Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 3

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 3

Ted Bundy Lawyer?

Was he a lawyer?... I think not but when the judge sent him to the electric chair to pay for his horrible crimes, the judge told him he'd have loved to work with him as lawyers. --190.50.125.48 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The article Ted Bundy quotes the judge who said: You're a bright young man. You'd have made a good lawyer, and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. Bundy had been accepted into law school but chose a different path, as noted. Bielle (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

World Series -- 3 losses followed by 4 wins

How often has it happened that a team loses 3 games in a row only to win the next 4 straight to win the series? Is it as rare as it seems it would be? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Never is pretty rare. It only happened once in the playoffs, in the 2004 American League Championship Series. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That was only because the Red Sox wanted to spot the Yankees a few games to make it a more interesting series. —Akrabbim^talk 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

More like a stern, expected but very unwelcome test of faith, to see if Red Sox Nation really, really, really loved them. And boy that 86 years' worth of fatalistic depression to numb the pain that the Nation was sure would strike (2003, 1986, 1975, 1967, 1946, curse of the Bambino, Bucky Dent, etc., etc.) had sure kicked in by the end of ALCS game 3, mixed with bottom-of-the-gut trepidation about Election Day soon to come.—— Shakescene (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's rare in sports in general. It's only happened twice in the NHL, for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite so extreme but in the 1920 America's Cup, Shamrock IV won the first 2 races only for Resolute to win the next 3 and therefore retain the cup (I presume this was a best of 5 series). Similarly in the 1983 America's Cup, Liberty won 3 of the first 4 races (i.e. it was 3-1) only for Australia II to win the next 3 and the cup in a best of 7 series (4-3 in the end). Finally although perhaps not really relevant, there's also the 1992 Louis Vuitton Cup, where New Zealand Challenge won 4 of the first 5 races (4-1) however a successful challenge of NZL 20's bowsprit resulted in them being docket a race win and required to remove the bowspirit and Il Moro di Venezia came back to win the next 4 and the cup (and right to challenge for the America's Cup) of a best of 9 series (5-3 in the end). Whether the loss of the bowspirit affect their performance that much or the poor morale after the succesful challenge was a big factor we may never know. (Some would of course argue that New Zealand was cheating and so should have been disqualified.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite the same but in the same vein - in Football there's a number of high-profile astonishing come-backs. Liverpool fc in the 2005 Champions League final against AC Milan springs to mind (Liverpool trailed 3-0 at half-time, clawed back to 3-3 in a mad second half and hung on to win by pens). Infact see here (http://www.soccerphile.com/soccerphile/news/comebacks.html) for more great comebacks. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Three goals down? How about winning a baseball game after trailing by 12 runs in the seventh inning? ([1]) Or erasing a 35-3 deficit in the second half of an NFL playoff game? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is communism thought to be a bad thing?

The idea of liberty, freedom and equality is in the foundation of every country's constitution. Communism is the first to try and make them real. Why should communism be feared when it's main idea is the well being of the people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.173.237 (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Read Communism and Red Scare and see if you have some factual questions for us. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are theoretical, practical, and historical reasons why Communism is thought by many to be the antithesis of "liberty, freedom, and equality," whatever it claims to be. Read the article on the subject, come back if you have more questions. All political ideologies invoke the well-being of the people as their end goal. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we ought to qualify that "many". Perhaps "many in the US", but not "many in China". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit more than "many in the US". I think an unqualified "many" is actually just fine (even "many in China" probably think Communism is not about liberty, freedom, and equality). It is not the same thing as "most" or "all" or "everyone" or so forth. Using "many" is actually fairly qualified by itself—it is deliberately inspecific. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes even dictators and generals heading army coups say they're doing it to further the well being of the people. And they often mean it too. You have to judge some of these things by their effects. Phrases like Dictatorship of the proletariat might warn you about how communism has turned out. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It put an end to any private entrepreneurship, it put restrictions on personal views because they are "dangerous" to ideology, it always lead to corruption and to exploitation and unavoidably to poverty. It can solve none of the problems that it pretend to be able to solve and it only suggest common poverty. Also, all communist regimes, without exceptions, resulted in barbaric actions. For instance, to solve the famine in Russia, Stalin didn't allow private entrepreneurships or asked for Western countries help and involvment-he just choosed the simplest solution for him: killing 40 million of former USSR citizens.--Gilisa (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are describing Stalinism, not Communism. SGGH ^ping! 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to assume that all dictators get up every morning and say "What can I do today to harm the people I rule?" More likely, in their own minds, and in their diaries or communications to their associates, they claim to be doing "what's best" for their people. Certainly many have excluded a portion of the population under their control as "their people." Edison (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edison, It's not that most of them seek bad for their people I guess, but they also don't have much care for them-more to their being in power.--Gilisa (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edison, I essentially agree with you, I'd just like to warn you that not so long ago Will Smith got a lot of flak for saying pretty much the same thing :) TomorrowTime (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

TomorrowTime, Will Smith, as you know, said something prety different-that Hitler wasn't a bad person. Do you feel agree with that?--Gilisa (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the exact Will Smith quote: "Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'Let me do the most evil thing I can do today.' I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good.' ". To me, that doesn't say "Hitler was not a bad person." It says "Hitler was using a twisted logic to justify what he did." I see a world of a difference in the two. (And before you suspect me of apologetics, my people, just as yours, were on Hitler's shortlist for extermination, and I have no reason to feel anything but revoltion for the guy. I just feel people should be objective in all things - and objectively speaking, the flak Smith got was an undeserved knee-jerk reaction.) TomorrowTime (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

TomorrowTime, it's not a knee jerk, even if it seem like that to some people who do not have the slightest sensitivity for such statments. Usually, evil people do have rational justifications for their evil actions (not always, Psychopathes-and Hitler was one actually, don't need it) -it's not that they have any defence mechanism to protect them from feeling the heavy burden of the conscience they lack as some psychologists who do have defence mechanisms argue from time to time, it's just that most people need order in their life and reason for what they are doing. I do not suspect Will Smith is being a supporter of the Nazi ideology, but his statement was sensless and pointless. What more that Hitler knew that he's not a moral person (infact, he accused Jews for flawing Humanity by assimilating moral values into it).--Gilisa (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To your last statement, there's a world of difference between acknowledging humanity's inherent flaws, and claiming he considered himself amoral. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To your last statement, moral is not a flaw, and humanity is hopeless without it. Hitler explicitly argued that in nature the strong is in control and that "Only the Jews dare to put themselves above nature (i.e., above nature laws as he saw them)". He didn't believe in compassion or in conscience-although he described the Aryan race as decent and etc he also felt contempt to any expression of compassion trough the weak. He also specifically said that Jews gave humanity two disabilities: One in the body (ritual circumcision) and one in spirit (moral). So I can't see how one who express himself against moral so loudly also considered himself moral. And if he did, it was probably in very different essence than the definition we have.--Gilisa (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are all dictators communists ? Does capitalism never result in corruption, exploitation and poverty ? Do western democracies never adopt barbaric and simple-minded solutions ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest reading A Communist Manifesto to decide whether you are among the "people" for whom it would make things better, as it is not good for everyone. The simple answer is that the majority of the world's leading powers utilise systems which they prefer and to which communism would be an antithesis. It is perfectly plausible to believe that Communism is a good thing, many people do and some of the prospects are appealing, however its historical applications have not always adhered strongly, or lastingly, to its principles, and it is an antithesis to a number of other ideas prevalent in the modern world. It is only due to the historical precedents that most people above link ideas like communism to words like dictatorship. There is a vast difference between the theory and previous applications of it. SGGH ^ping! 14:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But "capitalism" is not a system in itself: it is simply how humanity operates when given the freedom to so. Markets are not artificial creations. The basic problem with Communism is simply that someone has to enforce equality, said enforcer must therefore have authority to do so, which already puts him on a higher plane than others - and so the basic idea of equality breaks down. As does liberty, for obvious reasons. The fundamental principles of pluralism and consensual politics that form the basis of Anglo-Saxon political culture remain, I believe, better than anything yet devised - precisely because these principles were not "devised", but arose through centuries of custom.

As for results, though Western market culture has produced some bad results, it has never produced anything like the Holodomor, where a so-so harvest (despite previous enormous murder and deportations of the most productive workers) was turned into a mass famine through murderous grain requisitions, brutal enforcement of these requisitions, and bureacratic incompetence, stupidity, and apathy, to the point where mass grain piles were left to rot in fields under armed guard mere miles away from where entire villages were being wiped out through slow starvation. The death roll is roughly estimated at around 4-5 million inside the Ukraine, and around 3 million elsewhere. And all this in the name of stamping out counter-revolutionaries! Moreschi (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Although the potato famine had some similar elements. TastyCakes (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally dissimilar. The potato blight that caused The Great Famine was something very serious that would have caused severe famine even without the unhelpful attitude (to put it mildly) of the British officialdom. The Soviet famine was purely due to dekulakization followed by the grain requisitions. Drought probably didn't help, but from what I remember the drought did not stop a reasonably decent harvest and in any case was not centered on the Ukraine, which suffered worst. Moreschi (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to this line from the article: Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the five-year famine. I think that makes it a similar situation, although obviously the potato famine was caused by the blight and only made worse by "requisitions". TastyCakes (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a short article on Criticism of communism which won't help. But it has some links that might. There are also some good points at Planned_economy#Disadvantages_of_economic_planning. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the expulsions to Siberia and the Gulags? It's not only Stalinism, those who came after were maybe less blood-thirsty but they didn't give any chance for personal freedom and rights or to self expression. I don't think that the North Korean or the Chinese cummunism do any better. It seem like communism can grow only under conditions of poverty, and while promising prosperity to everyone it only doom all to continuous despair. First, the main focus of communism is on material goods, which it ofcourse fail to provide-then, and because any other human point of view is forbidden, communist regimes divert public opinions by fueling their citizens with patriotic feelings and by terrorising them. As always it afraid that they will understand that there are better economical options under different forms of government, it can't live in peace with non communisitc countries, at least mostly. The nature of human beings is to actively seek their happiness and to engage with new intiatives-but in cpmmunistic terms it mean that X will build a house which is different from this of Y, Z would like to have both sport car and station wagon and then the all system will collapse. So it just doom everyone to live under poverty. Many Western countries have improved social systems, where no one is poor thanks to the rich people-the idea is that the goverment is involved in the market only to the needed extent and do not hold all production means as it's in communistic countries. I do not support pure capitalism on the other hand, it have its own failures-but it still better option than communism as at the least it gives hope to large precent of the population. Also, as communism give people no incentive to work, it must force them to do so sometimes, the rest work because humans just feeling a need to work mostly, but hidden unemployment was a serious side effect of Russian communism. It's important to understand that Marx formulated the principles of communism in times when workers had no social rights or strong associations-so they realy served as an instrument in the hands of manufacturers. But he throwed the water with the baby, and the result is not any better--Gilisa (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hate to spoil a good rant with facts, but you might want to check which country has the fastest-growing major economy for the past 30 years with an average annual GDP growth rate above 10% before you say things like "communism can grow only under conditions of poverty, and while promising prosperity to everyone it only doom all to continuous despair". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gandalf, even you are a wizard, your spells just won't work: I'm very well aware for what is happening in China, but telling the Chinease economy is communistic is nothing then utter nonsense -it does have private sector, it is opened to foreign investments, it does have classes and etc. However, it kept the centralistic form of communistic regime. Its GDP grows simply because it exploit its citizens in the capitalistic way that Marx described and because there are 1.5 billion of them...Meaning very cheap human power.--Gilisa (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see - China cannot possibly be a communist state because it has a successful economy, whereas communist states by definition are filled with poverty stricken, downtrodden, despairing masses. For circular reasoning see circular reasoning. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No Gandalf, because its economy is free and the goverment allow private property in many cases, but not in all. I don't think that you can find one serious person who will call the Chinese economy as something else than a radical form of capitalistic economy. However, there are places where it preserved its communistic form: I have a friend who is regulary on the line to China for work reasons, and she told me that she met there brilliant electrical engineer who hold a PhD from MIT and he was forced to return to China (believe it or not, but I don't know exactly how they do that) and he work there in a partly private company I assume, he's paid by the government about 300$ a month for his work -part of this sum is being confiscate by the government for his rent in an appartment that the state provide him, in a place that he didn't choose. So you see, it's a very comfortable mix of the bad attributes of capitalism and communism. It's complex, but it doesn't mean that it's circular as well--Gilisa (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gandalf, that's just silly. China has just taken the economic prescriptions of Marxism and thrown them out the window, and if you throw out economic Marxism, there isn't much left. Essentially what's left is a one-party state governing a market-orientated economy. They might call themselves Communist, yes, but the description just doesn't apply any more. Moreschi (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most sources (including Wikipedia) classify China as a communist state, even if you do not. The adoption of non-standard definitions and terminology to support ideological stereotypes is a sign of closed-minded thinking. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually know anything about Marxism? No? Because if you did, your discourse here might make a lot more sense. That list, FYI, is a list of states that label themselves Communist: obviously China can be validly labelled a Communist state insofar as it self-describes as such, but technically it just isn't in that its economy does not abide by Marxist prescriptions. Moreschi (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh deary me - lacking other arguments, you now resort to ad hominem attacks. This thread is becoming a crash course in rhetoric and faulty logic. We can only be a hop and a skip away from invoking Godwin's law. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Playing the victim is an old rhetorical trick, but it doesn't really wash. Why not respond to my point? Moreschi (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you don't make a point that can be responded to. You just say that by your definition, China is not a communist state. It's as if you said that by your definition a whale is not a mammal because it does not have four legs. If you wish to use your own definitions then that is your prerogative - private definitions cannot be argued with. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why China is no longer a communist country --Royor (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think that many of the problems of the Soviet Union can be boiled down to two things (of course this would probably be simplistic). First the idea of a command economy, a central part of communist theory that just didn't work. When applied to regular industries, it led to poverty, inferior products and vast shortages in some sectors with surpluses in others. When applied to agriculture it led to the starvation of millions. The second problem seems, to me, the imposition of one party rule. Everything changes when there is no official opposition to the party in power, and abuses are likely to follow (and did, to a tragic degree, in the USSR). Of course, this second problem can (and does) happen under any ideology, not just communism. To my knowledge there has never been a real multi-party communist state, presumably because communism requires such a huge reorganisation of society that undoing it every time a capitalist leaning party is voted in would be unworkable (and unthinkable). TastyCakes (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

People “fear” communism due to the bad track record from communist governments in the past. Holodomor, Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 are just a few examples. However, they are really not communism but more like Stalinism and Maoism. Marx wrote communism, not instructions on maintain government rule by killing citizens. Critique of Marxism point out some fundamental flaws with communism (a very dry read, btw). A quick look at the Corruption Perceptions Index put communist governments generally in the mid-range (Of course one could always argue on the reliability of the CPI, but it does give some really rough ball park estimate). Royor (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Communism does not work because people do not like to see their labors be given away to others. The mindset becomes "why should I work harder when my labor will not noticeably improve the situation for me or my family?" Think of it like you have an apple tree in your yard. The tree and all its produce belongs to the state, so why should you spend time and effort to prune the tree when all the extra apples will be taken from you and given to others who did nothing to ensure the tree was producing well? Googlemeister (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Errm ... because next year your apple harvest might fail and you might be glad to share some of your neighbours pears ? It's called altruism, and is usually considered a virtue. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Loath as I am to cite Rand, she had some rather good things to say about altruism. Randian dogmas apart, collectivization caused a massive slump in productivity across the USSR - all because people were not working for themselves: they had no guarantee of seeing the fruits of their labours - and indeed, come the 1933 famine, most of them didn't. Moreschi (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So why do we need communitic economy if all people are so altruistic? As for myself, I would keep pruning the three because I love it and as for the apples, I don't mind to give some to others...--Gilisa (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to see China as a "communist" country, when it has millionaire and billionaire tycoons and party bosses who live in mansions, and the People's Liberation Army is used to keep the peasants in line when their land is taken without adequate compensation to build a factory[2]. Most of the billionaires got that way through "real estate," which often involved expropriation of land that rural families had relied on for farming, until it was taken by the government for the benefit of the few. Twenty of China's new super-rich have a net worth of $28.9 billion, which is more than 400 million of China's poor [3]. Edison (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, how regimes are self defined don't always have anything in common with what they actually are. You may find many oppressive regimes under the title of "The republic of this and that". --Gilisa (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and by the two general problems with communism I mentioned above, China is increasingly abandoning one of them, the command economy. It is a little unnerving to see them do rather well with a one party state. It suggests, perhaps, that the USSR's most intractable problems (the ones that ultimately tore it apart) could have been caused by their economic follies rather than their political ones. TastyCakes (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Socialist journals and publications in other countries have noted that 90 % of China's billionaires are the children of high ranking party officials. Edison (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not only nepotism, there is also a middle class in China. So it's actually corrupted ex-communistic regime that preserved its centralistic power. The same happened in Russia where after the fall of the iron curtain and the communistic system the state still had all assets under control and all was left to do is to share them with important frineds and Nouveau Riche oligarchs. So, there is a regularity that can descrive the circle of life of any communistic regime: rise-failure-fall-transition to semi dictatorship with capitalstic corrupted economy-? (Western economy?).--Gilisa (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not that much of a middle class in today's China. 0.4% of the people controlled 70% of the wealth in 2005. Hundreds of millions live in abject poverty. An opinion poll showed that 81% thought the tycoons lacked social responsibility, and 68% thought they got rich illegally. The CCP has been described by the Guardian as a "giant aristocracy." [4]. Edison (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa's description is certainly the common pattern (and hardly a surprise, given that capitalism is the dominant international system and it's never going to be easy for a country with no recent democratic tradition to develop one overnight). However, Afghanistan, for instance, emerged with little resembling a capitalist economy, while some other states - such as East Germany or the Czech Republic - left this Stalinist model of government and rapidly developed capitalist economies which functioned in pretty much the same way as any in Western Europe. Warofdreams talk 18:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A glance at this list indicates that China is indeed a place of wrenching inequality. However, I'm not sure its situation can be compared to the breakup of the Soviet Union. The tycoons created then did so by acquiring rights to the USSR's natural resources, namely oil and gas, at prices far below their value. The state's manufacturing industries were not particularly valuable in comparison. Chinese billionaires, on the other hand, seem to be made through manufacturing and land development. You can't just give someone a factory and have them become a billionaire, they have to have at least sense enough to properly operate it, maintain competitive products domestically and internationally and ultimately expand. This is somewhat the case with land development, although of course not quite so meritocratic. But in both cases, they had to make their money by building something, while the Russians made their money by being given something of value. It is also the case that the middle class is expanding strongly, particularly in the coastal cities, which certainly wasn't the case in Russia after its break with communism. TastyCakes (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that there are three main reasons why communism is often thought to be a bad thing. Firstly, people fear that it would leave them personally worse off due to the redistribution of wealth. Secondly, people fear that it would leave the entire economy worse off, because they believe that an economic incentive is the only way to maintain prosperity. Thirdly, people fear that communism will inevitably lead to totalitarianism, or at least a complete lack of democracy. There are other reasons, such as a belief that the world is best off with just one international economic system and that any competitor would inevitably lead to increased conflict, and general propaganda against communism showing communists as enemies of the people or the state.

My response to these? Redistribution of wealth should leave the vast majority of people better off, provided the economy doesn't shrink. Evidence for the necessity of an economic incentive is very weak - even under capitalism, people are often motivated by things other than wealth. Marxist theorists usually call for direct democracy - but given the terrible record of self-declared communist states in implementing any sort of meaningful democracy at all, it's no wonder that this scares people. Warofdreams talk 17:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

People don't need, usually, incentive to work-work give value for their life, but they do need incentive to be productive. Many people, espcially in low administrative positions and other jobs, spend their working hours in speaking with their co workers, on the internet and etc. But they would feel lost without their job, even if paid twice to stay at home or to do any thing they like. Communism failed to give people a reason to be productive. Also, as it was obligated that everyone will have the same goods-communistic industry couldn't be too diversed and became obsolete. However, there are also one good side for communism: as it's not very productive (a side for weapons) it didn't destory the enviroment as Western economies did. When China made the transition to communism it also became the most contaminated country in the world-along with USA and other Western countries. Part of the high rates of pollution its industry produce is a result of obsolete technology of its production means, leftovers from its communistic past.--Gilisa (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Under Stalin, the Soviet Union rapidly industrialised and increased productivity in a way that many former colonial countries with the outline of capitalist economies rushed to emulate. The increase was greatly exaggerated in Stalinist propaganda, and a large part of the incentive given was the terrible level of coercion, but it did exist - and a more democratic state could have brought many other incentives into play. While it's true that choice was hardly at the forefront of production concerns, not every one of these states insisted that everyone had the exact same goods (not least the wealthy bureaucrats, although I guess some of their goods were probably imported from the West). You also give a very optimistic view of pollution - many Eastern European states suffered terrible pollution long before any transition to capitalism (we don't appear to have much on this, other than the weak article on effects on the environment in Czechoslovakia from Soviet influence during the Cold War) - and the Chernobyl disaster also springs to mind. Warofdreams talk 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Every economy must sustained its people. The communisitc one wasn't any different for most history. The first industrial revolution in USSR was meant to deal with the low agricultural product. The second came during WWII when the USSR had a death or life choice, and anyway it was focused on weapon industry. Then it was forced to compete with USA weapon technologies as part of the cold war. Also, to cummunism survive, USSR tried to export the communistic revolution to anywhere possible -for doing so it had to have the ability to provide support to its proteges (one was China, then). I do not consider Chernobyl disaster as an event that indicat the high level of pollution that communist regimes produced, as it was accident and neuclear power is quite clean and safe mostly. However, it may be that on other aspects it produced more pollution.--Gilisa (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the first half of that; I don't see that it contradicts anything I wrote. In the same way as the U.S., the Soviet Union tried to develop a sphere of influence, basing this on ideological appeals where possible, but accepting nations with very different ideologies where necessary, and making tactical decisions where and how to do this. You make a fair point on Chernobyl; although the accident was due to a shockingly low level of concern for safety, similar things have been seen in capitalist economies. Warofdreams talk 19:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Chernobyl had a lot to do with the specifics of the Soviet approach to nuclear power. It doesn't really have to do with Communism, per se. There is no reason you couldn't have a Communist regime that was more careful about how it trained engineers and designed reactors. It was certainly an indictment of the USSR, but not Communism more broadly. Three Mile Island was not really an indictment of capitalism, either, though it was an indictment to certain aspects of the US nuclear regulatory system. A more broad indictment against Stalinism (and even Leninism) would be, say, Magnetogorsk—a desire for heavily centralized industrialization, at the expense of any reasonable health considerations of its populace. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading the above discussion, I think it's important to make two comments about China:

• Its economy grew at possibly the fastest sustainable level ever after it stopped centrally planning it. This would indicate that free market principles are a prerequisite for growth. The implication being that increased wealth-disparity might also be necessary for growth. There are many articles here on the matter including Economic reform in the People's Republic of China.
• Otoh, China also shows that a democracy is not needed for economic growth. A lot of the discussion above about how bad things are in China is quite biased: there are some factual stats here.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I suggest the OP read Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. Quill, ISBN 0-688-06426-4 in order to understand the theory behind communism and its criticism (a much better read than what's on wikipedia). Royor (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To summarize, Marxism is an insular system which does not comport with historical evidence. It is naïve because it vastly oversimplifies the worth of entrepreneurship and management skills. Contrary to Marx, labor alone is not the determining factor of economic success, rather it is innovation with proper risk taking. Marx assumed the means of production just came about "somehow" without serious reflection on what that requires. Marxism is also prone to be used (misused?) as a political power grab - usually by privileged intellectuals, or other elitists promising the masses a new order. In fact, they deliver economic misery, usually with brutal oversight, because of their incomplete and misinformed framework.

Directly quoting Roy Massie, written as book review for the above book on November 10, 2008

I think this explains the flaws of communism as an economic system and why many associate poverty with communism much, much better than I ever can. Royor (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Communism is doomed to lead to despotism as it seek that the state will hold all property and as it is closed to sincere relations with non communistic countries. It's doomed to failure as it break off the natural correlation between productivity and income and it neglect the outcome test. What more that the goverment have to handle every economic crisis by itself. It is not a coincidence that the Chinease goverment changed its economical system after the fall of USSR.--Gilisa (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop ranting pointlessly. And include references to your contentious comments. Unsourced speculation is not appropriate here. Your above comment could look like the following in article space:

Communism is doomed to lead to despotism as it seek that the state will hold all property and as it is closed to sincere relations with non communistic countries . It's doomed to failure as it break off the natural correlation between productivity and income and it neglect the outcome test . What more that the goverment have to handle every economic crisis by itself. It is not a coincidence that the Chinease goverment changed its economical system after the fall of USSR

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, civilised and straight to the point answers Zain Ebrahim! Just thinking what barn star I should award you with.In other configuration I would suspect it to be a personal attack, but you are too businesslike for that. Sorry to spoil it for you, but you are the one who rant. Giving links to wikipedia articles (and parroting what was already said in this discussion) make none of your arguments any better or put any wisdom in them. --Gilisa (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Communism is doomed to lead to despotism" is pure speculation. Gilisa, can you provide any historical empirical evidence for that? Communism failed completely as an economic system both in theory and in history (read above for ref). China is NOT using a communist economic system. --Royor (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Royor, where did I claim that Chinease economy is communistic? I claim the opposite consistently so far and I realy get hard to understand what exactly you want. Second, "Communism is doomed to lead to despotism" is not a speculation, surely not more than most of the arguments on this reference desk and I make it clear that this is my opinnion. Historically there was not even one democratic communisitc regime, infact it's a paradox to think that otherwise is possible when the definition of communistic economy demand the absence of private property -at leat at the level of production means. So your demand for historical empirical evidence is quite odd.--Gilisa (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa, opinion without supporting fact is speculation. If you think any argument in this thread need reference you should, and are more than welcome to ask for them. The claim "Communism is doomed to lead to despotism" - I honestly cannot think of any historical evidence supporting this, nor did I read anyone argue for this anywhere. The assumption of communistic government unable to uphold good diplomatic relation with non-communistic countries is simply false. I'm sure China maintained, and still maintain, good diplomatic relation with numerous monarchies (Middle East), and military rule (Africa) countries even back in the Mao/True communistic era (I can dig up ref for this if you want). Market failure and economic crisis happen to Capitalism as well (think recent US economic crisis). Chinese government switching its economical system does not prove anything by itself - when the USSR switched to central planning way back, did that prove communism work as a viable economic system? Royor (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

All the countries you count for having good diplomatic realations with China back then are not democratic countries. However, I do admit that I might gone too far here. Nevertheless, communist China forbid its citizens to visit in Western countries before its economy became capitalistic. For obvious reasons. It's just that as I see it, you have to force people to be economically equal, it's not just happend. Marx himself portrait two stages in the way to the realization of the communisitc utopia: the first is the stage of socialism, where there is a dictatorship of the proletariat and only after the communisitc utopia is achieved. I realy liked your last argue, because it's a good one. But I think that you can't realy compare-I assume that China changed to the capitalistic approach because it understand that it have a great potential (and indeed, forecasts are that it will become world's biggest economy in the years to come) and because it understand that it will only give it strength and much more influence-something that the communistic economy couldn't give it. Also I think that seeing USSR falling (from economical reasons) consists catalystor for this change it made. But you made the point that Russia made the opposite change (if you can call it like that) -however, while transition to free market economy lead many times to prosperity, I can't find one example where transition to communism did it. --Gilisa (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to correct the OP. The first countries that included "liberty, freedom and equality" in their constitutions would be the US and revolutionary France. So communism was not the first "to try and make them real". I think it is more a question of how you try to realise those concepts. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Athenians of 500BC would have a better claim at that. Not that they implemented it any better than later people as far as slaves or women were concerned. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Markets are (not?) artificial creations

Of course. But "capitalism" is not a system in itself: it is simply how humanity operates when given the freedom to so. Markets are not artificial creations. [copied from above, from User: Moreschi] - I think my friends Edward Teach, Ghengis Khan, Rollo, Jason, and Ugh (inventor of the club, and, coincidentally, the Harem) would be powerful counterexamples to that claim. I'd suggest that markets are very much artificial constructs, and need strong social protections to work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Invisible hand principle is clearly not enough to explain how markets can sustain. However, too visible hand, or state monopoly on the market, mean that there is no economical competition. Where does this leave us?--Gilisa (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Roughly where we've wound up anyway? APL (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, "artificial" does not mean bad. Filet Mignon with crushed black peper crust and Gratin dauphinois on the side is not exactly natural, either ;-). But I think it's important to keep in mind that "the free market" is an illusion. Markets are human artifacts. They are very good at optimizing resource usage, but we must set the proper boundary conditions to ensure that they can actually work to our overall benefit. See tragedy of the commons for what happens if certain finite resources are not properly accounted for by market mechanisms. Or see the currently burst bubble, where the market kept rewarding people for taking risks while isolating them largely from the cost of failure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In the last you could certainly make a good argument that the isolating of the parties from failure was not the market but the government. The market did not say AIG was too big to fail and give them over $100 billionGooglemeister (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But the market rewarded bankers with large premiums if they increased nominal revenue without creating real value. And the market seems to drive stock prices based on extremely short-term vision, not on long-term sustainability. Indeed, our very concept of a cooperation isolates shareholders from their responsibility - you risk at most what you invested, even if the company is liable for much higher damages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, you have a great culinaric knowledge, but it only make my saliva glands work harder (and that's very natural, let's agree at least on that for once) and diverting the subject of the discussion. Also, I'm not sure that under communistic regimes people could dream (and certainly talk) on Filet Mignon. Anyway, I'm changing the subject-I was refer to the tragedy of the commons in specific connection before, I argued that one advantage communistic economies have is that they are less proned to lead to over consumption. If average citizen of USA consume 35 times than what an average human in balck Africa does, then it means that someone exploiting world resources too much. It's certainly a known problem that lead to the fall of civilizations in the past (e.g., the culture of Easter Islands) and it seem to be a problem that roughly all big economies today ignore. Many European countries keep strictly on their deveolped green legislation but send their waste to poor third world countries in the far East. USA president rants about cutting down the use of oil products but it seems to be too little and too late. While you can solve parts of the problems you metnioned ( i.e., unfair rewards for bankers) by applying of strong regulation, you can't untangle raltions between fortune and politics. So while politicians will keep make green rules in one hand, they will sign building permissions on nature reserves with the other. However, the tragedy of the commons is not only a result of certain economic system, but also of modernise production means-if once one was paid X for cutting one tree, today he is paid so for cutting the all forst. As for the nature vs nurture issue, I think that the globalization have changed the extent for which markets can be guided by external regulation (even if stong regulation could prevent the mortgage crisis in USA it still couldn't stop the transfer of much of the production from USA (and EU) to China and India)--Gilisa (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not sure that under communistic regimes people could dream (and certainly talk) on Filet Mignon." Wow, you really have some strong preconceived notions regarding communist regimes. True, hardliners (Russia, North Korea, Romania etc) were/are bad, but let me tell you, I grew up in Yugoslavia, a communist country, and there was certainly no secret police that would spring up if you discussed meat products :) 89.142.249.246 (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't won't to get into the long discussion but I think Zain Ebrahim. Certain groups tend to be fiercly critical of the success of modern China and argue how bad it is. Yet looking at the stats suggests while there are major problems, there have been some notable achievements. Comparing China to developed countries is obviously fatally flawed. Comparing it to India, another large developing country but a (mostly) democractic one, China has been more successful in a number of areas including in economic growth and reducing poverty. India does of course have some degree of a planned economy e.g. they have Five-year plans of India; of course this is also true of a number of democractic or partially democratic developing countries. This is not to defend the problems and wrongdoings in China or of the Chinese goverment nor to argue China is better then India nor to say that the reason for the success of China is because their system is better then India's but simply to point out if you want to consider China you need to look at how it is overall rather then just look at the problems and use appropriate comparisons and approach things with an open mind. (I know some people like to argue India is going to overtake/beat China often it seems to me they're trying to prove the point because they dislike the Chinese system, it would seem to me it would be better to argue the relative success has nothing to do with the system but other factors.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No girlfriend

Have there been any studies that might explain why some people think "no girlfriend" = "must be gay"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.128.188 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, sounds like one of the Heuristics of Social Psychology. Never heard on such study, but sometimes people have other attributes for why one don't have a girlfriend (he's a nerd/wirdow/looser/have bad communication skills and etc).--Gilisa (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

People who label others "weirdos" and "losers" generally can't spellRimush (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only them, but people with common sense and knowledge knows that also many people whose mother tongue is not English (but good for you that your English level is 5 , even youre from Romania and English isn't your native,and that you do know to spell in English and at all-I'm impressed, it's a great achievement).--Gilisa (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There are always some people thinking odd things. I don't think a large number of people think that these days. In the past when getting married was pretty much a social requirement a man that remained unmarried past the age when most people would be married might be assumed to be a "committed bachelor" (which is a euphemism for homosexuality). --Tango (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase in my circle was "confirmed bachelor" and if it meant "homosexual" then no one ever told me that. Bielle (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle called Sherlock Holmes a committed bachelor and Holmes was not gay. Granted he was fictional. Googlemeister (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He was not? Claims who? His "friend", Dr. Watson? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

“Very sorry to knock you up, Watson,” --Holmes, The Adventure of the Speckled Band, page 1 213.122.31.234 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not have been exclusively used as a euphemism for homosexuality, but it was widely used as one. --Tango (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly newspaper-speak, like 'tired and emotional' for drunk. One of those things that avoids libel while still being clear to readers in the know. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Invented by the Private Eye, who know a lot about litigation. Homosexuality is somewhat different, since an allegation is very serious - because it's very, very hard to disprove. C.f. Oscar Wilde. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And, as shown by your link, previously dangerous to dispute (or admit). Presumably the changing legal and social status is why one is unlikely to encounter the phrase used in anything other than a joking way these days. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Watson was happily married, and Holmes was portrayed as pretty much asexual, or at least not interested in romance of any kind. I think Watson claimed that the only woman Holmes ever was attracted to (that he knew of) was one that conned them at one point. He sort of fell in love with her for her intellect or something. I can't recall the name of the story though, I haven't read it in a few years. Other than that, I don't think he cared much for women otherwise, since he identified most of them as having inferior intellect. Of course he thought the same of most men as well... —Akrabbim^talk 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes was a necrophile, he was interested in dead bodeis more than in women (or men).--Gilisa (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no writing by Doyle that said Holmes was sexually attracted to corpses. Can you provide a reference? Edison (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not realy, I was just joking.--Gilisa (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your request will be considered.--Gilisa (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-read Irene Adler. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because having a girlfriend (or having had a girlfriend) is seen as a proxy indicator for having interest in girls? Implicit in the (illogical) jump from a lack of a girlfriend to being gay is an acknowledgement that the person is datable (if the person in question was say mentally retarded and physically unattractive, then I doubt any people would conclude that the person is gay if they lacked a girlfriend).--droptone (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unaware Prophesied Messiahs, Saviors, Redeemers, etc II

I am looking for some literature regarding the title. Something exactly like "The Matrix" --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of the case in Ender's Game. TastyCakes (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Red roses

Hi. I've noticed that recently, several British people appearing in public are wearing red roses on their jackets, like ribbons. I wonder, what do those represent? Thanks. --193.2.5.237 (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

They're not roses, they are poppies. They are part of the Poppy Appeal, which is to do with the upcoming Remembrance Day. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Remembrance Day, and In Flanders Fields for the root of the tradition. As well as in Britain, poppies are worn in several countries in the commonwealth around November 11th, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand for sure, and probably more. TastyCakes (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And in the US both for Veterans Day and Memorial Day. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.196.62 (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, In New Zealand (and I think in Australia), poppy day is Anzac Day (April 25th). Grutness...wha? 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Poppy Day was traditionally 11 November in Australia, but of recent years poppies have been appearing around Anzac Day as well. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Poppy Day in NZ is the Friday before Anzac Day. [5] Anzac Day is the main day of remembrance, although there are a few official commemorations on 11 November, which is known as Armistice Day.
Jack - I never knew that poppies are not traditional on ANZAC day there. They have been here since 1922. Gwinva (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This (my emphasis added) seems to back me up in relation to single poppies worn on lapels etc:

In Australia, single poppies are not usually worn on ANZAC Day - the poppy belongs to Remembrance Day, 11 November. However, wreaths of poppies are traditionally placed at memorials and honour boards on ANZAC Day

as does this:

The Flanders poppy has long been a part of Remembrance Day, the ritual that marks the Armistice of 11 November 1918, and is also increasingly being used as part of ANZAC Day observances. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Playing classical music on the piano

When playing classical music on the piano, are there widely followed schools of thought that there is one and only one "correct" finger to use for each note? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean for specific pieces of music? Different pieces of music will require you to use different fingering in order for them to be possible to play. I don't know if each piece comes with a generally accepted "correct" fingering. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm wondering per piece, as in "if your fingers are presently configured just so and the next note you have to hit is x, use such and such finger" while covering a whole library of common finger configurations. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your general question: yes, different professional pianists do play the same piece using different fingering. A pianist who has mastered a piece has earned the right to play it any way that works best for them, as long it's always consistent with being true to the composer's intentions. A teacher will usually insist that their way (which is usually what they themselves were taught) is the only "correct" way (and sometimes they will have a wooden ruler or something similar at the ready, to be slammed down on the student's hands whenever they use the wrong fingers. Well, that was my teacher's occasional method, and, being fundamentally rebellious, I naturally did it my own way when I wasn't at lessons, which sometimes worked better, but mostly not) Many pieces (including scales) come with the editor's suggested fingering printed on the page; some have 2 sets of fingering, and you can take your pick. Students are generally best advised to follow their teacher's instructions, assuming they're a good teacher and you have a good relationship with them (otherwise, get a different teacher). It's only when you've completely mastered the fundamentals that you should experiment with alternative fingerings (not to mention different pedallings, hand positions, sitting positions, etc etc). Unless you're a genius - but then, you'd be guided by your own genius and I doubt you'd be seeking advice from random strangers on the internet. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "as long it's always consistent with being true to the composer's intentions", Jack. How do you know what those were? The composer may not have stated their intentions, and even if they did, the pianist shouldn't be overly concerned with them. This is essentially the same argument as the one in literary criticism as to whether the author's intentions are available to the critic, and even if they are, whether it is valid for the critic to pay attention to them. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Composers rarely state their intentions other than in the notes and the tempo and dynamic indications. What I'm saying is that, just because a certain fingering may be more suited to a particular pianist's hand or their habit, does not necessarily mean it's the best way of playing the piece the way the composer wanted it to be played. "the pianist shouldn't be overly concerned with [the composer's intentions]" - wow, we could get into a big debate about this, but I guess here isn't the place. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, not the place :) But my point remains: how do you ascertain "the way the composer wanted it to be played", if (as you say) they rarely state their intentions? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good question, Richard. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a bit of information at Fingering. --Thomprod (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Concentration camp

I used to hear that Jews were not systematically killed in Concentration camps, but rather were killed in Extermination or Death camps. But according to our article here on wiki, it states that Extermination camps are a type of Concentration camp. So which is it? Could one say that over 6 million Jews were killed in Concentration camps? ScienceApe (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "concentration camp" predates the Nazis, and merely meant a place people were concentrated together. While some of these camps had high mortality rates (such as due to disease) they weren't built with the express purpose of killing people. The nazi camps weren't built just to store people - some were labour camps, and some were expressly constructed solely for the purpose of mass murder. Auschwitz was something of a hybrid of the two. Treblinka was entirely for extermination (to such an extent that its victims didn't live even a day there). So calling them "death camp" or "extermination camp" helps clarify that we don't just mean places were people were concentrated. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, during the South African War, the British army built many concentration camps for Afrikaner civilians, not to kill them but to keep them from aiding commandos. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, the United States build concentration camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. They were holding them in a fenced area (concentrating them). They were not exterminating them systematically. Concentration camps are no fun, to be sure, but they are not the same thing as places of extermination. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So, we establish that not all concentration camps are extermination camps. But that is not the direction of travel of the OPs question; which was, are extermination camps members of the set concentration camps such that an extermination camp can be described as a concentration camp. And I think the answer is clearly yes. An extermination camp is a special class of concentration camp, which is a special class of camp - all within the admittedly loose definition of all of these terms. --Tagishsimon 23:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two approaches to distinguishing between what the Nazis did to the Jews in their camps and what is often done when you have a camp to hold a lot of prisoners. One is to indicate that the Nazis did something extraordinary by labeling their camps as "extermination" camps. The other is to not use the term "concentration camp" at all except when talking about camps in which people are exterminated—instead, you use a term like "relocation camp". At this point in the game, I would suggest doing both at the same time, since "concentration camp" by itself is vague, and the distinction is important. --Mr.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Treblinka II (and the other Rheinhart camps) was an extermination camp, but really wasn't a concentration camp. The camp was tiny, with no barracks or other facilities for the victims (only for the guards and the sonderkommando who ran the place); people arrived and died on the same day. The article says much the same "The killing centers had no other function, unlike concentration camps where prisoners were used as forced labor for the German war effort." -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)