Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 4

Recycling cans and bottles in California

In California, a deposit called the California Redemption Value of at least 5 cents is paid by the consumer for each bottled or canned beverage that is purchased. Last time I was in California and paying attention, it seemed that every supermarket had a big machine out in the parking lot, about the size of two outhouses, that would let consumers insert bottles and cans into a receptacle, where their UPC codes would be scanned and after depositing 1 or 50 or 200 cans or bottles, the machine would give the consumer a ticket, which he would bring to the supermarket to get paid the CRV refund. Now, here in Orange County, California, I don't see any of these machines. What happened? Stingray Xray (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand the question exactly. I'm familiar with the process since we have a similar redemption program here in Vermont. What I'm confused by is your use of "Last time I was in California..." and then "Now, here in Orange County, California..." Did you mean to say that you saw the machines in some parts of California but not others? That aside, you can find centers that will take the bottles at this link which is linked off our California Redemption Value article. That page lists 148 locations for Orange County alone. Dismas|^(talk) 01:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

All the recycling places I've seen in CA all redeem cans by weight and the amount they give you is tied to the price of aluminum (or glass or plastic). I've never seen a place that actually gave back the same amount paid for CRV. RudolfRed (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see from the link given above that the per-container redemption is required if (A) you ask for it up front (before you give up your cans) and (B) if you have less than 50 items to turn in. RudolfRed (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

When was the last time you were in California? One of the companies that maintains those automated recycling machines at supermarkets, rePlanet, had to shut down several hundred of them last year because they were losing money. The other issue is that there is now a state law that says that only one such recycling location can be within a half-mile radius (what they call a "convenience zone"[1]), thus not every supermarket can have them. My (limited) understanding is that the purpose of this law is to help protect these recycling locations. The last thing that the state wants is a recycling location going out of business just because it had to compete with another just around the corner. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't market economics solve this problem, with other companies following rePlanet's lead, and simply removing machines that are non-viable? 58.111.175.223 (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Have there ever been a killer in history with down syndrome?

Have there ever been a killer in history with down syndrome? Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, one has been charged in December 2011 with killing battery in the death of his father. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Did Kevin Mitnick made an internet-accessing device from a radio receiver when he was in jail?

I saw such sayings from some internet sources--124.172.170.234 (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Been checking this question for a few days, I am very interested in this. Do you have the internet sources link? If some editors could read those we may have a better idea of cross references or other resources for it. Thanks. Marketdiamond (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources all I can find about this are in Chinese so far. I am not sure if there is any English source as an origin of this saying.--124.172.170.234 (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In general there are many articles with exactly same wordings say that Kevin Mitnick managed to get an AM/FM receiver and modified it to listen at wardens' talking (some other variants say he attempted to access internet by this). And he was put in solitary confine after this. I can find nothing about this in the Wikipedia article; still, is there ever any source about Mitnick’s life in jail?--113.105.70.226 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Does sound amazingly similar to what one of the characters in Jefferey Deaver's cult hacker novel The Blue Nowhere did. Wyatt Gillette built a modem out using a radio whilst in jail and passed it to his girlfriend. Nanonic (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion and the U.S. Census

I read, several years ago, that U.S. Federal law prohibits the U.S. census from asking any questions about respondents religion.

1. What is the logic behind this law? I presume forcing people to declare their religious affiliation may raise constitutional questions. But why can't they include an "optional" religion question, as they do here in Australia (and, I believe, in various other countries)?

Our article on Race, ethnicity, and religion in various censuses states "The U.S. census have never counted Americans by religion out of fear that this will undermine the separation of church and state and make it easier for various politicians to implement agendas based on their religious beliefs". I'm puzzled - how would this be the case?

2. Has there ever been any serious attempts to modify or revoke this law? 58.111.175.223 (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

2. separation of church and state is part of the U.S. constitution. It doesn't get changed often. Rmhermen (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an "optional" religion question would, in fact, be unconstitutional as a matter of law? 58.111.175.223 (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This site says "The Bureau of the Census collected information in the Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936. This information was obtained from religious organizations. Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion." so it sounds like we are talking about an ordinary law, not a constitutional matter. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The collection of Religious data would likely be OK under the constitution, as such an act would violate neither the Establishment clause nor the Free Exercise Clause directly. However, philosophically the U.S. tends to err on the side of caution with regards to any connection between religiousness and the Federal Government (the matter is more cloudy with State and Local governments). The "wall of separation" doctrine is something that dates to Thomas Jefferson, and because of that philosophy, it explains situations like the aforementioned PL 94-521 and the reason that religious data is not officially collected by the census or any other federal agency. There are private surveys of religion by various organizations, but the feds take no part of that. --Jayron32 13:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(from the OP) Question: Public Law 94-521, it seems, only prohibits asking questions about religious affiliation on a mandatory basis. So, is there anything in current U.S. Federal law which would prohibit the Bureau of the Census from including voluntary questions about religious affiliation in the Census? Or is it merely the philosophical squeamishness to which Jayron32 refers which stops such questions from being included? 58.111.175.223 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't rule out the possibility that a "voluntary" question might be considered statistically meaningless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One awkwardness about asking questions about religion but not applicable to topics that the Census currently tracks is that there are tons of non-numerical possible answers to a religion question. Most things on the Census are either numerical (e.g. your income, the number of people in your household), non-numerical but picked from a short list with definitions that most people will understand (e.g. race and ethnicity), or not meant to be tabulated statistically (e.g. the names of people in your household). How are you going to put together a list that will allow virtually everyone to self-classify without forcing the self-classifier to go through a massive list? Nobody's going to appreciate being a member of an "Other Religion", and for every small group such as Eckankar that you include, you're probably going to omit several others, thereby making its adherents unhappy. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. They get into enough trouble hair-splitting over racial and ethnic groups. Maybe the closest they could come would be a vague general religious question, like "Do you believe in a religion?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

While the inclusion/exclusion issue would be resolved by letting people write in their religion, doing that would make it statistically complicated to a horrible degree. What if a town of 100 residents has one person who answers Presbyterian, one who answers Protestant, ten who answer Christian, and eighty-eight who answer Catholic. How many Christians and how many Protestants are there in this town? Another town with 100 residents has 97 Catholics, 1 "Presbyterian", 1 "Presbyterianism", and 1 "Orthodox Presbyterian"; do you put all of the Presbyterians together or keep them separate, and if the latter, in what ways? Plus, by avoiding a religion question, the US Census avoids religious mockeries as well. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936 Data

Does anyone know where I can get full data (certain religions as a % of the total U.S. population) from the census in my title above? Also, have any other surveys or polls asking Americans about their religion/religious beliefs been conducted before the end of World War II? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. census doesn't ask religious questions and is conducted in years ending in zero, not six. Rmhermen (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the U.S. Census, but about this census--http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm

From my source--"The Bureau of the Census collected information in the Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936. This information was obtained from religious organizations." Futurist110 (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Try here. Zoonoses (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you--I'll definitely look at your link. Are there any other places that I can look? Futurist110 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You may find this document useful. It has references. Zoonoses (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Legality of the Awlaki Killings

I have a friend who is an expert in U.S. Constitutional law and a staunch Ron Paul supporter who said that the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenage son by the U.S. military/govt. was illegal, partially due to the Supreme Court ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio and partially because Awlaki never got a trial in the United States. Does my friend's position hold any validity, or not? For the record, this is a serious question. Futurist110 (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully, the court has ruled on this very question. See https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31 where Al-Awlaki's father brought a case asking for the "kill order" against his son to be revoked. To quote from the judge's ruling:

Stark, and perplexing, questions readily come to mind, including the following: How is it that judicial approval is required when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for electronic surveillance, but that, according to defendants, judicial scrutiny is prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for death? Can a U.S. citizen -- himself or through another -- use the U.S. judicial system to vindicate his constitutional rights while simultaneously evading U.S. law enforcement authorities, calling for "jihad against the West," and engaging in operational planning for an organization that has already carried out numerous terrorist attacks against the United States? Can the Executive order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization? How can the courts, as plaintiff proposes, make real-time assessments of the nature and severity of alleged threats to national security, determine the imminence of those threats, weigh the benefits and costs of possible diplomatic and military responses, and ultimately decide whether, and under what circumstances, the use of military force against such threats is justified? When would it ever make sense for the United States to disclose in advance to the "target" of contemplated military action the precise standards under which it will take that military action? And how does the evolving AQAP relate to core al Qaeda for purposes of assessing the legality of targeting AQAP (or its principals) under the September 18, 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force? Read the ruling yourself - I suspect you'll find it fascinating. 58.111.175.223 (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look over the ruling when I'll have some more time. Futurist110 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it, the court explicitly declined to rule on the issue, but only declared that it has no jurisdiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your friend is of course correct, there are many sources arguing for the illegality of these killings. It appears necessary nowadays to argue that 2+2=4 and that black is not white. I think it fair to say that anyone who said that the president has the legal authority to do such things would have been thought insane a few decades ago, so much has the US legal system and the common understanding upon which it rests changed. It is the current US government position that nobody would have thought to hold any validity, not your friend's. For instance, take Lincoln's famous statement about the barbarity of assassination and its disappearance among civilized nations; don't have the time to search for it, as googling is not so easy for obvious reasons. Of course, one can always make a "legal" argument for anything.John Z (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Synchronization of calendars between civilizations throughout history

Different civilizations had been in contact from early on in history, but only in modern times has this contact become virtually continuous. In such historical times, each of these different civilizations would have kept their own records, and counted their own years. It also seems most likely that throughout history, certain events would have resulted in the disruption of year reckoning in some localities (whether it be reform, unrest or disasters resulting in loss of earlier records, etc.) The year of the passing of Gautama Buddha, for example, varies up to centuries when compared between different schools' chronologies. This suggests that not much effort was put into keeping records in sync with each other. However, such an issue never seems to be mentioned in discussions involving dates in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Do we know, as a fact, that the reckoning of the Julian and Gregorian calendars was never broken? (Perhaps there is astronomical evidence?) How did Western nations avoid discrepancies between each other's records, especially during the Middle Ages? (Perhaps through the central position of Constantinople, and then the Vatican?) Are there discrepancies when compared with other systems, such as the Chinese, Islamic or Hebrew calendar? And how did these major calendar systems remain united, while the Hindu calendar, for example, has devolved into dozens of regional variants?

Also, the seven-day week has been used throughout the Old World for millennia. With no correspondence to either the Sun or Moon cycles, it seems even more amazing that its reckoning would never have been broken. (The linked article says, "The seven-day weekly cycle is reputed to have remained unbroken in Europe for almost two millennia...") I would have thought it very likely for Marco Polo to find that Monday in one place had drifted to Tuesday in another. Have any "updates" been required in order for Sunday to fall on the same day throughout the world? --115.67.34.198 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Days of the week (like Monday) don't drift in the way days of the year (like January 1st) do. That is, if you don't account for leap days and such, January 1st will eventually end up in the middle of summer, and need correction, but nothing like this happens with days of the week. The daily day/night cycle basically resets any drift every 24 hours, with a possible exception at the poles, where 6 months of night and 6 months of day could make keeping track of the day of the week tricky, before modern timekeeping techniques. Some type of natural disasters, like a volcano, might also make it impossible to distinguish night from day, for a while. StuRat (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Who says the seven-day week has no correspondence to either the Sun or Moon cycles? The Moon has a 29.5-day cycle that is commonly divided into four phases (new, first quarter, full, last quarter). 29.5 ÷ 4 = 7.375, but it would be weird to have a week with 7⅜ days, so it gets rounded down to 7 full days. (Maybe someone could have introduced the idea of 3 "leap weeks" of 8 days within every period of 8 weeks, but they didn't.) Pais (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no mathematical reason to choose a 7-day week as opposed to any other number based on a lunar cycle. It would be much more accurate to use 5, 6 or 10 days: 29.5 ÷ 6 = 4.92; 29.5 ÷ 5 = 5.9; 29.5 ÷ 3 = 9.83. All of these are closer to whole numbers than 7.38 is to 7. More importantly however, there is no way to use a lunar or solar cycle to synchronize the weeks, so if a day was skipped or added, it would not have been noticed in that way (which is I think what the OP was referring to). - Lindert (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But there is an astronomical reason to divide the lunar cycle into four, as I mentioned. Pais (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I can give you some examples from the Middle Ages. Sometimes the Julian and Islamic calendars were synchronized, more or less accurately. For example wherever Muslims and Christians lived together, a date might be recorded in both systems...I thought I had a perfect example of this from 15th century Spain, but I can't find it at the moment (it was a business contract though, and the date was given in both calendars). Sometimes in chronicles you'd also find both dates mentioned. The Julian/Gregorian and Islamic years didn't match up then and they still don't now, so the same problems of synchronizing them still exist.

More often they would just use a regnal date, "in the third year of the reign of King so-and-so", which was also the most common way of dating things even where the Julian calendar was used exclusively. But even when western Europe used the Julian calendar exclusively, some countries started the year on a different date; if your year started on January 1, then for three or four months you would be in a different year than a neighbouring country that started their year on March 25. The Papacy (not "the Vatican" back then) always used regnal dates, but that had no effect on when the year started for anyone else. The Byzantine calendar, on the other hand, was also Julian, but started on September 1, and was dated "anno mundi", from the creation of the world, which was something like 5509 BC.

I don't know much about the Hebrew calendar but I know there were sophisticated calculations to match up that calendar with the Julian one. Actually I work with someone who can calculate the Hebrew date given any random medieval Julian date, which is pretty amazing. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, once the Hebrew calendar became "regularized" (that is, months had a specific length and you didn't have to go peering at the sky to see if a given month would have 29 or 30 days, you could easily calculate against the civic calendar in use locally. So for the past 1800 years or so. Note that the calendar is flawed and is very slowly moving later in the year. Rosh Hashanah (the first day, not the evening before) will not occur again on September 4, and the last September 5 is coming up in a few decades. I call it Judaism's Y10K problem, that is about when it will swing out of September permanently (or at least until the calendar comes around again).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The adoption of the Gregorian calendar wasn't done all at the same time. Different countries around the world adopted the calendar at different between the years 1582 and 1923. Depending on the date of the changes, countries needed to skip 10, 11, 12 or 13 days. However, I don't think any of them skipped any days of the week. So for example, in Spain and Portugal Thursday, 4 October 1582 was followed by Friday, 15 October 1582, while the in the British Empire Wednesday, 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday, 14 September 1752. One exception was Alaska: when sold to the USA, the state moved across the international date line as well as switching to the Gregorian calendar, so Friday, 6 October 1867 was followed by Friday, 18 October 1867. Astronaut (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside: The various era mentioned in the articla concerning the Buddhist calendar, don't all count the years from the passing of the Buddha, but they all use the Buddhist calendar for calculating how long the year is. For example, the Chula Sakarat is alleged to start with the conquest of Burma by Buppasoranhan, and the Saka era is counted from the beginning of the Western Satraps kingdom. Why the Buddhists of Thailand would count their years starting from those events, though, I can't say. I have also heard that the current 'Buddhist era' used in Thailand doesn't count from when the Buddha died, but when his teachings reached Thailand.

This is not so surprising, I could use the Gregorian calendar, and put its starting date at a completely different point in time from both the birth or death of Christ. V85 (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It could only have started at either one of those events, not both of them. But the fact is that the Gregorian calendar started at neither of them. It started on 15 October 1582, and was not retrospective. Don't confuse the era we happen to be in with the calendar we happen to be using. Eras are about sequences of year numbers; calendars are about months and days. The world could theoretically have decided that 1 January 2001 marked the beginning of a new era, the Me Era (ME). This year would be Year 12 ME, not 2012 CE (or AD, if you prefer). But today would still be 4 September. (This post comes to you from someone who is not here.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That was exactly what I meant: there is not necessarily any inherent link between the figure Christ and the Gregorian calendar. We could have a Gregorian calendar, but a 'non-Christian era'. V85 (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're still qualifying your remark with "not necessarily". It needs no qualification. There has never been any connection between the Gregorian calendar and the figure Christ (other than the indirect connection that it was promulgated by a Vicar of Christ = pope). When it was decided to start a new sequence of years (= era) starting from the presumed birth year of Christ, the "heathen" Julian calendar, which predated Christ by more than a century, was retained. Almost 600 years later, the errors that had built up were corrected, and a new calendar, the Gregorian, was established, which minimised future errors by taking the existing "heathen" Julian calendar and tweaking it a little. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OP here. I meant to refer both to the calendar systems themselves and to their respective calendar era systems, i.e. AD or CE for Julian/Gregorian, Hijri for Islam, etc. Regarding V85's initial comments, I was actually referring to the discussion under the subsection Chronology of the Buddhist Era, to which I probably should have linked instead. Sorry for the confusion. --115.67.2.112 (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

PS Why do we have to whisper? --115.67.2.112 (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't, and you don't. Me? I am the ghost of a former refdesk regular, here on my lunch break from my important job at the submerged log factory. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Indian or Indian-influenced calendars often use the "Saka era" (78 A.D.) because very little solid absolute chronological information from before that time survives in traditional Indic literature... AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The best evidence we have that the Julian and Gregorian calendars are unbroken are that many people were keeping track of dates, and, except for the occasional local anomaly, they all agree on the identification of a given day.

The reason why many calendars have discontinuities is because of how they identify years. The "count of years since time T=0" that the Gregorian calendar uses is rather unusual: most chronologies identify years with names such as "the 17th year of the reign of King Alfred", or "the year that Julius and Marcus were consuls", and if, for example, someone gets dropped from a list of rulers, you can get an inconsistency in the count of years between two events. --Carnildo (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How Come France Was Extremely Angry at Germany for Taking Alsace-Lorraine in 1871

to the extent that it was unwilling to establish good relations with Germany? The France attitude towards Germany between 1871 and 1914/1918 always seemed a bit excessive to me over a small amount of land. Are there any sources explaining why France was pissed to that extent over losing Alsace-Lorraine to Germany? Or was it more than that, such as angry at Germany for making France lose its dominant strategic position in Europe? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to underestimate how upset a nation can get over losing a small amount of territory. Is Syria OK with having lost the Golan Heights ? Is Jordan OK with having lost the West Bank ? StuRat (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Jordan is okay with losing the West Bank (considering that it gave up its claim to it and signed a peace deal with Israel). Syria is angry at Israel, but it hated Israel and Israel's existence way before Israel took the Golan Heights from it. Futurist110 (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There are countless examples of serious disputes over relatively small or unimportant pieces of territory: Northern Ireland, Timor Leste, Kashmir, Taiwan, Tibet, the Falkland Islands, Kosovo, Karelia, Schleswig-Holstein, the Preah Vihear Temple... 130.88.73.65 (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo is very important to the Serbs from a cultural and nationalistic perspective. Futurist110 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The population of Schleswig-Holstein actually contained one-third of the population of the Kingdom of Denmark, so relatively speaking it was not either small or unimportant. And of course regarding Tibet it is a matter of an entire country being seized by a foreign nation, which naturally would cause a serious dispute. So generally speaking it is not that difficult to see why serious disputes could arise over what to outsiders may look like "small and unimportant pieces of territory". --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at this; it may be helpful. - Karenjc 08:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Futurist110 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Who wouldn't hold a grudge after being humiliated by losing a war (badly) and having somewhat more than a "small amount of territory" (more than two Delawares) taken away? Now if the South had won the Civil War and decided to annex New Jersey, well that would have been another story. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To added, this was the latest episode in a long series of Franco-"German" (Prussian) rivalries that went back to the time of Napoleon. Also, you forget that the actions of the war itself contributed to the anger, not just the peace settlement. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Alsace and Lorraine were important territories for France - they gave it considerable mineral and industrial assets, vineyards, and farmland. They also gave it control of the whole west bank of the Rhine from Strasbourg up to the Swiss frontier. This was seen as being of considerable strategic value, and also relates to the historical French expansionist argument that France should expand to its 'natural frontiers' - the Pyrenees, Mediterranean, Alps, and Rhine. I've no idea what, if anything, was the northern 'natural frontier', mind you. Moreover, Lorraine had come to France after being granted to Louis XV's father-in-law Stanislaw Lechynski as part of the negotiations for the marriage of Maria Theresa - this was a complex diplomatic feat, and seeing it undone by crude force was galling. The other reason that the war of 1870-1 was so aggravating for the French was the fact that Louis Napoleon was tricked into being the aggressor in the affair of the Ems telegram - 'Honest' Otto von Bismarck's political judo had cost France dearly. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

We do have an article about Stanisław Leszczyński; you just have to spell it right, so it doesn't appear as a red link. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)French foreign policy from at least as far back as the seventeenth century ideally wanted the Rhine to be the natural border between France and Germany. If Germany held Alsace-Lorraine, this was strategically very bad for France and very good for Germany, since Germany then held both sides of the Rhine, and had access to all the resources and fortifications there. Also, conceding land, any land no matter how small, in a place as ethnically diverse as Europe sets a bad precedent for future land claims. Of course, as it turned out, it didn't really matter who held Alsace-Lorraine, since it's just as easy for the Germans to get into France if they pretend Belgium doesn't exist... Adam Bishop (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, ethnically and linguisticly, the population of Alsace and Lorraine is mixed German and French, often in neighboring households. It is quite impossible, on that regard alone, to decide if the territories are strictly French or German. The territories also passed between French and German (or Germany's antecedant states) many times through history. The area had been contested for literally over 1000 years, going back to when it was the "Middle Kingdom" established by the Treaty of Verdun which divided the Carolingian Empire into 3 states. The northern part of that kingdom was generally known as Lotharingia, after Lothair I, from whence we get the name Lorraine. The western Kingdom of that division became France, and the Eastern kingdom became the Holy Roman Empire or at least the Kingdom of Germany portion thereof. Alsace#Alsace_within_the_Holy_Roman_Empire shows how long Alsace (Elsass) had been part of the German HRE, from the Treaty of Meerssen which divied up the remains of Lothairingia in 870 until France incorporated it in 1648 as part of the Treaty of Westphalia. So, it had been a German territory for almost 800 years before it passed to France. The German speaking people didn't wake up the next morning and start to consider themselves French. The region of Lorraine is a bit more complex, but the part that the Germans took after the Franco-Prussian war had, like Alsace, been part of German lands for a long time. The Three Bishoprics had been part of the HRE until the 1550s, the Duchy of Bar until the mid 1400s (though it was still officially part of the HRE, it was inherrited by the French Anjou family), and the Duchy of Upper Lorraine until around the same time. So, we have a situation that, from the 800s until the about the 1600s, the region had been closer associated with the Holy Roman Empire than France. It is worth noting that the Congress of Vienna considered the region to be an integral part of France. If you want to look at the modern situation, Languages_of_France#Statistics shows that, in Alsace there are still some 660,000 native German speakers. The entire discussion is not to justify the attachement of the region to either Germany or France at any point in history, but to explain that it isn't so clear, historically, who had the "right" to the region. It was a historically ambiguous thing, and had been, since the creation of France and Germany (or their predecessor states) been at various times part of neither, or both, of them. To answer the original question as to why France was so mad; well it was French territory, it had all been since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and had been confirmed so by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which it should be noted was a body that was created basically to take stuff away from France. If they found it an integral French territory, then France certainly had claim to it. --Jayron32 13:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Category for the President of Pakistan

The President of my country, President Asif Ali Zardari has survived a series of plot to assassinate him. Shouldn't the category on attempted assassination survivors be added?. Thank you. He's a hero and the father of the Nation right now. Pakistanihat (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add it if you think it belongs. However if someone removes it or otherwise objects, don't put it right back, and instead discuss the matter with them and come to an agreement. --Jayron32 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it. One of the plots were to blow up the medical center where his father was ill and where finally died. But the wisdom of the Prophet (peace be upon him) saved him in time and the plotters were arrested. Pakistanihat (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Surviving some particular incident does not necessarily have anything to do with divine intervention. Hitler escaped a bomb attempt, and he claimed divine intervention too, though I doubt he credited Muhammed with saving him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was going to remove that edit, but I see another editor has beaten me to it. The problem is that putting Zardari in that category makes a claim, which is itself controversial. The article appropriately mentions both sides of the controversy: "In May 1999, he was hospitalised after an alleged attempted suicide. He claimed it was a murder attempt by the police". But by adding that category the article is then taking sides in the argument. See the second paragraph of WP:CAT#Articles.

The information you have mentioned above does not appear in the article, and so cannot be the basis for the categorisation either. --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ColinFine, you're putting the cart before the horse. I don't see any mention of any clear cut attempted assassination of him in the article. Only the unfortunately successful assassination of his wife and the 1999 event which he claims was a murder attempted but others apparently claim was a suicide attempt. Until and unless the article mentions a clear cut attempted assassination of him, it is simply confusing to readers to have it in the category of attempted assassinations. I would add a description of any of these alleged incidents is going to be much more important to the readers then simply him being in the category. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ganesh Chaturthi

Unfortunately I have no control over our travel planning process for work, but I've been scheduled to be in Mumbai for Ganesh Chaturthi, which is listed as September 19th this year. Is the 19th the start of the festival? The end where they have all of the environmentally unfriendly dunking our article talks about? I'm guessing that it won't be a productive working day, but probably worth confirming. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ganesh Chaturthi is first day of the festival. It is a state holiday and many public and private offices are closed. The environmentally unfriendly dunking that article talks about starts next day but is minimum on this day. It is more on 5th and 7th day, and maximum on last i.e. 11th day. 61.16.182.2 (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Calculus

Who invented the name? When was it invented? How did the person decided to name the math we called "calculus" today? I couldn't find any of this info on the internet.65.128.133.237 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In the Latin language, the word calculus meant "little pebble", and sometimes could refer to abacus-type calculations conducted with little pebbles as counters. Don't know when it was applied to differentiation and integration... AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Does your internet not include our articles Calculus and History of calculus? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude I have read those two articles and they don't mention about the origin of name. Plus I already know what "calculus" means in Latin and that's not what I'm looking for.65.128.133.237 (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

But to answer your questions: the name is Latin for 'pebble', and was originally used to refer to counting-stones. It came to be applied to mathematical methods generally, and then (after Newton and Leibniz's work) to the differential and integral systems especially. No one person invented or adapted the name; the changes were gradual.

Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz worked in parallel on what we now call calculus during the late 17th century. We have an article on the Leibniz-Newton calculus controversy, too. They didn't name their methods 'calculus', though; Newton called his 'the method of fluxions', and Leibniz mostly used a symbolic system to deal with what he regarded as a problem of infinitesimals. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Calculus" is just short for "differential and integral calculus". As Alex says, lots of different mathematical methods were (and occasionally still are) called calculuses. Differential and integral calculus was just the most used, I guess, so it ended up getting the shortened name. --Tango (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's some word-origin info:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok "Calculus" is just short for "differential and integral calculus" but why did we name that kind of math "differential and integral calculus" in the first place? "differential and integral calculus" has the word calculus in it, obviously the math has nothing to do with pebble. Let me get thing straight, I'm not asking for what its original means since I already know it. I'm asking for who was the first person who called the math we call today "calculus". Who was the first one that named that math calculus? It must started somewhere, like someone must be the first to use the word "calculus" to describe something in math. I'm surprised nobody in history ever records that. Last question: why did that person (the person that was the first one who used Calculus as a math term) name that kind of math calculus? I mean it could have many other names beside calculus but why choose "calculus" to describe that math? Not sure if my questions make sense to everyone.65.128.133.237 (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See Calculus (dental)#Etymology. It does have something to do with pebbles. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The term "calculus" means "accounting or reckoning". Keep in mind those guys loved Latin and Greek words. "Differential" and "Integral" also come from Latin. Another article possibly worth looking at is Infinitesimal calculus. And in reading about Leibniz I noticed the frequent use of "the" in front of "calculus". That's a clue. Substitute the word "reckoning" for "calculus" and it makes total sense. Newton and Liebniz were both working on trying to figure out the math of "reckoning infinitesimals". There are any number of reckonings, but to these guys, it was THE reckoning, hence "the calculus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding to "Differential" and "Integral", again I don't understand how people just stole word from Latin or Greek and make them become Math terms. They did that just for fun? Or was there a reason why?65.128.133.237 (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Differentiation is all to do with differences between things and integration is all to do with integrating (combining, summing) things. They aren't particularly imaginiative names. As has been mentioned below, most of this work was originally written in Latin, so Latin names were used. When people started writing about it in English, they kept the Latin words (with some slight Anglicisation). --Tango (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

History of calculus states that prior to Newton and Liebniz, "calculus" was a more general term, and it gives a citation for that statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify the stuff above, the person who is responsible for using the word in this way is Leibniz. He used the word "calculus" frequently, to mean a systematic way of manipulating information. He created several different "calculi" before the differential calculus and integral calculus. Looie496 (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  Was there a reason that Leibniz choose to use the word "calculus" instead of reckoning? In other word, what was the reason for him to invent a term in math such as "calculus"? Did he just coin a new term just for fun or what?65.128.133.237 (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  Are you not reading what people, including the articles you were directed to, have already wrote? The word calculus was used for all sorts of mathematics (consider the form "calculation" which we still use today). It was basically a synonym for mathematics, the definition has become restricted over time to apply only to two specific sets of mathematical systems: differentiation and integration. But no one invented the term specifically: it is an old term that had been used for centuries that just meant "mathematics". --Jayron32 03:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  Are you not reading my question? I have received many answers that are different. Ok you said it was a synonym for math but when it became a synonym in math? When? Who was the first one use it as synonym for math? And last question, why was it eventually become restricted just to apply to "differentiation and intergration"? People didn't just do things randomly for fun, there must have been a reason.65.128.133.237 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  Lets simplify it. The word "calculus" comes from an Ancient Greek word "Calcis" meaning stone or pebble. The same Greek root shows up in both "Calcium" and "Calculus"; Calcium from its source, being limestone, and "calculus" from the practice of using small stones as a means of accounting, a practice so old as to be lost to time, both the abacus in its various forms and the English practice of the exchequer used small stones as counters when keeping track of stuff. The concept thus of using stones to do math is ancient, and thus the name "calculus" meaning "mathematics" connects very likely through the use of actual stones to do math. Long after people stopped using stones to do mathematics, they still used the word associated with the practice (calculus), from where we get the modern English word "calculate". Leibniz wasn't doing anything particularly unusual when he set up his system of mathematics, he was using a word well known to mean mathematics, and which he did not select arbitrarily nor invent out of whole cloth. It was a word that had been used for that purpose for well over 1000 years by the time he used it. He didn't invent a new word to describe his new system of mathematics, he just used the word everyone had been using. Over time, the word calculus has been restricted to refer to just his mathematical system. --Jayron32 02:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  See also [this page at Etymonline] which shows "Calculus" dating to 1660, but related terms dating to much earlier. --Jayron32 02:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that Leibniz wrote in Latin. "Calculus" is a Latin word. "Reckoning" is not a Latin word. Looie496 (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

65.128.133.237 - Leibniz used a Latin term because he wrote in Latin, which was the lingua franca of scholars in Europe at the time; all educated people could read and write Latin, and most scholarly works were written in Latin to ensure maximum readership. Although the differential and integral calculus is the most widely known calculus, there are many other calculuses (calculi ??) in mathematics, logic and computer science - see Calculus (disambiguation). Gandalf61 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So it's clear why Leibniz used a Latin word when writing in Latin. The next question is, why did later English-speaking scholars use the Latin word when writing in English rather than finding an English equivalent for it? Note that many other languages did just that; Polish scholars, for instance, substituted the Latin calculus with Polish rachunek (a word that by itself may mean "calculation", "account", "score" or "receipt"), as in rachunek całkowy ("integral calculus", from cały, "whole") or rachunek różniczkowy ("differential calculus", from różny, "different"). — Kpalion^(talk) 11:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you are talking about specifically English, things get complicated, because of the aforementioned Leibniz-Newton calculus controversy, which was all the rage at the time the names were getting squared away. It was likely to specifically associate it with Leibniz, and to keep it from looking like some kind of generic method — most of the English scholars at the time were on the side of Newton, not Leibniz. But this is just speculation on my point.--Mr.98 (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The English language has a long tradition of adopting foreign words, a path which other languages often make a point of avoiding. You might find some more informed comment on this over at the Language Desk. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

September 5

Marriage rights and religion

What is the relationship in the intersection between the enumeration of legal marriage rights by governments and those by religion? Do they conflict or interfere? Does one influence the other? Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia 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.--Jayron32 03:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Western laws do not generally recognize polygamy. In countries which have or had the "millet" system, the laws governing marriage and inheritance are left up to the religious authorities of each recognized religious group... AnonMoos (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I had to check to see if Viriditas was being impostored, but no. He's been here 8 years and should know better than to ask homework questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect this isn't a homework question just a poorly phrased regular question, although probably not a great RD one and history suggests answering it is not a good idea. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a homework question, nor is it a trivial one. In most European states, there have been serious conflicts between church and state regarding the different roles of secular and religious marriages. In France, civil marriage became the compulsory form in 1792 as a result of the French Revolution. As I understand it, in Germany, only civil marriage is legally binding. As a result of Bismarck's Kulturkampf, from 1875 to 2008, religious weddings could only be performed legally for couples already in a civil marriage - in practice, this is still the case, although theoretically the two are now independent. The religious ceremony has no legal effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the dispute over things like same-sex marriage and polygamy are strictly over civil law. There are church ministers who are perfectly willing to perform such weddings, and have been for a long time. On the other hand, justice-of-the-peace weddings have a peculiarly religious component to them. So it's not a totally bright line of separation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a full separation in England and Wales. Couples who prefer or who are limited to a civil ceremony are not permitted any religious component at all to their wedding, so no hymns or prayers or mentions of any deity, and a religious minister cannot be appointed to officiate in place of the registrar. Nonreligious readings and music are permissible. - Karenjc 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's odd. How is it enforced? If you prayed, would you be charged with, in effect, blasphemy? μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose they could always stop the ceremony if there was an outbreak of guerilla praying before the big moment, and hurl you out into the street unwed. The ceremony ends pretty quickly after the declaration of marriage, so there's no time to squeeze in a defiant psalm before you're outside being hassled by the photographer. The nonreligiousness is in the guidelines issued to you at your appointment to book the ceremony, and it's mentioned on the official government website here. The registrar has to approve any music you choose for the ceremony, and they control the playing of it, so no sneaky hymns can be slipped in. With a civil partnership ceremony like the one I attended recently it's even more restrictive: not only can't you have religious content, you mustn't mention marriage either. If you need a religious ceremony in England or Wales, it's church/chapel/synagogue/mosque/gurdwara/whatever or nothing. - Karenjc 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

But I presume there's nothing stopping you doing what is done in a number of other countries and doing the civil (or legal) part before the religious ceremony (provided the religious people allow it). Do you even need music etc in the civil part (whether marriage or partnership) or can you just listen to whatever the person says, agree, sign the papers have the witnesses sign and be done with it? I presume there's nothing stopping people calling their partnership a marriage in their non official ceremony right? Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A civil ceremony can only take place in a building that's licensed for performing civil marriages, and a civil ceremony can only be performed by a superintendent registrar. Buildings "with a recent or continuing religious connection" cannot be licensed for religious civil marriage ceremonies. (Nor can anywhere that is not identifiably a premises, incidentally, so you can't get married in a garden or a park, or on a bus.) So no, you can't get legally married in a civil ceremony in a church and then have a religious service afterwards, even if the minister were willing to permit it. Nor can you have an (official) religious ceremony in a hotel, castle, or other place that has been licensed for civil marriages because only registrars, not ministers of religion, can marry people in those places. You can have two official ceremonies but they will be in two places - many people marry in a short register office ceremony with minimal frills as you describe, then go to a church for a blessing service, either on the same day or later. Others are content with the civil ceremony alone and do the more elaborate thing with nonreligious music, readings and so on. If you do an unofficial DIY ceremony afterwards and call your civil partnership a marriage, or do some hymn-singing and praying, nobody's going to arrest you, but no minister or registrar will officiate. You cannot officially combine civil marriage and religious marriage ceremonies in any way in England and Wales - they are entirely separate. - Karenjc 08:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

An example of two separate ceremonies was the Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles (the Queen didn't even attend the civil part). Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still confused. You mean ministers are forbidden from performing ceremonies if they aren't official ones? If so does this only apply if they are registered to perform marriages (or perhaps the place of worship is), or that anyone who calls themselves a minister or a religious leader is forbidden from performing such a ceremony even if they aren't even recognized by the government as such (if so, this seems a major restriction of religious freedom and freedom of speech to me, but what do I know?) Or simply that no minister will ever do it (although this seems a little extreme, there must surely be some ministers who would even if they only have their own 'church' i.e. house)? To be clear in case I wasn't in my original question, I'm not referring to a religious ceremony with any legal meaning, but a religious ceremony for the marriage that has meaning from a religious POV even if it is legally meaningless. Some religions may choose to not call it a marriage ceremony if it doesn't convey legal recognition or may choose not to have a full ceremony if it's not an official one (since there is the option to have an official one), that's of course up to them, the point that is confusing me is the suggestion that no one can choose to have such a ceremony as if religions are forbidden from doing it even if they don't suggest any legal recognition of what they're doing. (As I mentioned, my presumption was the legal part can be taken care of in the registry office with a minimal fuss, and what you choose to do after was between you and the people you were doing it with.) P.S. I've been looking for sources but the sources I find, e.g. [3] only seem to refer to the issues of performing such ceremonies if you want legal recognition and don't mention any restriction on performing such ceremonies if you don't want such recognition because you've already taken care of the legal stuff before hand probably at the registry office. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

My answer was confined entirely to the legalities, per Viriditas's question. No religious input in the register office, because everything you do in there is part of your civil ceremony. No civil ceremony in the church. (Btw, all ministers of the Established Church are also allowed to act as registrar, but other sects/denominations may need a civil registrar present to register the marriage legally, though the minister will conduct the ceremony, see here for example.) No religious input in other licensed premises during the legal formalities, which can be completed in a few minutes if you want. But once the registrar has finished the legal stuff in said "other premises" and gone, the wedding itself is over. Subject to the venue's rules and the laws of public decency, you then can do what you like at your party. If an ordained minister, or a soi-disant one come to that, turns up and does a meaningless unofficial ceremony, no law is broken. Any difficulty may lie with the minister, depending on the rules of the church and his/her boss's interpretation of them. The Catholic church doesn't recognise civil unions where one partner is Catholic, for instance (see link above) so your priest is unlikely to oblige. The Methodists, on the other hand, don't distinguish between civil and religious marriage. A minister may be permitted to do something unofficial in his official capacity, or he may get into serious trouble with his church for taking part in a ceremony it disapproves of, or he may just tell you to book the church if you want <deity of your choice> to bless your union. I'm not sure where freedom of speech or religion are infringed - you just select the type of wedding you want, comply with the legal formalities that mean you actually are married in law, and the job's a good 'un. - Karenjc 19:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the assumptions of bad faith, everyone. No, I am not enrolled in any school, and the last time I did "homework" of any kind was sometime in the 20th century. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to agree it was worded as a classic exam or homework question, and a very broadly based one at that. You gave no context that might have explained your interest in this area of human activity, and that would also have demonstrated it was not homework. For my money, it was a fair call given what we were given. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As I explained on Jayron's talk page, the way it is worded is actually the way I think. I have about a dozen of these kinds of questions in my head on a daily basis when I wake up in the morning. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how exam or homework questions are worded. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you do any research of your own at all, or was here your first port of call? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't researched it at all, nor would I know where to begin. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

[PLEASE NOTE this answer was in response to Karenjc's "guerilla praying" post of 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC) with a whole lot of interpolated posts since.] I am sorry, Karenjc, but this prohibition-of-displays-of-religion-in-civil-ceremonies notion is just about the funniest thing I have ever heard. I can even imagine the Python sketch with Cleese as the angry magistrate, Chapman as the groom marrying Terry Jones who's in drag, and trying to be really pretty, and Palin and Idle as competing sectarian psalmist-fathers doing a battling banjo sort of bit. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you find us amusing. We sometimes do things differently here. If it needed changing, we have an elected Parliament. Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In Malaysia (since 1982) in cases where both partners are non Muslim (and otherwise non bumiputera), civil registration of the intention to marry normally has to be carried out 21 days before the soleminisation of the marriage so the wedding banns can be published. The soleminisation itself can be performed by an Assistant Registrar who may be someone at the church or temple (well they can also be the ones to do the registration I believe), if they've managed to get the government to appoint them as such. However for non church/temple Chinese marriages, AFAIK the soleminisation is usually just done at the Registry of Marriages with the traditional ceremony carried out some time after (after for obvious reasons) and having no legal effect (well I don't know whether the failure to perform such a ceremony if it was agreed, would be grounds for annulment as I believe it is in some countries). Of course even in the church/temple case the soleminisation is all that really matters legally AFAIK. I believe the soleminisation if performed at the Registry of Marriages doesn't have any music or anything like that, it's basically just the Registrar talking to the people, them agreeing and signing the documents, although you do have to be adequately dressed (but this isn't an uncommon requirement in Malaysia). I don't think it's likely that an Assistant Registrar will be someone of a non religious angle, i.e. you can have a formal ceremony which includes the formal soleminisation outside of a religious context. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In NZ you can get married at a registry office or have a marriage celebrant solemise your marriage (legally). Marriage celebrants can be organisational (including religious but not exclusively) or independent. I.E. You can generally get married wherever, provided you can convince a marriage celebrant to agree to it. There are some words that have to be spoken, although even with those it says 'words to that effect'. Civil unions (which can be for same sex or opposite sex couples, unlike marriages which at the moment remain only for opposite sex couples) are similar but celebrants have to be registered separately (but you can be a celebrant for both). [10] [11] However even without a formal ceremony, you will often be considered to be in a defacto relationship which provides similar requirements and responsibilities as to marriage or a civil union, after living together as a couple for 3 years, although there's no formal requirement to break up such a relationship (but you do need to sort out property etc in some way). [12] Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The advance of civilization since the fall of Queen Victoria has seen the retreat of the state in favor of Marriage rights. Soon all regulation in this area will be stripped away. In the United States this will occur with the intersection of the 1st Amendment and Libertarianism. In the UK this will be a backroom deal to win over some backbenchers on some unrelated bill. Hcobb (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, what? By 'the fall of Queen Victoria', I presume you mean her death, at a great age, as ruler of an unparalleled empire?

In any case, your speculation is pure (crystal) balls. Marriage is, in legal terms, a contract between individuals for the perpetual amalgamation of their personal estates. Any contract relies on the existence of a neutral third party to adjudicate it in case of disagreement as to the terms; this is a key function of the state in even the most deregulated environments. I see absolutely no pressure here in the UK for marriage deregulation. Virtually everyone who is campaigning for changes to marriage law is campaigning for it to be broadened - not abolished. More people want the state's legal protection for their relationships, not fewer. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

African Americans in rural Nevada

Re: File:New 2000 black percent.gif - why are the rural counties of eastern Nevada indicated as so heavily African-American? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

When you say "so heavily" it is an optical illusion. If you look carefully the legend explains that any African American population from 5% up all the way to 50% is represented by that shade. I would suspect that you are dealing with 5-6-7-8% population counts in those zip codes (immediately this map was way too detailed to be seen as counties). You are correct that it is basically an island for 100s of miles there are major military bases such as Nellis et. al. in central and eastern Nevada and since the military usually fits within a range higher than 5% and lower than 50% that is what you see reflected on the map. Most familiar with central and eastern Nevada will tell you that the vast majority of the population are either military or military contractors (most with military backgrounds), those zip codes have maybe a few thousand hundred people stretched over 10s of miles so even a 10% African American military unit assigned there would impact the total numbers to reflect a population of 5 or above. Marketdiamond (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible HK Bone Marrow Foundation article.

I want to write an article about the HK Bone Marrow Foundation

I have some books that I can research from to write a article about the foundation of the HKBMF, as it was an important component in pre-SAR HK. For example many celebrities got involved, the instigating spark was a mass appeal to save a young Chinese-Canadian boy's life (Save Gordon campaign)which helped define one of many colourful events in the very active HK community, and this was one Patten's wife's patron charities. These and many other reasons, Am I allowed to write this article up? -Samsamcat

FYI, future questions about editing Wikipedia should go to the Help desk. I think you probably mean Hong Kong Marrow Match Foundation (HKMMF), though. Judging from a brief Google search, the foundation seems to easily satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so it should be fine to write about. I'd suggest starting by reading the advice at Wikipedia:Your first article. --115.67.2.112 (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Monogamy

What is the evolutionary advantage in monogamous relationships? Surely, more partners means more offspring? Ankh.Morpork 15:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Prior to researching the question, my first notion is that monogamy is the best way to fix the rights of inheritance. When you know for sure whose offspring is whose (legally, if not biologically), parents will spend more time and energy creating advantages for their children; and then when the parents die there is much less civil strife and it's much easier to run a coherent, internally-peaceful society. Upon basic searching, I find we have a section in the Monogamy article. I'm guessing there's more than that readily available. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Evolution is about more than just the number of children born. To be evolutionarily successful, those children need to survive to adulthood and reproduce themselves. As human children are helpless when born and take a long time to grow to independence, their chances of surviving to reproductive age are enhanced by having two committed parents. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There's two strategies to ensuring that your children survive to have their own children: Either had a shitton of them (think Spiders or many fish) of have a smaller number, but spend time protecting them. They both have their disadvantages, in terms of wastefulness. If you have 1000 babies and expect 4 or 5 to live, that in itself is a huge waste of resources, but it must work to some extent because many animals use that strategy. With those animals, generally both parents are absentee: that is, neither parent sticks around. In animals with a medium-sized brood, like say many birds and mammals, where instead of 1000, a typical generation may consist of 5-10 offspring, generally one parent (the mother usually, since she's the one to lay the egg/give birth) will stick around and protect the brood. These offspring tend to reach sexual maturity within a relatively shorter period of time than Humans do, so they need some care, but not a lot. Humans, on the other hand, take well over a decade to reach sexual maturity, probably even longer to reach full developmental/intellectual maturity. That needs a LOT of nurturing, so biologically it makes sense to have some redundancy in the care system: if both the father and mother stick around, if something happens to one in the 15-20 years it takes for the offspring to reach the age to leave the nest, you've still got one parent around to fend off the tigers. --Jayron32 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See r/K selection theory. This book discusses the issue in birds, but Jayron is right that more social factors become involved with humans. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider the life-cycle of the emperor penguin. The chick inevitably dies without the intensive care of two parents. The mating and bonding rituals hardly allow for adultery. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Also monogamy, especially the "one mate for life" type, as opposed to serial monogamy, protects against venereal diseases. I suspect that many species which employ the one mate for life strategy had ancestors ravaged by such diseases (or, more specifically, their ancestors were monogamous, so were not affected, while many others in their species were polygamous, and died out as a result). StuRat (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The way I've always looked at it: It is advantageous for a man to desire his mate to mate with no one else, so she only spends her resources on his children. And if a man is going to spend any of his own resources helping to raise a child, his mate would prefer that he only do that for her children. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To echo Someguy1221—humans are constrained by different selection pressures to animals that lack language and culture. In fact, humans have such a super-abundance in societies, that change with such regularity in their preferences, that selection may not be meaningful in relation to human monogamy. Human monogamy is associated with structures of family and social reproduction that are broadly patriarchal. While there are patriarchal societies that are polygamous, there are immediate social and cultural pressures from men seeking to reproduce and acquire property (thus requiring women), and from women who may view monogamy as economically and culturally desirable. Given the economic, social and cultural layers of human conduct separating us from a direct interest in more off-spring, I would suggest that human monogamy is not particularly related to number of offspring per adult human. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Many social animals have both language and culture, although their language is simpler than ours and cultural differences between populations may be less. StuRat (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Statute of limitations and extradition in Germany

Last year, Germany denied a request to extradite John Demjanjuk to Spain because, among other things, the German statute of limitations on the alleged "crimes" Spain had accused Demjanjuk of committing had expired. Thus, is it really true that someone in Germany will not be extradited elsewhere if the German statute of limitations on their alleged crimes have expired, even if they are still prosecutable in other countries? 69.120.136.162 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the form of your question: "X has occurred. Is it really true that X can occur?" What sort of answer are you expecting? Looie496 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well he could be asking if that is simply what was ruled in that one case, or if that's the statutory law in Germany. Presumably there is an extradition treaty between Spain and Germany laying around somewhere, but I can't seem to find it on the internet. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't really need to be a specific extradition treaty. The European Union has a simplified extradition process between its member states. Source --Abracus (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the main difference between massacre and shooting spree

I mean, why is the Columbine article titled as "massacre" while the, for instance, Westroads Mall incident is considered a "shooting". There were almost the same amount of casualties in both incidents. What's the main difference?. Thank you. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no sharp distinction and a lot of overlap between the terms. The Columbine High School massacre is also described as a shooting. Basically any shooting spree that results in many casualties is automatically also a massacre. A massacre is however broader in that it can also include killings by means other than firearms. So a shooting spree that is not a massacre would be one with few or no casualties and a massacre that is not a shooting spree is e.g. one carried out with a sword. - Lindert (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "massacre" just means "killing lots of people". The term can be used light-heartedly (for example, when describing the results of a lopsided sports contest as a "massacre"), ironically (as in Alice's Restaurant, where "massacree" (an intentional mispronounciation and misspelling) is used to describe a littering incident). It can be an emotionally charged term, and as such can often be used to describe events which may not seem all that bloody (like the Boston Massacre, which was pretty light on the death by massacre standards). Also, as noted, one doesn't have to use guns to massacre people. The concept can be used to describe events that occured prior to the widespread use of firearms (as in the Siege of Jerusalem (1099) where some 70,000 people were killed). --Jayron32 16:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Massacre also has the connotation of being one-sided and against more-or-less defenseless or overwhelmed victims. Etymology: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=massacre μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that Jerusalem article could use some work...certainly it was a massacre, but 70 000 is a wild exaggeration. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Religious Violence

I read that religious violence is very rare in Sierra Leone. What other nations is religious violence very rare in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.105.246 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Most nations in Europe, the Americas, East Asia, Australasia, southern Africa. It would be easier to list nations where religious violence was common... What I gather from the news, is that there is an increasing problem with religious violence in a belt across Africa stretching from the west coast to the horn of Africa between the Islamic north and the Christian/Animist south; in some countries in the Middle East often between Sunnis and Shias; in India between Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs; and in south-east Asia where Muslims are seeking political independence. It is unfortunate that the cases I can think of all involve Islam in some way and are countries/regions I associate with poverty and low educational attainment. Astronaut (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Then there's the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, which has both religious and nationalistic aspects. Similarly, there's the civil war in Syria. For a non-Muslim example, Protestant vs. Catholic violence was common in Northern Ireland, until recently.

Until last night, that is. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I considered these while building my short list, but decided against because I get the impression the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is much more about nationalism and land; the in the civil war in Syria "...neither faction in the conflict has described sectarianism as playing a major role"; and The troubles are much more a thing of the past (though the last few nights might qualify). Astronaut (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

True religious violence is very rare indeed. Most of what we see under its banner, either today or in history, is really violence inspired by xenophobia, greed, politics etc. --Dweller (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How can people who were born deaf learn to read?

How can people who were born deaf learn to read? When people normally learn to read, they look at the glyph "A" and are told that it stands for the sound "A", and so on. But people who were born deaf have no concept of the sound "A". How can they then, for example, deduce that the glyphs "C" "A" "T" mean "cat"? Do they have to be taught with sign language? JIP | Talk 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't always clear that people learn to read purely by phonics, that is by associating a letter with the sound that it makes. First of all, there are non-alphabetic languages where there is no connection between a glyph and the sound it makes, like pictograms (i.e. Heiroglypics) and ideograms (i.e. Chinese). Secondly, even among alphabetic writing systems, there are methods of teaching reading known as whole-word methods that de-emphasize phonics (which can be confusing given the myriad of ways a letter can be pronounced). Actual reading learning likely invovles some combination of phonics and whole-word methods, but knowing how a word sounds is not a necessity for learning how to read. --Jayron32 19:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

When a hearing person learns to read a language that they already speak, it is almost inevitable that they will map the written text onto the sounds of the language they already have a command of: how hard this will be depends on various factors, including the type of script. But when learning to read a language that one does not already know, it is perfectly possible to ignore the sounds, or substitute arbitrary sounds, and approach the language purely as a written medium (for example the vowels in Ancient Egyptian are mostly unwritten and unknown, so Egyptologists have a conventional way of pronouncing the words, which may not have any relation to how it was really pronounced). A person who was born deaf will not have been able to acquire any spoken language as a mother tongue (they may have a manual language as a mother tongue), so learning the written version of a spoken language is always like learning a foreign language for them, and they may or may not try to make sense of the sounds. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Preference for sex-based nudity

Is there a term for people who, when looking at erotic images, prefer to see images of mixed-sex couples, with their own sex fully clothed and the other naked, or the other way around? Is this phenomenon common? I would assume it's more common with men than with women, and people usually want to see the other sex naked than their own sex naked, but does anyone have any idea whether this is true? I also assume this is limited to heterosexual people, as after all, homosexual people aren't erotically interested in the other sex. JIP | Talk 18:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See CFNM and CMNF. --Jayron32 18:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Should retitle that first article Down and Out in London and Paris. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Longest European constitution

What is the longest European constitution? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been only one, so long that I doubt anyone has ever bothered to read it in its entirety, but it has never entered into force. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the OP means the longest constitution of a European country. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, JackofOz. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The claim is generally awarded to the Constitution of San Marino, which dates to about 1600. Of course, countries that lack a single written instrument of Government can rightly claim to have a constitution that dates to Time immemorial, for example the Constitution of the United Kingdom isn't a single document, but as the state that is today the UK has evolved more or less continuously since the Norman Conquest, each law and practice incrementally changing how the state is organized, one could claim that as among the oldest (small-c) constitutions. However, the oldest written instrument of government is likely San Marino. --Jayron32 05:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, scratch that. I thought the OP meant the oldest. If he didn't, you can ignore what I wrote. --Jayron32 05:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If? I can't imagine why you'd think there'd be even a remote chance he meant the oldest when he asked for the longest. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, oldest was my first thought too. You can't imagine having seen similar sloppy usage before? —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh sure, but usually there's some sort of (possibly remote) connection between the 2 things. That ain't the case with oldest vs. longest. The world's oldest book is not the world's longest book, the oldest film is not the longest film, the oldest opera is not the longest opera, etc. But it's interesting that more than one person here read it that way. I wonder what they're putting in the water over there. Maybe it's a case of reading what we expect to see; we're often asked about the oldest written constitution, but I don't remember being asked about the longest. Until now. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Google makes the same assumption. Searching for 'longest written constitution' provides a plethora of links for the longest-standing constitution. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

On that basis, FDR was America's longest president. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Eleanor was a lucky lady. --Jayron32 13:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could argue Franklin was a long-standing president - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

He was the longest sitting President. --Jayron32 16:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You win today's best-punning-situation award. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the question. Firstly, be aware that it's rather difficult to quantify the longest constitution, and it will depend on what you mean by longest. Do you mean the largest number of characters (in which case something written in Chinese would be shorter than something in English), the largest number of pages (where font size and spacing would be factors), or the number of articles?

All of that notwithstanding, it seems to be popularly understood that the Indian Constitution is the world's longest, at least in its English version. I did find that the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution was said to be longer, but that is now defunct.

As for Europe, there doesn't appear to be any agreement on what is the longest current constitution. My completely unscientific research, consisting of a brief scan of all the articles in Template:Constitutions of Europe, suggests that the longest might be the Constitution of San Marino, with 314 articles. There are serious problems, though, in that for a large number of the countries (>50%) the number of articles is not listed, suggesting that length isn't a notable feature. Also many of the constitutions are not arranged into articles in the same way, making such a measure somewhat meaningless. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

By number of words. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Papal influence

I have a few questions concerning the Papal States:

1. Why weren't the Papal States, say during the 1450s and 1500s, more expansionist when it came to possessions in Europe and maybe North Africa, almost like Genoa or Venice?
2. Say a Pope during that time period was born, and he was very expansionist, wanting to create possessions in Sardinia and maybe even Tunisia. Would he be very popular with the citizens of the Papal States, or could it potentially conflict with their religion?
3. If it was economic trouble that concerned the States, wouldn't they see increased value in having possessions throughout the Mediterranean?

Thanks, 64.229.152.217 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as a very brief answer, they were expansionist...but they were surrounded by other states that didn't really appreciate being encroached upon. It's not really a question of being popular with people who lived in the Papal States, it was whether everyone else would be happy about it. As for your specific examples, Sardinia was already contested between other Italian states (Pisa, Genoa, etc) and, at this point, Aragon. Tunisia was Muslim but certainly within Sicily/Naples' sphere of influence. And this is simply taking into consideration the Pope as the leader of a secular state. The issue was certainly confused by his position as a religious figure. For some Wikipedia articles, I might suggest Papal States of course, and also Patrimonium Sancti Petri. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Papal States tended to grow and shrink like any other state during the history of Europe. The articles Patrimonium Sancti Petri and Duchy of Rome cover some of the early Papal States. The area later occupied by the Papal States had been the Exarchate of Ravenna a vassal of the Byzantine Empire. When the last Exarch was deposed by the Lombards. Prior to the 750s, the Pope only had temporal control over the Duchy of Rome. In exchange for giving his blessing to Frankish Mayor of the Palace Pepin the Short to overthrow the last of the Merovingian Frank kings and seize the throne, Pepin returned the favor with the Donation of Pepin which granted the Pope control of the Lombard lands that the Franks had recently conquered, basically transfering the land of the old Exarchate of Ravenna to the Pope for direct control. The Papal States themselves came under the control of the Counts of Tusculum, several of whom became Pope themselves directly, and the Papal States themselves grew through war and conquest of various petty Italian states of the time. Other expansionist periods in the history of the Papal States includes the rule of the House of Borgia. Like the rest of Europe, the Papal States were essentially obliterated during the Napoleonic Era (see Roman Republic (18th century)). After the Congress of Vienna, the Papal States were reduced to just the immediate area around Rome (Latium), which was their extent until they were absobed during the decade-long Italian unification in the middle 19th century. --Jayron32 03:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

1. The Papal States was expansionist.

2. Popes weren't born, they were elected when they were old men. The inhabitants of the Papal States didn't matter, they could be kept under the iron heel of mercenary armies if need be.
Sleigh (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Understanding Intelligent Design/Creationism?

Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium assumes that the population is not evolving and that there are no selective pressures in the environment. I have a hunch that this type of situation is exactly what Intelligent Design proponents/Creationists want, right? If you have no natural selection, then there would no point in evolution of the gene pool. Things would be pretty happy the way they are in their present form. Are Intelligent Design proponents just upset that the equilibrium cannot be observed in nature, and they desperately want the equilibrium to be undeniably true in order to justify that their beloved sacred scripture is true? What are the Intelligent Design proponents disagreeing upon anyway? 22:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.226.248 (talk)

First, we have an featured article on Intelligent design for you to read. But to your question, ID proponents don't actually say anything about Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. The claim of both creationists and ID proponents is not that organisms aren't evolving, but that they can't evolve (on their own). ID supporters do actually believe that populations can fail to be in equilibrium, they simply add that random mutations cannot give rise to meaningful evolution. A young-Earth creationist wouldn't really care what your fancy equations mean, since there hasn't been enough time for them to matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not really correct. They say that evolution cannot give rise to a new species. They don't say that evolution can't mae meaningful changes -- at least, the ones I have heard from don't. Looie496 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just define "meaningful change" as "speciation" :p Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify why it matters, even ID proponents generally don't dispute that it is possible to shape the characteristics of plants and animals by selective breeding. Most people would naturally say that the differences between dog breeds, for example, are meaningful. Looie496 (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, many also don't dispute the spread of antibiotic resistance (although the concept of species is particularly iffy in bacteria anyway) and it seems strange to not say it's a meaningful change. Nil Einne (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You say "even ID proponents" as if they are the really conservative ones. They're not. They're actually one step below "natural selection actually occurs." ID is not YEC; they are generally old earth, they generally do believe in some form of evolution. They just think that God has guided or "helped" along the way in some very significant ways, that there are certain patterns of biology that can't be explained by purely naturalistic explanations alone, yadda yadda yadda. That's a big difference from "all species were popped into existence 10,000 years ago." The real YEC people think the ID people are just as bad as the evolutionists for this reason — the ID people are not Biblical literalists on the whole. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If you equate God to Mother Nature, it could work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't, though, unless by Mother Nature you mean some sort of conscious entity, which is distinctly non-naturalistic. The whole point of natural selection is that there is no conscious entity making decisions or helping critters along the way — it's random variation plus completely unguided selective processes. ID still requires a conscious entity doing clever tricks here and there. They don't see God as a metaphor. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Written record

What is the oldest written record ever? Also give me the source when you found the information please. "Written record" here is not numbers but actually writing words. 65.128.133.237 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That depends a rather a lot on what constitutes a 'written record' for your purposes. As noted in History of writing ancient numbers and History of writing, systems for recording numbers preceded systems for recording language by several hundred years. The transition from 'no writing' to 'full-blown prose' wasn't instantaneous; there were a lot of gradual changes, some of which are touched on in proto-writing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Any written record that has words in it count. So when was the first written record that has word in it? And what I mean by "number" earlier is number that simply a mark like / that cavemen did instead of number like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... So any records like that don't count as written record.65.128.133.237 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't always a clear line to be drawn between an artistic representation and what became writing. People could draw a picture of a sheaf of wheat as mere artwork, or could draw the exact same sheaf in an accounting ledger, and it isn't clear that the usage represents a hard distinction. The use of pictures next to cuneiform numbers, noted below, probably represented the earliest "written words", but it isn't something that happened instantly. As noted at Egyptian hieroglyphs, "Hieroglyphs emerged from the preliterate artistic traditions of Egypt." That is, a painting of a scene eventually evolved into a story about that scene, and it isn't clear sometimes what marks that transition. --Jayron32 04:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And according to List of languages by first written accounts. The Sumerian writing was the earliest written record but doesn't has in source to prove it so I'm not sure if it is accurate or not.65.128.133.237 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The earliest known writing system that meets your definition was Cuneiform, as you surmised. Proto-forms of Cuneiform go back quite a ways as a means of recording numbers, but by 3000BC pictograms were added to indicate what had been counted. These pictograms later evolved over the next few centuries until they no longer bore any obvious resemblance to their original form. The source you're looking for is Empires of the Plain: Henry Rawlinson and the Lost Languages of Babylon, New York, St. Martin's Press (2003) ISBN 0-312-33002-2. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Clay amulet, one of the Tărtăria tablets unearthed near Tărtăria, Romania, attributed to the "Vinča script" and dated to ca. 5300 BC

This is by no means universally accepted, see the Vinča script. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems very doubtful whether this was true writing of language as such (as opposed to some other type of symbolic system). Even supposing that it was true linguistic writing, then according to the Kurgan hypothesis predominantly accepted by linguists, the language involved would have been a now-extinct non-Indo-European language, so that the chances of decipherment would be extremely remote. AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying it is not "written" begs the question. Can you give an example of what sort of symbolic system you mean? Something was obviously recorded here, and it is not a simple tally. I cannot imagine the symbols weren't glossed by words (like the symbols of the zodiac) even if they may not have constituted transcriptions of full spoken sentences. Nor am I quite sure what the point of noting it is (obviously) not IE is. Here is a more helpful article Tărtăria tablets. μηδείς (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, you actually remind me of fire diamonds, and similar systems for conveying warning information. Or, hell, the little symbols on my shirt tag that tell me how to wash it without having to read it (how lazy do they think I am?). Symbolic systems we use today that convey meaning, in which each symbol has a precise definition, in which symbols are reproduced faithfully in many places, but completely lacking any ability or intent to form sentences. You wouldn't call that a writing system. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are simply defining a writing system, without saying it outright, as an alphabet or syllabary. But these symbols are clearly something recorded, not drawn as in portraiture, but written as symbols (do you draw, or write an ampersand?) and meaning to convey information. You are simply looking to argue, and frankly not very serious, if you think each of the symbols on this disk are meant to convey things like "do not bleach", or "ladies' room". No one 7000 years ago was baking inscribed clay tablets without having some very serious purpose. Even if the symbols are magical runes meant for divination, each symbol will have a name. In any case, any answer to what the oldest writing is that does not mention these symbols is academically negligent. μηδείς (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, read the first few chapters of Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction by Geoffrey Sampson (ISBN 0-8047-1756-7) for a definition of what writing is, and why not all structured symbolic systems are writing. (By the way, it's far from solidly-established that early Germanic runes had a magical function...) AnonMoos (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the word "gainsaying", AnonMoos? Why do you start with new objections, without answering my previous questions on types of symbolic systems you mean, and why it matters that these symbols aren't associated with Indo-European? The simple fact is that this artifact is of importance in any discussion of the origin of writing. You don't actually deny that statement, do you? I am not particularly interested in just one person's definition of writing. It's called stipulation and if you want to stipulate that these are "symbol carvings" rather than "writing", feel free. It doesn't change their importance: these symbols are used repetitively, are not obvious pictures, and do obviously convey meaning.

And why in the world do you find it necessary to point out that runes didn't start as divination tools? They were used for that purpose, which was what I was illustrating. Again, that's just gainsaying. Nowhere have I argued that the symbols on the disk are syllabic or alphabetic. But to deny they are an abstract visually recorded symbolic system is absurd. μηδείς (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- you can sling any rhetoric you feel like, but it's simply not accepted among linguistically-minded scholars that the "Old Europe" inscriptions are writing in any linguistically meaningful sense. Judging from the Tărtăria tablets article which you linked to, even Colin Renfrew (a non-linguist who has frequent disputes with linguists) substantially agrees. Reading the first few chapters of ISBN 0-8047-1756-7 with attention would give you a good feel for many of the issues involved with respect to the nature and definition of writing (which you seem to lack now), regardless of whether you ended up agreeing with everything that Geoffrey Sampson says...

I mentioned the Kurgan hypothesis because it would indicate that the "Old Europe" inscriptions were written by people who spoke extinct languages not closely related to any currently-understood language, so that even supposing that the inscriptions may have had some writing-like aspects, the decipherment and confirmation of such would almost certainly now be impossible.

As for runes, there's a passage in Tacitus' Germania that "signs" were written on wood-chips and used for divination purposes, but it's far from clear that such "signs" were actually runes. AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to take you in good faith, or even seriously, if you refuse to answer simple yes-no questions, such as, is mentioning this tablet a proper part of a comprehensive answer to the OP's question, or refuse to give an example of what you meant by "some other type of symbolic system". Again with the runes. Runes for divination were offered as an example of a possible sort of symbolic system. No argument was made that Germanic runes are indeed used for divining, yet you continue to attack that straw man. I did read Sampson about 10 years ago. He says nothing about the Vinca script or Tartaria so far as I am aware. The fact that he defines writing system for his purposes in the book is fine, but even if I were to write a book on Animal Biology and define animals as Metazoa, I would still begin with protists as their forebears. So far as I can see, the Tartaria tablets are either random scratchings, drawings, decoration, or symbolic. I discard scratching and decorations. If they are drawings, they are abstract to the point of symbolism. If you have a link to some other suggestion as to what they may be, that is something that would actually be interesting. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You're certainly highly indignant about something or other, but your sputtering rhetoric doesn't amount to much of substance that I can see -- nor does it change the fact that if you claim to know that the "Old Europe" inscriptions are definitely writing of language, then you're embracing a fringe theory. Therefore your answer of "01:05, 6 September 2012" above was not a very useful reply to the original question. AnonMoos (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"Indignant"? "Sputtering"? "Whatever"? "Something or Other"? Is it really unlcear to you that I want to know what "other type of symbolic system" it is you are talking about? You are the one using this emotional language instead of silence in your refusal to give a source. Nothing I have done has prevented you from suggesting other references as to what sort of thing the tablet might be. Your only consistent point has been that everything I say is wrong (including what I haven't) and that my requests for you to provide your own answers are "Rhetoric". That's called psychological projection. Instead, please answer a question, provide a source. Or just drop it. I have provided my sources, and am enjoying reading the articles they link to. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Colin Renfrew quote in the article you yourself linked to adequately represents the current skeptical quasi-consensus among scholars, and I provided a highly-specific source by means of which you could improve your understanding of what linguists generally mean by "writing". (The Sampson book also gives an example of an elaborate non-writing symbol system, Yukaghir "letters".) AnonMoos (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that Colin Renfrew is skeptical, but he doesn't offer an argued alternative in the article. Does he do so elsewhere? I am familiar with Yukaghir letters. Here is a good link with images of a Yukaghir letter. These are much more obviously stylized drawings, with trees and houses and braided hair. The Tartaria tablets may indeed contain pictograms (all writing I am aware of that originates de novo comes from pictograms, and the Chinese still use theirs) but at a much higher level of abstraction than the Yukaghir letters. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The opinion of Colin Renfrew is not necessarily of overwhelming significance in and of itself, but Colin Renfrew is a non-linguist who has had many disputes with linguists, so you know that if Colin Renfrew is somewhat skeptical, then a lot of linguistically-oriented scholars are going to be very skeptical. For non-writing symbol systems with somewhat abstract sign shapes (i.e. without obvious pictorial interpretation), see the family property marks and craftsman's marks of central Europe (discussed briefly in Rudolf Koch's "Book of Signs"), many religious symbols, many features of mathematical notation and musical notation, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See Proto-writing, Gradeshnitsa tablets, Dispilio tablet. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I just came across an interesting article on gang grafitti in the Sep 2012 issue of Discover magazine. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

September 6

Genre painter "Aimé Dalleizette" of Switzerland.

The second version (1980. First, and significantly different, was 1978.) of the very obscure science documentary film "Target...Earth?" includes, among other things, gentle spoofs of a number of old genre paintings. Over the last 45 years or so, I've seen at least four, in books and magazines, but of course had no need, at those times, to pay close attention. After much trouble, I recovered the name of one of the painters, Aimé Dalleizette, who has an entry in Benezit, but none in Wikipedia, and neither does the movie have an entry here. I am requesting that knowledgeable, well-placed persons correct these lacunae in Wikipedia.C.s.auaeginal (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Google books turns up a little bit. This book here: [13] has a brief biographical sketch in French. As does this one. These are all really short, all saying basically the same thing "A Geneva-born Swiss genre painter born in 1799" and not much else. Here is the google books search I used to find the above. I can't find much else besides that. Probably not enough to hang a Wikipedia article on. --Jayron32 03:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Grass hula skirts

When was the grass skirt introduced to Hawaiian hula? Traditional Hawaiian hula dancer wore kapa dresses, I remember reading somewhere that it was introduced from Tahiti or another island in the modern era.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

These two sources[14][15] claim it was first seen (along with the ukulele) when King Kalākaua revived the hula in the 1870s. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a link between no photography policies and freedom of panorama (or lack thereof)?

Hope this isn't asking for legal advice, as I'm just asking for general observations. Here in the Philippines, we currently don't have any freedom of panorama provisions in our copyright laws. I've also noticed that here, many museums prohibit photography, usually for security reasons, but also for either copyright reasons or preservation (but if the latter is the reason, can't they just ban flash photography?) Even concerts and theater shows (like the Saltimbanco show that came last month) frequently have the same policies. Are countries which don't have freedom of panorama provisions more likely to have places which prohibit photography, or is this just a coincidence? And a related question: aside from Area 51, what are notable examples of places where photography is prohibited but the reason is officially a state/company/trade secret? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama really has to do with buildings and public sculpture. They probably figure they get no benefit from private pictures of their collection out there on the web. As for concerts, in my (extensive) experience, what they usually care about is filming, and only some places get hyper about it, because you're not going to have a good film unless you are in the photo pit with a quality camera (a tripod would be helpful), and no one is slamming your back in time to the music. Thus, if you would like a photo pass, they usually limit you to the first three songs and no more than 30 seconds of video.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, all security sites have restrictions on photography. It's actually enshrined in one of our toughest laws — the Espionage Act of 1917. In general, though, it is worth drawing a distinction between legal restrictions and private restrictions on photography. I can put a sign on the door of my house that says "NO PHOTOGRAPHY." What can I do if you violate it? I can kick you out of my house. I can't put you in jail or sue you. It has as much legal force as me saying, "please take off your shoes before stepping on the carpet." The "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs on security sites in the US are not private restrictions — they are legal ones (they can put you in jail). The "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs in museums or concerts are private ones, not legal ones — it's not actually against the law for you to take photographs in those places, but they can probably kick you out if you do it. (What you then later DO with the photographs you've taken may or may not be against the law — in terms of copyright violations — but that's a separate question from just taking the photograph in the first place, and depends on the copyright laws in question.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Museums have photo restrictions, possibly not so much due to concerns over copyright as due to wanting you to spend lots of money in their gift shop. If you can take pictures of all the art they are exhibiting, why would you buy the postcards or posters of that same artwork? I recall that when I visited the Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion last year, the guide made a big deal out of their 'no photo' policy, and specified that it was to prevent professional photographers coming in on the tour and selling their pictures afterwards. They were, however, open to organising specific photo shoots - indicating that the motive for the policy was economic (you'd probably have to pay for the photo shoot) and didn't have anything to do with preserving the art or protecting the copyright of what was on display. V85 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue of copyrights in museums can be tricky. If it's old art, then the copyright is expired — so if you take a good photo of the Mona Lisa, you can do whatever you want with it, and the museum can't do anything about it. The museum doesn't want that, obviously — part of the perk of having an old master is getting money from people who want copies of it. (In the US, it doesn't really matter, because even the museum's photographs of paintings are in the public domain.) So copyright is related to the motivation, but not so much that taking a photograph violates copyright. Saying it is about control, generally speaking, from an economic standpoint, is probably more on par. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't the U.S. send drones to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities?

I see a war approaching and the first thing that comes to my mind is acting before it's too late. Wouldn't that be a solution? Can drones be sent without trouble to countries like Iran? Thank you. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The physical possibility of committing any action is rarely the barrier to a country committing it. For example, I am capable of punching a random police officer in the face. It would be outrageously stupid of me to do so; the thing keeping me from punching a cop in the face is not that I am physically unable to make my fist make contact with his face. That is, the U.S. could actually do as you describe, but for several fairly obvious reasons, it may not be a great idea to do so. The U.S. is known to use drone strikes in other nations with which it is not in a state of war, such as Pakistan and Yemen. However, Pakistan has a government which is generally friendly to the U.S., and so (after a public display of being outraged) tends to overlook such incursions, as does Yemen to some extent. With Iran, with a government that is publicly hostile to the U.S., such an action would have a terrible effect on the U.S. standing in the world, and could likely spark reprocussions that would make it a bad idea. Part of what allows a country like the U.S. to do such things is they have a sort of "moral currency" built up, both with the target country and with the international community. Attacking Iran unilaterally as you describe would cause serious damage to that, and for that reason, plus the fact that domestically the U.S. population has little interest in getting involved in yet another protacted ground war in Asia, which would likely result from your proposal, means that it isn't going to happen. --Jayron32 13:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Drones don't help too much in destroying things buried deep underground... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, they would if you strapped a hydrogen bomb to one... --Jayron32 13:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Among other counterfactual hypotheticals. AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Even then, I'm unsure. For very deep facilities you need a bomb that will penetrate significantly before exploding — even H-bombs. Could a B61 be dropped by a drone from a significant enough height to have the correct amount of penetration? I'm honestly just not sure. It's probably not what any drone currently available is designed to do. Again, this is kind of silly, because if we wanted to drop B61s on Iran, we'd just use B-2s or some such, not drones. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way to avoid a war is to avoid committing acts of war. Bombing Iran would be an act of war. So, frankly, your idea is terrible and counterproductive. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The United States has the military capability to hit sites in Iran. This is not controversial. They have the military capability to drop very large (conventional or nuclear) bombs pretty much anywhere on the planet, and have had that capability for decades and decades.

The controversial questions are:

1. Does Israel have this ability, without US help? (Probably not. Israeli air capabilities are not as advanced, and getting from Israel to Iran requires going over the territory of a lot of other nations who may not be so happy about this sort of activity, plus Iran has a reasonably sophisticated series of air defenses of its own. This is significant because a lot of the debates are along the lines of, if Israel tries to attack Iran, will the US have to bail them out?)
2. Does the US have the ability to penetrate deeply into Iranian underground sites? (Depends on who you ask. Some military guys say yes, no problem. Others say it would be difficult, presuming you're not talking about dropping "bunker busting" nuclear weapons on them. I'm unsure but I doubt that drones could be used for this purpose; you probably need something larger to drop the really deep-penetrating bombs. If you are thinking about using nuclear weapons, that introduces lots of other considerations. It isn't very likely, for obvious P.R. reasons.)
3. What happens after you bomb Iranian facilities? Nobody knows. Most people think that Iran will retaliate against Israel (either directly or through its proxy, Hezbollah), that they will withdraw from the NPT (thus ending all inspections), and that they will engage in a crash program to develop a nuclear deterrent. The only way to avert this would then be a war of "regime change," which would be exceedingly costly on all sides and could lead to wider outbreak of war in the Middle East, and might not even be successful. The other position — that Iran will just give up on nuclear things — is not held by very many people, though they would point to Israel's bombing of the Osirak reactor as the template here. Even that didn't stop Saddam's nuclear ambitions — in fact, he intensified his program. He shelved the ambitions only after the 1991 Gulf War. But it may have delayed him to that point.

So these are the really tricky issues. These are separate from the question of whether Iran is actually trying to make a nuclear weapon, which itself is controversial (most analysts, including the US intelligence community — see NIE 2007 — think that this is a long-term goal of theirs, but not something they are trying to do in the next few years — that they want to be nuclear capable, not nuclear armed), or whether Iran having a bomb would necessarily be a bad thing (lots of folks argue that nuclear weapons tend to stabilize regions, rather than destabilize them, but making guesses about this requires guessing Iranian intentions and also the reactions of other states in the region, all of which are hard things to gauge). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just remember everyone that there is another issue involved here. Russia. Russia would be outraged by a U.S. intervention in Iran, and it would risk starting another Cold War with them perhaps if we were to do so. That's the biggest practical issue that I can think of that hasn't already been brought up. Rabuve (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Mostly because relationships with Russia are frosty enough, but neither Russia nor the USA think one another plans to nuke each other anytime soon. Another Cold War — where both superpowers thought that they were in an existential crisis with regards to one another — isn't very likely. (Russia knows that US or Israeli interest in Iran has nothing to do with trying to hurt Russia. The worst accusations on those front are that US plans for missile defense — now fairly scaled back — might also be aimed at Russia while ostensibly being about Iran, but again, that's only a minor part of the whole Iran situation.) Frosty relations, sure. But they're already frosty, and frostiness is not the same thing as a Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But Russia certainly won't like the possibility of the United States possibly expanding its sphere of influence in the region around central Asia. I don't think the conflict would be nuclear, but neither do I think the Russians would just accept it. Rabuve (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think most analysts think that the Russians would just accept it, practically speaking. What are you suspecting they'd do, start a war? I don't see it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And, practically speaking, they really don't want a nation ruled by Islamists, near their underbelly, armed with nukes. Thus, they may well use the event for propaganda gains, but aren't likely to help protect Iran's nuclear program. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure if Russia is that worried about a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran has no qualms with modern Russia to my knowledge. They are a different brand of Islam than the Muslims that give the Russians trouble. You use the term "underbelly" as if it makes metaphorical sense, but Russia is not an animal and its southern border is not some sort of highly vulnerable area. Russia does not border Iran; at the moment, I don't think it has major interests that Iran would infringe upon (such was not the case in the 1970s). This is just speculation, but I suspect they aren't unduly worried about a nuclear Iran — it doesn't affect them much more than a nuclear Israel does. It has been suggested as a general rule that countries are most annoyed by other countries getting nuclear weapons if 1. they have a long history of animosity with the nuke-acquiring country or 2. the country has big aspirations for asserting power in the region near the nuke-acquiring country. The US has big aspirations everywhere so they are generally opposed to proliferation even by allies (they were against the Israeli bomb when it was still a question, they were against a Taiwanese bomb, they were against a South Korean bomb); the Russian ambition has receded since the end of the Cold War. They might even welcome an Iranian bomb — it would complicate Middle Eastern relations in ways they might be able to play to their advantage. But this is just speculation; I've no real evidence of what the Russians are thinking. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Think of how the US would react if Mexico decided it wanted the bomb (or Guatemala, if you want a nation which doesn't border the US). There is currently no animosity, but any nuclear weapons near the border do incur an additional risk. There's the possibility of those nations setting one off accidentally, or in testing, that releases radiation into your nation. Then there's the possibility of them (or rogue elements within that nation) selling it to somebody who uses it against you. Then there's the potential for relations to sour in the future. There's also the possibility of a revolution bringing to power somebody more antagonistic (Iran seems ripe for a "Persian spring"). Then there is the nuclear arms race it could trigger, greatly expanding the risk to all in the region. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the US being against Israel getting nuclear weapons? The general understanding (which has never been officially confirmed, of course, but I'm not sure anyone doubts it any more) is that the US supplied Israel with nuclear weapons... I don't think destabilising the Middle East is in anyone's interests (it puts oil supply lines in danger, more than anything), although it is possible a nuclear armed Iran would actually stabilise the region by causing a cold war and making everyone too scared to act. --Tango (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The US government didn't supply Israel with nuclear weapons; the Kennedy and Johnston administrations both put pressure on Israel not to go nuclear. Once they were nuclear, which was known by the Nixon administration, the pressure was not to announce it or test a weapon. Any good book on the Israeli nuclear program discusses this in depth, but for quick internet references, the documents here are instructive, and the account here, while critical of Kennedy's lack of real oomph on the issue, discusses his attempt to pressure the Israelis against the bomb. The Americans supplied Israel with many other weapons, including nuclear-capable fighters and things of that nature. But they didn't help them get the bomb early on, and were very opposed to it — mainly because they feared Israel might actually use it, and because it limited their own freedom of action in the region. The country that was most helpful for Israel to get the bomb was France. Their explicit reason for doing this (as revealed in French archival documents) is that they felt that a nuclear Israel would distract Egypt, which would keep them from helping out the Algerians; in this case, it was in French interests to somewhat destabilize the Middle East, in the 1960s. This is discussed in some depth in this interesting book. The account in Nuclear weapons and Israel is pretty good though it lacks any discussion of the Algerian motivation (which is pretty well-documented). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

To all those wondering what a possible preventative strike would look like... This is perhaps the most detailed report released yet (very recently released) and has amazing diagrams and pictures. It presents various scenarios depending on which country is performing the strike, and also analyzes the impact of such a strike. A very good report, I'd say. --Activism1234 18:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it still needs some work, to me. It has numerous typos, and the contents of the page "Iranian Counter Vulnerabilities:" are identical to the page "Israeli Strike:". I hope the info isn't as sloppy as the writing. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the only Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle in general use by the US is the MQ-9 Reaper. It has a payload capacity of 1400kg according to our article. So it physically could carry a B61 (would probably have to modify the mounting points though). However, Iran's air defence systems include the SA-5, which is more than capable of shooting down a relatively slow-moving aircraft like an UAV.i.m.canadian (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources of Law

I recently watched a video of a discussion between Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer, and found it very interesting that Breyer mentioned six sources of law (Text, precedent, historical development, tradition, purpose, and consequences) and was wondering if he came up with that classification himself or whether or not that was developed by some other legal scholar.

Also, could anyone recommend a good treatise on the sources of law in common law jurisdictions? I find the subject to be something which isn't looked at in that much detail in the scholarly literature of common law countries, and would be very grateful to find something on the subject. Thanks in advance. Rabuve (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Those 6 items so thoroughly overlap as to not be a very useful method of classification, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Jurisprudence is a good starting point for answering the initial question. The short answer is there is no short answer. The study of the "source of the law" is a deep and varied topic, and you can (and people do) spend their whole lives doing nothing but studying and thinking about just some small aspect of this question. But start at the Juurisprudence article, read that, and then follow the links to see where it takes you. --Jayron32 17:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that there is obviously no short answer and different people are going to disagree quite a bit about the inclusion of some and their role in the legal process, but I am mostly surprised at the lack of writing on the subject. I would have thought that the great legal minds of the Common Law Tradition such as Coke or Blackstone would have discussed the matters in some detail, but to my knowledge (by skimming the tables of contents of some of their works) they do not spend much effort on questions of the principles of legal reasoning, and instead focus on the substantive law of whatever subject they were discussing. Are there any treatises by such figures which at least discuss the subject in some detail? Rabuve (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was going to suggest Blackstone. I can't name offhand any modern treatises about it because the ones I know tend to be very specific to an area of law. You might look at The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.. If you want to get into more specific areas of law there's plenty on those of course. Also check Origins of the Common Law by Arthur R. Hogue. I've not read it, but it seems to be on topic. Shadowjams (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat, even moreso, Breyer's answer was ridiculous. You might as well say Airplanes are explained by The Wright Bothers, Howard Hughes, Boeing, Airbus, Lift, Vacations and War.

An excellent introduction to law is Law: Its Nature, Functions and Limits, read the reviews. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Good airplane example. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In his defense, when he defined the terms in more detail, they were quite distinct in meaning, and the term sources of law doesn't answer the question "where does the law come from" but "when answering legal questions, what things should we turn to for answers". Rabuve (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I found Richard Posner's The Problems of Jurisprudence an interesting read, twenty years ago. (After all this time I can't say why.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A question about the Westroads Mall shooting

I just read above a question about the difference between "massacre" and "shooting spree", and the asker mentioned the Westroads Mall shooting. My question is, the gunman Robert A. Hawkins entered the mall heavily armed. Aren't there metal-detecting devices in such large malls? AmericanMarinee (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are any, I've never seen them. What you're much more likely to see, in individual stores, are detectors of those little magnetized thingies they put into some products. And, frankly, shoplifting is a much more likely crime in a mall than a shooting spree is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Here's an article explaining why: Malls face difficult test of balancing safety and access. Mingmingla (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How many people don't have cellphones or keys? Besides, it wouldn't have stopped the guy from shooting. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What Bugs is referring to is discussed at Electronic article surveillance. Dismas|^(talk) 01:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Did Queen Victoria ever wear a Crinoline?

The question may seem odd, but in a book about fashion, I once read that Queen Victoria of Great Britain did not approve of the fashion of the crinoline, and that those critical to the crinoline used her example in their statements. It mentioned a contemporary saying: "God save our gracious queen, who does not wear crinoline". It this true? Did she in fact not wear a crinoline during the crinoline-era? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a photograph of her wearing one here: [16] 83.104.128.107 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed look like one, though it is hard to tell. --Aciram (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Depends whether by "crinoline" you mean the skirt style, the steel cage structure, or just the crinoline fabric itself. I have found a few hints, none of them unfortunately reliably sourced, that suggest Victoria was indeed a conservative dresser who disapproved of the crinoline. As our article Crinoline notes, "the first crinolines were petticoats starched for extra stiffness, made out of the new crinoline fabric". Wide skirts were held out by layer upon layer of these, which would have been hot, heavy and unwieldy. Stiffened hoop skirts followed (and even inflatable ones!), and eventually the steel and fabric cage crinoline. A number of online sources describe the cage as lighter and more comfortable than petticoats, but with a much increased risk of embarrassing public exposure if you tripped and fell, or a sudden gust of wind arose, hence the sudden increased interest in wearing drawers from the 1850s onward. Victoria is certainly pictured in wide skirts of the era, although not the insanely wide ones at the cutting edge of fashion, but your fashion book may perhaps mean that she preferred layers of petticoats to support them, rather than a racier cage crinoline. - Karenjc 17:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the steel cage crinoline structure. I have seen many images of her, but have found it hard to determine whether her skirts did conceal a crinoline structure. Has anyone heard of the saying mentioned above? --Aciram (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The post of early modern spies

In the early modern era - say the 18th-century - what means would a spy use to receive and post messages from his/her employer? Letters I assume (?), but how where they sent? By special, private couriers, perhaps? Thank you very much!--Aciram (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Letters were often sent by regular post, and sent in cypher. And it wasn't just spies, sensitive information was often sent in cypher, even regular diplomatic posts could be sent this way: I've just finished reading David McCulloch's biography of John Adams, and it mentions serval times cyphers being used for sensitive communications. Sometimes, the cyphers could take weeks or months to decode, and that was by the intended recipient. The XYZ Affair was one such diplomatic disaster which involved coded letters. The disadvantage of using private couriers is that, if they are caught, it is obvious that their private correspondance is more important, which could lead to increased suspicion. A coded message sent by regular post is easy to get mixed in with the rest of the mail, and wouldn't attract suspicion. --Jayron32 02:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon post? Of course the message would be in pidgin. This article says that if the message were important enough, the courier might memorize it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

An example of message concealment by a courier was at the Siege of Derry; a small boy was able to get through the besiegers lines and into the city with a message concealed in his garter, and a second time sewn into a cloth covered button (presumably rather a large one). To make reply, the defenders took no chances and the answer was put into "a piece of bladder, in the shape of a suppositor, and the same was applied to the boy".[17] Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First Indian reservation in the United States

I've encountered a Northwestern University document (details later) discussing what may have been the first Indian reservation in what's now the USA: created by the French in 1720, it was established for the Mitchigamea and was located near Fort de Chartres in southwestern Illinois, near the Mississippi River. Do we have any information on this reservation? Or can you point me to an online document or a book that might be in my university's library system? I've searched online but found nothing at all. Our Indian reservation article is woefully short in its history; it begins the historical account after the Civil War, but I know that there were federal reservations before that — for example, the Treaty of Lewistown, signed in 1829, abolished a reservation near where I grew up. As for the document: it's the National Register of Historic Places nomination form for the Kolmer Site, an archaeological site where the Michigamea established their first village after moving to the reservation. It's possibly online, but I can't link it: I downloaded it some time back from the website of the Illinois SHPO, but since then they've removed a lot of features, and I can't figure out how to return to it. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Colonial Carolina (later South Carolina) established a reservation for the Yamasee in 1707; [18]. In Virginia the Powhatan were forced onto reservations in the early 1600s; [19], which says two of these reservations, for the Pamunkey and Mattaponi, are the oldest reservations in the country, still existing today. I wonder though about places like Taos Pueblo, which goes back to even earlier colonial times (and before, obviously). Perhaps the status of such places in early Spanish colonial New Mexico stretch the meaning of "reservation", even if Taos and other ancient pueblos are reservations today. I don't know about the reservation you're trying to find out more about though. Pfly (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

One could argue that so-called Praying towns may have been the earliest Indian reservations, and these existed from the 1660s. The idea was to establish towns of Christianized Indians (see Praying Indian) so that such Indians would not be tempted to revert back to their Native belief systems. --Jayron32 05:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You may run into a problem defining a reservation. Essentially it's a system where certain areas are reserved for Native Americans and others are denied to them. However, early on, the areas available to Native Americans were much larger than the areas denied to them, so it was more like the colonists were the ones living in "reservations". StuRat (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The land was divided more along the lines of "The stuff that white people haven't got a chance to settle yet" vs. "The stuff they had". Reservations are more like what had been white land that was redesignated to segregate native Americans on is different than what had occured before, which was simply that there were vast tracts of land that White people hadn't yet settled. --Jayron32 23:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Successive treaties typically granted Native Americans exclusive use of a portion of their former lands (not land occupied by whites), and the reservations were then shrunken with each subsequent revision. In some cases they were actually moved to new locations, but the new locations were either unoccupied (unfortunately, because they were uninhabitable), or occupied by other Native Americans, not whites. StuRat (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I know this is off topic, sorry Nyttend, but on this point—up until the middle 19th century or so treaties between imperial/colonial powers and non-defeated natives often defined boundaries, but land that remained in native control was not usually called "reservation". That term typically referred to blocks of land set aside for natives within a larger region controlled by a colonial power. That "control" may have at times been fairly weak, and sometimes, as with the Yamasee, the natives may have been important allies whose position had grown hard due to indebtedness and settler encroachment. It made little sense to use a term like reservation for lands far beyond the frontier of control or sphere of influence (terms like Indian Reserve (1763) are modern inventions used by historians). The Yamasee reserve was called a reserve back then, but the native lands beyond the relatively small area under Carolina's control were not—they were called things like "Indian land", or "Cherokee country", and such. In the early 19th century the US control rapidly began sweeping across the continent. Natives in the east, like the Cherokee, became surrounded by American settlements. So surrounded and defined by treaty lines, they came to resemble reservations in the old sense of the word. By the middle to late 19th century the US effectively "controlled" the whole country—many tribes resisted, of course, but the power imbalance made the notion of two sovereign powers making treaty a bit of a farce. The few examples of notable resistance (Battle of the Little Bighorn, Seminole Wars, etc) were rare exceptions to the general rule. And in the end all natives in the US were forced to submit to US sovereignty (eg, the Dawes Act applied to most Indians, without their consent; the 13th Amendment applied to the Tlingit, etc). The popular image of Native American history is distorted, I think, by the fact that the most well-known history—mainly that of the 19th century—is also the very end of the last pretense of true native sovereignty. There were three or so centuries of previous history, when the power relationships were very different. Sorry for continuing off topic, I will see if I can find anything about the 1720 Mitchigamea reservation. And I agree that our Indian reservation's history section is very much in need of expansion! Pfly (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this relates to my comment that very early on, when Native Americans controlled most of the land, and granted colonists the use of a small portion of their land in a treaty, we can think of the colonists as being the ones living on reservations. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Restating the question

Question wasn't clear enough, but you've provided useful information that I hadn't thought to ask about — thanks for the details on previous reservations. However, my primary question was: do we have any information on this specific reservation? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This source, [20], suggests alternate spellings, Michigamea and Kohlmer site (Michigamea and Kolmer seem most common). Browsing the Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History shows three early 18th century "large villages" on the Mississippi River near Fort Chartres (the Atlas spells it without the de), but labels all three as simply "Illinois" villages. All three are on the east bank. One is shown at the mouth of the Kaskaskia River (apparently the Michigamea were absorded into the Kaskaskia tribe in the early to middle 18th century), another is shown just north of Fort de Chartres. The third north of the fort, about 2/3rds of the way to the Missouri River. These must be the three mentioned in that link—one being a Kaskaskia village (Guebert site), one a Michigamea (Kohlmer site), and one a mixed Kaskaskia-Michigamea village (the Waterman site). Other sources refer to the village just north of the fort as the "Michigamea village", but point out that Kaskaskia people joined the village soon after 1720.

It's hard to imagine the French establishing a reservation at or attached to one of these villages. Fort de Chartres was a tiny remote outpost deep in Indian country. This makes me think it wasn't a reservation in the modern sense.

There's a dissertation called The Kolmer Site: An Eighteenth Century Michigamea Village, but it doesn't appear to be easily available online. Snippet view of [21] shows us "KOLMER SITE (MICHIGAMEA VILLAGE), N of Fort Chartres Island and W of Fort Chartres State Park...". And this one, [22], "(NHL, HABS, 1966) Kolmer Site (Michigamea Village) North of Kaskaskia Island and west of Fort de Chartres State Park (1974)..."

Sorry that is all I can find right now. There's a bit about the Waterman Site here. Pfly (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are serial killers smart or just lucky?

I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer was pulled over by police when he committed his first murder and the police did not check the bags he had in his back seats, which contained human remains. In 1991, when the Laotian boy escaped from his apartment, the police believed him and returned him to the apartment. Ted Bundy escaped from custody and remained at large for years while killing people. Gary Ridgway killed over 50 people and never got caught. Dennis Rader committed murders over a span of more than 10 years and got away with the murders. Are they smart or just lucky? Thank you. AmericanMarinee (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read so many books about serial killers that I can't single out a resource to point you to, but from my readings on the subject, they are generally more lucky than smart. We imagine them to be very intelligent, but that doesn't bear out. After all, Dennis Rader was caught when he sent a floppy disk to a newspaper when he asked the police if it could be traced to his computer. They told him it couldn't (a lie), he believed them, and was promptly caught. Not exactly a rocket scientist. Our own article agrees: "Generally being described as possessing IQs in the "bright normal" range, although they are more likely to have low/average intelligence. A sample of 174 IQs of serial killers had a median IQ of 93. Only serial killers who used bombs had an average IQ above the population mean." I conclude this to mean that they are just lucky. Mingmingla (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, exactly how did they trace the floppy; was that explained? Did he re-use one that had had earlier files on it, which perhaps he "deleted", not understanding what that means in most filesystems? Or did he use some program like Word that encodes the registered licensee of the program into the file itself? Or something else? --Trovatore (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Our article has the answers: "Rader then sent his message and floppy to the police department, which quickly checked the metadata of the Microsoft Word document. In the metadata, they found that the document had been made by a man who called himself Dennis. They also found a link to the Lutheran Church." The police did not lie; there really is no way to trace a floppy to a computer. Of course if you decide to register Word with your real name and real organization, that information would be in the file, but that's hardly tracing a disk. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is the issue that, happily, most people simply cannot comprehend such evil. We have an article on the banality of evil. We should have an article on the reality of evil, but we don't. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read all the studies, but it would seem the sampling is skewed as only serial killers who are identified and caught can be studied/given an IQ test. I would guess that "serial killers" are no more or less smart or lucky than "non-serial-killers". Maybe the more intelligent ones just don't get caught (as often).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. I think Medeis is suggesting that we are ascribing intelligence to something else entirely that we (hopefully) are incapable of understanding. If that's the case, I agree. They aren't the same thing. But that's neither here nor there. Mingmingla (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the dumber ones got caught after the first murder and never got the chance to make it serial. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

With the case of Rader, it might be argued that his own arrogance got the best of him. Therefore it was his attitude and not intelligence that tripped him up. After all, the case was unsolved and pretty much dormant until he resurfaced. Dismas|^(talk) 01:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That could be, but the books I read indicated average intelligence. Not super smart, not super dumb. Mingmingla (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As with any kind of criminal conduct, if the perp has several successes, he may begin to think he's smarter than he is, and may get complacent and careless. On the other hand, it might be relatively easy to get away with a single random killing, if there are no witnesses and nothing to tie the murderer to the victim. If you've ever watched some of those cold-case TV shows, a murder case may never be solved, or it may be solved years later due to some quirk of fate. The serial killer's achilles heel is that he can't stop. If Rader had resisted the urge to resume his "hobby", he might have gone to his grave with his secret. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not all serial killers get caught. For the first, there may be a string of murders that never gets connected. Secondly, there are many known serial killers who have never been identified. Despite many hypotheses, Jack the Ripper has never been positively identified; and likely never will be given the temporal distance to the original case. There are a half-dozen pet theories, and everyone has their favorite, though nothing conclusive has ever come up. For a more modern case, the Zodiac Killer was never caught. Category:Unidentified serial killers has quite a few such cases. --Jayron32 05:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Or they might get caught for something else. (I'm thinking of a plot element in The Green Mile.) Since they don't get identified, anything's possible. If a serial killer stops, they might well be dead or disabled due to something unrelated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Mingmingla, my point was that even cops don't think like serial killers, or, unless they are specialists, probably even think about serial killers without some really overt evidence. Gay kid running down the street with Dahmer running after him? The first thing you think as a benevolent human is "domestic dispute", not "cannibalism interrupted". Nobody notices the unimaginable. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Willie Pickton is a prime example: a single Vancouver police officer pegged that a serial killer was likely operating in Vancouver, but none of superiors believed it. Mingmingla (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's likely it. Often it's only in retrospect that something turns out to be sinister. In a vague sort of way, this relates to the question about metal detectors at shopping malls. The fact is that there's always shoplifting going on, but shooting sprees are extremely rare. No one expects it to happen. However, they do use metal detectors and court houses where it's reasonable to suppose that someone might try to bring a gun in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, both are a clear example of security theater, which is to say that their greatest effect is to make people feel safe or feel as though something is being done to stop shoplifting. A metal detector does nothing to stop someone who is determined enough to bypass them (which are rediculously easy to do), nor does a store's security scanners at the doors stop a determined shoplifter. At best, they deter crimes of convenience: they may stop someone from making a snap decision or something like that. But if you have half a brain and want to cause a problem, doing so is not hard. --Jayron32 13:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The most important reason serial killers are so successful at evading police is that their victims tend to be random. This deprives police of one of their most powerful tools, looking at who had a reason to kill the victim. Thus, if there are no witnesses, all they have to go on is evidence left behind. Even fingerprints and DNA are not useful if the perp's fingerprints and DNA are not already in the system (although they are later useful at trial). StuRat (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Not so much "random", as they fit a profile, but personally unrelated. See Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. Nowadaays we even have TV shows called Profiler (TV series). μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the Cleveland Torso Murderer who by some accounts outwitted Eliot Ness and had some help from some highly placed politicians. Marketdiamond (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

September 7

How Come it Took Until WWI for African-Americans to Start Moving Out of the Southern U.S. in Large Numbers?

I mean, the Northern and Western U.S. had a lot of jobs opportunities and good economies decades before WWI. One would think that due to all the racism in the South, much more blacks would have left the South between 1865 and 1915, but very few blacks left the South during those 50 years despite the massive racism (lynchings, Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc.) in the South during this time period. Futurist110 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There was plenty of racism in the north, too, and there still is. Regardless, moving requires some resources and also the will to get up and do it. A lot of folks stick with what they're familiar with, even if it doesn't seem to be in their best interests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but not nearly to the same extent as in the South. There was much less lynchings, segregation, and discrimination in the Northern United States. I guess you're right about the whole staying where it's familiar to you. However, that did not hold true for a lot of Europeans who immigrated to the U.S. in large numbers in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the GI bill had a lot to do with it after WWII.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but keep in mind that I was pointing out WWI, rather than WWII, as the point from which large black migration to the North and West really began. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the questioner's premise is completely accurate. See this article, for instance. We have a short article on the same subject - Exodus of 1879. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In the sense that there were a few pre-WWII exodus movements, it's not correct, but in the sense that post-WWII there was a huge exodus movement, it is correct. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Other than the Kansas Exodus, which large black exodus movements occurred before WWI? Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there were economic "push" factors too, such as increasing mechanization of southern agriculture. Article is Great Migration (African American)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Which points out that there was significant pre-WWII migration as well. In a way it was a perfect setup — pre-WWII, you have about a million African-Americans going North, the trailblazers. WWII comes and goes, and you have a lot of people back from combat, and back from industrial labor in factories, and the GI bill. (And significant numbers of the factory labor during WWII were African-American, and they were often moved to different places in the country anyway to do this labor.) This happens right as the American manufacturing economy is about to start booming, and there are already significant numbers of African-Americans in the North laying the groundwork for the move (founding churches and other community-based things of that nature). So (as is often the case) there are multiple reinforcing factors. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the pre-WWI era, not the pre-WWII era. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Even before WWI, there was some, I was reading a journal article on the subject in connection with my research on Joseph B. Foraker and the black vote, though only two or three percent, was crucial in states like Ohio, which were so finely balanced (kinda like today!) that the Governor of Ohio was almost automatically a presidential contender.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

One, there was an economic boom that provided jobs; two, men returning from WWI had a much better idea of the world outside the South; and, three, once small communities of blacks in the North got established they provided support groups for further immigration at a geometrically increased rate. See Harlem Renaissance. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't the economy in the North and West good before WWI as well? Your second point is absolutely correct--if a black person sees life in Europe, then he'd probably be less willing to return to the South and permanently stay there. There were small communities of blacks in the Northern and Western U.S. even before WWI, though. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that blacks were actually more welcome in the South than the North, so long as they "kept their place". That is, the Southern economy had long depended on blacks in menial jobs, while the North did not, at that time. Thus, moving north would cause white resentment that "they are taking our jobs and moving into our communities". This resulting in KKK actions, etc. However, when there were more jobs than could be filled locally, due to the WW2 war factories and the post-WW2 economic boom, that changed the equation. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that getting lynched much more and getting discriminated against (with segregation and Jim Crow laws) would be considered "more welcome". The Northern economy also depended on menial jobs, but it was primarily white European immigrants, rather than blacks, who worked at those jobs before WWI. The KKK could hunt blacks down in the South or in the North and West, and might have been more active in the South than in most areas outside the South. Also, the KKK was only revived in 1915, after WWI began. Before 1915 the KKK was essentially nonexistent for 40 years. You're right that the WWI and WWII mobilization efforts did provide much more jobs in the North and West that blacks could fill, and thus they took the opportunity to leave the South and to move to other places in order to get those jobs. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But the difference is that the KKK (or individuals or plain old mobs) in the South attacked blacks for being "uppity", while, in the North, they attacked them for merely being present. So, if blacks stayed in the South and "kept their place", they would be relatively safe. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? This would be interesting if true. However, again, keep in mind that the KKK was essentially nonexistent between 1875 and 1915 or so. Futurist110 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if they attacked all blacks in the South, what would that accomplish ? They didn't want blacks to leave, as that was the labor force. They just wanted them to "behave". Is that the part you want a source for, or is it the part of them being more indiscriminate in attacking blacks in the North? StuRat (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The part of them being more indiscriminate in attacking blacks in the North. Futurist110 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

From Ku_Klux_Klan#Social_factors:

"The Great Migration of African Americans to the North stoked job and housing competition and racism by whites in Midwestern and Western industrial cities. The second Klan achieved its greatest political power in Indiana; it was active throughout the South, Midwest, especially Michigan; and in the West, in Colorado and Oregon. The migration of both African Americans and whites from rural areas to Southern and Midwestern cities increased social tensions."

"The Klan grew most rapidly in urbanizing cities that had high growth rates between 1910 and 1930, such as Detroit, Memphis, and Dayton in the Upper South and Midwest; and Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston in the South. In Michigan, more than half of the Klan members lived in Detroit, where they numbered 40,000; they were concerned about urban issues: limited housing, rapid social change, and competition for jobs with European immigrants and Southerners both black and white."

I believe this also happened earlier, but it's harder to track down, as the anti-black violence was performed by individuals and smaller groups, at that time. StuRat (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Futurist above, if you are an American, I would be surprised you are not familiar with the boom of the Roaring Twenties. You can also ignore StuRat's "contributions". Blacks didn't face legal discrimination in the North, so in places like Harlem where they didn't fear social ostracism, they did quite well. Quite well, indeed. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am an American and I am aware of the 1920s economic boom. However, there was also a large economic boom in the Northern and Western U.S. in a lot of the years before WWI as well. Futurist110 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

They should ignore your "contribution", because whether the discrimination was codified as law is irrelevant, it existed either way. See the "DISCRIMINATION IN THE NORTH" section here: [23]. And the Harlem Riots indicate that they weren't as happy as you think. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this article. I'm wondering if the 1900 NYC race riot was more an exception to the rule or the rule itself, though. Futurist110 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

U.S States, by the date of repeal of anti-miscegenation laws:

  No laws passed

  Repealed before 1887

  Repealed from 1948 to 1967

  Overturned on 12 June 1967

Of course there was individual racism, there still is, plenty of it, worldwide. There was for the most part no legal racism with the exception of miscegenation laws in the North. See Jim Crow and List of Jim Crow law examples by State. Members of my family still remember the stark difference once one crossed the Manson-Nixon line between Pennsylvania and Maryland; integration to the north, Jim Crow separation to the south. StuRat seems to be "arguing" (if you can call linking to Harlem riots that were instigated not against blacks, but in defense of blacks, arguing) a point rather than offering reasons why blacks did indeed move to the North. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point entirely, that blacks wouldn't riot if things were as good as you claim. And was this "Manson"-Dixon line patrolled by Charles Manson ? :-) StuRat (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "Manson-Dixon", now, did I? μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears that there were no miscegenation laws in the North after 1887 either, with the exception of Indiana (if the info in this map is correct). Futurist110 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The list of Jim Crow law link I just gave mentions more, but that article sorely lacks references. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be using a rather narrow def of the North, excluding West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and anything west of Iowa. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right that most Western states had anti-intermarriage laws, but all Northern states except Indiana did not after 1887. And Yes, when I'm talking about the Northern U.S. I mean Iowa, Minnesota, and all the U.S. states east of them that were free states right before the U.S. Civil War. I'll look at your Jim Crow law link in a minute. Futurist110 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

By that definition, California appears to be a "Northern state", but it had such a law significantly after 1887 (though this is something I've just learned). --Trovatore (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo--I meant states east of Minnesota and Iowa. Futurist110 (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Manson-Nixon line at 07:53. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sumerian burial

Why did the Sumerians and other Mesopatamian people go to trouble of burying their kings and queens with slaves, musical instruments and other grave goods, as in the case of Queen Puabi, if their belief was that the underworld was a place where all men go regardless of rank to suffer a dreary existence in which they "...dwell in total darkness, Where they drink dirt and eat stone, Where they wear feathers like birds"[24]? In made since with Egyptian burials since their outlook on the afterlife was one of eternal paradise, but it doesn't make sense for the Sumerians have such lavish burial practices.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The text you quote is dated 600 years after Puabi (and it's possible that it used some poetic license as well). I think it's too simplistic to suppose all of Sumerian and Akkadian civilization had a single unified belief system regarding the afterlife during all of their existence. There's also a lot we don't know about them and probably will never know. It's quite possible that Puabi's burial reflected a view of the afterlife similar to that found in Egypt. - Lindert (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an article called "Was Dust Their Food and Clay Their Bread?", by Caitlín E. Barrett, [25] which was published in the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. It discusses this exact problem in great detail for about 60 pages.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Canada severs ties with Iran, where to put this

Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats "Canada has closed its embassy in Iran, effective immediately, and declared personae non gratae all remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada," "Canada’s position on the regime in Iran is well known. Canada views the Government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today."

The statement cited Iran's support for the Assad regime in Syria and failure to comply with UN resolutions on its nuclear program, and its threats against Israel. AmericanMarinee (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How about Canada-Iran relations... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Iranian embassy in Canada up to no good ?

The first link above contains this quote:

"It is completely inconsistent with any diplomatic mission for the Iranian mission in Ottawa to interfere in the liberties that [Iranian-Canadians] enjoy in Canada. Any police organization will certainly take a look at any serious allegations that are raised in terms of their conduct."

What are these "serious allegations" ? StuRat (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote does not actually say that there have been any serious allegations but that if there are any the police force will look into it. If there had been some I think he would have said something like "the police forces are looking into a serious allegation that has been made about the diplomatic mission". CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, but that isn't the type of thing one brings up in a vacuum. It's rather like saying "if anybody from Poland attempts to assemble a nuclear weapon here, the police will investigate". StuRat (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the government doesn't want to say exactly which cookie jar they caught the Embassy's hand in for national security reasons. We may find out eventually, but I wouldn't exactly hold my breath waiting for an explanation. I'm actually impressed by Baird's actions and choice of words here. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at the second and fourth paragraphs of the section, " "Obviously we're concerned by some of the reports that we've heard," Baird said." It seems to indicate that some sort of report has been made, but I suspect there is also a bit of tough talking here. I notice too that he says "Any police organization" which could mean the Ottawa Police Service or any other of Canada's police forces. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Embassy / mission

What is it with Canadian government talking about missions rather than embassies? Are these synonyms or is there a subtle difference (possibly a leftover from Canada's status as a British dominion)? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The mission refers to the group of people that have been sent to the country. Technically, embassy means the same thing, but it is often used these days to refer to the building housing the mission. Since they want to talk about the people, not the building, it is less ambiguous to say "mission". (See diplomatic mission, to which embassy is a redirect.) --Tango (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Canada does not solely have embassies abroad, but also high commissions (in Commonwealth countries) and consulates. Mission (short for diplomatic mission) is the all-encompassing term. --Xuxl (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think consulates are a type of mission. They don't have a diplomatic role. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Who's militarily stronger?

Canada or Australia? AmericanMarinee (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

By which criteria? Total forces strength? Weaponry? Canadian Forces indicates that Canada has 68,250 active duty military, with an additional 45,000 or so in reserve. The Australian Defence Force has 59,023 active duty personel, with another 44,000 or so on some sort of reserve. So the Canadian military is slightly larger. Raw troop numbers aren't always the best measure however, so you'd also need to know what sort of equipment each nation uses. --Jayron32 15:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What about their weaponry, Navy, Air Force and Army, who's more modern? Thank you. AmericanMarinee (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably tough to say. We have articles titled Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy, List of modern Canadian Army equipment, List of infantry weapons and equipment of the Canadian military, List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force all for Canada and List of current ships of the Royal Australian Navy, Weaponry of the Australian Army, and List of current Royal Australian Air Force aircraft for Australia. You can research from there and draw your own conclusions as to who has the better equipment. --Jayron32 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a really interesting question. Yes measures vary, but are they so close that you can't make an informed conclusion about which? If you had to ask who's military was stronger, the U.S. or Mongolia, I think you'd have an easy time answering. This is the same thing, just a bit tougher. It's tough because they're pretty close to being equal. And they both have the assumed support of the U.S. and the U.K., which are the #1 and #4 spenders on military. I'd gander that money spent is probably the best measure. On that metric Australia spends slightly more than Canada, both in GDP and real terms. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess we can't really know until they have a war. Shall we get on that? CambridgeBayWeather, I hear that JackOfOz thinks hockey is not really a sport. HiLo48, Bielle told me that Aussie beer is the worst in the world. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My bets are on the Aussies, howevermuch the Canadians deserve out thanks for the Iranian Hostage Crisis. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be watching for moral support from the Queen of Australia. I'm sure the Canucks would be looking to the Queen of Canada. Those 2 old queens ought to have it out between themselves and tell us who won, and save us all a whole lot of grief. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly be tricky for the UK if they ever came to blows, as we are obliged to defend both of them if they ever came under attack - Canada through NATO and Australia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements (besides the moral imperative - blood being thicker than water and all that). We'd probably just have to declare war on ourselves. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Back in the day the US would have bought the one, and annexed the other. Nowadays our head of state would probably bow to each, offer an apology, and grant them amnesty should they want to apply for foodstamps. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If the Aussies were to invade, we would fight in the offices, we would fight around the desks and in the conference rooms. We would never surrender, unless it were done in triplicate with the proper forms.[26] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Where's the "like" button on this thing? --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The template {{RD-best}} assigns a star. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Seperate civilian and military departments for national defense

Some countries have two separate departments tasked with national defense, a civilian one and a military one. Australia (Australian_Defence_Force,Department_of_Defence_(Australia) and Canada (Canadian_Forces,Department_of_National_Defence_(Canada)) are examples of this. While other countries (US for example) have a unitary department for defense. Is there a common name for these two types of arrangements? A8875 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if there is a distinct name for this, but the relevant article is Civilian control of the military. To me that's the real question — is the military independent of civilian authority or is it subservient to it? I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian and Australian examples, but I wonder where they fall on this spectrum. I suspect they aren't that different, in practice, from a US-style arrangement. This is in contrast with places where the military exerts much more power over all matters of state policy (e.g. Pakistan). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that nations with smaller military budgets also have a plan to use civilians for defense in the case of invasions, while, in the US, the large standing military makes that unnecessary, and the military structure reflects that difference. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a closely related concept to what the OP is asking about is Gendarmerie, which is, like the examples cited above, a hybrid military/police force. --Jayron32 18:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that really different from the US? "Canadian Forces" is essentially just the army, navy, air force, etc combined into one command. They are still separate from the government department, like in the US. The Minister of Defence is always a civilian cabinet minister (well, except that one time, briefly during WWII). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Australia doesn't have 2 separate "departments" either, unless the OP is using that word in a generic sense. The Australian Defence Force is exactly like the Canadian Forces, a blanket term to cover the Army, Navy and Airforce, that is, the people who actually go out and defend the country and are prepared to die in the attempt. The chiefs of each arm are all senior serving officers, as is the Chief of the Defence Force, who oversees the entire shebang. There are also a small number of civilians involved. The Department of Defence is the bureaucratic arm of the Australian Government that deals with all defence-related matters. It is staffed mainly by civilians, and a civilian is the Secretary (= CEO) of the Department of Defence. The Secretary of the Defence Department and the Chief of the Defence Force both have input into government defence policy. They both take their orders directly from the government. In that sense we have 2 "departments", but only one of them is called a "department". (Once upon a time, we had 5 separate bureaucratic departments dealing with defence: the Department of Defence, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Air*, and the Department of Supply. But wiser heads prevailed and they were unified. PS. * No, not the Department of the Airforce, but the Department of Air. Weird.) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant it in the generic sense, as in "an administrative subdivision". A8875 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of a tangent, but many militaries have dual-roles depending on circumstances. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard is a civilian civil defense department during peace, but a military arm during war. Similarly the National Guard (and state equivalents) have large civilian roles during peacetime. I believe the rules of war also reflect this distinction somewhat by drawing some nuanced distinctions between law enforcement and military personnel during war. Shadowjams (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The United States Department of Homeland Security and the United States Department of Justice are both civilian departments responsible for national defense. The United States Coast Guard and the FBI are defense agencies. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Status of the princesses of Japan

In the article Emperor of Japan, there a lot of information about the marriage of emperors and crown princes, and about which brides were considered to be suitable for them to marry, but I can find no information about the Imperial princesses (nor about the younger princes not being heirs to the throne either, but that is a different matter), and I am curious to find that out. Which status did the Japanese princesses have? did they have any role to play in the court? Where they secluded, or allowed to meet men? Did they marry, or where they expected not to? If they did, which partners where considered suitable for them? Only relatives? Did they keep their status as royals after marriage to a non-royal man? Perhaps it is different depending on which time period: I am very curious about the early modern age. Thank you Neptunekh2 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 17:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure of Japan specifically, but in cultures with a patrilineal monarchy, royal princesses were frequently married off to royalty in other kingdoms in order to cement diplomatic bonds. They often had no choice in who they married and dating would be strictly forbidden. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Japanese princesses were either forbidden to marry or married off to a member of one of Japan's princely families, depending on circumstances. There was essentially no marriage of any kind between the Imperial family and non-Japanese. And generally the women/girls had no say in it. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As for general information, see these. Imperial House of Japan, Sayako Kuroda, and individual princess articles.[27] and [28]. They are not secluded and, of course, they are allowed to meet men. Princess Mako of Akishino was found drinking when she was under age. See these. [29] and [30]. Oda Mari (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Changing course of the river Thames over the last 1000 years

Hi, I'm looking to find some resources that (accurately and scientifically) give the changing course / basin profile of the River Thames over the last 1000 years. Human impact has made a great difference to how and where it runs. Marshes have been drained, side channels built, land reclaimed. Any links appreciated. Cheers. Span (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You've asked the question once already at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Changing_course_of_the_river_Thames_over_the_last_1000_years. Please keep this all in one place. --Jayron32 19:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You were told to ask here. I wouldn't have given that advice to you, but as someone did, we'll just leave this here. Whatever. --Jayron32 19:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Had you said the past 2000 years, I would be able to suggest The Thames through time: the archaeology of the gravel terraces of the upper and middle Thames : the early historical period, AD 1-1000. I haven't read it myself but the blurb says it gives a "summary of evidence for the character of the river and the vegetation and environment of its floodplain [...] followed by a detailed account of the evolving settlement pattern as currently understood from archaeological evidence."

Wrong time period notwithstanding, is this along the right lines? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in detailed profiles of a specific area, rather than the whole basin, there's some excellent and intriguing maps in Oxford before the University (Oxford Archaeology, 2003; ISBN 0947816755). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

2000 years is great. The Thames through time seems just the thing. I'll get it. I was hoping to find some online maps of the changing topography, figuring such things must exist somewhere. If not, it they certainly should - it would be a great resource. On a slight tangent - do you know if Googlemaps (or other public mapping/satellite data services) hold historical data for online public searching (satellite, Google Earth..)? It seems this would be a great way to track changing topography, over time, into the future. Thanks very much. Span (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For London specifically (although somewhat more recently, in the past few hundred years), you could look at the Thames Embankments. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Thames through time and Oxford before the University are both part of the Oxford Archaeology Thames Valley Series. Other books in the series are listed here - you might find something interesting among them. I notice there's also a forthcoming book which seems to be the sequel to The Thames through time: The Thames Through Time: Human occupation to 1500 BC, which focuses on the next 500 years.

You asked about historic maps and images. The Thames Discovery Programme looks a good place to start, with links to old OS maps and other works including Charles Booth's Poverty map, albeit concentrating on London as a whole rather than the Thames itself.

Finally any discussion about the Thames and its changing role in the city has to mention Sir Joseph Bazalgette, probably the man who had the greatest single impact on the river. There are plenty of biographies available, each taking a different view of his life and work. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As this site shows, meaningful maps are a product of the last 500 years. By comparing the maps linked therein, you may get an idea of how things have changed over that time, but I wouldn't count on the accuracy of the older maps. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Bazalgette is a key article for you. --Dweller (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's yet mentioned Joseph Bazalgette. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

September 8

Societies/Countries with Voluntary Child Support

Have there been any countries and/or societies throughout history that gave men (or at least most men) the choice to opt-out of forced child support payments? Futurist110 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It would not be "forced" child support if the non-custodial parent had a choice. A choice to "opt out" wouldn't be much help to the children involved, would it? It may be that I don't understand the question. A non-custodial parent in Canada can give up some/all rights to his/her children in return for making less/no further payments in respect of their care, but that is a matter of contract between the parents. If the custodial parent agrees, the non-custodial parent can cease making payments and still have full parental rights, but the choice is controlled by the custodial parent. Am I anywhere in the neighbourhood of your question? Bielle (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't debating the merits of allowing men to opt-out of child support (though if you want to do that, I can have an e-mail debate with you on this). I don't think you quite understood my question--I was asking whether there were any cultures, countries, or societies that allowed men to unilaterally say, "I don't want to pay any child support or to have any parental rights", and let them opt-out of child support and parental rights without the consent of anyone else. Futurist110 (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Forced child support is a rather modern phenomenon. Until this last century men almost invariably got custody, were their wives even able to divorce them. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't appear to have anything of quality on this. The article child custody is a joke so far as its recentism. Then there's paterfamilias. Nothing in between I see. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What if the man 100+ years ago didn't want custody of his children (or what if he got a woman pregnant while she and he were unmarried)? Would he still be forced to pay child support? Also, my parents have speculated that men might have been able to legally opt-out of forced child support payments in the USSR, but I'm unsure about this. Does anyone know more about child support in the USSR? Futurist110 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have an example from 102 years ago. My grandmother was born out of wedlock, in British-ruled Ireland, in 1910. Her biological father did a bunk to Canada (as did several other members of his family, apparently for similar reasons). Based on other examples of pre-marital pregnancy in my family tree, I believe if he'd stayed, social pressure would have required him to "do the right thing" and marry my great grandmother - child support from an absentee father, legally required or voluntary, seems to have been unheard of. He only got out of it by travelling halfway across the world. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a Sudanese friend who is kind of shocked at the idea of forced child support. The idea that he (or anyone) would even have to be forced to do such a thing was a bit insulting to him. Wrad (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, because after you've ejaculated, your responsibility is done... --Jayron32 03:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This might be a bit off-argument, but consent to ejaculation/sex does not equal consent to paying child support. Thus, there actually are some people who support a man's right to choose. Futurist110 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for this interjection. However, if you are an American, Futurist110, provisions of the 14th Amendment have led the courts consistently to the opposite opinion. From the article linked:

In one of the first cases to discuss the issue, Stephen K. v. Roni L., 105 Cal. App. 3d 640, 164 Cal. Rptr. 2d 618 (1980), the court held that the father's argument that he should not have to pay child support because his partner lied about contraception was nothing more than a request for court supervision of the promises made between the parties in the bedroom concerning their private sexual conduct. The court further opined that since no method of birth control is 100% effective, if the man had wished that his conduct not result in pregnancy, he could have taken precautionary measures regarding birth control regardless of the representations made to him. In essence, the constitutionally protected right to privacy includes the right of an individual to be free from unwarranted governmental interference into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, but it does not extend to the right to avoid child support obligations once a child has resulted. Bielle (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of what American courts have ruled on this issue (including male victims of rape to pay child support). However, I don't find their argument convincing when it comes to this, especially considering that a similar argument could be used to deny raped women abortions if one draws the line that defines personhood at a different stage of human development. Also, their argument is logically inconsistent because parents could put their children in an orphanage and theoretically those children could stay there for 18 years and continuously be miserable. However, I do know of a better argument to force men to pay child support in all cases except rape (a man/boy being raped by a woman). If you want to discuss this issue with me further and debate the merits of various positions on this (or other) issues, I'd be more than happy to have a Wikipedia e-mail conversation with you. :) Futurist110 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Wrad's Sudanese friend meant that he was insulted that he would have to be forced to pick up his obligations because he would, as a matter of course, do the responsible thing by his children. That's the way I read it, anyway. Bielle (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jayron. He was shocked at the very thought that anyone would abandon their kids like that. And insulted by the fact that the government assumed he had to be forced to pay. Wrad (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted. You're quite right, of course, as is your friend. --Jayron32 03:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

He said in his society, if a man did such a thing, everyone would know it and it would be a great shame to him. Wrad (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet his society has no problem executing gays. Futurist110 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does have a problem with that. He is from South Sudan, where there is no death penalty for homosexual acts. (There sure is a lot of prejudice in this thread! Can we hold off on jumping to conclusions, here?) Wrad (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, you should have said South Sudanese rather than Sudanese. Anyway, homosexuality is still illegal in South Sudan and is punishable with a large penalty. For the record, you're the one who started talking about South Sudanese morals. Futurist110 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Wrad didn't start to talk about Sudanese morals, except as a direct response to your initial question. He gave you an example of a society where social pressure, not law, would "force" a father to support his children. It is thus voluntary, but only in so far as the father does not care about what his society thought of him. It is not a method that would work in most western countries where one can just move a few blocks away, and be anonymous. (How you jumped from here to the treatment of homosexuals, I don't know.) Bielle (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As to Futurist110's question about 100 years ago, I don't think that the concept of child support existed as a legal matter, or not in Canada, at any rate. In some social circles, failing to support your children might make the father persona non grata among his friends, but that was not a legal issue. Under the law, or at least under the law as it was then enforced, men did pretty well what they wanted with their women and their children in or out of wedlock. It was only in 1929, less than a hundred years ago, that women were granted status as "persons" under the law of Canada. Prior to that, they could be punished under the law but were granted none of its rights or benefits. It is only relatively recently, in historical terms, that the pendulum has begun to move back the other way. Bielle (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Futurist110 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Back in the day, Futurist, the father could send his children to a work house or give them up to an orphanage or even comprachicos if he didn't wish to support them, or give them to whomever would take them. I am surprised you are not familiar with Dickens. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Parents can still send their children to orphanages today. Futurist110 (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No one denied that. See safe-haven laws μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not so easy, Futurist. With both parents' consent, they can of course give the child up for adoption to anyone who wants the child, provided the recipient can legally take custody under state law. But except under the specific conditions of a safe-haven law, and other laws that handle situations in which the parents are not financially/physically/emotionally capable of caring for a child, you can't simply drop your kid off somewhere for the state to take care of him. Or, well, you can, but it's a crime. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait--so parents can't just drop their children off at orphanages? Futurist110 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Under the safe haven law, which varies in the US from state to state, you can drop your child off at a police station or hospital only if they are under a certain age. This is to discourage frightened teenage mothers from simply tossing their babies in a dumpster. Beyond the cutoff age, doing such a thing is punishable as child abandonment. Whether and how child abandonment is punishable varies significantly between states. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the unwilling mother simply get an abortion if she doesn't want the offspring, though? Also, has this law actually saved any lives? You would think that women would be afraid of prosecution if they simply kill or abandon their babies right after they are born, since isn't it easy to use DNA testing to determine the infant's mother and then prosecute her? Also, wouldn't allowing women to simply drop off their offspring at police stations and hospitals be a violation of the father's parental rights if he wants to raise the child himself? Futurist110 (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The laws weren't written for mothers who don't want their child, but for mothers who are afraid of anyone knowing they're pregnant. Mostly teenage mothers. People who may be either afraid or embarrassed to visit an abortion provider, especially in states where doing such a thing is not trivial. Basically, women who are more afraid of their parents than the police. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And of course there are safe-haven laws. I am surprised no one has mentioned that. What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!? μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

DNA comparisons, TV shows notwithstanding, are only useful if you have a small group of mothers against which to compare the the baby's sample. For example, when multiple mothers claim a child , the mistaken ones can be weeded out by this process. However, one baby and a city full of potential mothers is not a practical situation in which to make comparisons, and is expensive as well. As for getting an abortion, this is a possible solution for those of legal age, who know their own mind about the matter (and this is not a simple issue to start and is made more complex by the pregnancy hormone rush), who have no religious or other scruples against taking such a step, who are sufficiently competent to understand that there is such a service and to find and use it and who have the money for the procedure. In any other set of circumstances, the mother needs the co-operation of others and that may not be available. In other circumstances, women give birth and do not discover until afterwards (or the authorities decide for them), sometimes as late as years afterwards, that they are not capable of parenting. Having a baby sounded like a good idea; the reality was not.

As for the father's rights in an abandoned child, the authorities would first have to be able to identify him. This may not be a trivial search, especially if the mother does not know for certain or is afraid to tell. The assumption (possibly in error) would be that, for a mother to get to the stage of abandoning her baby/child, there can have been no father available. Bielle (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If a woman discovers years afterwards that she doesn't want the child, isn't it too late for her to leave her child at a police station or a hospital? I mean, safe haven laws only work for a very short amount of time. Also, if a county has a national DNA database where everyone has their DNA in it, then it would be very easy and quick to determine an abandoned baby's paternity. Also, doesn't it take very long right now and cost a huge amount of money to determine the parents of an abandoned child over the age that safe-haven laws can be applied? Futurist110 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

DNA databases for people who have not been arrested do not exist and ones that include people who have been arrested but not convicted are not common. As others have said repeatedly, these new born abandonments are done because of fear regarding their community's reaction, not simply because the mother doesn't want the child. Determining the parents of an abandoned newborn and an abandoned child who is several years old are a completely different matter and it has little to do with DNA. Abandoning a young child involves the complicity of all the mother's relatives and friends who know this child exists. It isn't easy to do and if it is done, the mother's identity is likely to be revealed when people who know of the child's existence report it missing.

One thing I will add about the original question is that the advent of DNA paternity testing and increase in the prevalence of contraception in the last quarter of the 20th have changed the nature of the child support debate and the laws that surround it dramatically. Comparisons to societies of the past are not that applicable. --Daniel 19:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Another reason for the change in laws, specifically the criminalization of child abandonment, has to do with changes in who takes care of abandoned children. It used to be primarily the responsibility of charitable organizations and charitable arms of religious institutions. Following WWII especially, the care of abandoned children became primarily a government responsibility, and so US state governments created laws to discourage the activity, a purpose which was held to be constitutional in Jones v. Helms (1981). And all of this was following a general movement circa 1850 that held that children are mentally at their healthiest when raised in a nuclear family, an opinion that was notably promoted by Theodore Roosevelt, and led rise to the Orphan Train. Prior to the Orphan Train's appearance in the US, unwanted children either found themselves in private orphanages or simply lived homeless on the streets. If you want to go even further back, say to medieval times, you had the Visigothic Code, under which children were basically treated like trash. You don't want your kid? Just leave him outside. You found a kid outside? Congratulations! He's yours. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Liberal nation

What makes a nation liberal? The Netherlands has been claimed by political analysts as the most liberal nation in terms of legalizing same-sex marriage, euthanasia, use of cannibals, and sex tourism. If not, which other nations has claimed as the most liberal nation in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.66.58 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean "legalizing the use of cannabis", not "cannibals". - Lindert (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that a national being liberal in the modern sense would be having the greatest amount of socially liberal laws. I think that some other Western European countries are very liberal, though I'm not sure if any are as liberal as the Netherlands. If I have any errors in my post, please let me know. Futurist110 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, a long history of being liberal does, but, of course, this leads to the Q of how it started in the first place. It might come down to individual leaders, or it might relate to periods of deprivation (starvation, military attack, etc.) where everyone had to cooperate to survive. Religion (or lack thereof) also plays a role, as many religions say there is only one way to live, and anyone different should be punished (such as homosexuals). In the case of the Netherlands and nations further north, they remained pagan until relatively late, and the Protestant Reformation hit relatively early, so they weren't influenced by the intolerance of medieval Catholicism as heavily as those nations in Southern Europe. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Britain after the repeal of the corn laws and Catholic emancipation was the most classically liberal of all countries. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may be a good example of a nation going from extremely conservative (executing starving children for stealing food) to liberal in a very short time. I wonder if authors like Dickens changed public opinions. StuRat (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Liberal" in this sense is not opposed to "conservative", so that's a non-sequitur. Medeis, I would have thought the US in the late 19th century (gilded age) was more liberal? --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, what term do you use to mean the attitude that all criminals should be executed, as opposed to the liberal view that all criminals can be reformed ? StuRat (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Penal philosophy is a separate political dimension. A wide range of approaches are consistent with liberalism, from hardcore retributionist to deterrence/incapacitation-based to rehabilitationist. I tend to take the second approach, myself, because as an antistatist liberal I don't trust the state to get either retribution or rehabilitation right, and don't think they're its proper role anyway. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they go together. I can't imagine a society which both executes petty thieves and allows all the things listed in the original post. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Great Britain didn't have Jim Crow. The treatment of Ireland was, of course, abominable. The economy in the US was freeest between 1865 and 1890 when the first anti-trust legislation was passed, although railroad subsidies were a huge corruption. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

StuRat is a bit confused as usual. The area of the modern Netherlands was Christianized at least 700 to 1000 years before the Reformation; a bit "late" I suppose, but a millennium of influence is rather a lot (there was even a Dutch pope.) In the modern Netherlands, the largest single religion is actually still Catholicism (per Religion in the Netherlands). What does medieval Catholicism have to do with the Netherlands' current liberal reputation? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The "as usual" dig is an inappropriate personal attack. But, leaving that aside, it was medieval Catholicism which was highly intolerant. Both early Christianity and many of the modern forms are far more tolerant. StuRat (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that's not true, but even if it was, what does that have to do with the Netherlands? Sure, the Reformation proceeds from Catholicism...but then what? Do you think the Reformed types of Christianity that the Netherlands produced were happily tolerant of homosexuality, drugs, and sex tourism? What about other countries that are currently liberal and tolerant but are also largely (or traditionally largely) Catholic? Same-sex marriage is legal in Spain, for example. The question has little to do with how intolerant or tolerant "medieval Catholicism" may have been. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What's not true ? In addition to the attitudes of religion towards tolerance, there's also the degree of control held by the Church. If they are the only game in town, then they can damn well do as they please, but, after the Reformation, they had to be wary of pushing people away from Catholicism into Protestantism or other religions (or none at all), so needed to be more tolerant, for their own preservation. Practicality sometimes overcomes doctrine. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands lost most of its colonial empire and non-Dutch natives of its former colonies migrated to the Netherlands. This required the goverment to integrate them into the society.

Does the Netherlands accept refugees (from outside its former colonies) to migrate there?

See Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and her shameful mistreatment. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the Netherlands have guest-workers like Germany with its Turkish guest-workers?
Sleigh (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The Netherlands accepts refugees if it can be plausibly demonstrated it would be unsafe for them to return to their country of origin. In addition, non-refugees can stay in the Netherlands while they have a job there. After having worked in the Netherlands for a certain length of time, they become eligible for citizenship. - Lindert (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of cannibals? Doesn't sound very liberal to me.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not? nobody is forcing you to use cannibals. Everyone can choose for themselves whether they prefer to use cannibals or not. Isn't that the essence of 'liberalism'? - Lindert (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. You've convinced me, Lindert. I've decided to use cannibals to ghost write the next instalment (Volume 9: The Years of Anguish) of my gripping 27-volume autobiography. That's certainly a load off my mind. It'll be available in all decent bookshops, just as soon as I can figure out what to legally give my ghost writers for their supper. Thanks again. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Liberal" is an awful adjective. It has far too many meanings different around the world. It's used as a pejorative in some places, particularly the USA. In Australia, the two biggest political parties are the Labor Party, and unquestionably more conservative Liberal Party. Many readers will think they know what the OP meant in using the word, but have completely different ideas. I wish I knew what we were discussing here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

They gave examples making it clear that they are talking about social liberals, not economic liberals. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think StuRat may have a point in that the starting point was the Reformation (he's wrong about the Netherlands not being "influenced by the intolerance of medieval Catholicism" as they were a Spanish colony at the time - nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition). Our WP article History of religion in the Netherlands says "Because the Netherlands had ceded from Spain over both political and religious issues, it practiced certain forms of tolerance towards people of certain other religions and opened its borders for religious dissenters (Protestants and Jews) from elsewhere, while maintaining its persecution and later discrimination against native Catholics. Descartes for instance lived in the Netherlands for most of his adult life." Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't influenced at all, just to a lesser extent than, say, Italy. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia is a really good thing as far as fascists are concerned, and legal "protection" of gay marriage (rather than the right to nominate a next of kin) is an expansion of the state control of the lives of those who want to discriminate against renting to homosexuals or providing their partners with health insurance coverage. And what sort of sex-tourism are we talking about? The SE Asian kind? Focus on these topics is more a question of anti-Christianism than about libertarianism, except perhaps for the cannibals. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

September 9

Shinnoke and Oke

Why did the Americans found it necessary to limit the size of the Japanese Imperial Family and abolished the shinnoke and the oke families in the Imperial Household Law after World War II? Can the Japanese government in future restore the shinnoke and oke families to their titles?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

With the Japanese emperor being purely a symbolic one following WW2, the need for such a large, extended lineage of royals was lessened. And having an excess of royals supported by the state puts an undo undue burden upon it. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So the Occupation undid it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Computers have apparently rotted my brain. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Monarchy in post-WWII Japan

Were there any plans for the Americans to abolished the Japanese monarchy and replace it with a Republic after World War II since worship and fanaticism for the Japanese Emperor was a big reason for some of the action of the Japanese people during WWII?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there were any plans, but the U.S. figured out that abolishing the Japanese monarchy would piss off the Japanese people much more and thus decided to turn Japan into a constitutional monarchy instead. Futurist110 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, this was considered, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender gave the Allies that option: "The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers...". The main concern was that there might be continued resistance after the surrender. It was felt that the Japanese Emperor could serve a purpose, if he spoke publicly and asked all Japanese to stop fighting: [31]. If, however, he encouraged resistance in any way, then the Allies would have abolished the monarchy. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Remember that by late 1944 the overwhelming fear of the U.S. wasn't Japan but Soviet influence in the far east. It is documented as one of the top if not the main reason FDR/Truman dropped both bombs--as a strong statement to the Soviets that we would protect parts of Asia from communism. By the time of the USS Missouri signing the military leadership was focused on using any and all means available in Japan to strengthen U.S. influence there for years to come, when there is the Soviet bear in front of you issues about some papertiger toothless emperor become how we can use that mean to the blocking soviet end. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it was mostly MacArthur who played the biggest role in retaining the Monarchy in Japan. In his role as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (an article which has a LOT of good information to answer this question), MacArthur was given wide latitude in shaping post-war Japan, Constitution_of_Japan#Drafting_process has a lot of information on how the post-war Japanese government was constituted, and it was basically MacArthur with the big picture, with the actual text left to a few underlings of his. The reason why Japan is still a Monarchy has a lot to do with MacArthur's influence. I can't find his exact rationale right now, but I do remember reading several times in several places that he meant to maintain the Monarchy to give the Japanese people something to rally around. He did wish to build them back up again, and the Monarchy gave them some focus for their national pride. --Jayron32 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Greatest Age Difference Between Meeting a Famous Person and One's Own Death

Jeanne Calment met Vincent van Gogh in 1888, when she was 13. Van Gogh committed suicide in 1890, and Calment died 107 years after van Gogh died and 109 years after meeting him. Calment died in 1997 at the age of 122.45, and she probably had memories of van Gogh right up until her death. Has anyone ever met a famous person when young and exceeded either of these two time differences (between meeting a famous person/having that famous person die and one's own death)? Futurist110 (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that given we are speaking of 10s of millions of people that "met" celebrities at 6 months, 1 or 2 years old odds say there should be at least a few that did exceed it. Since its about any private non-famous person meeting a famous person would we even know for sure about some private person in Iowa that died at 102 and met say Mark Twain at 1 years old? Marketdiamond (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

107>101 and 109>101. Futurist110 (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL your inferring I can't calculate . . . doesn't matter the law of big numbers takes over here, how many hundreds of newborns did Mark Twain meet in the final year of his life . . . Einstein, Jim Thorpe, Lincoln, Genges Kahn, Emperor Constantine, Tsun Tszu, Jesus, Mohammed, Noah . . . biiiiig numbers. :-) Marketdiamond (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Would be interested if someone did find a documented case of it, but the absence of evidence doesn't necessarily prove anything ;-). Marketdiamond (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah let me see if I can find a documented case of it. Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Futurist, what possible encyclopedic resource do you imagine can address your question? Are you afraid we are running out of questions here? Or is this a result of your OR on the weed and IQ question? μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Converts to Judaism in Areas Under Nazi Control During World War II

What did the Nazis do to people who were ethnically non-Jewish but who converted to Judaism at some point in their lives? Were they killed immediately, were they forced to do hard labor, or were they allowed to denounce their Jewish religion in exchange for getting their lives spared? I know that ethnicity was the main benchmark that Nazis used to determine Jews, rather than religion. Thus people like Edith Stein and Irene Nemirovsky were killed despite being Christians by religion. Futurist110 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that "Aryan" converts would be treated as "traitors to their race", so just as badly. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What if they claimed that they were "seduced" by their Jewish lovers and that they were tricked into accepting Judaism and are actually hardcore Aryans (assuming that the converts were ethnically German/Dutch/English/Scandivanian) and anti-Semites? Futurist110 (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In light of what we've been discussing on the Talk page, I'm sure StuRat didn't mean to suspect his answer, but has a good citation he's willing to share with us all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As per the discussion there, I tend to agree with the suggestion to make it known when you are giving your opinion. The "I suspect" should make that quite clear. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "suspect" absolves the referencelessness of the answer, but not its timing. If you don't know, there's no need to be the first to speculate. The question will be here for days. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) That's OK as far as it goes, which is about a half an inch. The OP wants to know what actually happened historically. Your (or anyone's) suspicions will never fit that bill, as they would always need to be confirmed or dis-confirmed by reference to the actual historical record. So why not just go straight there? Imagine a history of a major conflict or major country or time period, in which the author made constant reference to his "suspicions" about stuff? He'd be laughed out of town and his name as a historian would be lower than mud. Basically, for questions like this, if you are unwilling or unable to track down a cite or at least provide a link to a suitable WP article, the only proper option open to you is silence. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If your concern is that I wasted the OP's time, you've just wasted far more of it. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Minorities in France

What are the largest minorities in France? --168.7.238.231 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)