Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 25

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.

February 25

Crosscountry Skiing Cross

Is there nordic cross and skate skiing cross?174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about cross-country skiing (a form of Nordic skiing) and tour skating? Gabbe (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is referring to "cross" as in snowboard cross and ski cross; these events are apparently inspired by motocross, which in turn is inspired by cross-country motorcycle racing, hence the "cross". As I never heard of the two winter events until a few days ago, I certainly have no comment on whether there are any others. --Anonymous, 08:50 UTC, February 25, 2010.

Do you mean Nordic classic style cross-country skiing, and Nordic freestyle cross-country skiing? The 4 x 10km relay (held yesterday in the Winter Olympics) had the first two legs skied in classic style [[1]], and the last two legs were in freestyle, otherwise known as Skate skiing [[2]]. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ski cross and snowboard cross are events. Are there such events that use cross country skiing? And Xcountry is divided into nordic (or classic), which is where you use tracks, and free (this method is the same method used to get across flat land when on downhill skis)

So yes, my question is are there events for these 2 possibilities?174.3.99.176 (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, but maybe if you look at ski-orienteering [[3]], Backcountry skiing [[4]]

or maybe the Loppet races [[5]] you will find what you're looking for. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't exist as "Nordic Cross". However, there are "pursuit" races where at least part of the race involves racers trying to be first across the finish line. Most cross-country races (either classic or free/skate-style) are staggered start, and individually timed (like a time trial in cycling). It isn't always apparent to the crowd who the leader is, although late starters finishing before early starters are obviously doing well. In the pursuit, there is either a mass-start, and the first to cross the finish line is the winner. Or the race may be divided into two parts (eg. 15 km classic then 15 km free) with the first half run as a time trial. The winner of the first half is the first to start the second half, with other racers starting at times equal to the they are behind the leader. (At the current olympics, all pursuits, relays and sprints are run as a "mass-start, first-to-finish wins" race). Still, the nordic skiing pusuits are not run as snowboard or ski cross, where there is an initial qualifying round to determine the qualifiers and groupings for the play-offs, followed by small races of four competitors, with the top two in each advancing. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just read your answer Flyguy which you posted while I was researching mine. Actually there are races which are formatted in the same way as the boarder/skier cross events: 2.5km sprints. We don't appear to have an article on this format! In the Winter Olympics, the men's event was won by Nikita Kriukov (RUS), and the women's by Marit Bjoergen (NOR). It can be either classic or freestyle: the Olympic one was in classic style. I wonder if this is what the OP is after? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guess the OP means skate cross? Downhill skating does exist but it's not yet an Olympic sport. I'd imagine it could be developed into skate cross. --Kvasir (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the OP is referring to skate-skiing, also called free technique. Nordic skiing = cross-country skiing, which is raced both with classic and freestyle techniques. The OP is using "Nordic" to mean classic. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I just added detail to my response. We don't have a lot of detail on the format of the races. TammyMoet is correct. The Men's and women's sprints (and the team sprints) are run with qualifying and playoffs -- the closest to "Nordic Cross", but without the jumps.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

self-determination vs territorial claims

If the people living on the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar want their respective territories to remain territories of the United Kingdom, then what ethical right does Argentina and Spain have to continue to claim the territories? I know international relations and territorial claims are rarely based on morals or ethics, but how (and why) does, say, Argentina claim moral high ground over the Falklands row? Maybe they have been wronged historically, but pushing a claim that is opposed by the inhabitants of a territory seems grossly hypocritical for countries that claim to be democratic. --02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk isn't a forum or a place to post opinion questions. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the question should be phrased as: What have the Argentinians said in response to the British argument that the Falklands should remain British because that's what the inhabitants want? (Same with Spain and Gibraltar.) Responses should be limited to examples or summaries of what the Argentinian and Spanish arguments are, not whether they are right or wrong. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The residents of the Falklands and Gibraltar are not a native population; they are, for the most part, immigrants or decendants of immigrants who have moved into the territory since the British occupation began, and have more of an allegiance to Britain than to the place they live (more so in the case of the Falklands than Gibraltar). Thus, we may feel that they have less right to self-determination than do, say, the population of Timor-Leste. An analogy; you have much stronger legal and moral rights to the house you live in if you've owned it and been paying the rates and taxes for 30 years, rather than if you're a squatter who moved in last week. FiggyBee (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no native population in the Falklands in historical times. The current residents are the only ones to consider. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is the Argentinian government or economy about to collapse again? That seems to be the usual trigger for their interest in the Falklands. DuncanHill (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• By that argument, the US should revert to the native American Indians. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you mean my argument, Stephan, then you've misunderstood me; I'm not saying that any given territory should be controlled by (descendants of) its native population. I'm saying that in case of a disputed territory, self-determination carries more weight if the population predates the dispute. FiggyBee (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Argentinian response to the question about the Falklands, taken from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Relations (my translation, with some dictionary help):

"The principle of self-determination is not applicable to the Question of the Malvinas Islands.

"The specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands is based on the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled their original population and did not allow them to return, violating Argentinian territorial integrity. The application of the principle of self-determination is then ruled out, as its exercise on the part of the inhabitants of the islands would cause the infringement of the national unity and territorial integrity of Argentina. In that respect, one may refer to Resolution 1514 (XV), "Declaration on the Achievement of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples," which establishes in its sixth paragraph that "All intention leading to the total or partial rupture of national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

"In the Question of the Malvinas Islands the General Assembly of the UN recognized this doctrine -- of the application of the principle of territorial integrity by making reference to the interests and not to the desires of the people of the islands -- in its resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified later by other resolutions in (several resolutions listed here). All declare the existence of a dispute of sovereignty and reaffirm the invitation made in resolution 2065 (XX) to the parties (Argentina and the UK) to continue without delay the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee charted with examining the situation with respect to the application of the Declaration on the Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples, with the aim of coming to a peaceful solution to the problem, having duly taken account of the dispositions and objectives of the Charter of the UN and of Resolution 1514 (XV), and also the interests of the population of the Malvinas Islands." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A more nuanced history than the Argentine claims is shown in our article Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And here is a Spanish primer on Gibraltar (in Spanish): [6]. The section on self-determination reads almost identical to the Argentinian argument about the Falklands, referencing the same UN resolutions mentioning territorial integrity and that only the "interests," not the "desires," of the population of a "colony" need be considered. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The first answer was the best one: The Reference Desk isn't a forum or a place to post opinion questions. Thanks, Nytend. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions against the UK over Falklands conflict

Now, Argentina has gone to the UN over the Falklands issue. The UN has asked the UK to negotiate a lot of times, and the British never did it. Why can't the UN impose sanctions against the UK? --190.178.155.223 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions for what? DuncanHill (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For disobeying the UN. :S. Lybia, Iran, have been sanctioned for disobeying. --SouthAmerican (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of the UN asking the UK to negotiate on this matter, but I do know that the UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and therefore has veto power on basically any important action that the UN could attempt to take against the UK. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What's to negotiate about anyway? "Oh, you invaded a few years ago, we kicked you out, yes of course we'll talk to you about giving you what you tried to steal"? DuncanHill (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people think that's quite reasonable, but others disagree. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is really a flame bait question, and I hate to feed the troll. But I will give my answer to the question: outside of South America, few countries in the UN feel the Argentine sovereignty claims are stronger than the British ones. Further, it is Argentina that acted as the aggressor (under a military junta) in recent history, probably to its own detriment (the UK was "open to sovereignty talks" before that time, I doubt they will be again in the foreseeable future). Please see Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, and History of the Falkland Islands. TastyCakes (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also the alleged British invasion/occupation/ethnic cleansing of the Falklands (Argentina's justification for claiming the land) occurred in the 1830s. If Britain was found not to have the right to land they've held since 1833 (and claimed in the 17th century), then by the same logic large parts of Australia, the USA, Canada, New Zealand, etc, would have to be returned to their native populations; the same would also apply in many other parts of the world (parts of Russia, China, disputed border lands like Lorraine or Silesia, land Israel seized in 1947, etc), and you would have to ask how far back it goes - should Argentina be returned to its aboriginal population? This is why the UN tends to focus on contemporary acts of aggression rather than trying to correct actions in the distant past. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole notion of taking land by force and war, should be looked at for international law. Also the "Belgrano issue" needs looking at. Who has the right to the minerals? There is no doubt that Argintine waters come out to an extent from their coast, but where does it stop?

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mineral exploitation is protected in the states EEZ, 200 miles from the baseline unless that intrudes on someone else EEZ in which case the boundary is at the median point.

Nothing to look at on the Belgrano issue, it was a conflict.

And the issue of using military force for territorial gain is covered in international law, members of the UN should use diplomatic means where they are available. The penalties for not doing that do depend very much on the relationships within the UNSC though.

ALR (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

By "notion of taking land by force and war", are you referring to Argentina or the UK? I also don't see what needs looking into regarding the Belgrano - seems fairly open and shut to me. TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is quite a complex issue, but I can try. Oil exploration inside one states Exclusive Economic Zone is permitted, so the issue appears to be where the boundaries of the respective EEZs are in this instance. Argentina claims the Falklands within their borders, so extending their baseline to include the islands, and pushing their EEZ out beyond them.

The Islands themselves are 300 miles from the Argentine mainland baseline so outside the EEZ that would be derived from that. The Islands at the moment are a British Sovereign territory so in the British view the EEZs of Argentina and FI abut one another about halfway between the islands and the mainland. That's essentially the position currently recognised by the UN although through a bit of a fudge that brings in a conservation zone, that allows Argentina to claim a significant amount of the South Atlantic, but not the areas around the islands themselves.

Sanctions are managed by the UN Security Council, a body that has little interest in the enforcement of maritime borders unless there is a military activity around breaching the agreements; an offensive action by Argentina for example, or a pre-emptive action by the UK. Neither are likely, the Argentine Armed Forces aren't militarily capable of unilateral action and a pre-emptive action would be counter-productive since there is no justification for it in international law.

There is a broader issue of self determination around sovereignty, and whether some historical lineage traced back over nearly two hundred years should trump the opinions of the current population.

The whole permits issue is potentially the trigger, all vessels have a right of innocent passage through Territorial waters, so Argentina can't legally enforce a requirement to apply for permits to transit, although they can impose a departure permit requirement on vessels in their port entry points.

ALR (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all sincerely for giving your well learned comments on this issue.

Someone asked re The Belgrano issue; which side am I on? This is precisely the very issue I am concerned with. Why see me on any side? For I'm not in any side. The needless loss of life in the Belgrano and a "sitting-duck" syndrome was in my mind. It is the conflict issues that are of concern. And then the loss of life!

Once again, thank you to all who came in to talk on these issues.

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if Argentina wants to claim their right to the Falkland islands because of early 19th century claims, shouldn't they be willing to give the land they currently occupy back to the Diaguita, Guaraní and Tehuelches? But then, I guess consistancy is too much to ask for. Woogee (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The real answer is based in the fact that whoever owns the Falkland Islands has a claim on mineral rights not only in the ajacent seas but on Antartica, and quite a large stretch of Antartica. It is basicaly back to wealth.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Adjacent areas, yes, but I have seen nothing to indicate that the British tie their British Antarctic Territory claims to the Falklands. Yes they have been administered from the Falklands in the past, but there is nothing to indicate that giving up one would involve giving up the other. The South Sandwich Islands dispute is, on paper, a separate matter from the Falklands.

I would say it is basically down to pride. Pride, and the public support it garners, have driven Argentine governments actions on the Falklands, and pride is what motivated the UK government to go to war and spend huge quantities of money on this economically insignificant rock. I don't think mineral rights factored much into Thatcher's decisions at all back in 1982, and indeed they haven't been a significant source of wealth so far in the islands' history. TastyCakes (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the most recent maps of Antartica the division lines are drawn, according to most adjacent property nations. The people who came in on this issue and show great knowledge of UN law may confirm. You may remember that at that time sovereinity issues were reserved to the Crown and Thatcher and parliament were told not to enter in to such issues again, without mandate. This is as I remember it.

MacOfJesus (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at or referring to. TastyCakes (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica isn't that close to FI, so the EEZs are different. In any case the Antarctic agreement limits mineral exploitation in that region.

ALR (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

All I was saying is there was more than pride / loss of pride involved. Regarding minerals: When there is a global need then laws tend to get changed.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

technical answer

Nations always claim sovereignty over the territory and peoples in their domain. what this means is that once a nation has secured physical control over, and laid claim to, a region - by whatever method - that region and all the peoples are thereafter subject to the laws and principles of the controlling nation. any subsequent attempt to violate that nation's sovereign rule (by another nation or a revolutionary force) is an act of war. There are exceptions: the UN can (and does) sometimes violate national sovereignty in the interests of human right; sometimes states will choose not to consider violations of their sovereignty as war (e.g. when rebels are treated as criminals or when a nation calls its violation of another state's sovereignty a 'police action', and makes no move to actually claim the territory it has occupied) Once a nation controls a territory, everyone and everything there 'belongs' to that nation, and and that cannot change except through warfare or treaty.

self-determination is almost never used to request that states give up sovereignty over people or territory. In general, self-determination means that a regional or native population is given political control over their particular region or people under the auspices of the sovereign state. So, for example, American Indians in the US have certain regions set aside under their own sovereign control: certain US laws do not apply there, and federal authorities are restricted in how they can act on reservation land. However, these lands are still sovereign territory of the United States - no other nation could (for instance) annex a Sioux reservation without it being seen as an act of war against the US. Keep in mind that on the international scene, nations are the only players; 'peoples' may enter into discussion when there are human rights concerns, but peoples (as a rule) do not have a say in what nations do. --Ludwigs2 16:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. What I was looking at is the possibility of resolving land issues without conflict. Perhaps stronger rules of the UN that demand dialogue. But the whole notion of enforcing law is in fact the issue. John Paul Sartre saw a morality based on absence of law; acting freely in your situation.

Thank you for a very well put reply.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been times when land transfers have happened peacibly between nations. The U.S., on several occasions, purchased sovereign rights to territories during the "Manifest Destiny" period of the early 19th century, see the Louisiana Purchase and the Gadsden Purchase. The Oregon boundary dispute between the U.S. and British Columbia was resolved peacably. The UK and Germany agreed to a land-swap in the Heligoland–Zanzibar Treaty, whereby Germany gave the UK Zanzibar in exchange for Heligoland, a small archipeligo off of the Frisian coast. Until 1949, the Dominion of Newfoundland was an independent British Dominion, on par with and equal in status to Canada, from whence it volutarily joined Canada. The Newlands Resolution was a peacable, if somewhat underhanded, annexation of Hawai'i to the U.S. During the 19th Century, the independence of the major British colonies occured by a process known as the "granting of responsible government" or of the granting of "Dominion status"; unlike the earlier U.S. experience, the gradual independence of countries like Australia and Canada occured in a rather organic and peaceful manner, culminating in the Statute of Westminster 1931, which recognized the sovereignty of the Dominions. --Jayron32 06:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To a large extent the UN requiring anything needs some form of enforcement model if it doesn't happen, and that's so bogged down in process that it might as well not bother. It also really needs both sides of any debate to be willing to collaborate, and for a potential compromise solution to be available. Where we're talking about a binary situation there is little opportunity for compromise, hence little appetite for dialogue.

ALR (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You again for such learned replies. No one has mentioned Alaska?

One of the things that come to mind is the Newspapers /Print /Journalism. Print took Europe out of "The Dark Ages"; for the more people had knowledge of what was happening the more public opinion could enforce controle. However, it is a very weak controle.

During the World War 11, Malta was faught over, heavely, as the use of Malta was a clear gate-way to Africa.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread is probably finished, but I can't help post some thoughts. As I understand it, Argentina's claim of soveirngty is largely based on the international laws of uti possidetis juris and uti possidetis. The question is whether these laws apply to the Falklands/Malvinas. There is apparently disagreement over whether the Nootka Convention of 1790, between Britain and Spain, applies to the islands or not. The first (and most important) Nootka Convention can be read at Wikisource, here. For the Falkland/Malvinas issue, Article VI is key. Even though Britain essentially forced the Nootka Convention on Spain under the threat of war, Article VI holds that Britain "shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the [South American] coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain". In other words, Britain promised not to colonize South America south of the areas already occupied by Spain, even uninhabited terra nullius areas. This promise to not colonize applied to the mainland of South America and "the islands adjacent". But the phrase "islands adjacent" was left undefined. I might be wrong, but I think that Argentina has always held that the Nootka Convention applies to the Falklands--they are "island adjacent"--while Britain claims the Nootka Convention does not apply--the island are too far from the mainland to count as "adjacent". In effect, as I understand it, the desires of the inhabitants of the islands should not be the deciding factor, according to Argentina--the British colonization of the islands was a breach of treaty--in a word, illegal. Personally, I think an occupation of nearly two centuries ought to have more weight than a rather odd treaty, but international border disputes have a very long memory. Pfly (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sincerely for this. It does put things in prospective. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Statistics of first names by ethnicity

The U.S. Census Bureau has compiled this ranked list of surnames based on how common they are. The list contains also information about the percentage of individuals with a given surname that belongs to various (broad) ethnic groups. Are there similar published statistics on first names? --173.49.9.55 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Except for Hispanic, all the categories are racial rather than ethnic. See Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

_{I don't know the answer to the question, but who would have guessed 5.5% of Cohens in the U.S. are black? (And that two of them play for the Detroit Lions?) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)}

The categories may officially be termed racial, but I think ethnic may be a better word. I assume that the categorization in the compiled data is based on respondent self-identification. For individuals of mixed ancestry who might identify themselves as belonging to more than one group, I think self-identification may be more based on cultural identification than physical characteristics. --173.49.9.55 (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

But race and ethnicity were separate questions in the census with the meaning described in our article. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Left wing vs. right wing

Germany and Netherlands (particularly Netherlands) are more liberal on cultural issues than the US or UK. But both the countries are ruled by right wing parties. Christian Democratic Union for Germany and Netherlands cabinet Balkenende-4 for Netherlands which include Christian Democratic Appeal and ChristianUnion. While both US and UK are ruled by left wing parties, they are more conservative on cultural issues. What is the reason behind this? --Qoklp (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Left wing" and "right wing" are relative terms. In fact, they differ not only by point of reference, the axes even have different directions in different countries. When I first went to the US (probably in 1996) I was very surprised about employer benefits granted to "domestic partners" - in fact, it took me a while to even understand what that was about. Admittedly, this was at an east cost university - still, in that aspect they were more "liberal" than any major employer in Germany. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Left and right wing are incredibly vague terms (as are "liberal" and "conservative"). It's important to remember that the political landscape varies greatly between countries; things which are significant issues in one place can be completely off the radar in others. For example, you may say the Netherlands is culturally liberal, but - in common with a lot of Western Europe - they seem to be having issues with the hijab. FiggyBee (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, there are far more differences between countries than within them, politically. A U.S. Republican and a German Christian Democrat may agree philosophically on broad topics such as the importance of religion in society and the danger of excessive regulation. But practically, a German or Dutch Christian Democratic government will hold positions far to the left of the supposedly left-of-center Obama administration on topics such as gun control and the welfare state. Cultural issues, as Stephan and FiggyBee have pointed out, tend to be rather hard to compare between countries. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Gun control is an interesting topic which I didn't touch on, since it doesn't fall into a left-right or liberal-conservative dichotomy; liberals (and libertarians particularly) may think restrictions on firearms are a breach of civil liberties, and "tough on crime" conservatives might want to clean the streets of weapons. It is, however, a good example of how political issues can be different from country to country. In the USA, the only mainstream positions on gun control are "no gun control" and "a little bit of ineffective gun control". In Australia, there's been an almost total ban on private ownership of firearms (and certainly handguns) since 1996, and it's now a complete political non-issue. FiggyBee (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You missed those of us who believe the Founding Fathers' "arms" were 6-foot, muzzle-loading flintlocks, and that those weapons -- and ONLY those weapons -- ought to be freely available to competent people. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, the Constitution does not authorize USG to use any technology that did not exist in 1788. —Tamfang (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Figgy, you call libertarians a subset of the liberals. I'm not sure where you are posting from, but in the US, they are considered ultra-conservative. This is an example of the virtual reversal of the meaning of the terms "liberal" and "conservative". This is an extremely simplistic generalization, but, in the US, conservatives are more concerned about individual liberties (hence the inclusion of libertarians) and liberals are concerned with social equality and egalitarianism. You simply cannot compare the political spectrums across these cultural differences (as Stephen Schultz said, the axes are often pointing in completely different directions). —Akrabbim^talk 13:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure many so-called "Liberals" would argue they're for individual liberties too - I certainly would! Libertarians may not be Liberals in the American tradition, but nor are they Conservative (they don't want to "conserve" anything). The true opposite of "Conservative" is "Radical", not "Liberal". Incidentally, the name of the main Conservative party in Australia causes much confusion for many foreigners. :) FiggyBee (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that Left and Right have any coherent meaning, I think the Left is for equality (in some sense; they may disagree vigorously over what's the most important kind of equality) and the Right is for stability. The soft libertarians have largely been in an uneasy coalition with the conservatives against the soft socialists, but calling libertarians 'conservative' strips that word of substance. (Which is fair; 'liberal' once meant 'free-trader' and now it often means someone who wants to regulate everything to death.) To me 'ultra-conservative' connotes pro-war, anti-sex, and perhaps krypto-KKK, none of which describes anyone I'd call libertarian. —Tamfang (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"While both US and UK are ruled by left wing parties". They might be left of centre within their own countries, but I understand that its common knowledge that politics in the US is far to the right of that in the UK. 78.146.70.111 (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to the Political Compass is in order: [7] FiggyBee (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The confusions and difficulties discussed above may be a symptom of the inadequacy of using a one-dimensional (or single-axis) parameter to analyse political thought (attitudes, philosophies, etc). The 'Spectra' section of our Politics article currently only discusses two one-dimensional approaches; Left-Right and Authoritarian-Libertarian; Left-Right politics discusses the hoary historical origins, and some doubts about the modern applicability, of that approach.

"Spectra" itself implies one-dimensionality, but our article Political spectrum discusses some systems of analysis involving two dimensions, none of which seem to have gained widespread acceptance (perhaps they would be too nuanced for the purposes of the mud-slinging that passes for political "debate" nowadays). I see no reason why three dimensional analyses (a couple of which the article mentions) might not prove even more useful - perhaps the comparatively recent ubiquity of computers able to display such arrays might enable them to be explored more readily. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

people will naturally (always have, always will) reduce politics to a single dimension - it's just an abstraction of 'us vs. them' that tries to make it look less subjective - however, the ends of the spectrum (the 'us' and 'them' points) shift historically. the left/right dichotomy is a bit dated now: it had its roots in a populist/royalist dichotomy that later shifted to socialist/nationalist dichotomy, but the current us/them split has wandered into different territory - something like moralist/liberal or religious/secular or traditional/progressive. left/right no longer really makes sense as an us/them distinguisher, though there is a protracted effort on both sides to warp the terms to capture the new distinctions. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

American liberals and conservatives both favor a lot of regulations, just different lists of regulations. Libertarians claim to want to reduce regulations on both businesses and people to a minimum. Libertarian could be characterized as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

eh... speaking in political science terms, the US is a degenerate case. The non-trivial players in US politics are all pro-big-business, pro-military (to the extent that that differs from being pro-big-business), pro-authoritarian, and anti-populist. The only reason the nation hasn't collapsed into a more pure form of oligarchy is that the system was designed to make it easy for any number of greedy selfish bastards to get ahead by banging the populist drum, so populist ideology is carefully husbanded as a political resource for the well-to-do. There is no political spectrum in the US. There is a politically oligarchic mono-party that spreads republican and democratic wings over a largely anarcho-individualist populace. Hobbes Leviathan, with powdered sugar and a liberal-cream filling. --Ludwigs2 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Bugs, I just think your last sentence there is wildly off the mark. The claim they are "socially liberal" is easily defeated because any libertarian opposes "liberal"-identified US social programs like Affirmative Action, Social Security, and gun control. As for "fiscally conservative", I think it'd be more accurate to say that libertarians want to chop the size of government down to 25% of its current size, which goes way beyond the term "conservative". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Wow, Bugs, I just think your last sentence there is wildly off the mark. The claim they are "socially liberal" is easily defeated because any libertarian opposes "liberal"-identified US social programs like Affirmative Action, Social Security, and gun control." - I think Bugs want to say Cultural liberalism, which he mistakenly typed social liberalism. Libertarianism is a mixture of cultural liberalism and fiscal conservatism. And calling libertarians conservative is utterly nonsense because conservatives will split coke all over their keyboards when they will hear that libertarians want to legalize prostitution, or want to remove laws restricting public nudity. Libertarians are for personal freedom, conservatives are against personal freedom. --Qoklp (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Socially liberal in the sense that "you can do whatever you like as long as you don't harm someone else". For example, abolition of all anti-drug laws. That's where the conservatives who like to call themselves "libertarians" get off the bus. Libertarians I've known also call themselves "classical liberals" as opposed to modern liberals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

May I try to answer taking the quetion at face-value. It is a well known psycological phenomenon that opposites attract, in this situation. In England we have Labour and New Labour. When we eventually have to make policy and decisions, without influnces, we tend to be more attracted to opposite! The believer begins to doubt, and the non-believer wonders if he/she may be Godless.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Arbuthnot

How do I find somebody with access to The Times online archive? I am trying to check this fellow's military career and whether he was in fact a general. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at the London Gazette website? [8] This is the magazine of note for the British Establishment, which means that all military honours are printed in it. Anyone who has a Forces medal is in it. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Except Lionel whose MBE of 3 Jun 1919 is not listed. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a mention of him resigning his commission and retaining the use of Major: [9] --TammyMoet (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

An earlier resignation of commission: [10]--TammyMoet (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And here is an appointment to ADC: [11] --TammyMoet (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He worked for the Burial Corps: [12] --TammyMoet (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Was made temp. Captain:[ http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/30894/supplements/10730] --TammyMoet (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources indicates that User:Mirv has such access and is willing to use it for Wikipedia purposes. Algebraist 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You may well have found these references already, but this[13] site says: "Lionel Gough Arbuthnot, MBE. Born Kensington 24 September 1867. Died Surrey 16 May 1942. Educated Harrow 1882-86. Captain, Lancashire Fusiliers; Order White Eagle Serbia 5th class". This[14] site agrees. Looking on Google Books, "Burke's landed gentry of Great Britain"[15] page 25, also agrees; "Capt. late Lancashire Fus." Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I am wonderng how to reconcile those sources with [16]. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe contacting the Regimental Museum for the first listed regiment? --TammyMoet (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... A bit suspicious as a Brigadier-General would be a staff officer, not part of a regiment. I tried Googling "Brigadier-General Arbuthnot" but only got this[17] from India in 1879. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir Charles George Arbuthnot. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's me again... There was a Major-General Arbuthnot in WWII, in command of the 78th Division, Italy 1944[18]. Can't be the same one as he'd have already died of old age! Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Keith Arbuthnott, 15th Viscount of Arbuthnott. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your public library may give free online access for its members to the Times archive. 78.146.242.196 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Political polling in the UK

I'm looking for a single poll carried out in the UK in perhaps the last year on pseudo-political issues, so I can compare them to my own. For example, the death penalty, Afghanistan, expenses, that sort of thing. Most polls tend to deal with general voting intention and perhaps one or two choice reason issues, but not these long-running issues. Anything you can throw up would be appreciated. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can probably piece it together from YouGov, but if you do find anything, I'll be pleased to see it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Try UK Polling Report - for instance, this category discusses polls on the environment. Warofdreams talk 17:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a regular reader, but I didn't realise they archived it like that. Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

a great and effective lie to get someone to stop smoking?

Hi, If I know someone who I can probably pull one over on, and the one way in which I would like to do so is by getting her or him to stop smoking, then can you tell me what a truly great and effective lie would be (it seems the truth is just not enough), that would, psychologically, really work? I know marketers are very effective, and they're not even allowed to lie directly, so with the addition that even direct, bald-faced lying is allowed, I'm sure there should be something super, duper effective. If any adept marketers or liars (you don't have to tell me which category you come from!) are here, please let me know the best, most effective lie you can come up with that will meet my request. Thank you. 84.153.228.193 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell you a lie, but I can tell you something marketers use, and that is to find out your friend's greatest fear and link continuing smoking to that fear coming true. For example, if a woman's greatest fear is getting wrinkles, you can point to research telling her that women who smoke are at greater risk of getting wrinkles at an earlier age (I'm sure there's some somewhere...).--TammyMoet (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Smoking gives you wrinkles, bad teeth, bad breath, bad skin, makes you stink, costs a fortune and kills you. Actually, those are all true :) Or you could show them [:File:Cancerous lung.jpg] (I'm not cruel enough to post it here)--Jac16888^Talk 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In the opposite direction, pro-smoking arguments use anecdotes to fight data. (ie: If I can show you one person who doesn't have all that and smokes, it means that all of your data is wrong.) So, I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence for anti-smoking arguments. If I show you one cigarette made at some point that had, say, rat poison in it, then any data you have showing that cigarettes don't contain rat poison is wrong. -- kainaw™ 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

'The next cigarette could be the one that gives you cancer'. Not forgetting heart disease, strokes, etc etc. 78.147.93.182 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This essentially Christian approach to truth was already recommended by Clement of Alexandria.--Wetman (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nononono, the above doesn't work at all, I've already said all that (including about wrinkles). I need a much, much more insidious and defamatory lie to cigarettes, and something that's effective and credible, and WORKS on SMOKERS. None of the above stuff works on smokers, or they wouldn't be smokers anymore. I need a real, effective lie. By the way I am not saying this is a new approach to truth or anything, lots of people practice it daily (though I assume the people who hang out at reference desks, not so much). I just need a real effective lie, post haste! 84.153.228.193 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Smoking is an addiction. if you want someone to stop you need to get them to stop lying to themselves; lying to them isn't going to do a damned bit of good. sorry. --Ludwigs2 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that nicotine has its upsides, or why would people have such a hard time quitting? I say let the people smoke as they see fit. If they die, there's the old adage by Stalin: no man, no problem. Vranak (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

They have a hard time quitting because they are addicted. The upside to nicotine is that it alleviates the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not read the psychological effects section of our Nicotine article and correct your ideas. Besides, if smoking is so awful then how come Gandalf was so fond of it? Vranak (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely hard for me to tell if Vranak is just trolling (here and elsewhere). The combination of ridiculous logical fallacies mixed with blithely wrong or confused opinions seems a little too calculated. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're just projecting 98, as per usual. Vranak (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell them smoking is responsible for 100% of puppy and kitten deaths in the world. It's exactly what you're looking for - a complete lie that, if believed, would make someone not smoke. If you don't like it, fine, but asking on a reference desk for a falsehood is silly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have some quite legitimate lists of things that are not true, such as List of common misconceptions and List of misquotations; and articles about books on lies that are commonly taught, such as Lies My Teacher Told Me. So, it's not unreasonable that we could cite a lie-based strategem that has been used to influence people to quit smoking. I don't know of any, though. All I would contribute, as a now confirmed ex-smoker, is "The Truth About Smokers":

• Anyone who smokes is a filthy, disgusting pervert who eats babies for breakfast, is personally responsible for all the crime in our cities, and with whom any right-thinking, normal, civic-minded person would want nothing whatsoever to do.

They say ex-smokers are the worst; well, they might be, but that doesn't alter "The Truth About Smokers".  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If the smoker is male, tell him that smoking will make his protests fall off. Deor (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My approach has always been to sit down with the person, and in an objective and friendly manner, help them calculate how much money they spend per year on tobacco products. Once that's established, help them multiply that by their approximate life expectancy as a smoker to get the "bill yet to be paid." Then, you offer them a simple proposition: Quit smoking now, pay me half of the bill yet to be paid, and I'll murder you at the same anticipated age of death. You get all the benefits of smoking (early death), all the benefits of non-smoking (health), and you save 50%! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverse psychology might work. Tell the smoker that you want to encourage them to smoke even more than they do now, because the Social Security system will have a shortfall by the time you would both get to 65, and the more people smoke, the more money there will be left for those who don't smoke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That actually did work for a friend of mine. One evening in the pub, he lit a cigar and told me he'd just taken out a pension. I replied that that was a waste of money because if he carried on smoking cigars he wouldn't be using his pension! Some years later he told me why he'd stopped smoking shortly after our conversation - he'd realised I was right. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Given all the horrible things that smoking will do to you, but your friend doesn't seem to be convinced by, why on earth would you think there is any piece of evidence - true or false - which would convince them? Anything of sufficient power and immediacy ("I have proof that the next time you smoke a cigarette you will die") is likely to be so implausible as to be ridiculous. Can I remind you that, assuming your friend isn't a minor, everybody gets the right to make their own choices, no matter how dumb. Maybe you should just leave them alone. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

the one true answer (as selected by OP):

Studies have shown that the thing that affects people the most in this regard is not their possible deaths, or the possible future states of their lungs, but the ways in which it affects the appearance of their teeth. (One of the better uses of vanity, I suppose.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you so so so much! I gave your answer a special status. This -- THIS -- is why I asked the question. To get a LITTLE bit of information of EXACTLY this kind. Thank you so much Mr. 98. You are a godsend. 84.153.239.187 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to award him a "Godsend Barnstar", if there is one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that his response was not a lie. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cost of proposed UK Identity Cards

How many billions will it cost to implement them? What proportion of the necessary budget cuts would this be? Why has the media gone quiet on them recently? 78.147.93.182 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

According to National identity card (United Kingdom), the LSE estimate the cost as £12bn to £18bn. What counts as a "necessary" budget cut is really up to one's personal political views - according to the Telegraph [19] the total deficit is predicted to reach £178bn - so, identity cards represent (at best) rather less than 10% of the total, but still a significant amount. Why the media are quiet about them at the moment is because they have other, more entertaining stories about politicians to amuse their readers with. Tevildo (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, ID cards aren't on the news agenda right now. The news agenda is shaped chiefly by two factors: events, and how "opinion leaders" try to shape it (events obviously being the prime mover). There hasn't been much in the way of real, news-worthy, events in this space - the home office has a few trial voluntary schemes, introduced with little fanfare and to little response. Things might change if some ID-card related event occurred (some outrage that could arguably have been stopped by ID cards, or some data-handling scandal that could arguably show how ID cards are a danger to civil liberties). Failing that it's down to the news agenda the various parties try to push. Conservative and Lib-dems are against, Labour nominally for, but clearly all three have decided the general election will be fought on the economy (and the usual "the other guys are obviously stupid and secretly evil" line). Nominally ID cards are still Labour policy, but clearly the costs and the increased public unease mean that mentioning them doesn't seem like a vote-winner; equally Cameron wasn't chuffed about David Davis' abortive "big scary government is coming to get you" campaign, and Conservative opposition to the cards is mostly based on a value-for-money objection. Lastly the SNP is (as always) aching for a nice constitutional bone to fight an obliging Westminster government over, and the imposition of such a scheme would be just the ticket (and if Labour does as badly in the forthcoming general election in Scotland as it did in the last election for the Scottish Parliament, it'll certainly lose). Given the costs, it'd be no surprise that (whoever wins the election) ID cards get kicked into the long grass. But whether someone drags them back out, in five or ten years, is down to events. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Felling trees in Conservation Areas, UK

I read that cutting down any tree in a Conservation Area is illegal, not just the ones with Tree Preservation Orders. What are the specific Acts of Paliament that specify this please? Are there any exceptions to this please? Thanks. 78.147.93.182 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Act that governs Conservation Areas, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, does not mention trees even once, as far as I can tell. For this reason it seems unlikely that cutting down a tree in a CA is automatically illegal. However, felling enough to change the character of the area clearly would be. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Check with your local council. TPOs can apply not just to individual trees but to groups of trees, and may restrict lopping as well as felling. You are also required to inform the council in advance if planning to fell a tree over a certain diameter, so the council can consider applying a TPO to it. As I recall, Conservation Area Orders may include stipulations about tree management. DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Part 8, Chapter 1, Section 211.

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and section 212, any person who, in relation to a tree to which this section applies, does any act which might by virtue of section 198(3)(a) be prohibited by a tree preservation order shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Subject to section 212, this section applies to any tree in a conservation area in respect of which no tree preservation order is for the time being in force."

[20]. Of course, if you're concerned with a specific tree, you should seek appropriate legal advice - we're not allowed to give it at the Ref Desk. Tevildo (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Violating my above caveat (a little) - the main act that's prohibited by a tree preservation order is cutting the tree down without permission (emphasis added). How to go about getting that permission is definitely a matter for a lawyer, but there isn't an absolute prohibition on cutting designated trees down. Tevildo (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - if you can demonstrate that a tree is diseased or dangerous (for example, prone to dropping limbs, or obstructing a highway), a council is likely to approve lopping or felling. They may make a requirement for a replacement tree to be planted. Again, speak to your local council for initial information about specific trees or stands of trees, and to a lawyer if you want legal advice (as opposed to legal information). Your local Citizens' Advice Bureau may also be able to help. DuncanHill (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We're straying somewhat off topic here - I'm interested in trees without a TPO but in a Conservation Area. 78.151.155.128 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends. Where I live you can;t just cut down trees in the grassy strip between the sidewalk and the curb. You have to apply for a permit, post a notice on the tree for a few weeks to give the neighbors a chance to complain, and plant a new tree to replace the old one. Different places will have different rules. PhGustaf (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Look on the website of your local council. Where I live, trees in conservation areas are automatically protected.[21].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Even better, speak directly to someone in the local planning department for clarification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To whom should I report someone who has chopped down some trees in a conservation area? 78.146.242.196 (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Each local authority will have a tree officer, or some similar title, probably in the planning department or environment department - but the central switchboard at each council should be able to put you through to the right person, who can then let you know what the proper process in each case would be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Forestry Commission has considerable jurisdiction over tree felling. They're poorly named, as they control urban areas, not just over forests. Tree felling without permission should be generally regarded as prohibited, except for certain exempt areas, see this page. --Dweller (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PhDs in Christian theology

I heard on the radio this morning that in the past people would write university thesis's on theological topics that pre-assumed the existance of God and the correctness of contemporary religious doctrine and beliefs. Do people still get awarded Phds for that sort of thing ("The Number Of Angels Who Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin")? Or how long ago did that stop? 78.147.93.182 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are theology departments at universities, so there must be theology PhDs. I think often they are interpreting religious texts and doctrine, so they are assuming it is true. There is nothing wrong with making assumptions, as long as you make it clear what you are assuming. --Tango (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You can get a PhD in mathematics by writing a dissertation that assumes that the Axiom of Choice is true. For that matter, take a look at the consequences of the Riemann hypothesis. Someday, someone might prove the Reimann hypothesis to be false, and all of that work would have been for nothing! Paul Stansifer 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

These notions go right back to Saint Thomas Aquinas. The notion of how many Angles on a pin refer to the fact that angels do not have bodies. Please see the five "proofs" of God's existence and the five declarations of the Nature of God. His Theology /his philosophy is still with us to this day and reflecting in modern Epistemological thought and movements. He lived a long time ago but his profound thought and reasoning is the basis of so many Schools of thought today. A PhD on Saint Aquinas would be very valuable.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The sort of reasoning given as an example this morning was, as far as I remember: God is perfect. Therefore God never changes His mind. So he only decides once if your soul is damned or saved. So you are either one of the Elect or you are not, and that cannot be changed. So if you are one of the Elect, then why should you bother to lead a good life. But people have the sin of thinking they are one of the Elect when they are not....and so on and so on, wheel within wheel. So do people still write PhDs with that kind of reasoning? 78.151.155.128 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

DD (Doctor of Divinity).
Sleigh (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your statments/question would require a "preformed notion of context" -- in that someone will have had to already take a position in terms of which perspective they ascribe to in order to then answer you along their respective path. There's therefore no real sense in debating this in order to achieve any sort of resolution -- each belief system will have its own belief. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A DD is an honorary degree (I've known a few men who held them; all were eminent in the church but hadn't done academic work to get the doctorates); the earned degree is a Th.D. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people still write that kind of stuff. --Tango (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would theology doctorates no longer be offered? Have a look at this page[22] to see examples of dissertation topics. -Pollinosisss (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but most of the topics listed there are historical, or related to literary or philosophical works. Of course it's not possible to be sure without reading the actual theses, but it seems to me that most of them would not require a presumption of belief in God or any other supernatural hypotheses, which was what the OP's question related to. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Non-historical work seems pretty rare. That's also the case with philosophy doctorates right? -Pollinosisss (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I study C.G.Jung and have written on some of his associate pages. He, I believe, would be of your opinion, but not with your manner. He questioned Thomism, and these principles. So I study both. Yet I can be civil in my approach and respectful to all. No one, you will find, belongs to your School of thought; that of knocking down one form of thought to build up another, for Logic tells us that does not work.

Study Thomism and then study Epistemology and Philosophy and Jung and Theology and Scripture.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is the "you" you are referring to please? 89.242.83.202 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"You" has a name, no? or just a no. It is very had to please for a number! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you, No., do not head the answer then there is no point in answering.MacOfJesus (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)