire, assuming they choose to now re-sell the painting for its actual market price. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
An economist would tell you that price is determined by supply and demand. In this case a decrease in demand. There are many "economics reasons" demand might fall and in this case an economist would likely say it was due to a change in consumer preferences. The supply and demand model isn't broken just because people want something less.203.214.104.166 (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In the case of Damien Hirst or Marcel Duchamp's urinal, the fact that you could buy something the same or similar for far less money is neither here nor there. What gives the art its value is the fact that that particular artist made the piece. Anything else tends towards the philistine (the "that's not art, anyone could do that" point of view). --Richardrj13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
But it is not the art that is fickle, or the art market. It is the viewer who is fallible. Here is an example not from art, but from music. Bus stop (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Murder in a gay couple.
Hi; in my country, Argentina, murdering a relative carries a mandatory life sentence. Example: Carlos Carrascosa was convicted last June of murdering his wife María Marta García Belsunce in Pilar, Buenos Aires Province and was sentenced to a mandatory prisión perpetua (life imprisonment). My question is, if in a gay couple, one of them kill the another one, would the crime carry a mandatory life sentence if gay partnership is not recognized?. Hope you understand me. Thank you ! --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Does marital status really affect the sentence? It doesn't matter if Carrascosa murdered his wife, it only matters that he murdered someone. Same for a gay couple. (Unless the law is different in Argentina, which is possible.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that in a country which doesn't acknowledge gay partnerships, a man who murdered his husband would not be tried under that law. However, he would also be subject to the contempt that such countries often have for homosexuals and treated as such (equally badly or worse than if he had murdered a wife). 130.56.65.25 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a word for Oriental/Asian/Mongoloid that is politically correct, accurate, and non-offensive?
Is there a word for Oriental/Asian/Mongoloid that is politically correct, accurate, and non-offensive?
Oriental -- is a word that sounds pleasant and complimentary, but some whiny politically correct nuts turned it into being politcally incorrect
Asian -- the worst politically correct term out there because of its inaccuracy. Most of Asia is caucasian, middle eastern, and indo-arayan. And the Oriental/Mongoloid race category is mostly not on the continent of Asia, but on islands near Asia.
Mongoloid -- scientific, possibly poltically correct, but the term is very offensive
And telling which country a people came from or their sub race like Han or Maio is usually too difficult. So... is there a word for Oriental/Asian/Mongoloid that is politically correct, accurate, and non-offensive? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Race is pretty much a bullshit idea, in the sense that there is usually very little scientific backing or great consistancy in classifying people. Terms like Han or Maio don't refer to subraces, they refer to people groups, and are self-identifying tags used by the groups themselves. If you want to refer to someone, use terms they would use to describe themselves to others. That is universally the most accurate and non-offensive way to talk about someone. --Jayron3205:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"Asian" has become the euphemism for "Oriental", meaning Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and most anyone else east or northeast of the Himalayas and residing along the western Pacific rim. "Oriental" means "Eastern", and it's more precise than "Asian" for sure, but that's the nature of political correctness. →Baseball Bugscarrots06:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"Asian" has that connotation (of Northeast Asian and/or Southeast Asian, although oddly enough not always of Filipino) in the U.S. today, but in other places, such as Britain and Africa, it's far more likely to imply South Asian (from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and surrounding countries). But as more South Asians migrate to the U.S. (and have children), and more East Asians migrate to Europe and Africa (and have children), those assumptions may well change. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting, and by your implication it has to do with the type of immigrants seen in a given area. To be more blunt, "Asian" as a euphemism for "Oriental", in the U.S.A., refers to those of the "Mongoloid" race grouping, i.e. those with what some call "almond eyes". Filipinos don't really have that characteristic, nor do Indians, Pakistanis, etc. Hence, in America, "Asian" is a rather specific (and misleading) racial euphemism. →Baseball Bugscarrots07:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
As noted by Shakescene also, the British usage seems to be opposite from the American usage. So there may be no correct answer to OP unless he specifies where he's from. →Baseball Bugscarrots08:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd use East Asian. Accurate, and no-one's taken offence to it, although of course no term is without problems. That is, if you meant China(s)/Koreas/Japan sort-of-thing, rather than all of Asia. In Britain, Asian did mean British Indian, now it's changing to mean both them and the above group. - Jarry125009:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with "East Asian," "South Asian," "Southeast Asian," "Central Asian," etc. Specific regional descriptions are unambiguous without bringing up any racial implications that tend to cause problems (rightly or wrongly). Rckrone (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you can say they're entirely unambiguous. For example are Afghanis, South Asians or Central Asians? Vietnam is in South East Asia geographically and politically but often considered culturally East Asian. I suspect many people would identify Baichung Bhutia as East Asian if they look at him but as an Indian he's surely South Asian right? I'm part Chinese Malaysian and part Pākehā; so consider myself both East Asian and South East Asian. And in that vein, how do we deal with Singapore? It has a significant what many would call East Asian cultural influence given the Chinese dominance but also some South East Asian and of course South Asian cultural influence but is well and truly part of South East Asia and doesn't even neighbour part of East Asia. Any attempt to categorise humans is always going to have problems particular at the borderlines. P.S. As should be obvious, I do consider the terms the best solution but I think people should appreciate that they're far from unambigious. P.P.S. I should point out as hinted at by Jayron32, Mongloid often isn't considered particularly scientific nowadays Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If the OP is happy to use African to describe everyone from Afrikaans to Zulus, then South Asian and East Asian would be much more precise descriptions of the people living between the Western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. But, it might be more useful to try and understand the differences between Japanese and Burmans. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Left-wing unionism
Are/Were there any left-wing or socialist Unionist organisations or groups in Ireland and Northern Ireland? --05:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You're referring, I presume, to Unionism in the sense of wishing to preserve or strengthen Northern Ireland's political bond with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and opposing independence or absorption into the Irish Republic, rather than in the sense of trade unionism or labour unionism. I think that there was a strong working-class flavour to the Popular Unionist Party, which adopted a social programme broader than simple Ulster Unionism. (Many of the militias that supported other small Unionist parties, such as the Ulster Democratic Party, also had working-class roots, but I don't think that their political agendas were particularly left-wing.) The Northern Ireland Labour Party tries to avoid the question of political union with either the UK or the Republic (unlike the explicitly-nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party), and I think includes many members who are both Ulster Unionists and trade-unionists.
But I've never set foot in Ireland, so these are strictly third- and fourth-hand observations and speculations; there must be others here who know far more and far better than I. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There used to be a bit of a joke about even the poorest unionist considering themselves middle class to distinguish themselves from the nationalists. Probably breaking up a bit now. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There was a controversy a few year back, when one of the Irish trotskyist parties (SWP?) began re-evaluating the PUP, saying that PUP was more working-class-oriented than other parties in NI politics, etc.. This caused quite a stir as the Irish left is historically pro-republican in one sense or another. --Soman (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The PUP is the obvious example. The Northern Ireland Labour Party dissolved more than twenty years ago; it long attempted to be neutral but ultimately adopted unionist positions. Other historic examples include the vaguely leftish Ulster Progressive Unionist Association, the Commonwealth Labour Party (a split from the NILP). The UK Unionist Party initially supported the British Labour Party, but soon became highly critical of it. There have been individuals in both the Ulster Unionist Party and Democratic Unionist Party who have been described as left-wing, but I'd argue that they weren't very left-wing, and seldom had any influence. The most left-wing unionist group would be the small British and Irish Communist Organisation, although their position shifted somewhat over the years. Warofdreamstalk00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Brit honors
It seems to this American that there are a lot of Brits who are honored by the royals (CBE, OBE, etc). So, from a layman on the street perspective, are these titles given much attention? Do they make the nightly news over there? Are only the more prestigous ones paid any sort of attention? Dismas|09:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I always thought "Brit" was short for "Britisher", but the article says that's obsolete. But speaking of taking insults, what do the British call us Yanks? →Baseball Bugscarrots10:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not really about an "insult", as such, just an unnecessary lack of respect. One of the comments on the blog Separated by a Common Language pretty much sums it up:
Whoever coined Brit clearly had some idea of how they should have been referring to me - it is clearly a shortened or diminutive form of Britain, British, Briton - and the speaker couldn’t be bothered to say the whole word/phrase. That ‘can’t be bothered’ translates as a lack of respect. That lack of respect irritates me. :~)
On a personal level, I never meant any great insult by calling Americans, Yanks - but I stopped doing it when I realised that many Americans did find it irritating. And that irritates me slightly as well. I was prepared to change my word usage to avoid irritating/annoying Americans - why aren’t they prepared to moderate their word usage to stop irritating me?
I understand that it is a minor thing and that I shouldn’t be so sensitive …….
However, I was taught that to insult someone accidentally was just plain bad manners. Good communication is all about choosing words that your listener will interpret in the same way as you intend them. When speaking, it is my job to understand how my words will be understood and to choose them carefully. Therefore, if I insult someone accidentally, I have failed to communicate well.
Insulting people on purpose is a whole different ball game. :~)
Reuben Said “As a Yank living in the UK, I find it shocking that people find 'Brit' anything other than neutral.” - Well I find it absolutely shocking that anyone who reads blogs like these doesn’t realise that there are huge differences in the way that language is perceived by different people. I just hope that Reuben was trying to be ironic – no matter how badly he pulled it off.Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, "Reuben" is a semi-polite way of saying "Rube" or "Hick" or "Country Bumpkin" or "Hayseed" or "Jay" (old-fashioned term). Or is that the point? →Baseball Bugscarrots10:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It's just a reference to one of the earlier comments on the blog that I was quoting from. Meanwhile, our article on Yankee says Outside the United States, Yank or Yankee is a slang term, sometimes but not always derogatory, for any U.S. citizen, and indicates that many Southerners would certainly not regard it as a neutral term. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The blog wouldn't come up, so I don't know their context of "Reuben". There's no question people outside the USA use "Yankee" as an insult, and always have. We just don't care. We've embraced the term and worn it like a badge of honor. Most of the time, anyway. The Yankee article has an amusing summary of how the term is used with successive groups to describe someone else. The New York Yankees got their name because it's a synonym of "American". Songs like "Yankee Doodle" and "The Yankee Doodle Boy" are considered patriotic. Although there is the old southern joke, about the guy who said he was 21 years old before he realized that "damn" and "yankee" were separate words. :) →Baseball Bugscarrots11:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're all done talking about slang terms for populations... this mongrel half-kraut yank's question is still unanswered. Dismas|12:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There are generally two batches of honours awarded each year, in the Queen's birthday honours list and the New Year honours list, which are reported about in the news, yes. But it's pretty rare to see things like OBE appended to people's names in general practice, particularly given than many of those who receive the honours are unknown civil servants. People like Jimmy Saville might insist on it, though... Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
My sense is that people are much more attached to/conscious of knighthoods than to/of the other honours. Even peerages have become somewhat debased of recent years. The ordinary person would be generally aware that the former Mr Smith is now Sir Murgatroyd Smith; but they wouldn't know, or really care, that Mr Jones is a CBE, OM, LVO or CH. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
As another example closer to home, I've lost count of the number of WP articles I've edited that said the subject "was awarded the Order of the British Empire/Order of Australia" or whatever. Such awards - or appointments, to give the correct term - are to a particular level of the relevant order, such as Member, Officer, Commander, Companion, etc. Nobody is ever awarded "the Order of the British Empire" as such. But common parlance would have it otherwise, because the vast majority of people are indifferent to/ignorant of the forms and customs they use, because they don't have a particular interest in these things, mainly because they know there's precious little chance of them ever getting one. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The lower level honours (like MBEs) are handed out in quite large numbers, only those going to famous people get any real mention in the press. Local newspapers might mention local people being honoured, though. Someone being honoured for something particularly interesting might get mentioned in an "And finally..." type story. OBEs and CBEs are rather more prestigious, but still only really get press attention when going to famous people. Knighthoods are given routinely to people with certain jobs - High Court judges, senior civil servants, etc., nobody pays any attention to those. Knighthoods for less routine reasons get more attention, but I think usually you have to be either very rich or very famous to get one anyway. Peerages are mostly handed out for political reasons, so nobody pays much attention to them (one exception is peerages handed out as part of the "Government of all the Talent" (GOAT) where experts in their field, sometimes famous ones, are given peerages so they can take government positions, as recently happened with the now Lord Alan). --Tango (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
More discussion about whether "Brit" is an appropriate substitute for "Briton" / "British"
Speaking as a French-American who lived for years in London and has worked with Britons for three decades, I must say that I have never met one who objected to the word `Brit`, and, indeed, many use it themselves. You Limeys, Taffies and Jocks are way too sensitive. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Just because some people don't mind it, doesn't mean nobody does. And just because nobody voiced an objection, it doesn't mean it didn't grate with them. It's not about anyone being oversensitive, it's about respect: not playing the Ugly American. Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Instead of just claiming that the word brit is a no-no, would you please then suggest a replacement. Saying British persons, UK citizens, or whatever doesn't seem to cut it. It is quite interesting that the convenient names in English used for other peoples e.g. Swedes, Danes, Dutch are widely accepted and used but that extra PC-talk is necessary for yourselves. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It's really not "PC talk" to ask people not to use unwanted diminutives. If you kept called me "Malc" in a faux-chummy way, I would be quite within my rights to ask you to stop without it being anything to do with political correctness. Your use of Swedes, Danes and Dutch conveniently overlooks other proximate nations that have an equivalent "problem" with terminology. Are you saying it's too much bother to say "French people" or "Irish citizens", for example? Or is there a "convenient" name for them that I haven't yet heard?
In the case of this question, I was assuming in good faith that the OP didn't realise that his choice of words might irritate some people. Some people, not all people. I don't really think it would have been all that "inconvenient" to say British honors or a lot of British people. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I guess I shouldn't have mentioned PC, since it apparently gave you the opportunity to answer but avoid the actual question. I'll re-state it: In a sentence such as "It seems to this American that there are a lot of X who are honored by the royals...", where X refers to persons from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, what is the appropriate X? You have made it clear that you consider brits unacceptable. What do you want us to use to avoid the "unnecessary lack of respect"? /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In recent years these honours have to my mind been given to unsuitable people with immoral pasts, so they are just baubles that the royals give away to buy popularity rather than being a mark of true worth. 89.242.93.56 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The Queen only makes the decisions for giving honours to other royals. The Prime Minister decides who else should get honours (on the advice of various committees and things). --Tango (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The thought of Winston Churchill or Pope John Paul II being made Kentucky Colonels is an amusing mental picture. Back to the "Brits" thing for a second, a Britisher on another ref desk page called himself a "Brit". Is it the case that it's OK for them to call themselves that, but not for others to? →Baseball Bugscarrots
Except, Tango, that there are certain honours within the monarch's personal gift, such as the Royal Victorian Order, the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Thistle. She and she alone decides who gets these, and when, and why; the only limitation is that there can be at most 24 Knights of the Garter alive at any one time, and only 16 Knights of the Thistle. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
True, but those are almost exclusively handed out to royals, other aristocrats and people known personally to the monarch. They aren't handed to the public for good deeds. --Tango (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
True. But they could be. It's entirely up to the Queen who gets them. There are certainly people who've never met the Queen but have been given the lower categories of the RVO (Lieutenant, Member, Medal) for some sort of service to her in far-flung places. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"Could" is a difficult word in the UK - while there is nothing in writing that stops the Queen doing pretty much whatever she wants, conventionally there are lots of restrictions and here, convention is law. --Tango (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we're talking at cross purposes. If the government, or whatever body decides these things, recommended in its wisdom that some horrible dictator should get a knighthood in the Order of the British Empire or the Order of the Bath, the Queen would be virtually powerless to prevent it (it happened with Robert Mugabe, for example; then his honour was stripped from him; I'd never be surprised to learn the Queen had serious reservations about the award in the first place but could not intervene). But for the orders within her personal gift, she does have the power to say yea or nay. That's the whole point of "personal gift". I'm sure the government recommends some of these awards as well; I can't imagine the Queen personally singles out all the recipients of the lower categories. But at the end of the day, if she does not want such an honour to proceed, it doesn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
To shed more light on the original question, it may be of use to note that the honours are given out twice a year, at New Year and on the Queen's "birthday". So newspapers cover them on those occasions. Some newspapers print the entire list and then you have to peer through it for any names you recognise or search for the surnames of your hero(in)es, work colleagues or whoever. Knighthoods, especially to celebrities, make the TV news (still hard to believe in "Sir" Mick Jagger). Local papers carry the news of who locally has an honour. The specialist press usually says something about people in their own line of work, for example, the Times Educational Supplement prints the list of all those who have received an honour for their work in education. After noting anything we're interested in, we then forget about it. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, but I believe the multiple birth rate (particularly above twins) has increased dramatically in the West (and hence, somewhat in the World average) since IVF and similar treatments. - Jarry125008:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for a story I once read in a book about the importance of punctuation. There is a criminal under trial for murder and some authoritative voice (queen?) sends a written message to declare the verdict. The original message is "Impossible, to be condemned," which would have resulted in capital punishment for the criminal. But somewhere along the line, perhaps in the transcription, the comma was dropped, corrupting the message to "Impossible to be condemned," which resulted in the criminal's life being spared. Or the story could have been the other way around, with the criminal accidentally being hung. Is this a true story, and if so, where can I find more details? dlempa (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that particular story, but it brings to mind the famously ambiguous "Let Him Have It". (Punctuation isn't an issue there, so I'm afraid I haven't answered your question.)--Shantavira|14:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've heard that story in relation to Catherine the Great of Russia. But I've always had my suspicions about its apocryphality (?), since this just wouldn't work in Russian. But then, she was Prussian, and maybe she said it in German. I googled it but came up with nothing. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) A similar example is well known in the Nordic languages. A recent Norwegian book about punctuation uses it as the title: "Heng ham ikke vent til jeg kommer", word-by-word translation: "Hang him not wait till I come", which, depending on punctuation translates to: "Hang him, don't wait till I arrive", or "Don't hang him, wait till I arrive". I'm not aware of the example being based on an actual historic event (and I doubt that it is, because if it were, I think the story would have been even better known). --NorwegianBlue14:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I know no German to speak of, and my knowledge of Russian diminishes by the second. Maybe someone else can chip in. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The "root" cause of this ambiguity is that the comma is not just used for separation, it's used in place of "and". That's why proper punctuation is "A, B and C" rather than "A, B, and C", because the latter actually means "A and B and and C". →Baseball Bugscarrots17:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Well there it depends what you're saying - A, B, and C can be perfectly valid, as you note, commas are used both for separation and as an 'and' substitute - "A, B, and C" has two commas, which mean two different things - the first is "and", the second is separating. To use some math symbols, "A, B, and C" means A+B+C, but "A, B and C" means A+(B+C). Without the second comma, the B and C run into each other, with it they are kept apart. Which of those you want to use.... depends on which you want to say --Saalstin (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, the semantics are exactly the same. The difference is simply between British English (no commas before 'and') and American English (with commas before 'and'). --Tango (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not an American/British difference. In both countries some use the serial comma and some, sadly, do not. Hence the two alternative names for it, "Oxford comma" and "Harvard comma". --Anonymous, 05:48 UTC, October 4, 2009.
As with Mark Twain (as per Hal Holbrook) depicting a child saying "Good-bye, God, I'm going to Missouri", and then reporting that she actually said, "Good, by God, I'm going to Missouri." :) →Baseball Bugscarrots16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not just commas. There's this one, embedded in this page, which is also somewhere in The Joys of Yiddish. Stalin receives a telegram from Trotsky which reads, "You were right I was wrong I should apologize" which makes Stalin happy until a Yiddish-speaking colleague says that it really reads, "You were right? I was wrong? I should apologize? →Baseball Bugscarrots16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There was an example of this came up once in a US criminal proceedings. The prosecutors said a woman had called in and confessed, "I killed my baby." What had really happened, it turned out, was that she had, while sleeping, accidentally killed the child (rolled over on it in some bizarre fashion), and was trying to explain that in a state of panic. So the confession wasn't a confession at all, because of its ambiguity, and she was acquitted, in the end. "I (purposefully) killed my baby" and "I (accidentally) killed my baby" are two different phrases, but the dropping of the qualifiers makes a very ambiguous statement... --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Ha, an example from ancient Rome. A prominent Roman senator, in a time of troubles, sent to the prophetess, the Sybyl of Cumae, to know whether he should stay at home or flee into exile lest he be arrested.
The Sybyl's answer: DOMINESTES. (At that time, written Latin did not separate letters.) The senator read it as DOMINE STES, i.e. "Lord, stay". He therefore stayed...and was arrested. It turns out the true reading should have been DOMI NE STES --"Do not stay at home".
Ah, those prophetesses...what a witty batch o' lassies!
And somewhere lurks in my memory the comma that cost the US government billions of dollars...a tax suppressed for the importation of 'fruit nuts' ended up being suppressed for 'fruit,nuts'...yeesh, that is incompetence raised to the level of transcendent genius! Rhinoracer (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
And here's one about the importance of capitalisation - see qqzm's post. (It's rather too close to the "bone" for me, unfortunately.)
Returning to the original question: I really ought to go back to Russian school or stop making pronouncements about what is possible or not in Russian. I had only ever heard this execution/pardon story from English-language sources, but I now learn it is taught in Russian schools, and the expression "kaznit' nel'zya pomilovat'" (казнить нелзя помиловать) is so well known to Russians that at least one movie has been made with that as its title. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There is an example from Japanese (very well known). It pertains to a sign outside an inn or something which said 'ここではきものをぬいでください', which, depending on whether the comma (here omitted - which is not only possible but in fact usual in older Japanese) comes before or after the 'は' can either mean 'Please take off your shoes here' or 'Please take off your clothes here'. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
A true story of the importance of punctuation was a Canadian lawsuit involving Bell Aliant and Rogers Communications. The two companies had signed a contract that should have said it would
continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.
but the actual text was:
continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.
which meant that 1-year-notice clause took precedence over the 5-year-term specification, making the latter effectively meaningless. When Bell Aliant took advantage of this error to cancel in the middle of a 5-year term, Rogers objected. The initial court ruling was in favor of Bell Aliant, but this was later reversed on the basis that the French version of the contract clearly said what the other one was apparently intended to say. --Anonymous, 06:00 UTC, October 4, 2009.
A very good example is from Marlowe's Edward II:
. Mor._ The king must die, or Mortimer goes down;
The commons now begin to pity him:
Yet he that is the cause of Edward's death,
Is sure to pay for it when his son's of age;
And therefore will I do it cunningly.
This letter, written by a friend of ours,
Contains his death, yet bids then save his life;
[_Reads._
_Edwardum occidere nolite timere, bonum est,
Fear not to kill the king, 'tis good he die:_
But read it thus, and that's another sense;
_Edwardum occidere nolite, timere bonum est,
Kill not the king, 'tis good to fear the worst._
Unpointed as it is, thus shall it go.
FWIW, in the tale "The Adventure of the Proper Comma" in The Memoirs of Solar Pons (1951), "the Sherlock Holmes of Praed Street" decides to investigate due to correct punctuation. A female patient at a mental asylum scratched the message "Help, please" on a stone and tossed it through the fence. Pons was intrigued that she took the trouble to include the comma. B00P (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You might check our article on dolphin, which - if I'm recalling correctly - can defend by pounding a shark in a certain spot witht heir snout. Where that is, i don't know, but I suspect it's similar to kicking a male human...well, you get the picture.4.68.248.130 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You should get in a defensive position and fight back. Punch sensitive areas, namely the eyes, gills, and nose, and it should go away. Still, it's better to just not get in that situation - don't go swimming at twilight, don't wear shiny things, don't carry bloody fish carcasses... ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure I would count on blowing up a scuba tank. In any case, predators in general are more inclined to back off if you put up a fight and show no fear. According to this extract from The Worst Case Scenario you should use anything you have and repeatedly whack it in the eyes and gills (not the snout, unless that's all you can reach) and there's a reasonable chance it will back off. If it still eats you up, take solace in the fact that you're helping to improve the survival of a threatened species. →Baseball Bugscarrots20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Scream and thrash up the water.They are alarmed by this...except, unfortunately, the Great White. This is because the Great White Shark is a dedicated predator, and its dedicated prey is roughly man-sized mammals, such as seals, walruses, or homo sapiens (i.e. you and me); thus, a display of thrashing and hollering that might deter a tiger shark or a hammerhead would only signal to a Great White "Mmm, lunch is a bit upset today." Rhinoracer (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
All suggestions here are going along the lines of the best defense is a great offense. This question is easily answered by providing simple defensive measures such as shark tanks, shark suits, and simply staying out of the water. -- kainaw™21:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
A full-sized great white is far too large to even think about dissuading without a speargun. They will destroy you if they are so inclined. The only reasonable prevention is not to swim in their habitat. Vranak (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The Worst Case Scenario theory would still apply: If attacked by a Great White, try to repeatedly poke it in the eyes and the gills, with speargun, fist, or whatever. There is no guarantee you'll survive, but it will improve your odds, because if you do nothing, you're dead. →Baseball Bugscarrots00:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed - I think the question is clearly based on the premise that you are already being attacked, in which case you might as well try. Preventing a shark attack is a completely different, although probably more useful, question. --Tango (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Our article on shark attacks suggests poking the beast in the eyes or gills, but that assumes you have adequate time (sharks attack fast) and very long arms. More useful (albeit highly contentious) are chemical repellants and the shark billy (a bullet or shotgun shell inside a stick with a trigger that fires on contact). Forget the speargun -- small bore, hard to aim and very likely to really, really annoy the shark. Best advice is to know something about the ocean around you. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to shoot the shark, but to poke it in the eyes or gills. Obviously, as with Mongo, if you shoot a great white, you'll just make him mad. →Baseball Bugscarrots11:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for four newspaper stories to help with a Misplaced Pages article I'm currently working on. Can anyone help? The newspaper articles are:
Germany clears its minefields - Philadelphia Inquirer - September 22, 1991
Land mines litter East West German border - National Public Radio - Oct 3, 1991
Germans work to rid ex-border of land mines - Dallas Morning News - May 6, 1992
Former German border almost free of mines - Austin American-Statesman - November 11, 1995
If anyone has access to a newspaper database, could you please see if those articles are there and let me know? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Which political party in the United States get most fund - Democrats or Republicans? Which type of industry give the parties maximum fund? How much fund third parties get? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note: I'm not using this website as a crystal ball. But I'm interested in finding out if there may or may not be televised benefit concerts to aid the victims of the 2009 Samoa earthquake? Will there also be any charity singles for the same thing, as well? I'm also interested if the USNS Comfort and/or the USNS Mercy might serve in the relief efforts. If more information is available, please let me know. Thank you so very much.69.203.157.50 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
While we understand that you are not expecting us to predict the future, it would make more sense to wait a bit longer and post your question some time a bit more into the future, after all, the earthquake in Samoa has only just happened and they are still looking for people trapped in the ruins, not thinking about relief concerts. If you want to know about whether a particular ship is planning to serve there, you may find it helpful to contact the ship in question. On the website of the USNS Comfort there is a FAQ button (which as you know means 'Frequently Asked Questions') so I would assume there was a place to ask questions, even though I couldn't find one on that page. Good luck! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I trust the OP's interest in the earthquake tragedy is a wish to help. They may call the nearest Samoan embassy and ask how best to contribute. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the USNS Comfort is based in Baltimore, which is not very far from New York, so it's not surprising. Anyway, if you are interested in helping out, it may be best to contact the places mentioned above. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Benefit concert: doesn't say anything about whether it will be televised even within NZ tho let alone outside. However I expect it will be televised in NZ and maybe streamed online Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
A thought experiment of sorts...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If Jesus lived in Nazi Germany (ignore the fact that he was a Jew here) and was hiding a Jew, what would he have said if some member of the SS were to go and ask whether he was hiding a Jew (also ignore any historical mistakes I'm making here)? After all, the answer "no" would save a few lives, but "yes" would mean the entire household and the Jew getting sent off to concentration camps... 202.45.54.47 (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand the enquirer's purpose, but this falls into speculation and opinion (What would Jesus do?, What if God was one of us?) that isn't easily supported by sources and references. Perhaps, Beliefnet would be a good non-denominational forum for posing such a question. ¶ Factually, of course, the early Christians were faced with precisely this sort of problem in a very real (non-experimental) way during many persecutions, and I think responded in several different ways. Jesus rebuked a companion for cutting off the ear of one of those who had come to arrest Jesus (Matthew 26:51-52). —— Shakescene (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to meaningfully consider the question while "ignoring the fact that Jesus himself was a Jew:" his entire worldview and beliefs were firmly based in mainstream Pharisaic Judaism (notwithstanding subsequent Pauline biblical efforts to obscure this by substituting "Pharisees" or the ambiguous "Jews" where actual "Saducees" were being mentioned). The Pharisaic school of Judaic thought condoned the technical breaking of religious laws if a greater good resulted, such as saving health or life. Breaking a religious injunction against lying in order to save someone (whether or not a fellow Jew) from unjustified persecution and murder by such an obviously malign secular authority would in Pharisaic thinking have been completely justifiable and expected behaviour; not doing so would have been highly questionable if not reprehensible. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You need to either decide this for yourself or ask a religious leader of your choice. This isn't the kind of question a ref desk can answer, since it isn't based on facts, it is based on faith. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
87.81.230.195 has the right answer, and it's a no-brainer. It's the Jewish principle of the "greater sin" vs. the "greater virtue". Lying may be a sin, but allowing a righteous person to be killed would be a greater sin. Also keep in mind that Jesus observably practiced this principle Himself, by healing the sick and the lame on the Sabbath. But as Myers suggests, this does not rule out the possibility that Jesus would have come up with something clever to say that would send the Nazis away confused, as He was pretty good at that sort of thing. →Baseball Bugscarrots20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Could he have magically turned their blood into wine, since he did equivalent magic tricks a couple of times? (John 2:1-11 water to wine; Mark 14, 22-26 turned wine into blood.) This would seem like a highly lethal and effective way to deal with pesky SS who come to your door, if you are the Messiah. Edison (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it more likely that He would have persuaded them of the error of their ways and to renounce their Nazism. However, it seems like the point of OP's original question was been lost. It was simply the question of whether Jesus (or anyone else, for that matter) would lie to protect people, and whether there's a moral dilemma. Of course He would. Anyone with a conscience would. And as 87.81.230.195 pointed out, there is in fact no moral dilemma in lying to protect innocent people's lives. →Baseball Bugscarrots00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall Jesus having particularly impressive powers of persuasion - the Bible describes plenty of people disagreeing with him and not being convinced otherwise. Short of a miracle, I see no reason to assume he could persuade the Nazi to change his ways. Whether there is a moral dilemma or not depends on your morals, which is why the OP needs to answer this question for themselves. (Christians do not universally agree on moral issues.) --Tango (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Jesus' power of persuasion was sufficient to get him a billion or two followers today, though Paul certainly helped. The Jewish tradition, if I have it right, is that it's OK to break God's Law, pace rape, murder, and broadly construed idolatry, if you really have to. God wants his followers to have rich full happy lives, and if it's a pork chop that's the only food around and you're starving it's OK to eat the pork chop. If you have to lie to live, or to save another's life, it can be OK to lie. PhGustaf (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I would argue that Paul (and his peers) did far more than Jesus did (assuming he even existed in a way reasonably similar to that described in the Bible). The number of followers when Jesus died was pretty low, as I understand it - the boom didn't happen until after that. --Tango (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well yes. Much of what's currently called Christianity is really Paulism, and Paul had many failings, especially those including his bizarre notions about women. I was just speculating about how Jesus (and I agree it's less than 50-50 that he existed at all) might have acted as an observant Jew. PhGustaf (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
And without Emperor Constantine, Christianity might have died anyway. But OP's question assumes the traditional Jesus, so the question needs to be addressed that way. →Baseball Bugscarrots11:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Blood into wine: Wait until the SS becomes suspicious about the missing officers, or until it becomes impossible to hide the dead bodies... Vltava6811:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Needed for urgent problem facing before debate!!!!!
Friends brothers:
I have a question on how to oppose that democracy wasn't a faliure in developing countries?
If anybody could tell me theese sametime some advantages also??
Thanks alot!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamrvd (talk • contribs) 11:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify the multiple negations inherent in your wording, do you mean that you will be arguing that democracy was/is a failure in developing countries? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Compare developing countries with oil reserves and developing countries without oil to see what difference the presence of Big International Oil makes. What difference does a thriving tourist industry have on democratic institutions? --Wetman (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The Ref. Desk won't debate for you. Pick a developing country that has a history of, say, colonialism followed by democracy. Identify things that have happened during that transition and use them as examples that support your case. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Your debate seems to be about the influence of oil, or tourism, on development. Neither requires democratic institutions, but here are a few examples that might be worth researching: Oil: USA and Canada (developing at the time of discoveries); tourism: Singapore (not quite democratic, but a nice destination) or Burma (losing vast tourism revenues by being such . . . must be NPOV . . . jerks). DOR (HK) (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
DPRK? Zimbabwe? South Africa? Australia? New Zealand? Democracy seems to have been a failure in some places and not so much of a failure in others (pick whichever you want from the preceding list - all of these countries were developing when democracy was introduced). As said above, we won't debate for you, but we can only point you in the right direction to make your own debate. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the sort of democracy where every adult got a vote, so long as they weren't a woman, or a slave (of which there were many) or didn't lack ownership of at least a substantial farm or the equivalent property/wealth. (Aformentioned conditions pertaining specifically to famously democratic Athens; other cities may have varied, but generally not for the better: don't get me started on Sparta). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to stir things up a little, compare the state of African countries in the colonial period (stable, peaceful,well-fed) with their state after independence and transition to 'democracy' (underfed and in a state of constant war). Note that I'm not saying that's the whole truth, but it would certainly make a good debate point. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In the US, has anyone refused to testify against a defendant on the basis that their evidence may lead the defendant to be convicted and face the death penalty? If so, what happens. If the evidence was crucial, would the judge make allowances for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.105.221 (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hence the country that won't extradite the murderer, gets to keep the murderer on their own soul. I don't see how someone could plead the Fifth when they are merely a witness. Better he should have said up front, "I saw nothing." It would still be morally dubious, but it would save time and resources. →Baseball Bugscarrots00:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The UK usually gets a commitment from the US that they won't seek the death penalty during extradition proceedings. Such commitments aren't binding, though, at least not on state courts, which has caused problems in the past, as I recall. Committing perjury or obstructing a police investigation are also illegal (at least, they are in the UK), so lying about not having seen anything would also not be allowed. --Tango (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You can imagine cases where the witness only witnessed a crime because he or she was committing one as well, or the testimony would contradict something he or she said earlier, thereby committing perjury. In all likelihood, the witness would provide such testimony and would not be prosecuted (or would be to a lesser degree) for their crime(s). ~ Amory (u • t • c)02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Our article on the fifth amendment includes sentences like this: "The amendment has also been used, notably, by defendants and witnesses in criminal cases involving the Mafia." That implies you can plead the fifth when you are a witness in somebody else's trial. --Tango (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but only if you are actually using the Fifth to avoid self-incrimination, like if a witness's truthful answer would be "Yes, I saw Bugsy take all the money from the vault, because I was standing there pointing my gun at the guard." If you're using the Fifth to avoid getting rubbed out by the mob later, you'll get thrown in jail for contempt of court. (You get to decide which is worse.) Tempshill (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Although in the particular case of the (old) mob, it was against a certain "moral" code to rat out someone, even if they were your enemy, to the cops. Enemy of my enemy or honor among thieves sort of thing. ~ Amory (u • t • c)17:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The quoted source also only says vaguely that it was an "incapacity". This is complete speculation, but since he was 16 at the time of the Battle of Boroughbridge, and his father was killed there, maybe he was also there and was injured in some way? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It sounds to me like it was probably some kind of embarrassing incapacity, which is why references to it are vague (it would have been hidden by the family). Learning difficulties, mental illness, epilepsy, some congenital disfigurement, perhaps even just a stammer - these are all things that aristocratic families would try to keep hidden so as not to make their bloodline look weak. The fact that he (twice) married (albeit without issue, at least not surviving issue - the article doesn't specify) seems to contradict that slightly, though. --Tango (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The Complete Peerage mentions only that on 26 Oct 1330 "on account of his infirmity", the constableship (of England) was granted to his brother, Edward. Whatever the infirmity in question might have been, it didn't interfere with a pilgrimage to Santiago (13 Dec 1330), a second marriage, another journey in 1333 "beyond the seas", and one in 1335 to Scotland. It frankly sounds like a temporary problem or an indisposition. It is unlikely to be a problem resulting from the Battle of Boroughbridge, as the king expressed dismay that the Earl had disobeyed his commands and repeatedly jousted and exercised other feats of arms in 1327. - Nunh-huh13:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is a report on the subject. I haven't read it but this blog says it indicates inter-racial marriages are somewhat less likely to succeed that same-race marriages. I don't think it's broken down by "asian-white", "black-white" and "asian-black" couples though. TastyCakes (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any alternative to setting the price through supply and demand? What do capitalism critics propose as an alternative? The most arguments that I hear refer to vague methods like: "paying the right price" which is "the fair price" which is "a reasonable price" which is "not exploiting people."
In the article linked above, the alternative measures of value seem to me directly based on supply and demand, but adding time to them.--Quest09 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is clearly wrong, as there have been many attempts to provide alternative to supply and demand, and all of them have used money. In fact almost all economies have overridden the 'laws' of supply and demand in some instances, though in modern western economies it's pretty rare.
The simplest examples is price regulation, where the government enforces limits on what can be charged. Rent control might be an example. In the wake of recent global rises in the price of food, some countries instituted limits on how much could be charged for staples. I believe that communist countries quite regularly fixed prices. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There's an academic literature on this, "the co-ordination problem". See for example Parecon (interesting idea, dreadful article), which proposes an automatic regulation. Pat Devine proposed instead "participatory planning". I think after the Soviet experience local-level approaches rather than national-level approaches are usually proposed. Most economists interested in post-capitalist models assume that money will continue, perhaps alongside LETS and other kinds of "funny money". But they also often say that more parts of our lives (caring for people, education...) should be taken out of the economy, as Andre Gorz argued in Critique of Economic Reason. So reciprocity would play a larger role than buying and selling. For a really radical view of a future non-economy though, I'd recommend the classic News from Nowhere.
Prices aren't set according to supply and demand. Prices are set to whatever price will maximise profits (assuming a completely free market), what that price is does depend on supply and demand but not by choice - that's just the way economics works. There are plenty of alternatives to free markets, though. --Tango (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Market price in the Bible
This question is related to the question above.
The Bible says something about trade, mainly about not short-changing your trade partners. I vaguely remember something about not increasing the price of people in need (I don't know if in an emergency or poor people). However, does it says something about market price or how to set a price?--Quest09 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know the Hebrew bible is dealing with prices. There are alot of economic rules in the Jewish Talmud (including the first known formulation of limited companies) and also detail entire price and maximum profit policy (foor food, clothes and etc), as for the bible I know that it command sepcifically not to bias scales in the market and many other things, I can check it out for you if you need. --Gilisa (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
One thing I know, in the meanwhile, in ancient Israel the bible forbid collection of interest on loans. So, it may effect signficantly on inflation and deflation rates, keeping prices relatively constatnt. The idea of setting prices by supply and demand is not only human made, sometimes when the supply is too low or too high it's meaning that the work and investment you have to put on the commodities production is too high or too low, respectively.--Gilisa (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This is still the case in Islam under stricter interpretations of Sharia law. See Islamic finance and Islamic banking. I saw a BBC news story about specialty "Sharia compliant banks" in the UK. They do things like provide an alternative to mortgages where the bank effectively owns the house and the client "rents to own". TastyCakes (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This is still the case in few Israeli and Jewish banks as well. However, if you took loan/mortgage in $ you have to return it in $, so if you don't have your income in $ you may earn or loose as a function of changes in the exchange rates. The Sharia laws were naturaly affected from the Bible. --Gilisa (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The lack of significant economic growth (economies only really grew in line with populations until the industrial revolution, and populations didn't grow that quickly back then) would also tend to reduce inflation. (The causes of inflation are really complicated and different models include different factor, but economic growth is one of the factors that sometimes appears.) --Tango (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
These models are never 100% valid however they are interesting. Nonproportional growth on one side of the market would lead probably to inflation (but it would be less signficant as cash flow is high) while equal growth of the market would reduce inflation. As for the loans in foreign currency, they are given in local currency-this way banks profit from the exchange rates.--Gilisa (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Evolution theory and Bible
Recently I thought about it and I talked to a lot of people and just about everyone claims to be a christian, but most of them believe in dinosaurs and evolution theory.
Is it possible to be believe that God created people from Adam and Eve, but to believe in evolution theory at the same time? And is there a philosopher or a book on this issue which explains this in detail? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.168.231 (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible? Yes. Humans are capable of believing in most things. That being said, the article on Theistic evolution will pretty much answer all of your questions, especially the Christianity section. Essentially, evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but most don't take it literally anyway. As for your specific Adam and Eve question, it's a little more difficult to reason through, but most commonly (mentioned in the Islam section of that article) is the concept of a "guided evolution" where evolution takes place, but God has guided it along, thereby ensuring Mankind's special place among the creatures of Earth. ~ Amory (u • t • c)17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's realy possible. There are many books on that matter, some supprot only evolution (like Ever Since Darwin), other support the combination of evolution and Bible (like "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder) and some support only the Bible and argue that evolution couldn't possibily take place (like Darwin's Black Box). There is a huge debate on this matter in the American society. Not along time ago I saw movie called expelled that was filmed by Creationists, I realy can't understand what the all commotion is about.--Gilisa (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
De facto there is no difference. If evolution may be responsible to X but not to Y, God responsible for sure to Y but not necessarily to X then the most parsimonious theory would be that God responsible for both X and Y.--Gilisa (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It's possible to believe just about anything. I know devout Christians who are perfectly comfortable with the notions of a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and of evolution. They don't believe in the Eden story as anything other than a valuable old story, but do believe that God has a special view of humans. The notion that Christianity and evolution are incompatible is largely a fundamentalist US one — the Roman Catholic church and the mainline Protestant ones accept evolution. They might believe that God steered it, but that would be another matter. PhGustaf (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The basic problem is that you can't take the Bible stories literally and still believe in evolutionary theory; but you can take them as allegorical stories. Complicating matters is that there are two different and self-contradictory creation stories within Genesis itself. →Baseball Bugscarrots17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Probably the part where s/he says "the Roman Catholic church and the mainline Protestant ones accept evolution." It's not wrong to say that Creationism and Evolution are contradictory, because they are, but it iswrong to say that it's a black and white issue. More often than not people take a little bit from both. Darwin himself, although he struggled with the concept, put stock in the view of God acting through evolution. ~ Amory (u • t • c)17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Read it closely. There are two stories. The second one starts about the third sentence of the second chapter. The chronologies are different. And the dead giveaway is the Eloist vs. the Yahwist words for "God". If you think I'm making this up, they explained this to us in Sunday school, decades ago. →Baseball Bugscarrots18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, Bugs is right, in the sense that (at the very least) the story is told twice. There's nothing definitively contradictory, but the two are certainly from different perspectives. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of a friend who is both a professor emeritus of geology and an Anglican lay preacher. He didn't get to be a professor emeritus by believing in any earthwide floods, or by believing that God left jokes in the rocks to taunt us. But he's still out leading services at rest homes. PhGustaf (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Genesis was cobbled together from (at least) two separate sources, in which the order of creation differed. These appear consecutively, telling different stories, in the Book of Genesis. I see our article avoids mentioning this directly. In Genesis 1: animals created first, then male and female humans are created together on the sixth day. God is referred to as Elohim. In Genesis 2-3, the Eden story: God is referred to as Yahweh. Order of creation: male human, animals, female human. The orders of creation are incompatible. - Nunh-huh18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. A lot of "literalists" are unaware of this. It reminds me of the old line, maybe from Senator Claghorn, "Son, I don't have time to read the Constitution, I'm too busy defending it!" →Baseball Bugscarrots18:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, you are talking about P and J sources from the prespective of the biblical criticism. Well, I wasn't familiar with this exact story but I do know that for much before Spinoze estabished the biblical criticism, Jewish mysticism consider each Godly name as unique in its meaning. Mordechai Breuer have established his own paradigm to deal with this kind of allegations. For myself I can't how this specific stories contradict and more, what sense can be behind puting two contradicing stories one after the other?--Gilisa (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The ancient Hebrew writings often did not put as much emphasis in the chronology of events as our western minds would like to think they did. Gen 2:19 does not necessarily mean "and then God created the animals." Simply, Gen 2:1-19 says "God created Adam and he created animals and he sent them to Adam," not necessarily in that order. It doesn't contradict the chronology given in chapter 1 (which is one of the few places in the Hebrew where chronology is explicitly stated). —Akrabbim18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
And there's more to it than that. The first story just talks about humankind in general. The individuals, Adam and Eve, are in the second story, with its reverse chronology. →Baseball Bugscarrots18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's about the chronolgy, but about deeper understanding of the text and the subtext. Sometimes it's hard to understand the language Hebrew Bible use in correctly even for native speakers of Hebrew. Modern Hebrew express times and quantities in what may seem as different from the Biblical one.--Gilisa (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It's perfectly clear from reading it that there are two separate and contradictory stories. It's not just the chronology, it's other things too. →Baseball Bugscarrots19:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
More to the point, I think, is that you can't legitimately say "I take this literally" and then say "except I don't take it literally when it is self-contradictory, then I say it's not to be taken literally". It's not that you can't find some rationalization, but that the process of rationalization necessarily involves being non-literal. -- Nunh-huh19:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
And the boy gets a cigar! Yes, that's it exactly. Those who claim to be literalists are forced to invent an explanation when literally taking it literally does not work. →Baseball Bugscarrots19:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is a tradition in the Jewish world according which the Bible start with the letter B (ב for בראשית(in the beginning) to indicate that we don't start from A. We just can't know what was before. There are things to be taken without commentary (such as the Ten Commandments) and others that need commentry that not everyone can give. As I read the "second" creation story, I realy don't sure that it mean to a different story, even it sounds complex indeed--Gilisa (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The dinosaur bones exist, we were once told at a Christian camp that Satan put them there. My belief as a Christian, is that they are not as old as they were thought to be. The change came with Darwin, grandson of Josiah Wedgwood and Erasmus Darwin, where they theorised that this supposed change in a species had to take a long time. They did not realise they were looking at many species. In short - God created all things, and did not employ Charles Darwin as His Evolutionary consultant. It is a shame that what is called a Theory is taught in schools as fact. Mathematicians had more respect for rigour than to call Fermat's little paragraphic entry anything other than a Theory until it was proven ultimately by 1994 by Dr. Andrew Wiles. World has only been going 6000 years. Amen. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Tell us another fairy tale. I like better what a friend of mine, a biology scientist and a devout Christian, had to say about evolution: "Evolution is how God works." Amen. The American. →Baseball Bugscarrots03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
In any case, the OP's question has been answered several times. Literal belief in the creation stories is not compatible with what science has discovered about the history of the earth and the universe. Treating the creation story as an allegory rather than being literal, can work. →Baseball Bugscarrots03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. It's rather unfortunate we teach gravity as a fact. It all started with Newton and his blasphemous ideas. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"Theory" is the most definite thing science has, there are no absolute facts in science, just theories that have an overwhelming amount of evidence for them (such as evolution). Mathematicians actually did call that little paragraphic entry "Fermat's Last Theorem" - a theorem is a major mathematical result that has been proven. Originally that was because people gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he really had proven it, later is was just because that was the traditional name that everyone knew it was. That evolution takes a long time is determined by geologists who can work out the age of different layers of rock that the fossils are found in and physicists that can work out how long it must have taken for the radioactive isotopes (mainly Carbon-14) in the fossils to reach the measured levels. It is far from a supposition. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"Treating the creation story as an allegory" is not good enough, you either believe it literaly or not. Of course I would be happy to kid myself that the creations stories are allegory, but they are not, they are either lies or the truth. Anyway, thanks for your answers everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.168.231 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well you are free to feel it's not good enough for you and therefore if you look at the evidence I guess you will have to accept them as lies. Plenty of Christians don't agree and do consider the stories as allegory Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is a middle ground. For example, the creation stories can be seen as nostalgia for a simpler time, when people lived off God's bounty (hunting and gathering) rather than becoming slaves to their own ingenuity (agriculture). The argument that the creation stories are either truth or lies, is a false argument, a red herring. The stories can easily be seen as "a little bit of both". Which, in fact, is a good characterization for much of the Old Testament. Thus, one can believe in the generic "truth" of the Old Testament and still accept evolution. It's only if you require that the creation stories be word-for-contradictory-word "true", that you obviously can't accept evolution. →Baseball Bugscarrots15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont think that a Christian can really consider those stories as allegory, for then stories about Christ might also be allegories, for example Mary might not be a virgin if you look at it as an allegory. Then Resurrection might also be an alegory and so on, which means that only things that can be proven will are considered to be literate and then the whole point of FAITH is lost. Thats why its kind of impossible to believe believe that creation stories or Mary being sinless or Resurrection are allegories if you are a Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.168.231 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Christianity is the most heterodox religion the world has ever known. I don't think a little skepticism about the literal nature of the Book of Genesis is going to kick anyone out of the definition of "Christian." It might remove you from certain specific sects, yes, but there are plenty of sects left to choose from. Catholics support Darwinian evolution, for example. --M@rēino15:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
A few years ago I was at a talk given by the pastor of a local Presbyterian congregation. He had had a year or two cut out of his career by, of all things, a trial for heresy. When asked what he'd do if called to the bedside of a dying Buddhist, he said he'd just say, "God loves you and will take care of you" rather than try for a last-minute baptism. The church management didn't like that. Then when ask whether Jesus' resurrection really happened or was an allegory, he said, "I'll go with the allegory." The management didn't like that either, so they busted him.
But he survived the trial, and his church seems to be going fine. I'm not going to suggest, though, that what plays in Palo Alto would play in more fundamentalist neighborhoods. PhGustaf (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the whole thing about Mary being a virgin is likely a mistranslation (as the original word is more literally translated as "young woman," not "virgin"). — The Hand That Feeds You:17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a story about a child who drew a Nativity scene, with Mary and Joseph and the Kid and Magi and the lot. Off to the side was a plump little child. "Who's that?" "Oh, that's Round John Virgin". PhGustaf (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Possibly true of Isaiah 7:14 ("A virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel"), but we have the definite statement in Luke 1:34 - "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" If we take Luke as - well - Gospel, we have to conclude (at least) that Mary considered herself to be a virgin in the modern sense. Tevildo (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
There are no mistranslations in the Bible - that is, the Authorized King James version. To say the Bible does not line up with science is also nonsense. Within its pages we are taught that the earth is round and hangs in space. If anything, we should be checking whether science is in line with the Bible, and I say that as a Mathematician. I know my science, and I also believe that Pauls comment to Timothy about " Science falsely so called " is a direct reference to Evolution. Yes, it had not happened yet, but is it beyond God to inspire a man to write of things He can easily foresee ? If certain " Christians " have beguiled you, it is as the Bible predicted. Anything real will be subject to delusion and corruption. There are even fake Bible versions that alter the meaning of Scripture. Stick to the King James for a start, then read it with an open mind and heart. No amount of philosophizing and clever words will convince anyone of the truth of God more than genuinely seeking Him for yourself. In my 23 years as a Christian I have met good decent people and charlatans, as well as genuine curious people put off by the fakery. Do not lump all those who claim to be Christians together. It certainly is not easy being a Christian, but God has made sure it should not be impossible, and that most of it is down to Him. No one earns salvation by being a good person, since it is all God's Gift. Nor does one maintain it. How can any mere mortal keep up a thing he could not possibly attain on his own ? All God expects is that we actively seek Him. Just because Christ died on the Cross, doesn't mean all are saved automatically. One is not just so much condemned for their sins, as they are for actively rejecting God and His Son Jesus Christ. Yes, it is the sin that condemns, but all have sinned, and God gives a way out, so that He gets the glory for saving us who cannot save ourselves. All of this da Vinci Code nonsense doesn't help. The Bible makes it plain that Christ had to be a pure sacrifice, so to say He had a child is a blasphemous heresy. His Mother, the Virgin Mary, was indeed a virgin when she gave birth to Him, that is not beyond God, but later had other children, since Jesus was the oldest. This is because He had to be the Firstfruits. Jesus had four half brothers, at least two of whom wrote passages in the Bible. But even being His brother may not have guaranteed them. Each person still has to believe themselves and for themselves. Ladies and Gentlemen, I realise the Bible is hard to understand, but do not be tempted to try one of those false translations in modern speech. The King James is fine, because in any true church there will be people to help with it. There may be many denominations that preach the truth of God's Word, but if they are genuine, they still preach the ONLY WAY OF SALVATION, and that is Jesus Christ. One may ask, why then does a God fearing nation like Samoa suffer ? Why does God allow such things ? Interesting that when it is good, creation is taken to be the work of Evolution, but when bad things occur, they have to be Acts Of God. The only Acts OF God and His Apostles are the 28 chapters in the New Testament book of the same name. It seems God gets all the blame, but none of the credit. Look at how complicated Nature is. 200 years ago. Mr. Paley pointed all that out. None of it could be bt accident. You will either believe or you won't. Fair enough. God gives us a choice. But at least hear it out properly. I have. I have thought long and hard about other things and beliefs. A true Christian is not narrow minded. Then I can say as the Apostle Paul said so to Timothy " I know whom I have believed ..." That is, he did not just choose something, but it was give due consideration, but once done so, now his mind is made up. Yes make up your minds, but not as apple pie beds that will tangle your thoughts. I welcome discussion, but I too now know Whom I have believed. Amen. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
"Apple pie bed" is an image I've never come across before. With the right partner and ice cream or cheese, depending, it's not that bad an image. You seem to be associated with the King-James-Only_Movement. Fine for you, but most of us aren't. PhGustaf (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Magda Goebbels in <<Parents who killed their children>>?>?-October_5-2009-10-05T18:37:00.000Z">
The following day, on 1 May 1945, Magda and Joseph Goebbels drugged their six children with morphine and killed them by breaking cyanide capsules in their mouths. Accounts differ over how involved Magda Goebbels was in the killing of her children. Some accounts claimed that the SS doctor Ludwig Stumpfegger crushed the cyanide capsules into the children's mouths, but as no witnesses to the event survived it is impossible to know this. O'Donnell concluded that although Stumpfegger was probably involved in drugging the children, Magda Goebbels killed them herself. O'Donnell suggested that witnesses blamed the deaths on Stumpfegger because he was a convenient target, having disappeared (and died, it was later learned) the following day. Moreover, as O'Donnell recorded, Stumpfegger may have been too intoxicated at the time of the deaths to have played a reliable role. (James O'Donnell: The Bunker (De Capo Press, 1978) ISBN 0-306-80958-3)
No, you aren't. Magda Goebbels and Joseph Goebbels weren't innocent. There is only a tiny diffrence if Magda crushed the capsules or if Ludwig Stumpfegger did it. If Ludwig crushed the capsules he did it solely on the express request of Magda and Joseph Goebbels. The parents had drugged the children solely to kill them later. All three of them are guilty of conspiracy to murder which they fulfilled. In this particular case, weighing all testimonies, there is no reasonable doubt at all. I suppose that it could be "possible" that Magda knew absolutly nothing. However this would require the false testimony of all witnesses, throughout their entire lives. Ergo: not bloody likely (or reasonable). Flamarande (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
While she may not technically have carried out the specific act that actually killed them (administering the cyanide), she does circumstantially appear to have been a willing and active participant in the overall process, unless there are any accounts to the contrary. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that the Presumption of innocence is in most cases an ideal, and not a truth. There are things such as bail (and, well, jail) because we do not follow "innocent until proven guilty" to the letter. ~ Amory (u • t • c)20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
We try, though, and this discussion doesn't mean "we" didn't in this case. Your quibble, I believe, is with the word "proven". In the US, and probably the UK, "proven" is synonymous in a court with "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", not "proven beyond the shadow of a doubt". The Goebbels' role here has, or so I read, been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, hence, in a court of law, "proven". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Further, "proven beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for subjecting someone to the penalties provided by law. It is not necessarily the appropriate standard for any other context. (As Amory points out, even in law it doesn't necessarily apply in all contexts.) --Anon, 20:44 UTC, October 5, 2009.
(edit conflict) I'm referring to the period before the court case, before we get into the usage of the word "proven" or how it ties to reasonable doubt. Rather, I mean to refer to the moment of arrest (or in some cases suspicion of a crime) leading up until the court case. Someone charged with a triple homicide is not "presumed innocent" - rather, they are locked up tightly and will most likely be denied bail. It's a nice phrase, and one we should all aspire to, but it's not a reality in a society where criminals exist. ~ Amory (u • t • c)20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
According to Helmut Kunz (see www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/goebbels.html ) "According to Kunz's testimony, he gave the children morphine injections but it was Magda Goebbels and Stumpfegger, Hitler's personal doctor, who then administered the cyanide." 83.100.251.196 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)>?">
>?">
I assume this is the list in question, in which case Magda Goebbels is there by the same logic that includes Peter the Great of Russia, who had his son tortured to death and even allegedly participated in some of the torture sessions. We don't know that he struck the fatal blow, but he do know that he sanctioned it. Karenjc22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Truman didn't kill any Japanese, but he definitely sanctioned it. Since we're talking about Goebbels, I figured Godwin's Law was unnecessary. ~ Amory (u • t • c)00:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Truman was commander-in-chief, and I'm sure he would gladly own up to killing a lot of Japanese - as part of the price they paid for making war upon us. →Baseball Bugscarrots03:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(There is no presumption of innocence in writing history. There is presumption of innocence when being convicted in a court of law. There is a difference. The context of an accusation does matter, as do the potential consequences to the accused.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Historians have disagreed on the death of Alexis the Tsarevich; not everyone believes that Peter ordered or desired that the torture go as far as it did. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
World Bank loans.
Not really sure where to put this but:
What happens to some African (or any other but Africa comes to mind mostly when I think of big loans) when they default on a loan to the IMF or World Bank or some other banking.66.133.196.152 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The IMF or World Bank will refuse to lend them any more money (they also lose voting rights). That's pretty much all you can do with loans to sovereign entities. --Tango (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The IMF is a member run organisation, with countries as the members - they make the big decisions by voting (with votes weighted by quotas. A country that is behind in payments can have its voting rights withdrawn. See IMF#Membership_qualifications. --Tango (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It's likely that other lenders will also be very reluctant to lend money. Lenders will have considerable leeway in imposing conditions required in order to restart lending - presumably alongside some debt relief. The article on developing countries' debt may be of interest here. In the cases where this is due to an inability to make the repayments (rather than a refusal to pay), our article on national bankruptcy - in need of work - provides some details. Warofdreamstalk23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It has to already suck for that to happen, really. Countries only default on their debt as a last resort, so everything has to have gone wrong already to get to that point. --Tango (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hague Convention of 1907 article II allows countries to use armed force against a debtor countries if they don't comply with the terms of compulsory arbitration, or otherwise refused to take part in such arbitration. Specifically:
This undertaking is, however, not applicable when the debtor State refuses or neglects to reply to an offer of arbitration, or, after accepting the offer, prevents any compromis from being agreed on, or, after the arbitration, fails to submit to the award.
mentions that arbitration is usually somewhat reasonable in what it expects from debtor countries. I'm not sure if this area of international law has changed much. If it has it's likely more friendly to debtor countries. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Countries don't usually default on debt by choice - if the money isn't there, there is no point sending soldiers to go and get it. They could confiscate assets, but usually the main asset of a sovereign state is the power to tax, which you can only confiscate by actually occupying the country - that's no usually worth it, the economic and diplomatic costs would be prohibitive. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It depends. Some countries in dire economic situations have a fair amount of natural resources which they are unable to effectively exploit because of internal problems. While I agree it's unlikely in this modern era, as the article I linked to says, the fact that this became a part of international law suggests it was a concern. Also it really depend on the reason the country defaulted. If they have a fanatical leader who has no desire to engage with the outside world, then other countries could use their refusal to abide by international law in servicing their debts as an excuse for an invasion. As the article mentions, there are various issues which may enable a country to get out of a substantial portion of their debt (and these in themselves may discourage debtor countries from going down that route). But this also presumes the country is willing to take part in the arbitration. If they refuse then it doesn't matter. Or even if the leader is not so fanatical but still doesn't comply with their requirements some debtor country could use it as an excuse for an invasion which serves their own purposes. Again I think it's rather unlikely and is unlikely to be seen as a major risk to countries for not servicing their debt (as the article I linked to mentioned) but (presuming the conventions haven't changed significantly) remains a possibility depending on the precise circumstances and countries involved. P.S. Perhaps part of the problem is your assumption countries will only ever refuse to pay if things really suck. While this may be the case for all defaultions of recent times and there are good reasons why countries prefer not to default, it clearly doesn't have to be. Countries can simply refuse to pay and refuse to talk about it. You can make things very nasty for them, but they may not care. In such circumstances I strongly suspect many countries will at least use the threat of war as a negotiating tactic and may even give it some consideration. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Nowadays there may be more hope for poor countries trying to escape their odious debt to the developed countries and the "international loan-sharking institutions" - the World Bank and the IMF (phrase from Jonathan Kwitny's old book Endless Enemies). But in their heyday, practically nobody could or did. Nations that tried were faced with organized economic warfare from the west, led by the USA, and they almost always were brought to heel and signed on to Structural Adjustment Programs, in the full knowledge that they were intended to, would and did wreck the debtor nation's economic health and enrich lenders in the short run. The current financial crisis has led to the first repayment plans based on the debtors' ability to repay since the 1920s. "No doubt the post-Soviet countries are watching, along with Latin American, African and other sovereign debtors whose growth has been stunted by the predatory austerity programs that IMF, World Bank and EU neoliberals imposed in recent decades. The post-Bretton Woods era is over. We should all celebrate."
About 15 years ago, I read all of James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, and that name doesn't ring a bell. Nor is it among the delegates listed at Misplaced Pages's article about the Philadelphia Convention. However Gov. Richard Dobbs Spaight of North Carolina did attend the Convention and sign the proposed Constitution. Is this the convention you're asking about, or another constitutional convention (perhaps a state constitutional convention, or one of the state conventions called to ratify the 1787 U.S. Constitution)? —— Shakescene (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
YEs this is the correct one! I've been searching for hours and have come up empty handed, so i think i will check in on this richard dobbs fellow! Thank you very much!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I checked the index in my printed copy of Madison's notes, and there are several references to Spaight's contributions on different topics. So I suggest that you pull up the Convention debate texts from one of the links at Misplaced Pages's articles on the Philadelphia Convention or on Madison's notes (see above), and run a search for Spaight's name. Or look up a printed copy at a local library. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The first person that came to my mind when you said "Dobbs Strong" is Caleb Strong, who attended the Constitutional Convention and made important contributions (supporting the Connecticut Compromise and more than one term for the executive), though you won't learn that from the brief Misplaced Pages article on him. But maybe that's the guy you were looking for. —KevinMyers12:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
October 6
Help! How to suggest an article to add to Wiki.
I think that this website it great but we could add a little more to the site's articles about colonial America. It's not of the upmost importance, but I think it would help tremendously. I have tried to find colonial info on the internet before, and have not been successful. I think people can benifit a lot by learning about the old world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace.out.42 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What are your opinions about the media and celebrity stuff you see all over the tabloids like in grocery stores and other places? Do you enjoy it or thing it's wrong and stupid? or otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace.out.42 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
In any event, the ref desk is for asking factual questions, not for taking opinion surveys. Potentially, one might be able to find an opinion survey on that subject, somewhere on the internet. But the best opinion survey there is, is the free market. Obviously, enough members of the public like these tabloids that it keeps them in business. And those who don't like them are free not to buy them. →Baseball Bugscarrots01:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
A page that used the color red as an example
I think it was Philosophy-related: I first found it when I was poking around articles on Existentialist writers. It was relatively short. There was a picture in the top right corner, a mid-sized swath of red with a caption. If anyone could link me to this article, I'd really appreciate it. The subject matter might help me with an essay that I'm writing for an Epistemology course. Thank you.
Overachiever (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overachiever (talk • contribs) 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Privately owned land tracts
I've been considering what the largest privately owned tracts of land are, and how visible they'd be on a world map (say 4ft x 6ft). Any clues? Steewi (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If I remember right Lou Paiis was the second largest private land owner in Colorado. 77k+ acres will show up on a reasonably sized map. Other billionaire types own large tracts of land; Ted Turner supposedly owns large portions of the American west as well. If you're looking for a list of "Largest private land owners" or something like that, I don't know where it'd exist. Land record registration is surprisingly local in the U.S., although with the proper access one might be able to derive similar information from state tax returns. If someone else knows of a centralized record of land ownership I'd be interested too. This is the sort of thing that Reed Elsevier might have a database of, but if they do I don't know where it is. Shadowjams (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Anna Creek station in Australia is 24,000 km² (6,000,000 acres) (according to the Misplaced Pages article, which says it's bigger than Israel), but it's not clear whether the land is owned or leased from the government. Jørgen (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also look at other large countries, especially Canada, Australia and Brazil. There must be large areas of unsettled tundra, desert, rangeland, forest and jungle that might be visible from a satellite without too great a magnification. Nowadays, even Russia must have some moderately-large privately-owned tracts. And it depends on whether you're thinking about tracts owned by one individual or family, or also of ones owned by corporations or institutions.—— Shakescene (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm Australian, so no. I meant on a worldwide scale. I had a thought that the biggest one might be Australian, but couldn't be sure. I'd think there might be a list somewhere on WP, but nothing comes up on a cursory search. Corporate and individual are interesting to know. Steewi (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Extra - I was thinking particularly in terms of a single continuous piece of land, rather than the world's largest land-owners (although that's interesting as well). Steewi (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Some areas look bigger than othersIf you're specifically looking for land that would show up on a world map, you could see if there are any private land-owners in the far north of Greenland or Ellesmere Island, as those areas look very big indeed on some map projections... Jørgen (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
But the OP did talk about visibility on world maps, so being near a pole would help for many maps. The required actual size to be visible is smaller the nearer a pole you are. Greenland is closer to the North Pole than mainland Russia. --Tango (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The OP didn't say what kind of world map though. It's possible they're thinking of a Mollweide projection or something. In such a case there would still be some distortion but not to such an extreme Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have also heard before that Ted Turner is the largest American land owner. His wikipedia article says this, and is referenced to this article saying he owns 2 million acres (3100 square miles, an area the size of somewhere between Delaware and Connecticut)in 12 states. I doubt one of the huge arctic areas (Greenland or northern Canada) is home to a larger land holder, since there is not really any point in owning a whole bunch of tundra, so most of the land remains in government hands. My money would be on some absolute monarch somewhere that "technically" owns a whole country. TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably Queen Elizabeth then; in Canada the government owns all the biggest chunks of land, but technically they are just representing the Queen, and I suppose it works that way in Australia and wherever else there is crown land. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between crown land and land owned by the Queen. Crown land is just held by trust by the Queen, she can't sell it, it is automatically inherited by the next monarch. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If there is a debate about Anna Creek station, there is little debate about King Ranch. It is cited as the largest ranch in the U.S., and is noted to be 85% the size of the state of Rhode Island So, basically, picture the mainland portion of Rhode Island, and that gives you about the size of it. --Jayron3221:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
1,045 square miles (2,710 km) in land area, which is smaller than the King Ranch's 825,000 acres (3,340 square kilometres; 1,289 square miles). But another 500 square miles (1,300 km) (chiefly Narragansett Bay) is water area for a total of 1,545 square miles (4,000 km). I'm a Rhode Islander and we're always amused by the use of our state as a ready-to-hand all-purpose measuring unit, in the same way that "football field" is used, as in "the fire threatens an area two and a half times the size of Rhode Island". In almost all cases, the author is thinking of the land area only. Since about a million people live in Rhode Island, our population density is about 1,000 for each square mile of land. (Wyoming spreads about half of Rhode Island's population over nearly 100 times its area, for a density of about 5 per square mile, or about 1/200 of Rhode Island's. A thousand artificially-averaged square miles of Wyoming would hold only 5,000 people. But we each get two United States Senators, although Rhode Island still has two U.S. Representatives, including Patrick Kennedy, and Wyoming only one—who was once Richard Cheney.) Most of the 254 counties in Texas and over half of California's 58 counties have a land area greater than Rhode Island's. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The loathsome Leopold may not have been a 'private person', but prior to 15 November 1908 he did indeed hold the Congo Free State as his personal possession (through a "wholly owned, single-shareholder 'philanthropic' organisation"), not in his capacity as Head of State. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
testifying at death penalty trials
Is it legal for a witness for the prosecution to refuse to testify in cases where the defendant would receive the death penalty if convicted? ----J4\/4 <talk> 13:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for legal advice; I was asking a general question about the scope of the Fifth Amendment, etc. ----J4\/4 <talk> 14:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
As I searched for information in my local telephone book, I encountered the following notice: "This publication contains certain licensed materials as well as material developed independently by the publisher. It may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form without permission." It sounds to me as if the telephone company is asserting copyright over the entirety of the contents, for it's easy to copy the information in the book without copying the photographs and advertisements. How is this possibly in accord with Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service? Don't take this as a request for legal advice; I have no reason to copy the telephone book, whether or not it's legal. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a complex issue. Essentially, Feist opens up the information but closes the presentation. The classic recipe example is a good one, and is used in that article. No one owns the copyright to the actual phone numbers, but the way they are listed (alphabetical by last name, along with address, family members listed as well, etc.) along with which numbers are even included (residential, commercial, everyone except "Doe," etc.) and the style in which they are presented (Yellow pages, font, etc.) are. All of that is a choice made by the producers of the work, and they retain the rights. All that being said, their presentation has to display some sort of creativity, as a simple alphabetical list is pretty generic. ~ Amory (u • t • c)14:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the way of listing the numbers by last name is considered copyrighted. The page design, sure. But not alphabetical listings, which have been common to all such books for as long as they have been around. Most telephone books often have funny little "extra" sections, like stylized listings of emergency numbers, special discounts, etc., which are probably copyrighted. Anyway, there is really no enforced penalty for claiming more copyright rights than one actually has (even though it is technically illegal), so they're doing the standard thing of claiming total copyright, even well beyond fair use. They aren't correct on a number of levels, but that's pretty standard... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations. I was aware that certain layouts could be copyrighted (thus I said "entirety of"); I simply didn't expect that they'd effectively be making empty threats. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Mary Plantagenet, a daughter of Edward I of England
Is there not any information on Mary Plantagenet, a daughter of Edward I of England. Seem to be none in Misplaced Pages. For example, was she close to her sisters of Margaret and Elizabeth? What is the history of Mary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.106.45 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Edward_I#Issue says she was: "A Benedictine nun in Amesbury, Wiltshire, where she was probably buried." That's the only information Misplaced Pages seems to have about her. --Tango (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello 97.83.106.45. There are two reasons why Misplaced Pages might not cover a topic. (1) People might have decided that Mary is not notable, meaning that she wasn't important enough to history to warrant having a page all her own. However, if you have information on her life, you can still add it - perhaps to the page on her father, mother, or sisters. (2) No one has yet got around to writing an entry about her. If you have enough information on her to make a good stand-alone article, you can write it yourself and add it to Misplaced Pages. The Misplaced Pages:Article wizard 2.0 page should have all the info you need to learn how to do this. (P.S. one source you might look for at the library if you are looking up Mary: Index to women of the world from ancient to modern times: biographies and portraits, by Norma Olin Ireland (F. W. Faxon Co., 1970), ISBN 9780873050975.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Even fairly minor aristocrats have articles, so I expect a daughter of a king would be considered notable. There may just not be enough information available to justify an article, though. --Tango (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The daughter of a thirteenth-century king might not be notable at all, especially since Edward had so many other children and this one was just a nun. There are a few articles about important medieval nuns, but most of them didn't really do anything. However, the person to ask about this is probably Lampman (talk·contribs), who is currently trying to make Edward I a featured article. He'll probably know, or at least know where to look. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, not much information. Born at Woodstock the 11th or 12th of March, 1279, veiled as a nun at Amesbury in 1291, died 29 May 1332, buried in the Benedictine convent at Amesbury. <Richardson, Douglas (2004). Plantagenet Ancestry: a Study in Colonial and Medieval Families. City: Genealogical Publishing Company. p. 20. ISBN0806317507.> - Nunh-huh18:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the show of confidence :) Prestwich writes a few lines on her in his Edward I biography, which can be looked up on Amazon (page 128.) He also points to two other sources; Green's Lives of the Princesses of England (on Google books, page 405) and Fairbank's YAJ article on the earl of Warenne. If anyone wants to use these sources, there seems to be enough information on her for a stand-alone article. Lampman (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit more here in The Queen Mary Psalter - apparently she travelled fairly widely as a representative of her order and possibly for pleasure, regularly attending court and running up gambling debts. According to Sources and analogues of the Canterbury tales, Volume 2, Nicolas Trevet's Les Cronicles - an important source for several widely read works of the period - was dedicated to her. A further source notes that she managed Grove Priory and has a couple of details of her veiling, and another notes that Edward visited her at the convent and gave her frequent gifts. Sounds like plenty for an article. Warofdreamstalk21:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just realised - there's an ODNB article on her as Mary of Woodstock (, if you have access). With regard to the original question, there's no sign of her being particularly close to her sisters, but it does suggest that she was close to her brother, the future King Edward II. Warofdreamstalk21:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the information and writing an article on the virgin Mary. Does that mean then that in Edward I she should be listed as Mary of Woodstock instead of Mary Plantagenet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.106.165 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably. "Plantagenet" was certainly not her surname: it was first used as a surname in 1448; historians have applied it to people who never used it as a sort of shorthand. _ Nunh-huh12:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
She is not listed as either in Edward I; for simplicity, the children are all listed only by first name, with piped links where articles exist. Mary was the only child who lived into adulthood and still did not have her own article, so good job on that. Warofdreams, you might want to put it up for DYK. Lampman (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for the positive feedback - once I'd found so much information, I couldn't hold back from writing an article! User:Nyttend has kindly already put it up for DYK. Warofdreamstalk20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
company takeover
Tata_Corus_acquisition#Proposed_funding_of_the_deal - please explain how this works : "..by deciding to raise $6.17bn of debt for the deal through a new subsidiary of Corus called 'Tata Steel UK', rather than by raising the debt itself"
How can the buyer raise the funds for a purchase by creating a subsidary of the company it intends to buy to carry the debt of the purchase? 83.100.251.196 (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
English upper class attitudes to working and money
Hi Friends. Can anyone suggest where/what I could read to understand more about the mores of the English upper class pre Second World War. I have looked at upper class and landed gentry without success. Question is sparked because of a paragraph in The Mysterious Affair at Styles, which Agatha Christie wrote in 1916. She writes: "John practiced for some time as a barrister, but had finally settled down to the more congenial life of a country squire. He had married two years ago, and had taken his wife to live at Styles, though I entertained a shrewd suspicion that he would have preferred his mother to increase his allowance, which would have enabled him to have a home of his own. Mrs. Cavendish, however, was a lady who liked to make her own plans, and expected other people to fall in with them, and in this case she certainly had the whip hand, namely: the purse strings." As a modern reader, I don't get why John wouldn't just restart his law practice and earn enough to have a house of his own. Thanks all, WikiJedits (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Old Money might be interesting to you? I would think maybe John doesn't want to be a lawyer because it's a lot of work, he's settled in the countryside with a wife that probably doesn't want to put up with ridiculous working hours and city living and he's looking to inherit a large amount of money "as soon as the old bag kicks it", or however Agatha Christie would put it. Is his mother a murder victim in the book? TastyCakes (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Another detail to point out here is that, while present-day English barristers can live on a country estate and still make a decent living due to car ownership and a relatively modern infrastructure of roads that allow them to visit clients and courts of law easily, in 1916 it would have been difficult to earn a lot of money as a barrister in the English countryside because of the relative expense of cars (then affordable only to rich Britons) and a lack of roads that would have offered timely access to clients and legal venues. At that time, there were only rough dirt or gravel tracks in most parts of the English countryside, better suited to travel on foot or by horse than by car. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that is true nowadays. Remember that in the past the population was a fraction of what it is now, and the countryside started much closer to the city- or town-centre than it does now, so there would be less far to travel. And incidently none of the road congestion we have now. Parts of what are now the commuter belt around London would be like what only the deep and remote countryside would be now. It is still common for high-earners to have a week-day home in the city and another in the country. 78.146.29.77 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, he would probably have had to get a "townhouse" to live in during the week, which would be another expense. --Tango (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
His mother might not have given him an allowance at all if he was working - I know members of the royal family have to give up their share of the civil list if they want to get a job (eg Prince Michael of Kent, although apparently he never got any civil list payments). That could mean he would actually be financially worse off with a job (his mother may have tolerated him working before he was married). --Tango (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Even a career as a barrister was infra dig if he really wanted to be part of the squirearchy, and to make a fortune would have made him a self-made man. England was well-served in 1916, not by tarred roads, but by a railroad network. Even an upper middle-class family would have someone who could drive him to the station. In 1916, though, everyu able-bodied gentleman was at the Front, where they died like flies.--Wetman (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course there were railways, but not every country estate was within a short drive of a railway station, especially given the state of the roads, and not every station was on a line with quick or frequent service to a town where a barrister could make a living sufficient to pay for the car, driver, etc. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There would have been pony and traps, which could have been quite fast. When did tarmacadaming of roads become common? The trains in Victorian britain were said to be almost as fast as most modern ones. I expect in those days they stopped more frequently in stations that are now closed, but they also had expresses. 78.146.29.77 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Daily commuting was pretty common, although far more for the middle and (by the early C20) working classes. But it would only have been realistic if they were fairly close to a major city - while some services ran at similar speeds to today, longer distance trains were much slower than now. Warofdreamstalk21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the replies so far, they are helping me understand the implication in the book. I hope people will keep replying though, as I'm still looking for references, so I haven't used that resolved thingy yet.
TastyCakes, Old Money was interesting, but unfortunately all about America. Do we have anything on the English idea? His mother was murdered in Chapter 2!
Marco polo, 78.146.29.77 and Tango, the house in the book was three miles from the railway station and they had a car, though petrol was in short supply because of the war. They also had a pony and trap. My thinking, though, was that because he wanted a house of his own it would naturally be elsewhere.
Wetman, thanks for the info about social attitude towards him earning his own living! That is the kind of thing I wanted to find out more about. FYI, squirearchy redirects to landed gentry, unfortunately. John was 45. So far the book hasn't given any reason for him not being an active soldier; maybe it was age.
Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that the answer to your original question is simply that most people do not like working, particularly when they do not have to. It would probably be a large house, and (without having read the story) he did some work managing the estate (ie some tenanted farms, perhaps also a farm directly run) from which the family got their income. The income may have been as much or more than that earnt as a barrister, as I understand that in at least contemporary times only a small proportion of people can make a living at it. Although written in 1916 it may have been set before WW1, and also in those times people were thought to age much more rapidly than they do now, so 45 may have been seen as being far too old to be a soldier. 78.144.250.124 (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Barristers did not appear for clients in local courts or before local magistrates (Justices of the Peace); that was done by local solicitors. As a barrister, he would have been hired (given a brief) and "instructed" by a client's solicitor to advocate the client's case before higher courts in London or the Assizes in large provincial towns. So, rather than at Styles, he would have spent the working week either at a club or in a pied-à-terre (second house) in town. To get an idea of how much or how little time it took to travel into and out of town (London), see the Sherlock Holmes stories. Partly to advance his plot-line, Conan Doyle often has Holmes or Watson stranded in some country inn or estate waiting for the next train into town (or alternatively finding some way of getting to a country or suburban scene before the first train left Paddington or Waterloo). The Holmes stories also give some idea of different attitudes towards work among different classes. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought solicitors representing clients in lower courts was a very modern thing. Has it just been brought back? --Tango (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right. I was thinking more of first appearances before magistrates, justices of the peace, etc., and I honestly don't know what the lowest court would be that would see many barristers. Don't count on me as a Reliable Source about this question. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Our only source of information on most Wikipedians is their user page, and few Wikipedians discuss their net worth on that page. Those with the greatest net worth are unlikely to want to reveal it. So we really can't know, but given the number of Wikipedians and the potential attraction of contributing to Misplaced Pages to someone with no need to earn a living, it is fair to assume that we have some multimillionaires. Marco polo (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Also I think "wikipedian" is a bit of a fuzzy term. What if someone has just made a single edit? Two edits? Where is the line drawn? What if that person has only ever corrected typos? What if that person was very active and now is not? I'm sure some very rich people have made some kind of edit to Misplaced Pages. But I doubt we'll ever know the richest with any accuracy. TastyCakes (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
According to Søren Kierkegaard, "When one has once fully entered the realm of Love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful," which clearly indicates that I am the richest Wikipedian. ~ Amory (u • t • c)15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(My apologies, but I have removed a slew of indenting colons from the next 15 entries. By the fifteenth, the format was one word per line, jammed up at the right of the screen. B00P (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC))
In that case, there is absolutely no way we can even guess at the answer. We simply don't have that information about the vast majority of Wikipedians and have no way of getting it. --Tango (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Tango is correct on all counts. If wagers were allowed, I would place my money on Bill Gates. He must have edited Misplaced Pages at least once by now. I have no evidence, of course. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it would be nice to engage war edit with him. We have to find the smartest and the most influential wikipedian, I have the hunch they could help!--Gilisa (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
He was (is?) a famous wikipedia vandal who used to rename articles "article name on wheels!" or some variation of that. I'm a little surprised there isn't a wikipedia article about him, urban dictionary has a pretty brief description. TastyCakes (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't make articles on vandals. Not only are not they not notable by any of our definitions, generally speaking, but it would only encourage more vandalism. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I like how there's a warning on Famous Wikipedians that says, "This listing may contain errors and should NOT be used as a source for any page in Misplaced Pages or publication outside of Misplaced Pages without doing some independent checking.". Isn't that true for every article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Some years ago, I had a huge belly laugh when someone suggested Queen Elizabeth II might edit Misplaced Pages in her spare time. (Well, it's possible.) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be curious too. The Queen certainly does a lot of public walking, wearing clothes that many people comment on. But I'm not aware that she ever attempts to impersonate a giant stick insect, with her shoulder blades almost touching each other behind her back, or walk in an utterly unhuman fashion, or have a look on her face that's a cross between contempt and clear evidence of some form of insanity. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that as she was irritated by her believe that Scottish people don't share satisfying respect to the royal family she impersonate the the Loch Ness monster.--Gilisa (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Surely I'm the richest wikipedian around: a few days ago I received an e-mail telling me that I have won 740.000 euros. I just need to give them my credit card numbers and pay them a lawyer for dealing with the technical legal details, and I will receive the money very soon. MBelgrano (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
During a documentary on the History Channel, the presenter showed some of the trenches that were used by Turkish troops and Commonwealth troops during the battle. At one point, he stands between two trenches which were facing each other and were at such proximity to each other that it only took him literally three steps to get from one to the other. He also said, 'This is how close the troops were to each other'. I find this completely incredulous, but forgive me if my common sense is getting in the way here. I can understand that trenches may be close to each other, as after enemy trenches have been cleared, troops may (for any number of reasons) decide to dig new ones rather than occupy the existing ones, but I cannot believe that the troops would be so close. For one thing, it would be very hard to miss an enemy unit digging a trench a few feet in front of you. Can anyone corroborate what this presenter was saying? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen that program, but how big were his steps? I suppose this means the trenches were between 3 and 10 feet apart? It's possible that they were part of the same trench system for one side or the other; or maybe that the different sides occupied trenches that close together but not at the same time. Who was the presenter? (I would be incredulous too...the History Channel is not interested in history as much as it is interested in being entertaining and making money.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
His steps were not overly-exaggerated (or even exaggerated at all), so I would take a rough guess at the trenches being around 6 to 10 feet apart. He specifically said, though, that 'this is how close the troops were to each other' and there was no implication of them being trench systems from different times in the 8+ month campaign. I understand the History Channel likes to spice up its presentations, but it's generally pretty reliable with the raw facts, so this is why it threw me. I can't remember the presenter's name, but I have seen him on plenty of military history programs. All I can say is, he has dark wavy hair, a moustache, and glasses. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The presenter was telling the truth: some of the trenches were exceedingly close; however, he was also selective: not all the trench systems in Gallipoli were so close. If you google, you will find a broad range of given distances. Our own trench warfare gives 15m between trenches at Quinn's Post. Philip Haythornthwaite suggests 5 yards in places; Christopher Pugsley mentions 5-15 metres at Quinn's Post in a book of his I have to hand. You might enjoy this history of sappers (engineers) at Gallipoli, describing the hand bombs lobbed into the opposing trench. Why do you find such a situation difficult to believe? They did not miss noticing the presence of the enemy, and did their best to lob bombs (etc), but they could not shell them with heavy artillery without risk to their own lines. Partly, the terrain was steep, so the trenches were by necessity close together; sometimes it was deliberate sapping through to try and reach the enemy's trench, to take it. Sometimes that happened, and they shared the same trench, with hastly erected blast walls dividing them. Gwinva (talk)
Mr Occam would suggest one side (likely the Turks) dug both sets of trenches, and after losing one trench, found themselves some 10 feet from the enemy. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Mr Occam would be wrong ;) Commonwealth and Turskish troops were often that close in terms of their trenches; the Gallipoli offensive rapidly ran out of steam due to Turkish resistance and ineptitude on the part of British planning, and the terrain made it difficult to dig a trench wherever one wanted; hence the very close trenches the documentary saw. But it's not just in Gallipoli; similar circumstances can be found in French battlefields of the same conflict; although the location escapes me now, during a trip to a preserved set of Canadian and German trenches, our guide illustrated how, at their closest, it would take only a few seconds to walk between both trenches. Skinny87 (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is Associated Press calling Charles Kao American?
Amazingly, Judiasm and Who is a Jew? don't really help with this, so I'm turning to the reference deskers for help. What is the preferred term for a religious Jew? Is it simply "Religious Jew"? Or "Observant Jew"? Or something else? The linked articles seem to say that Judaism doesn't distinguish between religious and non-religious Jews, but surely there's some generally-recognised term, even if it isn't used within Judaism itself. --85.210.115.126 (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
One side of my family is historically Jewish; we generally talk about our religious ancestors as being "observant Jews". Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the most common term is "secular Jew". At least in Israel it's and at least from what I heard from American Jews it's also applicable in USA. Besides, there are no further distinctions by at least large majority of Jewish people.--Gilisa (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nyttend, it's nice but I guess that in your family the terms you use may be mixed with definitions from the non Jewish world even when it comes to Jews (i.e., this definition). I have Jewish relatives in USA and they use to say "secular"--Gilisa (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have always assumed that "secular Jew" meant a "non-observant" Jew, and thus that Nyttend is describing a practising Jew and Gilisa a non-practising one. However, this article says: The word secular in secular Jewish culture, therefore, refers not to the type of Jew but rather to the type of culture. For example, religiously observant Jews who write literature and music or produce films with non-religious themes are participating in secular Jewish culture, even if they are not secular themselves.Bielle (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Secular refers to nonobservant. Dictionary dot com:
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular ).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
Bielle, I'm sorry to have to say this but that is an example of why Misplaced Pages has a reputation for not being trustworthy. That assertion is not sourced. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that it's not the most politically correct answer, but trust me on this that this is the correct one: The definitions you read on such articles represent much of the views of those who wrote them. For minority of ultra orthodox Jews many religious Jews may seem secular. This is exatly the difference betweem ultra orthodox and just orthodox -ultra orthodox (espcially in Israel, and very different in USA where they are more affected from the secular culture and adopt things they don't recognize as contradicting with their believes or "secular" by definition) reject almost all aspects of secular society (e.g., T.V. as it include immodest content and gossip, many kinds of music and etc) while orthodox adopt anything that is not secular by definition (they all have TV at their house but they skip gossip or sexual content, some even use special internet and media companies that choose the contents for them so no sexual or immoral content would escape filtering). I guess that the cultural context of part of the ultra orthodox is more incorrigible (depened which kind) and this of the orthodox is always reshaping itself while like ultraorthodox they strictly keep the Jewish law (unlike Reforms and Conservatives who are not considerd as secular nor as religious by many religious or even secular Jews). But many times when you orthodox Jew in the world you won't recognize that he's Jewish unless you ask him (not relevant for her) as mostly when outside Israel they don't wear skullcap (wearing a cap instead is common solution) to avoid Anti Semitism, while you would always recognize ultra orthodox. --Gilisa (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I'm pretty damn sure that the preferred term is "Jew." There's only a need to disambiguate if you're comparing two different Jews. You wouldn't call the general American populace "secular Christians" unless comparing them to the Pope, a "religious Christian," and even then that sounds weird. ~ Amory (u • t • c)19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Amory, the original questioner asked what would be the most appropriate term for describing, or designating, that Jewish person who was religiously observant. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The basic, mainstream term for what the questioner is asking about is one of the terms that the questioner mentioned himself/herself, and that is "observant." Bus stop (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a fair comparison. "Christian" refers only to a practicing christian. "Jew" can refer to someone whose family is ethnically Jewish, but who does not practice the religion in any way. APL (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Amory, I agree with APL. The Hebrew Bible commanded "And you shell be my nation" (this translation is pretty awkward, but my English is not fluent) so even non Jewish who convert to Judaism is fully immersed within the Jewish community in almost all aspects and in most cases his offsprings would be hard to distinguish from the rest of Jewish people who are Jewish for generations on generations. In early times, before the time of church and before Jewish people were exiled from Israel converts were common among Jewish people, but after they were expelled, they were forbidden to convert by the orders of the church in Europe and a bit later by Muslim regimes. So, today most Jewish people heritage could be tracked down to the middle east using methods from the genetic research. They also share different extents of lingustic and cultural similarities, even where lived separated by oceans from each other for generations. So they consist in most cases and in all aspects an ethnic group. So, the most suitible comparison to atheist Jew would be to, let's say, French or Spanish who abandoned the Catholic churce-but you still refer to him as an ethnic French/ Spanish. --Gilisa (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
@Bus stop The quote from the WP article above is, indeed, not sourced in-line, and I haven't had the time to check the references cited at the end. Not being sourced, however, does not necessarily mean it is wrong. The dictionary definition of "secular" is useful on its own, but my review of "secular Judaism" on the Net suggests that the definiton may not apply as written when the two words are used together. We are wandering away from the question which wanted an English word to describe the opposite, the religious and observant Jews. Bielle (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There is not such word in Hebrew nor in Yiddish. There are words which define the exceptionality of a Jew who is not observent such as become licentious or Tinok shenishba or Chiloni (secular) which in Hebrew comes from the stem "Chol" (sand), meaning something like "someone who deals with material life only" even this term is widely used it is not accepted by Rabbnical figures.--Gilisa (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Gilisa, I'm confused by your original definition: by "secular Jew", do you mean a Jew who practices his/her religion actively but is involved in what non-Jews call "daily life", or do you mean a Jew who does not actively practice his/her religion? The original question would signify the first of the two answers I gave, but the idea of "secular" makes me think that you may mean the other. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
My definition is everything but original. I was meaning to Jew who doesn't actively practice the Jewish religion (or an atheist).--Gilisa (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
In my personal experience, the appellation "observant" is reserved for the very observant (i.e., do more than just go to services every week), and the term "secular" is reserved for the very secular (i.e., actively reject important tenets of the faith, and no, pork doesn't count as "important"). Since one word, "Jew," covers some rather different practices, from Jews in the U.S. South who tend to avoid outward signalling of faith to Hasidics who are easier to spot than Amish people, it's generally recognized within the tribe that a heterodox approach to faith is normal and unavoidable. Contrast this with Catholics, where about 90% will cheerily refer to themselves as "lapsed." --M@rēino15:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Just as in the case of Catholics, the majority of Jews are nonobservant. "Secular," by the way means approximately the same thing as nonobservant. Concerning tribe, I think that is a little farfetched, as I don't think I have heard of Jews as comprising a "tribe." Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Bus stop, you give the OP the wrong impression that Judaism is only religion. You may believe so but it's wrong concept, however understandable in people whose refernce is secular non Jewish people.--Gilisa (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Amory, I didn't think we were talking about millennia ago. User:Mareino used the term "tribe" in the context of modern day Jews. He referred to the Jews of the "U.S. South" and the "Hasidic" Jews. The conversation, starting with the originally posed question, concerns terminology that might usefully designate those Jews who are religiously observant and those Jews who are religiously nonobservant. "Tribe" is hardly a term one encounters in normal everyday discourse as applied to Jews in the modern world. By the way, even the origins of the Hassidic Jewish movement are somewhat recent, going back merely 400 years. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe s/he simply used the term broadly in order to avoid saying "Jewish faith" or some other phrase repeating the word "Jew." ~ Amory (u • t • c)14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that "playing the music backwards" has two meanings. You can take the sheet music and a suitable instrument and play the notes in reverse order; or you can take a recording of the piece played normally, and play that backwards. I think D.J., talking about fugues above, has the first meaning in mind, while Toto, talking about sounds in general, has the second. As to the second meaning, any sound produced by percussion instruments (including pianos) will sound very different backwards; with many other instruments the difference will be harder to detect. --Anonymous, 23:07 UTC, October 6, 2009.
The earliest example I know is by Guillaume de Machaut, Ma fin est mon commencement (the whole text, if I remember correctly, is "my end is my beginning, and my beginning is my end"), probably written around 1350-1360. One performer reads the melody forward, and another who is singing it rather than playing on an instrument, reads it backwards. Simultaneously, another voice sings a second melody, half as long, which repeats, backwards. If you played this entire composition backwards, it would be essentially the same. (It's a little more complicated than my description, but it's essentially a palindrome.) Antandrus (talk)23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Who were some pre-Marxist Communists leaders, movements or communities? What are some good books or sites on this topic? --Gary123 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to point you to Pre-Marxist Communism in case there was anything useful to you there and just happened to take a quick look at the history and realised that you created it about 5 minutes ago! Oops! --Tango (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a short account of Utopian Socialism in the U.S. in the first part of History of Socialism in the United States by Morris Hillquit, a non-Utopian founder of the Socialist Party of America (1903; 5th edition 1910, reprinted in 1971 by Dover Books – ISBN 0-486-22797-7). Contemporary accounts reprinted by Dover about the same time are History of American Socialisms by John Humphrey Noyes, a founder of the Oneida Community (ISBN 0-486-21581-4) and The Communistic Societies of the United States, from Personal Visit and Observation (1875) by Charles Nordhoff (the grandfather of The Mutiny on the Bounty's co-author) (ISBN 0-486-21580-6).
Jesus a communist? That will take some serious evidence. One argument is that He told people to give up their worldly possessions and to follow him in a vow of poverty. That makes him something of a Buddhist, as the sharing was entirely voluntary (under Communism, volunteering is mandatory).
Another is that throwing the (licensed) money changers out of the temple was an act of revolution, but one might just as easily see it as good old American style separation of church and state, or non-profit tax status.
Charity? The biggest donors in the world are all capitalists. Property? in the fourth chapter of Acts, there is a real estate transaction that is defended as pure property-rights-loving capitalism.
The Temple moneychangers fracas should be interpreted not in modern economic/political terms (contemporary Jewish thought in any case favoured the identity of 'church' and state), but in the light of then-prevailing conditions and attitudes. The occupying Roman authorities required the Temple tax (some of which they presumably received) to be paid in Tyrian shekels, partly to emphasise Judea's lack of political autonomy. These coins bore the image of the Phoenician god Melqart; they were also heavier and had a higher silver purity than commonly circulating sheckels, but were deemed equivalent for religious tax purposes. Thus Temple moneychanging was a necessity to enable Jews to pay the tax, but involved a constant reminder of foreign occupation, imposed pagan impiety, and the wrong end of an unfavourable exchange rate. It's not surprising that an aspirant to Messiah-ship (which meant primarily expelling foreign occupiers and re-establishing a religiously-run Israel) would make a public 'statement' about this issue in the form of an arguably revolutionary act.
Let's also remember that although modern extant Marxist-derived Communism happens to be atheistic, it's not a necessary attribute of all communistic philosophies, and the OP specifically asked about Pre-Marxist communism. No teachings attributed to Jesus are incompatible with some form of communism, some of them can be interpreted as favourable to it, and early Christian communities and practices described in the New Testament could reasonable be described as communism of a sort. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I first heard that "Jesus is a communist" silliness decades ago. The comparison to Buddhism makes more sense. Jesus simply warned against placing too much importance on material things, "where fire consumes or thieves break in and steal", and to focus on the spiritual, which no one can steal. →Baseball Bugscarrots13:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
See Christian Communism. Anyway, the point isn't to argue the desirability or dangers of Communism (which isn't always the same thing as Marxism or Leninism), but its origins and history before Marx. When someone earlier asked us (at Ref Desk/Misc.) about the distinction between Fascism and Nazism, no one was arguing the merits of either. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The English term "communist" was invented around 1840, possibly by John Goodwyn Barmby, to describe followers of François-Noël Babeuf - who called themselves "communistes", and it was rapidly picked up to describe the more radical utopian socialists. The French term seems to have been used for some time earlier - this work of 1818 makes an early claim to Jesus being a communist. The OED dates "socialist" to 1827, when it was used to describe followers of Robert Owen. Warofdreamstalk20:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Common personality traits of wikipedians
I wonder if anyone ever done such research. Of course, wikipedians are different both in their style of editing and in the motives that lead them to edit in wikipedia, they also have different interests. However, most share similar levels of enthusiasm and the same will to spend hours on edits that probably will be read by few readers, if not reverted or modified before. So I wonder, what types of wikipedians there are and in these days, when revolutionary studies of critical importance such as "how does using mobile phones changed the average time old peoples spend daily in toilet" getting the headlines, do you think that this lind of study is worthwhile? and what common traits do you think they share?--Gilisa (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
They're polymathic pan-talented people with brilliant minds, coruscating wit and a superb conceit, ever willing to make a difference in ways both great and small for the betterment of all humankind in perpetuity.
Oh, sorry, you were talking about all Wikipedians. I should keep my remarks about myself to myself in future. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to do a proper survey, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages in academic studies lists the main ones involving wikipedia. If you google 'survey of wikipedians' you'll find evidence they are grumpy, introverted and closed-minded. It's surprising, I don't seem to be able to find an easily accessible article on that here. Oops must go back and put a comma in that list; should I put one before the 'and' I wonder? I think a semicolon is okay there. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that there is a difference between Wikipedians and Wikimedians. enWiki is the largest WMF project by far, and is itself heavily biased, so while your question is probably only concerned with enWiki just keep in mind that any traits anyone sees, whether en or not, will have to deal with an over-abundance of Americans. ~ Amory (u • t • c)13:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think one undeniable personality trait would be sociability, at least on Misplaced Pages. I don't think anyone works on Misplaced Pages because they want to work in seclusion. Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Some wikipedia editors are actively social, some even meeting up as often as once a month. See WP:Meetup where there are actual pictures of some of these albeit probably rather atypical editors. Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I went to one of those. Just not my thing, I'm afraid, so never again. They'd probably say the same thing about me, but most of the people I met there were not really the sort of people I'd want to associate with in real life (nothing negative, just no clicking going on), although I'm more than happy to have an online relationship with them. Not sure what that says about me .... -- JackofOz (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If there were, how would we know about them? :) It's a matter of definition of "law". The budget of the CIA, which has to be approved by Congress, is secret. →Baseball Bugscarrots13:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If the laws were secret then neither the police nor the judges who enforce them would know about them, so no. That's not to say there are not secret orders to law enforcement agencies. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The U.S. government is notoriously poor at keeping secrets anyway. Consider the prisoner abuses in Iraq, for example. The press rooted them out despite the government's best efforts to keep it quiet. Then there's the so-called "secret" Area 51, which has to put signs up warning the many tourists not to get too close. →Baseball Bugscarrots13:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
And nobody anywhere knows anything about the very expensive NSA. If there were a secret law, anyone who knew about it who told you about it would have to kill you. PhGustaf (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If the government wants something kept extremely secret, it won't concern itself with trivial things like laws. There are, however, secret courts for the purposes of warrants, and agencies such as the CIA often perform dubious activities in other countries... ~ Amory (u • t • c)13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Right. There aren't secret laws (in the US, anyway, I don't know about elsewhere). They would be unenforceable. But there are secret budgets, secret funds, things that are labeled as one thing but really go to another, things of that nature. There are secret regulations, but that's not the same thing as a law. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
True. Though I think it is worth distinguishing between policies and laws, and in the realm of "law", I think it's worth distinguishing between a law that regulates people or organizations or behavior, and one that is just in charge of dispersing funds, creating organizations, etc. There aren't going to be criminal codes that are secret, for example, because they would be unenforceable. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There are executive orders and legal memos that dictate what behavior is legal or criminal. The obvious recent example being the torture program carried out by the CIA, authorized by secret legal memos from the justice department, which in a sense made certain behaviors legal (or at least the that was the idea).
The executive branch has often had legal cases against it thrown out by claiming State Secrets Privilege, notably recently when sued over issues of indefinite detention, warrant-less wiretapping, and other anti-terrorism policies. That is to say that there are laws in effect that can't be subject to judicial oversight because they're secret. In terms of the logistics of enforcing secret laws, they obviously aren't secret to the executive branch which is the branch charged with enforcing laws so there's no difficulty there. Rckrone (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think by problems with enforcement, people are referring to the inability to actually penalise people in most ways for actions violating secret laws. For example if there was an secret law making it illegal to call George W. Bush an idiot and the penalty for violating the law is life imprisonment, the executive branch would have difficult enforcing this. They would be laughed out of court if they tried to argue the person should be sentenced to life imprisonment for violating some secret law they can't tell the jury or judge about but the person definitely violated and you have to trust them. They could hold the person without taking them to court or give some other punishment, e.g. allowing them to be shot in 'hunting accidents' but I believe the courts ruled against American citizens being indefinitely detained and I'm pretty sure people would notice if the executive branch is continually shooting people in hunting accidents. Even if you have something less extreme, e.g. requiring the person to pay a fine, they could simply ignore the request and when you tried to pursue them you will be laughed out of court in a similar manner to what I described. In other words, it's all very well the executive branch knows about it, but it's unlikely the judicial branch would be willing to enforce a secret law since amongst other things, I suspect it would violate the US constitution Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You are still ignoring the secret executive orders, approved by secret Attorney General memos, under which armed men seized people, drugged them, and transported them across to world to secret prisons to be interrogated (sometimes until they died) and imprisoned indefinitely. Sure sounds like secret laws. Note that they did not drag the accused before a judge, nor did the accused have any right to an attorney, to know the charges, to question witnesses, or even to see the evidence against them. The accused were said to be "unlawful combatants" and neither the Geneva Conventions nor the Constitution were said to grant them any rights. They could be compelled to sign confessions, by denial of medical treatment for gunshots (if captured in a war zone) or by threats of any kind, by sleep deprivation, by various forms of humiliation, by waterboarding, by being slammed repeatedly against walls. Those tasked with carrying out the program wanted a memo from the Justive Deartment saying it was legal so they would not later be prosecuted for "only following orders." This is what makes it "secret laws." Edison (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) As far as I know, the legality of holding US citizens indefinitely without charge was never struck down. José Padilla sued, but the lower courts ruled against him and the government filed actual charges to prevent the case from getting to the Supreme Court. Therefore the US government still has legal authority to deny habeas corpus to US citizens, and could therefore legally enforce secret laws against them without judicial oversight. Rckrone (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the distinction is you're trying to make. If the US government says "If you rob a bank we'll send you to prison" that's a law. If the government says "If we deem you to be an 'enemy combatant' we'll ship you to a black site prison to be tortured by the Egyptian government" that's a law. Rckrone (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the distinction is that if the legislative branch does it, it's a law; if the executive branch does it, it's an executive order. - Nunh-huh18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
And it's an important distinction to make. "The Government" isn't a single entity, it's a group of organizations that sometimes compete on issues. Laws are enacted by Congress and enforced by the Executive branch. Executive Orders are enforcement decisions made by the Executive branch, but they are limited in scope. If the Executive tries to enforce Orders that they don't have the authority for, it'll usually be struck down by Congress or the Judiciary. — The Hand That Feeds You:18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right that it is an important distinction. But I'm not sure how salient it is in practice. Executive orders often carry the force of law, so it's hard to argue they aren't law. Executive orders do have limited scope, so that create some restrictions. They can in theory be struck down by the judicial or legislative review, but that doesn't make them any less secret or any less law. Plus that mechanism is pretty toothless. If the executive branch successfully claims the information is state secrets then it's essentially exempt for judicial review. Of course it's the courts that get to make the final call if something is a state secret, but that process can take years, and the decision whether it's a state secret has nothing to do with the legality of the policy, just whether it can be argued that publicizing the information would put Americans at risk. In theory there's also supposed to be congressional review of the secret actions taken by the executive branch, but in practice the executive branch is only required to brief the Gang of Eight, who are sworn to secrecy, so it's kind of a joke. Rckrone (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I was specifically wondering if any law would be accompanied by a gag order on it, so that when you were shown it by a government official, who would let you discuss it with your lawyer if you wanted, then your lawyer would say: "Yeah, this one I haven't heard of before, because it's a secret one. You can't talk about it with anyone else than me or a judge you go before if you break it, but it's a vaild one, I can tell by the pixels." From the above, it seems there isn't anything like that "on the books" (though not public). Obviously in my naive conception of how it would have worked if there had been secret laws, your actions only become illegal AFTER you are shown the law, kind of like you "have" to treat police officers a certain way only AFTER they tell you they're police officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.204.99 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This NY Times article is about a secret addendum to airline security regulations. I think that's as close to a secret law as you can get. That is, a law that is public, but some of the specifics are kept secret.Sjö (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be very much like ex post facto legislation. It's a general principle that you can't be guilty of something that you couldn't be expected to know was a crime. (If you could be expected to, but didn't, that's very different; you can certainly be guilty then.) The situation you describe couldn't feasibly arise in any country with a reasonable degree of personal freedom. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you're completely wrong that "you can't be guilty of something that you couldn't be expected to know was a crime". You most certainly can and will be convicted. The most you can hope for is leniency from the judge or jury when it comes to the penalty phase. (I'm talking about ignorance of the law, even ignorance that is reasonable; not secret laws.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The old adage is "ignorance of the law is no excuse." And that has nothing to with an ex post facto law. That's a law that tries to punish an act committed before it was illegal to do it. As a trivial example, on Tuesday the government passes a law against chewing gum in public. Someone finds evidence that you were chewing gum on Monday. The government can't touch you. If you're chewing gum on Wednesday, they can. →Baseball Bugscarrots00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
No, he's right - you can be and, more important, are expected to know all the laws of the any jurisdiction you do anything in because they are all publicly available. It's not a reasonable expectation since there are far too many to actually read, but that is how the law works. If a law wasn't publicly available then that legal fiction would fall apart and ignorance would be an excuse. --Tango (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Right. And I think this is what people are trying to make the distinction about. The question isn't, "can the government do things in secret?" —the answer is obviously, yes it can. The question is, "can the government make regulations or deem things to be criminal based on secret standards?" Generally speaking, no. The handling of "enemy combatants" was secret, but the designation of what one was and that the category itself existed was public and well-known. To put it bluntly, no judge would put up with the idea of a "secret law" in that sense, where you are being convicted of violating a law that was not available for the public to read. That's the essential bind, here, legally. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to not need the law to be one from the government, I am sure that there are several aspects of some of the laws of physics that we are not yet aware of (especially the quantum kind) and might be construed as secret. Googlemeister (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What kind of logical fallacy would this be ?
Person (A) uses demonization remiscient of Nazi propaganda in his filmmaking work, therefore Person (A) wants to put the group he targets in death camps.
Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you have cause and effect the wrong way round there. Usually you make propaganda in order to achieve what you want, you don't want something because you've made propaganda supporting it (unless you are called Winston). --Tango (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd call it the logical fallacy typical stupidity of not being able to separate thought (film) from action (killing). DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's break that down. Facts: Unit A is inside Set Demonizer. Set Nazi is inside Set Demonizer. Set Nazi is also inside Set Deathcamper. Assertion: Unit A is inside Set Deathcamper. Wow. There's a lot of places to shoot holes in this logical chain. To me, though, it looks like there's an assumption that all members of Set Demonizer are in Set Nazi, when there is no supposition that comes close to supporting that. Or a strawman fallacy. Either that, or there's no logical fallacy at all, because there's no logic, just a flinging of words known to get a reaction. --M@rēino15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, now I'm pretty sure that it's the usual strawman. Not a fan Godwin's Law though, it has become a logical fallacy of its own after overuse. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As a formal logical (as opposed to rhetorical) fallacy, it could be described as false conversion: "All genocides demonize their victims, therefore all demonizers are genocidal." Tevildo (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Great Examples of Apologies in History
Are there any archives or letters of one person apologizing to another? I am looking for something heartfelt. Also, looking for something that can be found in the history books. Reason is I want to apologze to someone I hurt and I want to cite that certain document. --Reticuli88 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
My advice is make a heartfelt apology yourself. I would much rather someone look me in the eye and say "Hey, I'm really sorry... I feel really bad about what I said" than have them quote Shakespeare. As someone who has had a history of putting both feet in his mouth at once, I have definitely found the direct apology approach to work best for me. Hope this helps, Falconus04:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"I'm really, really, really sorry." "Sorry's just not good enough for this pope!" Also, it's not written, but the Walk to Canossa is a pretty good example. If the recipient would appreciate this as a sort of postmodern academic exercise , then using obscure quotes and references can be fun. Otherwise, doing it on your own is always best. Adam Bishop (talk)
Wetman is right, it should come from the apologizer's head, not someone else's. One thing that would help, if possible, would be to first try to re-establish contact and friendliness, and once that has been smoothed out a bit, then lay it on them, as they will likely be more receptive after you've made nice for a bit. →Baseball Bugscarrots05:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course, some things are hard to apologize for. From Monty Python and the Holy Grail: Castle lord: "You've slaughtered all me guests!" Lancelot: "Um, oh yes. Sorry!" →Baseball Bugscarrots05:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Patton's apology to the soldiers he struck. And there's the grudging, semi-secret apology of that congressional assclown who shouted 'You lie!' at Obama...Rhinoracer (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
John Henry Newman wrote Apologia Pro Vita Sua, which, although it may appear to be an apology for his entire life, is actually a defence of his philosophies. For actual apologies, there were the numerous ones made by Pope John Paul II to various minority groups that had been persecuted by the Church throughout history. More recently was the Apology to the Stolen Generations made by the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd in February 2008, after his predecessor John Howard had consistently (and controversially) refused to do so for 11 years. I appreciate that none of these match your question, which was asking about letters from one person to another, but maybe they're food for thought. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Recognizing that some aspects of workplace auditing (such as health and safety) lie beyond our current expertise, we’ve engaged the services of Verité, an internationally recognized leader in workplace standards dedicated to ensuring that people around the world work under safe, fair and legal conditions.
”
That's a positive step, the step means it shouldn't happen again. If you don't mention any steps that mean it won't happen again, it's not a very effective apology. "Yeah, sorry for the way my boyfriend acted with you..." (but, I'm stil with him). Not much of an apology. Sorry for the way my boyfriend acted with you - I've since dumped his ass. Much better - now you're friends again :) 92.230.70.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC).
Side question
One can thank someone else by saying simply "thank you". One can agree by saying simply "I agree". And similar examples. But I've always felt that just saying "I apologise" is not a sufficient apology. Sometimes people are required to withdraw a statement and apologise for it, and all they have to do is say "I withdraw my remarks and apologise" (eg. in parliaments, or on WP debates). But in real life, just saying "I apologise" often doesn't seem anything like enough for having caused some offence. There's usually some extra work to be done in repairing the relationship. Does this extra work come under the heading of "apology", or is that part of whatever the next step is? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Politics
Based upon searches, it is most apparent that those "editing" wikipedia are more than a bit leftist. When searching extreme political groups, wikipedia refers to hard right wing or extreme right wing or militant right wing. Yet, when the same search on leftist does not even acknowledge that the leftist groups are hard left wing, extreme left wing or militant left wing? WHY??????????66.207.247.177 (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Most apparent? I think you could find examples of left-wing, right-wing, and all sorts of other biases in Misplaced Pages if you looked hard enough. The ideal is for no bias at all, and that's what, collectively, we all strive for. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to give specific examples if we are to have any hope of answering your question. None of us have read all of Misplaced Pages. --Sean20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, provide specific examples. Some of us will want to go correct articles with a slanted viewpoint, or to ask for citations for doubtful information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
A quick search on Google shows that usage of these terms is pretty similar, whether the suffix is "left" or "right". Because of their potential vagueness and the fact that they are often used to denegrate, they are generally best avoided, unless very well referenced. Warofdreamstalk21:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose wikipedia can fully rid itself of bias, a community tends to attract like minded people. Have you tried Conservapedia?, as you might guess from the name it has a more conservative bias. Dmcq (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This supposed bias has certainly been mentioned before. See Criticism of Misplaced Pages#Liberal bias. Do there tend to be more liberals on Misplaced Pages than conservatives? I would say yes, just due to its nature and the nature of the people it generally appeals to. But the ideal editor is able to remove biases from their editing, and will remove other biases they see on Misplaced Pages even if they strongly agree with them. That is why I think most Misplaced Pages editors would be driven nuts trying to meaningfully contribute to Conservapedia or something similar. I agree on this particular issue as well, I cringe every time I read "left wing" or "right wing" in an article. Beyond the stigma each has acquired over the years, they are very vague descriptors that could mean a large range of things. TastyCakes (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be worth clarifying that there's a difference between a viewpoint and a bias. Bias isn't very well-defined, and there are probably large differences in its meaning from person to person. But they are not (generally) the same.--Leon (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
One of the nice things about Misplaced Pages is that it strives to have no bias. It is no more successful at that than any one person can be, but is remarkably closer to that than most of the internet (certainly more than sites like Conservapedia, which doesn't have a "more conservative bias," but is explicitly just a propaganda site). Misplaced Pages can be edited by anyone... even you! If you find a page that has what appears to be bias on it, you can put a NPOV tag at the top of it, go to the talk page, and say, "hey guys, what's up with this?" and someone will take a look at it. Will you always get your way? Will everyone always agree with you? No way! But that's how it goes. Unlike a lot of places around these here interwebs, though, you're encouraged to voice your concerns, and the community as a whole will try to figure out an acceptable solution. On the whole, based on the demographics of the web and the number of Europeans on Misplaced Pages, it is going to lean more leftwards in general than the standards of the "center" according to someone in the US. Whether this is a problem for you or not personally, I don't know, but it's a fairly common thing. I'm not sure the answer is to go off to fringe websites, though, that try as hard as possible to be as biased as possible. If you have a legitimate complaint, voice it, and over time, if you don't act too crazy, people will take it seriously. If you indulge in a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS and unverified accusations of bias, you won't be taken very seriously. Approach it calmly and without the attitude that there's a massive conspiracy against you, and you might get somewhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny, I was just talking about this elsewhere...are we sure that Conservapedia hasn't been taken over by people who are attempting to destroy it through comedy? This also seems to be what happened to PETA. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I've seen sites on the Internet advocating a sort of stealth trolling of Conservapedia, i.e. creating articles that at first glance would seem legitimate to the Nomenklatura running CP but would actually be made to poke fun and seeing how long it takes for the folks over there to catch on. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm an old-time social democrat or democratic socialist. But I've also been a very small-time editor and reporter who's always asking "but how would it look to someone who doesn't agree with my views?" So when I'm editing something like the Fairness Doctrine, Michael Bloomberg, New York City mayoral election, 2009 or Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, I find myself editing out left-wing or pro-Democratic bias just about as often as I do bias from the right or Republicans. Once a conservative understands where I'm coming from, we usually work together quite constructively on finding the best or most-accurate sources or quotations to support both (or all) sides of the issue. And often some such cooperative consensus was reached (after some struggle) long before I first saw the article in question. As for particular groups, I think that their articles are often (but far from always) edited by those whose sympathies would tend to coincide broadly with the groups'. For example, conservatives seem to have edited most of Young Americans for Freedom, while Socialists, or socialist sympathizers, have done most of the editing of Socialist Party of America. There have to be limits, because no one wants Misplaced Pages to be merely a collection of uncritical promotions for editors' own causes (see WP:Conflict of interest), but it's natural that the most information (and knowledge of good Reliable Sources) would tend to be held by those who've worked with or alongside a particular group. While I haven't looked at the articles in question, I think that neither Operation Rescue nor Code Pink can be called a hate group, although some might legitimately consider them extreme; but that the Westboro Baptist Church could be considered one (although that's not necessarily a useful phrase for Misplaced Pages.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a term that define apparent small edit wars with big meaning?
For instance, one reason that is commonly used to support the exclusion of ethnical origin from bio-articles is "Oh, well, it wasn't notable for X or Y work/life" (even when it was). So, this way, the argument in favor of inclusion may seem foolish, lame and petty. It's realy a very successful tactic (not that I claim that always it's tactic) in many edit wars on different subjects, but does it is acknowleged in Misplaced Pages?--Gilisa (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think they are talking about people who work really hard to argue that some historical figure was really of X nationality, even if he only spent five minutes there and got his citizenship somewhere else and didn't even know he was from that area. It comes up all the time with famous people of various European backgrounds (Einstein, for example). The argument is that Misplaced Pages should focus on the things that were relevant to their actual life, rather than arguments by (often quite nationalistic) editors wanting to include lots of details. I'm not endorsing the argument entirely, though I do note that the people who are most concerned with such things are often concerned for transparently nationalistic reasons (Tesla is Serb! No, he's a Croat! No, he's Austrian! HE'S OURS, DAMN IT!), generally at the expense of the article content itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
¶ A celebrated quotation of the internationalist Albert Einstein is
"If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German, and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew."
Mr.98, actually I was not meaning to this line of disputes. I think that I made it clear in my original post. In Einstein's article an edit war was going for three years, I guess that now it's only a cease fire. Anyway, even his Jewishness played significant role in his life, many users refuse to include in his early life paragraph simple reference short that he was born into a Jewish family (something that undoubtedly change the course of his life and history in fact and was relevant for his deep involvement in Zionist movement). So instead we have an ethnic entry as a default -and as I said there are long lasting war edits about it ("Change to German without Jewish" "Change to both German and Jewish" "Not Jewish, Ashkenazi Jewish" and etc) with those who support omission of any refernce for his Jewishness usually argue that it have no meaning or that it's a lame edit war (but still deeply involve in it).--Gilisa (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
We're having difficulty understanding exactly what your question is, Gilisa. You undoubtedly have better command of more languages than I do, so this isn't to criticise, but "... does it is acknowleged in Misplaced Pages?" isn't a grammatical or understandable English clause. If you have a problem, as many of us do at different times for different reasons, with the behaviour or attitude of other editors, the Humanities Reference Desk doesn't seem like the best place to discuss it. While I don't know all the back pages of the Project, perhaps WP:Village pump (policy), WP:Village pump (proposals) or Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/new users would be more suitable. As for the lead to the Einstein article, I was surprised that it didn't mention, at least very briefly in passing, his progressive and internationalist views and activities. Many readers would be non-scientists looking for a brief summary who wouldn't understand most of that lead anyway.—— Shakescene (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right about my wording. Anyway, I was not aiming to a specific case and just brought Einstein's edit wars as an example for the priniciple itself. I rephrase "Is there a term that define this kind of edit wars?". I realy have no intention to complain on any of wikipedia boards, just posted the question here out of curiosity.--Gilisa (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Aren't a lot of edit wars about nationality lame? That's the first thing that came to my mind when I read the question, which I have to admit I really don't understand fully. It seems awfully specific. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Outside Wikiworld and the battlefields of edit wars, there are phrases like "victimization sweepstakes", "selective outrage" and "competitive victimhood" to describe real-world fights over whether the Irish Famine was as bad an atrocity as the Middle Passage, or whether the Jewish Holocaust was worse than African slavery or the Armenian massacres. These can get nasty when affirmative action, reparations, grave sites, holidays, public school curricula or public memorials are being proposed or challenged. When nation-states are involved on both sides, the crimes of one's own country are minimized or explained away, while those of the other side magnified. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Justices entering courtrooms from behind curtains
While touring the Oklahoma Supreme Court, we were told that the Justices stand behind velvet curtains and then step out when the court is called into session. Googol and Misplaced Pages searches have shown that this is a common practice in higher courts, but provide no other information.
When, where, and why did this custom originate? Did it begin in Roman courts? Is it simply to convey a moment of suspense and mystery, as when a statue is unveiled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decayjack (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Even on shows like Judge Judy, everyone gathers and then the judge comes in. There's a pretty obvious "taking charge" symbolism there: Nothing of substances can happen until the judge makes his/her entrance. Standing behind curtains, though? It's possible they just don't happen to have any doors near the bench, but this is worth looking into. →Baseball Bugscarrots00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I expect they just prefer a curtain to a door. The most senior person or people entering after everyone else is common outside of courtrooms - the high table at a formal meal (at a University, say) will usually enter after everyone else has found their seats (and waited ages for them to stop getting drunk in the SCR, if my experience is anything to go by). People usually stand respectfully while they walk in, too. --Tango (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
In case your tour guide didn't clarify, it's not as if the Justices are just hiding in a corner. Usually, behind the curtain is the "robing room", and then behind that door are all of the chambers and offices. In a sense, it's an ancient security feature: the general public can't just wander into the judge's half of the courthouse. --M@rēino15:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
In Commonwealth countries you will probably find, after everyone is seated, a knock at the door (see tipstaff), everyone stands up, the judge comes in, and the court is declared to be in session. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
October 8
Aftermath Gandhi's assasination
I read that the assasin of Mahatma Gandhi was a Marathi. Does this mean that the Gujarati people fought against the Marathi people?q —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.143 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
How did they know that you were gay. I don't understand that. I understand the persecution of gypsies, communists, Jews, Slavic people, etc. Because they are recognizable, because of their clothes, skin, etc. But I can't understand the persecution of homosexuals, if you didn't "come out" in public, how could they know that you were a homosexual?. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
When societies fall down into "witch hunts", you can't expect well reasoned and fundamented methods for finding the persecuted people. They start with the obvious cases (in this case, the gays who "come out"), and they follow with false positives, circunstancial evidence, plain mistakes or making a big mess from some inconsequential anecdote (have you ever seen the Stark Raving Dad simpson episode?) MBelgrano (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably similar to how America persecuted communists under McCarthy. If you did stuff that McCarthy didn't like, you were investigated for communism. Falconus03:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The other thing to remember is that, even though many homosexuals were "invisible" when they went about their business in the outside world, neighbors could have observed overnight visits by members of the same sex. If such a neighbor wished, all he or she had to do was alert the authorities, and there was a good chance that the perceived homosexual would be hauled off. Marco polo (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they were really concerned with hard evidence and fair trials when they were herding people onto the cattle cars. And seriously Falconus poke yourself in the head mate: "investigating someone for being a communist" and "throwing someone into a gas chamber for being gay" are not close what I'd call "similar". Vespine (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
In fairness to Falconus, I think he/she was merely drawing parallels between the lacks of due process inherent in the two, not their relative scales of extent or outcome. Note also the following passage from the McCarthyism article:
"Suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for "sexual perverts", who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in thousands being harassed and denied employment." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
yeah look, i'm usually also on the side of shooting down knee jerk reactions to do with holocaust, however I think in this context it's really not appropriate to bring up how similar it is when people got harassed and "denied employment" to when MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WERE EXTERMINATED. Vespine (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a random "i wonder" question that popped into my head from who knows where. If you have the "national treasure 2" you'll know what im talking about. But does anyone know if there is one?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
For those of us that have not seen National Treasure Two, you may have to expound on that to get an answer. Falconus03:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
According to our plot summary: "Riley tells Ben that the Book of Secrets contains documents collected by Presidents for Presidents' eyes only, covering such controversial subjects as the JFK assassination, Watergate, and Area 51." I have never heard of such a book, and I doubt one exists - I can't see why a President would have that kind of information when other officials at the CIA, NSA, military, etc. wouldn't. How would the President have got the information? He wouldn't be carrying out investigations himself. There are certainly top secret archives full of information about that kind of thing, but I doubt there is anything restricted to just Presidents. --Tango (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have heard it said that when Bill Clinton asked the CIA for information on UFO's, the CIA denied presenting any such information to the president by directly stating "We release information on a presidential need to know basis, not a presidential want to know basis." If that is true, I would suspect that the CIA would keep a much tighter lid on any information, and not have a book available to the president listing top secret national embarrassments etc that were released to previous presidents. Unfortunately I don't have the sources for that, so take it at face value. Falconus04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My preferred rumor is that when E.T. came out, Reagan got a special screening of it with some friends in the White House. At one point, he supposedly leaned over to someone and said "They have no idea how true this actually is." Whether he was talking about aliens or the governments ability to be shown up by a child remains unknown. ~ Amory (u • t • c)12:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My above comment notwithstanding, there is a tradition of the outgoing president leaving a letter for the incoming one in the Oval Office that only the President reads. That's probably the closest you'll find. Nick Cage movies are not known for their accuracy. ~ Amory (u • t • c)12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of cases of the military withholding information from Presidents. Pentagon Papers are one of them; information about VENONA is another. Somewhat relatedly, Vice President Truman wasn't informed about the Manhattan Project until Roosevelt's death. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Social criticism in poems/songs
I know this is not a teachers' forum, nevertheless my question: I am about to plan a lesson or several lessons for EFL students (advanced level) on social criticism in poems and songs. However, I'm having problems finding the right texts. (Google didn't help, neither did the textbooks available in the school library.) Does anyone know a good post-WWII poem/song with social criticism in general or referring to an English-speaking country? Thanks in advance, 87.123.200.242 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Any song written between 1965 and 1975, for starters; protests to the Vietnam war is a good topic to look into regarding music. As for a good song, my person favorite has always been War Pigs by Black Sabbath, followed closely by Alice's Restaurant. ~ Amory (u • t • c)12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Rhinoracer and Amory are absolutely right. Bob Dylan's early songs are masterpieces of social criticism, and from the same period there are theseWhat are we fighting for / I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die . You can hear these songs at www.youtube.com, just put the title or singer in their search engine. Google will help you if you tell it you want LYRICS BLOWIN IN THE WIND. So far it's all songs so here is an anti-war protest poem - you could draw a comparison between what Adrian Mitchell wrote then about Vietnam and western involvement today in Iraq & Afghanistan.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There was a Vietnam war show they used to have on the history channel, and I'm pretty sure I originally saw this one there:
"This is a war of the unwilling, led by the unqualified, dying for the ungrateful -- G.I. Latrine Graffiti." I guess it's not really poetry, but by the standards of bathroom graffiti I think it's pretty close. TastyCakes (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"We Didn't Start the Fire" uses images from Misplaced Pages in the video. This social criticism song is barely coherent though we know Who sang it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Post-WWII song about social-criticism? Practically any song by Chumbawamba would do - I use them myself when I am teaching and some of the songs go down very well and lead to some very long discussions. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please explain the uproar abroad and in Hollywood about this man being arrested? I simply don't get it: he raped a thirteen year old girl when he was 44 years old. Not statutory rape, rape rape. Is there some idea that because it happened a long time ago, we shouldn't care? Is it a lot of anti-Americanism rearing its ugly head (I'm somehow not understanding how the country of origin has anything to do with this). Help. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Rape is horrible. There is, however, a well-known history of celebrities receiving softer treatments when it comes to the law, and that effect is usually stronger when the celebrity is someone who, aside from their crime, is a fantastic artist and continues to make superb works of art. Moreover, there is/was a significant amount of sympathy for him as his wife was murdered by the Manson family. Example: In 2004 he won an Oscar and received a standing ovation - not the sort of treatment a child rapist usually gets. Hollywood most likely wants to get what many view as an excellent director back to America. He has French and Polish citizenship, so they are naturally outraged at one of their own citizens being arrested with the intent of being deported, although they have backed down for the obvious reasons you bring up. The victim herself has also expressed a desire to just get past the whole thing.
If you were a 13-year-old girl, how would you feel if any boy that made advances on you was sent straight to jail? I think I'd be a little perplexed by this sort of thing. Vranak (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You need to read more about this case. It was pure exploitation, and the victim may have "moved on", but she said something about how justice can take a long time. So I don't think she is by any means ready to "let bygones be bygones". →Baseball Bugscarrots17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It was not a boy making advances, it was a middle-aged man drugging and sodomizing her after she had already refused his advances and requested to leave. ~ Amory (u • t • c)18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, Vranak, under the United States's legal system, each individual state has a written criminal code that has very precisely written distinctions about things like whether a 44-year-old is a "boy" (no), whether a 13-year-old is a "girl" (yes), and whether sexually penetrating someone of any age after the accused has drugged that person, and after that person has repeatedly begged the accused to stop, is rape (yes). If the prosecution can establish that those are the facts of the case, then the judge would be violating his oath of office if he ignored the law. --M@rēino19:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)It is foolish to suggest a 44 year old man is a boy. It is also foolish to suggest drugging and raping a 13 year old qualifies as "making advances". Because your basic premises seem so flawed to me, I don't really know what you're arguing. This has been a long time coming, it's time he paid for his crime. Shame on France and Poland for sheltering this pedophile. TastyCakes (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
A documentary came out recently (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired) in which it is alleged that the prosecutor mishandled the case and even colluded against him, or something along those lines (I haven't seen it, just read coverage about it). (The prosecutor has since recanted his interview, or something like that.) Anyway, the argument is that they had some kind of deal worked out but Polanski got screwed over by the prosecutors, which is why he fled. Or something like that. The idea is not what Polanski did was an acceptable thing, but that the justice system got perverted, etc. I don't know enough about the case myself to pass judgment on that aspect of it (which is not the same thing as passing judgment on his actual crime). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
In America, it's kind of the prosecutor's job to be against the accused. They're supposed to do it in an ethical way, but even so, it's hard to see what the prosecutor did in this case that was so unethical. Any defense lawyer worth his law degree is going to warn his client that judges don't have to accept plea bargains if the judge feels that the bargain is too generous for the accused. --M@rēino19:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are regulations about what prosecutors and judges may and may not do. They can, in fact, lead to an overturning of convictions (or at least a mistrial), much less disbarring and things like that. So it's serious if the prosecutor really did break one of those laws. Doesn't mean Polanski is a good guy. Could mean that the court case gets thrown out. (Is it justice? Unclear.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The only thing that surprises me (and Polanski and his lawyers, as well) about this case, is why he was allowed to enter and leave Switzerland innumerable times over the past 35 years without the slightest problem, but only on this occasion was he apprehended. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm no INTERPOL expert, but I think it had to do with the fact that an international warrant for his arrest was not issued until 2005. This section and this article give a little information on it. ~ Amory (u • t • c)20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
And the LAPD has gone to some lengths to show that they've actually been still after him for years, and have tried to apprehend him, but he has slipped out of their jurisdiction time and time again. As they tell it, it's not a case of "well, we ignored him for decades and now we've pounced," it's a case of "we've tried to get him and this time he was finally in a country that would extradite to us at the same time we were." --Mr.98 (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Public Use of Research Papers
If a company or institution has paid another institution to undertake a research study, can anyone use the results of that research or would the paying company have a claim? I always understood that information could not be copyrighted only the layout and the actual text (copy) used. Thanks Kirk UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You have got several issues going on here. Firstly, the answer may depend on the contract that exists between the two parties. If IBM pays Motorola to do a research study, for example, the contract may require that both IBM and Motorola keep the research study confidential. I believe what you're asking about, though, is a research paper being written and published, so anybody can read it. In that case, whether anyone can use the results of that research depends on whether the results include something that has been patented. IBM would presumably file for patents on any inventions that come from research it has paid for. Contrary to your belief, information is definitely copyrightable — computer programs, for example, are copyrightable information. In the EU there are even specific copyright protections for databases of information. Ideas are not copyrightable, but the expression of those ideas (i.e. the actual research paper) is copyrightable. In summary, if a research paper were to review methods of irrigating the Sahara, and the institutions have not properly patented the methods, then anyone would be free to go and irrigate the Sahara — but nobody is free to, without permission, copy and paste the text of the research paper, outside of the extent of the fair use laws in the copier's country. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It's worth noting that even the classic "ideas are not copyrightable but expression is" mantra is pretty murky in practice. The line between an idea and its expression is quite blurry (which is what one would expect with even a reasonable knowledge of philosophy and epistemology—the "idea" and the "expression" are often deeply linked, even in such apparently "non-expressive" realms as science and mathematics). But in the case of paying for institutions to do research, it is almost always governed by the terms of the contract in question. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all the information. Let me give a more specific example which happens in the world of education constantly. If a local authority or state pay a university to conduct a piece of research on say how to improve the teaching of reading. Imagine that that county or state pays tens of thousands of dollars to the university to undertake the research. A few years later the state which commissioned the research publishes the results and everything is claimed a success. The state that commissioned the research do not sell on the results to anyone or the practices used. Would it be permissible for any other county or state to adapt their teaching methods in light of the results of the research paid for by another party? This is what I mean about information being copyrightable. If I pay someone to find out the best way to drive a car, I'm sure I can't charge every time someone drives correctly because it matches my research. Is this just one of those grey areas? Kirk UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If information is out in the public and not protected by patents, then yes, the information is usable by everybody. We scientists do it all the time - think about Newton's "shoulders of giants" quote. What is required is proper attribution, although that is more a professional and practical consideration, not a legal one. Of course, knowledge gained in one setting may not always transfer, or transfer fully, from one setting to the other. Switzerland, Sweden, and the US probably have different problems with teaching children proper reading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're talking about methods and procedures, it isn't copyright law you have to worry about, it's patent law. Unlikely copyrights, though, patents aren't automatic—there is a lot of paperwork and fees and etc. So if someone hasn't filed a patent on a given method, then it's fair game (at least until they try to retrospectively file a patent on it!). Now often states and governments will have patent clauses in any contracts they file with universities, that say things like, "the state reserves the right to own the patent on this if they want" or "the university can patent it if they want". That doesn't mean they will actually file a patent, but it's worth noting that this sort of thing is not usually left up to chance. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Jury Duty
I have a question about jury duty in the USA. I just read an article about the end of the Brooke Astor trial and I noticed that the jury has been empaneled since March. What happens to people when they end up on juries for long trials? Are they protected from being fired? If they aren't getting any hours at work, how do they pay their bills? This seems like it would ruin your life. What protections/considerations are in place for jurors? Gohome00 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well you could plead to the judge during jury selection that a long trial would put undue hardship on you. He might go for that, but probably a better idea would just be to claim to distrust all police officers, which would render you not suitable for jury selection. Googlemeister (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are a Federal Employee, you get paid even when you are on jury duty. I'm not sure if it's full pay, though. I know you can tell the judge it would be undue hardship, but what if it wouldn't be if it was a week, but it would be if it was 7 months? What if you are three months in and going bankrupt? What is your recourse? Wrad (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC) It's a serious concern, yes. The answer depends on the state in question, I'm sure. Using California, the most populous state, as an example, this link says, "It is against the law to fire or harass an employee who is summoned to serve as a juror." However, there's no law saying your employer has to pay you — this California state website pleads with employers to do so. You can plead "extreme financial hardship" to the judge, as Googlemeister said, if it's a murder trial or a famous celebrity trial or something sure to be a long trial and therefore an ... extreme financial hardship. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It varies from state to state, but in New York, for example, you get 40 bucks a day, and if the trial goes longer than 30 days you can get an additional 6. Jury duty doesn't have to take up all day every day (courts are busy too), so people can often work while serving (shorter hours of work, of course). Also, the judge tells you beforehand how long the trial is expected to go, so you can plan accordingly. If you can prove that serving will cause financial or medical hardships, you can be excused from that service. Finally, it's a violation of Federal law to fire an employee for serving on Jury Duty. ~ Amory (u • t • c)21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What if you are in the midst of a trial that is showing no signs of ending soon and you literally have no way of paying your bills. You are going bankrupt, your life is falling apart, and you are unable to keep going on your $40 a day (in my state it is $10 a day). What can you do? Wrad (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
They usually have a pretty good idea of how long the trial is going to take before they empanel a jury. Sometimes a trial will end much sooner than expected (usually when unexpected evidence comes up and either the prosecuter drops the case or the defendant decides to plead guilty), but I've never heard of a trial going long by more than a day or two. Deliberations are another matter, but if they're going nowhere, it's usual to declare a hung jury. --Carnildo (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There are also sometimes back-up jurors that can take your place, but these are rather rare I believe. ~ Amory (u • t • c)23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, the juror would talk with the judge, who would take pity on the juror and excuse him/her from jury service. If the judge refused even though the juror's life was falling apart, I believe the most the juror can legally do is to file complaints about the judge's conduct. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
In Massachusetts, employers are legally obligated to pay employees as if they were at work for the first three days of jury service. Apparently, the vast majority of trials in Massachusetts last three days or fewer. After three days, if the employer does not continue to pay the employee, the state will pay $50 per day. (My employer and many others will pay employees indefinitely during jury duty.) I think most people can just about find a way to scrape by at $50 per day. Marco polo (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"Obligated" is correct and is the usual word in North America for such situations. --Anon, 05:10 UTC, October 9, 2009.
It's of note that $50 a day, $30 a day, and $10 a day are all pretty different values. The first nets you $1500 a month, which is not bad on average, though depending on your mortgage, is not necessarily great. The second is around $900 a month—getting into tough territory there. The last is $300 a month—which will probably not pay for your lunch. It's pretty awful of states to pay so little for it—obviously nobody expects them to help anyone make a profit, but covering basic expenses seems rather minimal. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the presumption is not that this will be your only source of income for a month or greater. Those cases are very rare, and most will be completely done in well over a week, often allowing for plenty of time during that week to spend some time at work, depending on locations. And, a number of places (translation:higher paying, more white-collar jobs) will pay you for a time instead of leaving it to the gov't. It's not really enough, but hey, at least it's one area of government spending that's not over budget! Although, considering it's a civic duty, we should arguably be glad we get anything. ~ Amory (u • t • c)00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
For you information, in the UK jurors are compensated for loss of earnings up to a maximum that increases the longer a trial goes on (you can also claim for other financial loss, but that's included in the same maximum - travel and food is in addition to it). For regular length jury service it is £63.12 for a full day. As I understand it, that is tax and National Insurance free so corresponds to an annual salary of around £18,000 (if you trust my mental arithmetic) which is maybe 2/3 of median earnings. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Jury duty in the U.S. is a form of undercompensated involuntary servitude. In some states you might get a small fraction of minimum wage. You might conceivably go bankrupt if it is a long trial, and you are the sole support of your family. Such a juror would be a ready target for bribery. In a just society, there would be sufficient compensation for jury duty. I have had jobs where I got my normal pay plus the paltry $15 per day for serving on a jury in a long murder trial. I have also had a minimum wage job where the jury pay was the only pay. A result is that, unless you are independently wealthy or get your normal pay when on jury duty, it makes sense to get excused by telling the judge that you have already made up your mind and could not possible render an impartial verdict. Edison (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It makes more sense to tell the truth. --Anon, 05:11 UTC, October 9, 2009.
As someone once said, if you're ever on trial, keep in mind you're being judged by 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. →Baseball Bugscarrots05:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
These things cut both ways. If we don't occasionally do things for complete strangers, how can we expect the same in return? I don't know about you, but if I were ever on trial, I would hope to get a jury of people who saw it as their civic duty to be jurors and were reasonably willing participants - and who were not morons. For that reason, if I were ever called for jury duty myself, I would not go out of my way to avoid being selected (and I certainly wouldn't lie to do so). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What were Christopher Columbus' early influences and experiences and how did they contribute to his successes and failures in his voyages later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.62.37 (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
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. (It appears that the question is asking you what you learned from some reading about Columbus' early life, and then to relate what you've learned to how you judge the results of his later voyages. While undertaking your own analysis might help you to understand Columbus's life and record better, the answers we could offer here would inevitably have a large amount of speculative debate and opinion for which the Reference Desk is poorly suited.) —— Shakescene (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Columbus' voyage was a failure and a fake from day one... or at least the story we are told in history class. He left for his voyage in 1492 to prove that the world was round... even though the earliest known globe (round) was constructed by the Greek scholar Crates of Mallus in Cilicia (now Çukurova in modern-day Turkey) around 150 BCE. Also the first terrestrial globe was invented by Martin Behaim in Nürnberg, Germany, in 1492, the same year Columbus set sail... so, the Earth being round was a well known fact long before Columbus. 74.218.50.226 (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you learned, but Columbus knew the world was round - that's why he left! He was trying to find a way to get from Europe to Asia in order to trade without all that mucking about over land. He believed that the Earth was only about 2/3 of its actual size, and so he figured it wouldn't be too hard. Hence, when he landed in the Caribbean, he thought it was India. ~ Amory (u • t • c)15:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The second link has been marked by my Web of Trust as a very untrustworthy site in terms of reliability and privacy. I have changed the link text to reflect this. Falconus00:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
No less than a multi-FA writer from the Little Red Dot mentions Misplaced Pages's pro-LGBT bias on his userpage. What is the extent of this bias and the extent of harm the bias causes? Do other large (Western-dominated) online communities have this bias too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.56.187 (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I would need to see evidence that this is so before I even thought about "extent" and "harm", neither of which would be necessarily the consequence. This is an argumentative question, assuming facts unproven, and not suitable for the Ref Desk in this form. Bielle (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Pro LGBT bias?!? Holy crap. You might as well complain that wikipedia has "pro-equality bias" and "pro-freedom of speech bias"... Vespine (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Right. There's a big difference between not having an anti-LGBT bias, and having a pro-LGBT bias. The former applies around here; the latter doesn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What can probably be legitimately said is that prior to the last 2-3 decades in "mainstrean" United States discourse, any mention of homosexuality was likely to be phrased in negative, critical terms, at least by a large section of the establishment. Hence an encylcopedia that no longer employs these negative, critical terms could seem to some readers as displaying a pro bias, even if the real story is lack of the anti bias. --68.175.44.30 (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
One would think that if such bias existed, it may be due to the primarily young, technically savvy, and disproportionately Western population of English Misplaced Pages.I haven't gotten extensively into anything, although I did personally bring up an issue that worries me a bit (people are saying we should slap Category:Homophobia on anyone associated with the homophobia debate... i.e., anyone with any controversy at all concerning it... i.e., anybody who has spoken out again homosexual rights, which is an underhanded and POV insult IMO). Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I certainly agree. The definition of homophobia includes the word 'irrational' which is prejudicial. Except in some special cases where the person was abused or suchlike I agree the fear is irrational, but sticking on such a label would violate neutral point of view as far as I'm concerned without citation in each case showing it was irrational. I'm not even sure one should count it as irrational where the person believes it because they are told it as part of their religion. Dmcq (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the category. It says in very big bold type "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia. Inclusion in this category does not imply that the subject of any article is homophobic." While homophobia is obviously pejorative, as I understand it one of the problems is there's no other suitable term which wouldn't be a neologism invented by wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that by "pro-LGBT", the OP means to say "bias in favor of LGBT equality under the law", or it doesn't make much sense to me. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to see some examples before we can reach even preliminary conclusions. Personally, I can't recall ever finding any pro-LGBT articles on Misplaced Pages (or anti, unless you count the vandals who love to accuse various professional athletes of being serial homosexual adulterers), but maybe I'm not reading the right stuff. --M@rēino19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I had never heard the phrase "Little Red Dot" before, but it's apparently a reference to Singapore. The user that OP (also in Singapore) mentions is perhaps User:Chensiyuan. The paragraph in question goes:
Thoughts on Misplaced Pages The main problems with WP? Too many back-seat-driving, "deletionist" and counterproductive editors purporting to be of any use. Way too much western, anti-Christian and LGBT bias (ironic, considering what the majority of the world's population is). People misinterpreting fair use. Vandals are sometimes the smallest problem because those people do not pretend to be right or useful. Sometimes, it's truly "give me Conservepadia anytime" (when it comes to candidness).
I don't think it's ever been illegal to "be a homosexual", celibate or otherwise, anywhere in the world. That would be like making it illegal to like certain kinds of music. What's illegal in Singapore is to engage in sexual acts with a person of the same sex. That law applies to anyone who does so, and perpetrators need not identify as "homosexual" to risk prosecution. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not an example of someone being refused admission because of a propensity to commit acts that are in themselves illegal. An active, out gay man would probably not be permitted to join the RC priesthood either, or various other organisations. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I would also point out that the situation in Singapore as supported by the above article and Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore) and LGBT rights in Singapore, as in a number of countries is that while many sexual acts (e.g. mutual masturbation) between males is illegal, acts between females may not be. While Sean said 'gay sex' this is somewhat ambiguous as the term gay is sometimes taken to include women as well. In fact our article supported by a source suggests it's possible that anal sex between males may not be covered under the law. I don't believe this has ever been tested as the general law banning anal sex for all people in Singapore was repealed in 2007 and the government have said they won't pursue cases between consenting adults Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The prevalence of the term "LGBT" on Wikipedi itself betrays this bias. "LGBT" is a 1990s neologism and it impliles some sort of unity between homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. This is very far from evident. If people want to discuss homosexuality, let them call it "homosexuality", not "LGBT" or similar neologisms coined by "proponents", in this case by the subculture under discussion. --dab(𒁳)21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has an explicit guideline along the lines of "call minority groups what they prefer to call themselves"; this practice is not LGBT-specific. --Sean21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The problem there is that "LGBT" includes bisexuality (which is not the same as homosexuality) and transgender (which does not imply anything at all about a person's sexual orientation). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This whole discussion seems outside the scope of the Reference Desk. The OP's question looks like an attempt to start a debate, and that seems to be what we have undertaken. The question assumes that there is bias and that this bias causes harm, neither of which has been proven. I think the simple response is that there is no clear "pro-LGBT" bias and that there is even less evidence of harm. Furthermore, any assessment of bias must be subjective, and opinion is outside the realm of the Reference Desk. As for opinions about bias in "other large (Western-dominated) online communities", I don't think that the Reference Desk is the place to elicit those, either. Marco polo (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
gymnast 1889 world championship Paris
HISTORY and/or SPORT
We have an article about the Norwegian Fredrik Hjalmar Johansen, polar explorer with Nansen and Amundsen. There is no doubt that he was also a gymnast. According to Norwegian Misplaced Pages, he won the Norwegian Championship in 1885 in Fredrikshald and the World Championship in 1889 in Paris. It's this last item, the 1889 World Championship, I'd like to have a reference for. Thank you, - Hordaland (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You're good, thanks. Took a little looking to find out more about the book: Fridtjof Nansen in the Frozen World. The Fram Expedition. Fridtjof Nansen; S. L. Berens (Editor) To quote the lengthy title page when this book was originally published in 1897: "The 'Fram' Expedition, Nansen in the Frozen World, preceded by a biography of the great explorer and copious extracts from Nansen's First Crossing of Greenland; also an account by Astrup of life among people near the pole, and his journey across northern Greenland with Lieutenant Robert E. Peary, United States Navy, arranged and edited by S. L. Berens, Cand. Ph.D. Followed by a brief history of the principal earlier arctic explorations from the Ninth Century to the Peary Expedition, including those of Cabot, Frobisher, Bering, Sir John Franklin, Kane, Hayes, Hall, Nordenskjold, Nareds, Schwatka, DeLong, Greely, and others; by John E. Read, Assistant Editor of the Columbian Cyclopedia. Paperback, 536 pp, International Law & Taxation, 2003, English, ISBN 9781410209832 (Available for 303 Norwegian crowns.)
NorwWikipedia says that in 1889 "he was part of the Norwegian national gymnastics team at the World's Fair in Paris, where he became World Champion in gymnastics." As you guessed. - Hordaland (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues! In the German Misplaced Pages we got a very angry remark because Henry Tucker has no entry (doesn't have an entry in the en:WP either!). Could you please give me an impression of the relevance of H. Tucker? Would he have a chance in the en:WP? Thanks --Grey Geezer 08:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) (in case my nom de plume is not taken by the system: Grey Geezer 10:30, 9. Okt. 2009 (CEST)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)
A little googling shows that a fair number of published works have mentioned Henry Tucker. He is hardly famous today, but he was certainly one of the more important songwriters of his day. I think he probably passes the notability test. Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! We'll think about it! --Grey Geezer 21:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)
WP:SOFIXIT. Everything at Misplaced Pages exists because volunteer editors, no different than you, put it here. Misplaced Pages is not complete, so it is entirely unsurprising that there are articles which we could currently have, but do not. If you have any skill at translation, then you may be well suited towards translating the German article for en:WP. --Jayron3223:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
does the bible show Jesus losing his temper?
and spewing a long string of demeaning insults at someone, making them feel like sh*( etc, ie just flipping out. I'm curious because I know someone with the same personality as Jesus, and they do that, so I wonder if the bible shows Jesus doing that. Also, the writers of the bible believed in him, so they might not mention it ... is there any circumstantial evidence, ie a part where it seems the writers of the bible are 'covering for' Jesus, but we can tell that Jesus really must have totally flipped out. Thanks. 85.181.151.223 (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Those are AWESOME references!!! I thought your answers would be "what? no!" with a question of whether I'm a troll. Instead, my supposition is 100% vindicated -- the answer is a resounding yes -- check out this picture. "Creating a whip from some cords, he drives out the moneychangers and turns over their tables, and the tables of the people selling doves" and the article says "Jesus went straight to the Temple and threw out everyone who had set up shop, buying and selling. He kicked over the tables of loan sharks and the stalls of dove merchants". Jesus kicking over tables and sh&*!! That is awesome. The picture I just linked is the most awesome painting of Jesus I've ever seen. I also agree that the incident with the fig tree could be his 'frustration'. I'll have me some figs. What? No figs! May no one ever eat figs again!!! Anything else guys? And again, Saddhiyama, those references are AWESOME. More more more please!! :) 85.181.151.223 (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's about it... No offence, but your question does sound a bit trollish. You know a guy with "the same personality as Jesus"? Please, forget there are not even any contemporary eye witness accounts of Jesus, I find it hard to believe any 2 people share exactly the same personality. Maybe your friend is a lot like Jesus, but with a worse temper... Vespine (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The fig tree incident might have been losing His temper. The moneychangers situation almost certainly was calculated, since it's not like He didn't already know about it. As for a friend who's like Jesus... A businessman runs into a bum on the street who asks for money and tells him that he's Jesus. The businessman asks him to prove it. The bum takes the businessman to a nearby bar. When they walk in, the bartender says, "Jesus! You here again?!" →Baseball Bugscarrots12:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Now that gets us into his dual nature. According to the theology, he was both fully divine and fully human. Wearing his divine hat, he knew everything that would ever happen to him in his life on Earth, so anger at unexpected events would be a contradiction in terms. But wearing his human hat, he could not possibly have known what lay ahead. It would be interesting to speculate on which hat he was wearing when, but of course we don't do that here. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Knowing something in advance due to being divine doesn't preclude Him from having a temper and reacting poorly. His Father had a few such acts in the Old Testament, killing lots of people many times out of anger, and various other things. ~ Amory (u • t • c)13:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, knowing ahead of time does not preclude expressing anger. Anger can be a controlled emotion like anything else. Lots of non-divine people use expressions of anger to provoke calculated responses in people, and there is no reason to suppose that merely because Jesus got angry that he was not angry on purpose and not using the anger in that situation for a specific planned purpose. --Jayron3223:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
For a strange comparison, I recall one time when Bill O'Reilly went ballistic against some guest. A later guest or maybe a fan letter said something about him "losing his temper". O'Reilly responded, "I did not lose my temper, I displayed it." Claiming, at least, to be "calculated". →Baseball Bugscarrots00:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
"The moneychangers situation almost certainly was calculated, since it's not like He didn't already know about it". It does not have to be calculated just because he already was aware of the phenomenon. It could simply be that he was tired of walking into the temple while being hassled by moneylenders for the nth time, and he just simply lost it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
There are some places where when talking to his disciples he seems a bit testy. It's been awhile since I've read it, but I seem to recall him getting a little snippy with Peter at various times in the book of Matthew. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The Last Supper can be read in two completely different ways. In one, he is breaking bread and wine as an act of togetherness with his disciples. In another, he is telling them that they are rather worthless and will forget all about him in a few days, so he demands that they treat bread and wine as his flesh and blood. Then, when they eat and drink, they will be forced to remember him. In the second way of reading it, he comes off as a bit of a hot-head. -- kainaw™13:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kainaw about The Last Supper. Same goes for the Roman Trial of Jesus, really -- is Jesus being superhumanly calm, or has he gone completely nuts? It seems to me, at least, that the Gospel authors think it's the former, but that Pontius Pilate fears it's the latter. --M@rēino20:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Speeches
Is there a single USA president that actually wrote all of his speeches? And is there any other countries in the world that have their leaders not writing their speeches? Thanks
I would suspect that Thomas Jefferson wrote his own speeches, given that at that time the President had essentially no staff (beyond what he brought in from his own household). Jefferson was great on writing, but poor on oral delivery. He had his second inaugural address printed and distributed, so people would know what they would have heard if he had been a decent public speaker. I would expect that most leaders use speechwriters - I know that several German Chancellors did. I don't know if they used them for all speeches. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln was himself a speechwriter and, for the most part, wrote his own speeches. Theodore Roosevelt was also a speechwriter, but he is too current a President for me to believe that his political associates would allow him free reign to write all of his own speeches. -- kainaw™12:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Never underestimate Misplaced Pages. According to our
Speechwriter article: "Judson T. Welliver wrote for President Warren G. Harding in 1921 and is considered the first official presidential speechwriter." Some further digging reveals that there's even a Judson Welliver Society composed of former presidential speechwriters! --M@rēino20:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Do interfaith marriages, or marriages between a religious and an irreligious person, last as long as marriages where both partners either share the same religion or share irreligion? NeonMerlin17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be pretty hard to gather the data to answer that question. My guess is that it wouldn't matter; we've come a long way since, "I knew that mixed marriage would never work. He was a Methodist and she was a Preysbytarian." PhGustaf (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You could at least try and give a reference, PhGustaf. Starting point for other research: this PDF from the CDC, which is loaded with marriage and divorce statistics. It measures the probability of "marital disruption" with regards to the importance of religion (but not differing importance between two partners). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What a lame response. I'm not sure why the data would be any harder than other marriage statistics, of which there are many. Anyway, I would be also interested in knowing how mixed-religion marriages differed in regards to children as well. Anecdotally that seems to be the area that people with different religions have the most friction—what's the kid going to be raised as, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The statistics will of course depend on what you mean by "interfaith." A non-religious Jew marrying a non-religious Christian will find themselves likely to not have a particularly big issue, methinks. And that is going to be heavily affected by social norms. For example, interfaith marriages are probably much less of a deal in places like NYC and LA than they are in <stereotype>Mississippi and Texas</stereotype>. Also, do atheists count? How about agnostics? There are a lot of things to take into account, and not all are easily accounted for. Or, as PhGustaf said, "It would be pretty hard." Also, I didn't think it was lame. ~ Amory (u • t • c)22:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The OP specifically said "or marriages between a religious and an irreligious person" so I presume marriages between a religious person and a atheists or agnostic counts. I agree with the general sentiment it likely depends on what religion and the people involed etc however. Also the op has said "last as long as marriages where both partners either share the same religion or share irreligion". The trouble is these statistics are likely going to vary as well. This suggest religious couples are less likely to divorce while suggests in fact atheists and agnostics are the least likely to divorce (well compared to Christians and Jews). Both are from the US. One of the problems is likely whether they researchers have attempted to account for differences between education, income and other factors. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
If you look at their site, http://www.godhatestheworld.com/ it says that the world and its nations are doomed and all that due to homosexuality... lol wut... but seriously, they show picketers... around the world.
What I want to know is what countries they have actually picketed in. Jacqui Smith, despite her being a terrible person in general, stopped them from having their first UK picket...
I know they were planning on picketing in Canada, at the funeral of the guy who got decapitated and partially eaten by that Chinese immigrant near Winnipeg. Vranak (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
How long do libraries retain records? - Herbert N. Foerstel
In researching information on records retained by libraries, recurring references are made to Herbert N. Foerstel and his works. The general impression I get is he has had significant influence on anti-censorship/NPOV approach to the building of a library catalogue, and access to such.
The specific question I was attempting to get an answer to is, what records do libraries generally keep recording details of who may have checked-out or referred to a specific book at a specific time? If such records are kept, for how long? And, are they kept beyond the requirement to track and maintain the collection, and identify who has books outside the library?
In Norway it is illegal to retain such records. Even teachers' lists of which child has borrowed which books from the school library are discouraged and may in no case be retained longer than the current school year. - Hordaland (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that one Hordaland! Do you have an online reference? I'll happily take Norge and mangle it with Google Translate.
Additional. British Library: Information Charter: http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/foi/infcharter/index.html - personal data retained we don’t keep it longer than necessary, policy must comply with principles of UK data protection act. But, I can't get a clear, "when book returned to library undamaged, the 'borrowing record' is deleted; if returned book is damaged, the 'borrowing record' is deleted when the borrower has paid for the damage or a replacement copy". --Brian McNeil /22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You could try using Misplaced Pages's library and bookstore search service with this ISBN for Foerstel's Banned in the Media (1998), which I picked up from Rififi: ISBN 0313302456 . And from the same source, here's the Google Book page, which allows a limited preview, for Banned in the Media. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Evaluations of how-to-get-organised and time-management books
Are there are lists of these books anywhere that point out the best ones? I'm referring to books like Getting Things Done for example. Misplaced Pages has lists of them, but does not evaluate their merits. Amazon evaluates some of them through customer reviews, but you cannot see a list of them ordered by their star-rating AFAIK. 78.147.35.60 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Mosaic Law
There is a provision in the Mosaic Law which states that if the estate of a Gentile comes before a Jewish court the court must award the estate to the Gentile kinsmen of the deceased. Can you give me any derivation, interpretation or source material for this provision. LEON H. GILDIN
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.224.64 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
On what grounds do you make the assertion that a provision in the Mosaic Law states that if the estate of a Gentile comes before a Jewish court the court must award the estate to the Gentile kinsmen of the deceased?--Wetman (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
That is indeed a strange question. In essence: "There's a law that says A, can you please show me a law that says A?" How can you know that provision exists without knowing which provision it is? /me is confused. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The OP may be looking for Numbers 27:8-11: "And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses." Nothing specific to Gentile or Jewish inheritance, though. Tevildo (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
October 10
Inbreeding
Is there anyway to prevent the negative effect of inbreeding in the South China Tiger? All captive South China Tiger today descend from 2 male and 4 female caught in the 1950s and 1970s. What if there weren't any wild ones left? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Will the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to US President Obama be taxed as a donation? If so, how much will be retained? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Surprisingly, this IRS publication has a section called "Pulitzer, Nobel, and similar prizes." You know, just in case you win one. The prize money (about $1.4 million in US dollars currently) is taxable, but Obama has stated he is going to give the money to charity, so as explained in the section, assuming he follows the listed rules, all the $1.4 million will end up at the charity (or charities) and the government will get none. If it had been taxed, since Obama is already in the highest tax bracket of 35% (see Income tax in the United States for details), the federal government would have taken US$490,000 for itself. Tempshill (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to re-check that publication, but above a certain income threshold, U.S. taxpayers' deductions on Schedule A drop below 100%, and above a different threshold they become subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The Obamas' income should be well above both thresholds. The U.S. Congress established both thresholds to reduce tax avoidance by the very rich, although the AMT can now affect some relatively modest middle-class income taxes. So, while the Obamas might be able to claim the whole $1.4 million charitable donation as a deduction against the $1.4 million addition to their 2009 taxable income, they might not be allowed to reduce the resulting taxes 100% (or dollar for dollar). I used to prepare tax returns at a much lower bracket in the early part of this decade, but haven't kept up with all the subsequent changes.—— Shakescene (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes
Could anyone who has a copy of, or access to, this book please take a glance at the chapter entitled, "Alternating Presidentialism: A Proposal" and summarise/explain the mechanics of the author's idea? I can't get my hands on a copy of the book, and a Google search reveals only the vaguest description of the proposed system.
If anyone happens to know where one could find a scan/ebook/transcription of the volume online, that would also be incredibly helpful! Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 11:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
— The Hand That Feeds You: 17:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do your own homework.
.png){kind=link}
