Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 13

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.

April 13

Birthday and deathday

Does Wikipedia have any easy way to find people who were born and died on the same day (in other words, people who died on their birthday)? By coincidence, I ran across two such people in the past few days ... so that prompts my question. (The two were US Vice President Levi P. Morton and Mafia gangster Joe Gallo.) Where can I find this type of information? There does not seem to be either a Wikipedia article or a Wikipedia "category" for this ... or is there? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

Given that by chance roughly one in 365 people are likely to die on their birthday, I can't see that there is anything notable about this in itself. Not much of a category. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that that statistic is true ... that 1 out of 365 people are (statistically) "expected" to die on their birthday. It seems to me that it's a rather rare occurrence. Maybe a person has a 1/365 chance of dying on his birthday? But, I think those are two completely different statistics altogether. Not sure, though. I will ask at the Math Desk. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

I suspect that if you get an answer from the Math Desk, the rest of us will have a 1/365 chance of understanding it ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. I agree with that statistic! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

It's true. Neglecting leap-years, there are 365 equally likely outcomes. Either you die on your birthday, one day after your birthday, two days after your birthday, etc. (Neglecting leap-years, You can't die 366 days after your birthday.)

With leap-years you bring the odds down to roughly 365.24, depending on when you were born.

Of course, this also neglects the fact that certain days and seasons are more 'popular' as either birthdays or death-days.APL (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Persondata seems like the most appropriate place to point you for a discussion of where we're up to with persondata. WP:METADATA has some other resources. I think I'd have to term what we have in this department primitive, not yet very useful, and largely inaccessible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We did have such a list, but, sadly, it was deleted. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha, figures! When an article is deleted, is there a way to still view its (pre-deletion) contents? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

There must be, because once some data gets into WP, it has the same fate as the patrons of Hotel California - it can never leave. But whether it's accessible to mere mortals, or to admins only, or whomever, I cannot say. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This one isn't on Deletionpedia; you might try the Wayback Machine. —Tamfang (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There are versions in the Wayback Machine. A Google search on "List of people who died on their birthdays" also gives some mirrors. At the time of last deletion, List of people who died on their birthdays had 77 "Verified claims" and 4 "Unverified claims" including Shakespeare. If we consider world-wide (including third world countries) and include non-notable people then I suspect the largest deviation from 1/365 will be caused by infants who literally died the day they were born. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is just a guess, but I'd bet that people are more likely to die on their birthdays than on most other days. It's been noted how dying people will sometimes "hold on" to reach an occasion, such as a child's wedding, before passing away. I'm guessing there are people who try to reach 90 or 100 and are able to hold on until that point before dying in peace knowing they've reached their milestone. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I read a newspaper article debunking this particular myth. I'll try to find it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's been debunked, but according to a 1992 article in Psychosomatic Medicine 54:532-542, "The Birthday: Lifeline or Deadline?" by Phillips, Van Voorhees and Ruth, women are motivated to survive through their birthdays, with their odds of dying during the week after their birthdays being higher than any other time period in the year. By contrast, they found men more likely to die the week before their birthdays. I don't remember if they addressed the odds of dying on the actual day, but their paper can be read here (hosted by Penn State; I'm presuming with license). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Best way to spoil a birthday party I can imagine, particularly a major milestone. I don't know of anyone who died on their 100th birthday, but I know of someone who died the day after: the 11th Countess of Kintore, who was the wife of this man. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

According to tradition William Shakespeare died on his birthday.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question which I have sometimes thought about myself. During the process of creating a lot (estimated guess more than 600) biographical articles of mainly non-living persons for Danish Wikipedia, I have only come across 1(!) person that had the same birthdate as his deathdate. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My grandfather died on his birthday. Sadly, he wasn't notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Astronaut (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Maury Chaykin and Ingrid Bergman died on their birthdays. I don't know if there is a way to do this using Wikipedia, but you can Google "died on his birthday" (or "her") and it brings up a bunch of pages...not necessarily totally accurate lists though. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we seem to be de facto recreating the deleted list, here are a few names from a list I maintain for private purposes: Giuseppina Bozzacchi, Sam Bass, Capt Lawrence Oates, Elizabeth of York [Queen to Henry VII of England], Raphael, King Kamehameha V of Hawaii, Michael Praetorius, St John of God, Humbert Wolfe, Pompey "The Great", Machine Gun Kelly, Edna May Oliver, Maury Chaykin, Thomas Hooker, Sidney Bechet, John Banner, John M. Allegro, Ingrid Bergman, King Henry of Portugal, Sir James Milne Wilson*, Constantine P. Cavafy, Antonio Lotti, Rear-Admiral George J. Dufek, Judah Waten, Sir Thomas Browne, Jean Piccard, Ronald Heaver, George Roy Hill, Sir Lorimer Dods, Karl Erb, Mike Douglas, Flor Peeters, Betty Friedan, Corrie ten Boom, Johnny Longden. (* Sir James Wilson was born and died on Leap Day, 29 February - how rare is that!) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Gabby Hartnett came to mind immediately to this old Cubs fan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also a list at Find A Grave. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And there's one here, though in userspace: User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)/Death_on_Birthday. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks very much like the deleted list. Top marks to Mr Norton for his foresight in saving a copy. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That item points out that the probability of dying on any particular day is 1/366, or more accurately, 4/1461, either way it comes out to .27 percent. One editor said he thought dying on one's birthday was rare. Well, statistically it is rare. Point-27 percent is right much rare. But so is any particular date. What would be really rare is being born on a Feb 29 and dying on a Feb 29. I would think that's a short list. It would be interesting to see if there's any statistically significant "clustering" around specific dates, i.e. if there are any death dates that are significantly higher or lower than .27 percent (aside from the Feb 29 case). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked one of the deleting admins of our old page to recreate it in my userspace. It can be found here. There were actually two distinct pages: User:TexasAndroid put them both in, one after the other on the page. Buddy431 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Speech

Hello, buenas tardes, and bonsoir ! I must memorize a speech (which I have written) within a month. It need not be exact, I only have to cover all the points I laid out. Does anyone have any tips on how I should go about this? I know it is surely necessary to practise but is there anything else I should be thinking about? Thank you in advance. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The method of loci may be of assistance. My understanding is this was how pre-literate story tellers were able to memorize long sagas without the help of written notes. The concept is that you lay out a walk through a vivid imaginary place (a "memory palace"), filled with items which will remind you of the points you need to cover. It's an ordered walk, so you encounter the objects in the order which you discuss the points. The concept is that you involve not just your verbal memory but your visual/spatial memory as well, which helps with recall. (If you can involve your auditory memory as well, and imagine the objects making noise, so much the better.) - Full disclosure, while I've read about the technique, I've never actually tried it myself. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I heard once that it's easier to memorize a sequence if you begin by learning the end, and build up backward, so that in reciting you're always moving toward more-familiar ground. (I tried it once when I had to copy a 15-digit number from one place to another; it worked well enough for the occasion.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have to give the speech, don't memorise it. Write key phrases on cards (make sure you number the cards first for obvious reasons), and use the cards when you make your speech. It gives your hands something to do. Public speaking should have more tips.--TammyMoet (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There are some who can memorize a 10-30 minute speech, but for most people index cards are a good idea. Being the type who can memorize something that long, I find them a distraction because I'll forget to move through them, then look down, accidentally see them and confuse myself; however, unless you're supremely confident you can memorize of that length, some index cards are always good to have on hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Practice. Find somebody who will listen to you and give the speech to them, as often as necessary until it flows smoothly. Looie496 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have time on your side, I think it might be best to know hte speech inside out. Some people find this confuses the order (as I think it might) but if there's no particular order, it would make sure you didn't ski anything - read itback to front, play around with it, retype it slightly differently, that sort of thing Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

# of Presidental Candidates in 2008

So I'm trying to figure out how many people filed to run for President in the US in 2008. I'm not talking about how many people appeared on a ballot, but how many people actually went through the trouble of filing the proper paperwork and signatures with the FEC. Thought this would be fairly easy to find on the FEC website but I've turned up nothing. Any one got an answer to this? -203.109.160.41 (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The article United States presidential election, 2008 has all of the official candidates of the two major parties as well as significant third party candidates. Is that what you are looking for? --Jayron32 12:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think he's looking for everyone who ran, whether they were nominated or not. Mitt Romney, for example. Take face, apply egg. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah. The article lists those too. That's why I recommended it. There are probably a dozen or so candidates listed for each party. --Jayron32 15:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Go to this page, click the buttons for "2007-2008" and "President" and put an asterisk (*) under "Name." That will give you a list of several dozen people who apparently ran for president. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Answer: 153 candidates, 15 of whom raised more than $5 million. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Tolstoy quote - possibly apocryphal

Hi! I'm looking for evidence that Leo Tolstoy ever actually said / wrote "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields." The quote is often attributed to him, but I've never seen any evidence / references that it comes from anything he's ever written, or is within any of his books. Is there a Tolstoy scholar in the house who can find an answer to this? Thank you. Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In The Kingdom of God is Within You, he says "The young recruits, moving about in lines yonder, are destined to death like the flocks of sheep driven by the butcher along the road. They will fall in some plain with a saber cut in the head, or a bullet through the breast." But he is actually quoting Guy de Maupassant's Sur l'Eau (which in French says "Les petits lignards qui courent là-bas, sont destinés à la mort comme les troupeaux que pousse un boucher sur les routes. Ils iront tomber dans une plaine, la tête fendue d’un coup de sabre ou la poitrine trouée d’une balle." Tolstoy is on English Wikisource and Maupassant is on French Wikisource. I don't know if that's the true source, but it seems similar. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, also, in exactly the same places of both texts, there is ""War! fighting! slaughter! massacres of men! And we have now, in our century, with our civilization, with the spread of science, and the degree of philosophy which the genius of man is supposed to have attained, schools for training to kill, to kill very far off, to perfection, great numbers at once, to kill poor devils of innocent men with families and without any kind of trial." ("La guerre !… se battre !… égorger !… massacrer des hommes !… Et nous avons aujourd’hui, à notre époque, avec notre civilisation, avec l’étendue de science et le degré de philosophie où l’on croit parvenu le génie humain, des écoles où l’on apprend à tuer, à tuer de très loin, avec perfection, beaucoup de monde en même temps, à tuer de pauvres diables d’hommes innocents, chargés de famille et sans casier judiciaire.") Seems like someone vaguely remembered what Tolstoy said and made up a pithy remark and attributed it to him. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is also the famous essay "The First Step" where he describes parallels between the soldier's and the butcher's suppression of "sympathy and pity toward living creatures like himself" and how they become cruel by violating their own feelings and deep-seated human "injunction not to take life". ---Sluzzelin talk 13:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

British Monarch line of succession question

I have recently been interested in the Line of succession to the British throne, but am American so really wikipedia is the only place questions can be answered because no one around here knows anything about it. My small litany of questions revolve around adoption. First of all can the Monarch adopt? Secondly if he/she can does that child enter the line of succession? One instance I can think of where this situation is very plausible is if the Monarch has only one daughter and the Monarch's sibling died in childbirth giving birth to a son. If the monarch became the legal guardian of this child would it be in the line of succession before or after the Monarch's daughter?--Found5dollar (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

From my understanding, the adopted child cannot inherit titles in Britain. The article and section Christopher_Guest#Peerage_and_heirs mentions this. Guest holds a hereditary barony, and though he has two adopted children who are allowed to hold courtesy titles under his barony, they may not inherit the barony and may also lose their courtesy titles when the barony is inherited, likely by his brother or his brother's children. However, the article also mentions that this is due to the specific wording of the Letters Patent that created the barony; my understanding is that Letters Patent are treated much like contracts and covenants; that is they can establish terms and conditions which are not otherwise part of established law. Its a lead, at least, on answering the question of whether a monarch's adoptive children can inherit the throne; and we have at least one small bit of evidence pointing to "no". On the other hand, if this issue has never come up in the past (I am not aware of an actual English/British monarch having adopted children ever, excepting the odd case of the disputed adoption (as an adult) of William the Conquerer by Edward the Confessor, and that itself led to all kinds of trouble!), nor of anyone with a reasonable chance of succeeding to the throne having adopted (ignoring those people who claim to be 1,500th in line or something like that). That creates a situation whereby there may not be any law to deal with the situation, leaving it fully ambiguous. In other words, the question may be ultimately unanswerable because no one has addressed it in the law, probably because it has never come up. --Jayron32 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that the patent creating Baron Haden-Guest specifies the courtesy styles of the children; rather, it would say something like "the privileges pertaining thereto," one of which is that the baron's children are called Honorable (for life). But I haven't read such a thing. — The article mentions a Royal Warrant; this was probably a blanket order (I half-remember hearing of such a thing) concerning the adopted or legitimised children of peers in general. —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The scenario you describe sort of occurred with the succession of Queen Victoria, in that her uncle William IV had no legitimate children and so Vicky inherited the throne: also in the accession of our own dear queen, whose uncle abdicated leaving no issue, and leaving the crown to his brother. In the actual scenario you describe, as I understand it the male child would be the heir apparent until the daughter had her children, then if there was a male child it would become the heir apparent. If no male child was born, I believe under current law the succession would pass to the nearest male. Plans have been mooted (but no laws passed) to amend the succession so that the female can inherit the title, which would favour our Princess Anne and her son Peter Phillips. If I have this wrong, no doubt someone will be along a little later to clarify. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If by "the male child" you mean the monarch's nephew who is adopted by the monarch after his mother died in childbirth, I think the answer is that blood lines are paramount, meaning the nephew does not assume the entitlements of a biological son of the monarch merely by virtue of being adopted. Otherwise, monarchs could upset the established order ever day of the week by simply adopting people they might prefer to succeed them rather than their own beloved children. The nephew may well succeed anyway, if the monarch's daughter dies without issue, or becomes or marries a Catholic without issue. But if the nephew ever did become heir apparent, there's no way he could be supplanted by the birth of children of the daughter of his adoptive mother - or by anyone else for that matter. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Princess Anne is already eligible to inherit, after her brothers and their children. The controversy is whether the 16 Commonwealth Realms should imitate the northern Continental monarchies (Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Denmark) in adopting sex-neutral primogeniture, moving Anne and her issue ahead of Andrew, Edward and theirs. —Tamfang (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No, if the monarch's sibling died in childbirth, the child's father would look after their child.
Sleigh (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Traina

Any info on Terencio Traina,aka T Traina. Retired Chicago mob figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chi1952 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I found zero matches in Google. Are you sure of the spelling ? StuRat (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Birther Mania!

Since the media insists on covering this junk, I've heard quite a bit about it lately. I noticed a lot of the Birthers make a big deal about Barack Obama's Secret Muslim Real Name™ actually being "Barry Soetoro" (which was his step-dad's last name). Our Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories doesn't mention anything about that name. So now I'm wondering, why are they making such a big deal about him having an Indonesian Secret Muslim Real Name™ if he was secretly born in Kenya? Can anyone fill me in on their thinking process here? Qrsdogg (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Never knew that "Barry" was a Muslim name before! But it falls under Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, not "citizenship conspiracy theories"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Qrsdogg: you miss the point of this. No one cares whether any of this actually true, meaningful, realistic, or self-consistent. This stuff is just a form of group identification: things that people say more to assert themselves as moral leaders in their particular in-group context than because it makes any actual sense of the world. it's equivalent to the way that primitive city-states would incorporate gods of other city-states as demons in their own mythology, or the way that street gangs will beat up people who wear their 'colors': everything 'us' is good and and must be defended brutally, everything 'them' is bad and must be attacked.

Rule number one when dealing with nonsense is to allow it to be nonsense; trying to make sense of it does nothing but promote it unnecessarily, and drive you crazy in the process. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A man wiser than me once said "You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not arrive at via reason." In otherwords, since people who believe in the Birther position did not arrive at that belief via reasoned examination of the evidence, there is no way that you or anyone else could use reason to convince them that their position is wrong. If the world shows them a legal copy of his birth certificate, they reply that it is inadequate, or a forgery, or something like that. That is, they have made up in their minds that he wasn't born in the U.S., and any evidence to the contrary must be faked because it doesn't conform to their belief. Regarding "Barry Soetoro", i am not 100% sure if he ever used that name, but even if he did (he did use the name Barry for a long time, as he notes in his own writings about himself, just not sure about the Soetoro part), using different names during ones life doesn't mean much of anything; he'd not be the first president to do so. Bill Clinton went by the name "William Blythe" and Gerald Ford went by the name "Leslie King" for periods of their lives, and I don't know that that particular fact indicated any sort of unfitness for them to be president, legal or otherwise. But the moral of the story is that there is no sense in trying to convince Birthers that they are wrong. You aren't going to. --Jayron32 19:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of the morons who insist we never went to the moon. It's always circular reasoning: so-and-so lies, therefore anything contradicting that theory must be one of so-and-so's lies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Knowing probably a little more about Indonesian (not Muslim) culture and naming conventions than most birthers, I suspect that the name Barry would have been all he was ever known by in Indonesia. But that's logic, so I know it's not an answer to the OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the info everybody. I did some digging on some birther sites earlier and I guess one birther faction thinks that he renounced his U.S. (or Kenyan) citizenship while he was in Indonesia and got an Indonesian passport under the name "Barry Soetoro"—and thus is an Indonesian citizen and not even a citizen of the country that he's the president of!

These are probably the same people who believe everything they read in The Onion. Ok, back to serious questions now–sorry for clogging up the RefDesk. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, Qrsdogg. Utter bullshit does not rate much attention in itself, but the motivations of the people who endlessly peddle utter bullshit and/or are prepared to fanatically believe it in the face of what one would have thought was overwhelming contrary evidence are always good subjects for learned discourse, as long as that very discourse does not inadvertently provide free advertising for the utter bullshit, but I doubt that's a risk here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, it is fascinating to learn how and why people cling to this stuff so devotedly. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually think this is almost rational of them. Obama and Kenya is total fantasy stuff. But he did live with his step-father and he lived in Indonesia. I think that's much better material to start a conspiracy theory with. I guess they don't need to have both Kenya and Indonesia but it is always good to have a fallback conspiracy. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. As with JFK, who was killed by a conspiracy involving any number of possible combinations of Lee Harvey Oswald, an Oswald double, Jack Ruby, the FBI, the CIA, supporters of Lyndon Johnson, supporters of Richard Nixon, the Mafia, the Watergate burglars, Cuba, the KGB, and probably several others I can't recall just now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It would have been difficult for Obama to renounce his American citizenship in Indonesia. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, parents cannot renounce citizenship on behalf of minor children. A person under eighteen must "convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation." Obama left Indonesia and returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents when he was 10. Though I suppose somebody at the embassy in Jakarta could have been cooperating with the stooges who put the false birth announcements in all those papers ten years earlier... --- OtherDave (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It is easy to make fun of birthers, but they are one of the more credible conspiracy theorist nutjob groups. From their view, they say, "Was he born in the U.S?" The reply, "Yes." They ask, "Can we see a birth certificate?" The reply, "No, but trust that there is one." They ask, "Is there any proof he was born in the U.S.?" The reply, "Yes. There were birth announcements in the paper." They ask, "Can I see one?" The reply, "No. They are out of print and the only copy in the library is missing, but trust us that they were there." They ask, "Can we get anyone who grew up with him the U.S. to come foreward?" The reply, "Sure. Everyone knew him. We'll have to get back to you when we find someone, but trust us that he had a lot of friends in the U.S." ... So, as I said, from their nutjob perspective, they are being told to trust a lot without much in the way of evidence. It isn't like the moon idiots who do all they can to fight the evidence. -- kainaw™ 13:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What is Hawaii's policy or laws, in general, about releasing birth certificates to the public? The state has certified that there is indeed a birth certificate for Obama. Maybe state law prevents them from releasing an individual's BC to the general public, other than to the person himself, due to privacy rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Factcheck.org, "We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form [instead of the full or "long form" birth certificate], among other questions, but they have not given a response." There's no rational reason to believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but this sort of non-answer from the Hawaii Department of Health is of course fuel for conspiracy theorists. If we put politics aside and look at this from the perspective of, say, a historian 100 years in the future, that historian will want to see the original documents, if they still exist, rather than a copy printed out in 2007, which is what Fackcheck.org somewhat misleadingly calls the "original birth certificate." —Kevin Myers 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A century from now could be a different story. BC's often seem to become public record after the individual is reasonably assumed to be deceased or very old. Census figures, for example, are not available at an individual level until 72 years later, i.e. the 1940 details should become available in 2012. From a civil liberties perspective, I don't like the idea that someone with no connection to me could ask for a copy of my BC. And hopefully the laws in Hawaii recognize this. They have certified that there is one, and have given some information. If that's all they're compelled to do, then that's all they should do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you don't live in a state with an "open records" law. Here in Ohio, birth, death, and marriage certificates are considered public records. Anyone can get a copy of someone's birth certificate, even for a living person, except in the case of adoption. I got my grandparent's birth certificates back when they were alive. (My grandparents would have happily given me copies, but they didn't have them. They were surprised by some of the information that I discovered on the certificates.) —Kevin Myers 14:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Hawaii has two newspapers, and neither one is missing for that date. Then the birthers will claim this stuff is faked, and that's where they get into "moon-bats" territory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at google indicates that the Hawaiian newspapers are available on microfilm, probably in a number of libraries. The birther notion that "the" newspaper is "missing" might be that someone ripped off a particular library's hard-copy collection, or they might have simply made that up, just as the moon-bats have invented claims about Apollo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This article discusses the newspapers in some detail, it seems like they are still available on microfilm in a couple libraries. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I like birthers; it gives the loonies something to do, so that they don’t become politically effective. One minor point: the governor of Hawai’i, Neil Abercrombie, was a friend of President Obama’s parents, and accompanied them to a hospital -– in Honolulu, of all places! -– on August 4, 1961. While the (later) President’s mother was busy with some medical procedure upstairs, he stayed with the father, downstairs. Later, Mrs. Obama was seen with a baby boy, but aside from the eyewitness testimony of a former member of Congress and current state governor, it is all just circumstantial evidence. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What is a seeker?

What is a seeker as referred to in this story: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/13/kirby.brown.sweat.lodge/index.html

"But Brown was a seeker."

"But the Browns, like their daughter, are seekers."

Sancho 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

in the context of this article, someone who is looking for something, per the quote in the article: "She was constantly looking for ways to make herself better". --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, from the context, it means 'a seeker after truth'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's it? It seemed that would be redundant, so I thought it had a more specific meaning like Seekers or something. Sancho 22:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about this myself, but I don't think there are any 'Seekers' in that sense any more - though as the article suggests, there is some continuity in the Quakers, and in a broad sense, probably in many strands of protestant Christianity. Indeed, you can probably find parallels in other religious faiths too: in some strands of Buddhism in particular. I suspect that a good many atheists (like myself) would consider ourselves 'seekers' in the sense that we know that there is much we know nothing about, and wish to understand more - and like the original Seekers, believe that such knowledge can only be found through personal experience, and not through dogma. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the application of the term "seeker" places emphasis is on the otherwise fairly common trait of having aspirations for attainment of a variety of sorts. I noticed a reader's comment below that article saying: "…a shallow bland pointless life isn't enough for those with the courage to seek more." Of course there is this too (I'll Never Find Another You), by The Seekers. Bus stop (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In this context it pretty much always means 'a seeker after truth' and specifically refers to someone with no set religion or established church who is looking for one. It comes up a lot in discussions of things like seeker-friendly churches shudder, The Purpose Driven Church, Purpose Driven Life. hem hem hem 86.164.75.102 (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Letter pointing out difference in church's approach to the multitude of things prohibited in Leviticus

I can remember reading an open letter which ridiculed certin church's insistence on homosexual activity being sinful by calling attention to some of the other obnoxious bits of that book (killing your rebellious son springs to mind) and ironically calling on those churches to uphold the whole law. I'm sure I've seen it referenced on the refdesks, but can't now find it. Anyone know what I'm on about? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This letter to Dr. Laura? Llamabr (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's it! DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading through that, I'm supremely glad my parents aren't biblical literalists; I'm not gay, but I definitely fell under the definition of a "rebellious young son", and I used to cut my hair, which included the hair on my temples, and I shave. And I have a rather sacrilegious sense of humor to boot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

They might have pulled out this old chestnut of biblical quotes:

"Judas went out and hanged himself."

"Go therefore and do likewise."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not practiced by anyone in the present world: a, b, d, e, f, g, i, j,

Still practiced by some at present: c, h,

Even c & h are never imposed on anyone else, but rather reserved for oneself.

Addendum: actually f is iffy. True—some don't eat shellfish, but do they consider eating shellfish a "lesser abomination that homosexuality?" Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly, b, selling children into slavery, unfortunately is a practice that's alive and well. And I've known some who hate shellfish and are fairly tolerant of lifestyles, so they might consider it the greater abomination. Regarding j, cursing in the cornfield is considered OK because the words fall on deaf ears. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am vehemently opposed to the disenfranchisement of corn such as has been perpetrated by Kelloggs. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify the points made by Bus stop - Points I and J are also still practiced by some members of Hasidic Judaism. ^Avic_ennasis @ 01:40, 10 Nisan 5771 / 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to Avicennasis: I would not limit those practices to Hasidic Judaism. I would say those practices would tend to be a part of much of Torah Judaism. I could be wrong about this but I would say that Hasidic Judaism would for instance be a subset of Orthodox Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)