Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 August 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

August 9

Is there any EVIDENCE of an afterlife?

Without belabouring the point, we have had pogroms, inquisitions, religious rallies, ethnic cleansing, and downright hysterical social engineering, all in the name, though not exclusively, of some form of afterlife or other-wordly superpower; but, to the best of my knowledge, nothing firm, such as would be accepted in a typical and enlightened court of law, beyond blind and unquestioning faith in numerous and diverse dogma, has ever been presented as being factual evidence such as to be convincing enough as to command the adherance of zillions of ordinary people over the ages. So why do humans perpetuate their belief in an afterlife based on their own construction of one? 92.17.241.223 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that would be accepted by many people (although others say the evidence is all around them). But it's interesting that witnesses in courts of law usually have to swear an oath before giving their testimony, and swearing on a Bible is a long-accepted practice in Western countries. That doesn't prove that courts accept that whatever's in the Bible is true, but it does demonstrate that they're happy to accept the bona fides of a person who does make such an oath, so in that sense they accept the Bible. Also, I know that in the Australian parliament, every day's session starts by the presiding officer saying a prayer that includes something like "Oh Lord, be pleased to guide and bless our deliberations ...", and then members/senators stand and recite the Lord's Prayer. Other legislatures may have similar practices. So the law is supposedly framed with divine guidance to begin with. Again, this doesn't prove anything about the existence of an afterlife, but it seems to be an implicit belief among our lawmakers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Long answer: most people don't want to die and are afraid of it. So the idea of an afterlife is very reassuring to most of them, and since the vast majority of people would rather be happy than right, they'd rather believe that they will live forever somehow than to accept their mortality and limited life. — Kieff | Talk 01:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually about "right", Kieff. The existence of an afterlife will never be proven, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The non-existence of an afterlife can't be proven either, because a negative can't be proven at all. Which is why the whole question is in the realm of religion and personal belief, and not in the realm of science. If there ever were scientifically acceptable evidence of an afterlife, religions would instantly cease to exist, because there'd be nothing to believe in anymore. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

JackofOz, I hardly think religions would cease to exist just because of a trifling mater like proof. Millions of people still believe in “intelligent design” despite very good evidence that it is hogwash.

In reply to the original question and to Kieff, I have never understood why eternal life should be a comfort to anyone. Do people consider whether this would actually be a good thing? I’m quite sure that I would go mad before the first millennium of existence, and in eternity there are an infinite number of millennia. . . There are many reasons why people might commit horrible atrocities in the name of a fantasy. Origin of religion gives detailed information about many of these possible reasons. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack's point isn't that religion would be destroyed by proof that it's false, but rather by proof that it's true. Compare the babelfish. --Trovatore (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point, Trovatore. But, S.dedalus, I stand by my statement. Are there any religions based on a belief in the existence of Queen Victoria, or apples, or the moon? No, because these things are all known to exist, so it's not a matter of belief but scientific and universally accepted fact. The question of belief or faith only arises when there's something for which there is no scientific or rational evidence that it actually exists. So the moment the existence of the afterlife were proven, it wouldn't be necessary to believe in it anymore because we'd accept it as a fact. If that happened, the lifeblood of religions would be drained from them and they'd go out of business, bringing a whole new meaning to the term "spiritually bankrupt". Some say they're that already, but that's not a question for here and now. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Jack. I miss-read your reply. Actually I think the reason there are no religions based on proof is because of the nature of the word “religion.” :) It’s a question of semantics I believe. If proof were found for a religion’s dogma the structure of the organization itself might remain but it would instead be referred to as a branch of science. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're getting at, but I don't think that actually makes a lot of sense. Once a question of belief becomes proven, it always enters the domain of science, and religion then retreats to focus on matters that haven't yet been proven. The church used to pronounce on the Earth-centered structure of the solar system, and those who had a different view had a very hard time of it (Galileo being the classic example). Then it became established that it's actually heliocentric, and the evidence being incontrovertible, the church said "OK, fair enough, you boffins can have that one and we'll concentrate on less tangible dogma that you won't be able to prove in a month of Sundays". (There may be a teensy simplification of the complex connection between religion and science back then). The delineation between science and religion has become ever sharper, and knowledge of the solar system's structure has been firmly in the former camp for a long time now. Religionists may have private views on the matter, but the religions themselves have no formal position on it because they acknowledge it's a matter for science alone to speak on. On the other hand, the afterlife is something that religions have well developed positions on, and science pretty much takes a back seat, although individual scientists have their opinions (true; not true; undecided; undecideable; whatever). That doesn't stop scientists from doing what little research they can in order to shed some light on the afterlife and hopefully bring it into their sphere. But the best they can ever hope to do is prove it exists; because they can never prove it doesn't. A scientist who engages in such research had better be temperamentally inclined to a belief in the afterlife, because otherwise they'll spend their labours in a totally fruitless endeavour (even for those who believe, a search for proof will probably also be fruitless, but there's still a slim chance). Maybe that's why most scientists prefer to show no interest in the matter, because most of them disbelieve in it to begin with. Mind you, that never stopped certain scientists from decreeing categorically that the afterlife does not exist. Quite how they know that, I'm not entirely sure. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, they'd still do all of it, I think. Only it wouldn't be called a religion, but a lifestyle. — Kieff | Talk 03:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I also never understood that, but from talking with lots and lots of religious people about it, they unanimously seem to think that, somehow, the afterlife will be eternal bliss, by definition, and that these problems - boredom or madness - would not exist in such a state of existence. Doesn't make much sense to me, but again, "making sense" is usually not included in the "belief in afterlife" package. — Kieff | Talk 03:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to take into account that, in the view of most people who believe in an afterlife, we go there not with our temporal bodies but with our spiritual component only. So, there's nothing to "do" there, and hence the question of boredom doesn't arise. Whether spirits have minds is an open question, but I doubt that spirits have much to do with the sanity/insanity spectrum. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? I’m under the impression that the average religious person does indeed believe that they will go to the afterlife in a concuss, pseudo-corporeal state of some sort. To quote one example, wouldn’t the whole 72 virgins deal be a bit tricky if all the martyr happens to have in paradise is the spirit component? :) --S.dedalus (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, beliefs do vary between religions. Resurrection of the dead may be of interest. In Christian belief, the soul (spirit) gets to Heaven/wherever first, and only at the end of the world does the body get resurrected and rejoin the spirit. The Catholic Church had a centuries-long ban on cremation because of this belief; which never quite made sense to me, because a 500-year old body would have completely decayed anyway, apart from any skeletal remains. Seems that the the belief that God works in mysterious ways applies only to certain situations. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has spent a good deal of his life as alternatively an atheist and a devout religious man, I can tell you the answer to why humans have religion depends on one's perspective, and is extremely complicated. It cannot be answered in one sentence.

• The theistic perspective states it is because humans are tapping into a genuine religious experience. Most people ascribe to this theory.
• The naturalist perspective states it is because humans are programmed by evolution, in some shape or form, to believe such things. Even when suppressed, religion has an amazing way of cropping up behind the scenes (think Communist China, with Falun Gong, or Civil religion - I am watching a hymn being sung to the nation at the Olympics as I write this). The Naked Ape has an interesting section on this. My synopsis goes something like this:

1. It maintains social order (social order is extremely important in humans: read the book),
2. It maintains group/tribal cohesion
3. It fills the role of the traditional primate authority figurehead (e.g., think of Roman emperors called gods)
4. Humans, like most animals (and primates especially), come preprogrammed believing there is a right and wrong which needs to be adhered to (even atheists have political views). Karma, Heaven, etc. all address the issue of unfairness.
5. Humans are the only animal on the planet with the intellectual capacity to contemplate the nature of the universe; this fills the confusing contradiction of our existence.
6. Humans are scared of death and want to think they live forever.
7. Humans become emotionally attached to dead friends and relatives; death is extraordinarily painful.

• There are other perspectives (e.g., some Buddhist branches) which fail to address the question at all.

Personally, I don't know which I believe; the first two actually have a good point so far as I can (I do not find atheism to be credible). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As many have said, part of the answer hinges on what would be considered "evidence," and by whom. The Catholic church clearly believes in an afterlife, and has any number of instances of manifestations by dead people that accepted by the believers -- from Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus during his lifetime to modern-day apparitions by Mary. Non-Catholics tend not to see these as authoritative, any more than non-Mormons have much faith in Joseph Smith's plates or non-Muslims accept that Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed.

From another viewpoint, sticking with the Catholic point of view, the eternal afterlife's central focus is the Beatific Vision -- the direct presence of God, something that mortals cannot grasp. I'm not arguing in favor of this, just saying that something sufficiently beyond a person's experience or imagination can't be understood. On a much smaller scale, if you've never been able to "get" one of those Magic Eye illusions, it's awfully hard to grasp how the picture could seem three-dimensional. OtherDave (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as no person alive today has ever come back from the dead, we can't really say. Whether or not you believe Biblical accounts of such people (Lazarus for one, and Jesus, who not only came back from the dead but was God, according to the Bible) is up to you; I personally do believe them and thus believe in an afterlife, but whether you consider Biblical accounts empirical proof or not is your decision. I suppose another way to put it is that there's no evidence that there's NOT an afterlife, anyway. --Alinnisawest(talk) 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a randomised controlled trial of those who do experience an afterlife and those who don't. If it meets the 95% confidence intervals then it surely can be considered as evidence, can it not?

How do athletes go to the Olympics?

How do athletes go to the Olympics? Today is the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics and that makes me desire to go there. In the future, I want to go to the Olympics (especially diving or swimming; summer Olympics) and my father said to me, "I will earn money because I'm an athlete". In my lifetime, I want to be a Olympian (professional athlete who performed at the Olympics.) I participated in two unofficial Olympics (one of them is non-sport). I would want to win Olympic metals. Can this make me famous because I want to become famous. Right now, I'm writing a blog The Olympic World that reports about the 2008 Summer Olympics. And; How do athletes sign up for an audition to go to the Olympics. What should I do if I want to go? Jet (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have to succeed at quite a lot of regional, then national, trials before you get up to the Olympic trials which determine whether you are on the team. (At least in the US, which is where your user page says you are from.) It's no trivial matter. Your best bet now would be to seriously consider your chances—are you the best swimmer at your high school? Are you likely to ever be the best swimmer at your high school, no matter how hard you train? Are you likely to be the best swimmer in your city? Are you likely to be the best swimmer in your county? How about state? If you can sincerely answer all of those with "it's possible", and then go on to say that you might be one of the best in your country, then maybe it's realistic. If not, well, them's the breaks, as they say, welcome to the rest of us. There are lots of other ways you can succeed in life. I know pragmatic thinking gets a bum rap in idealistic, "anybody can be a winner!" movies, but most successful people (of all sorts) are fairly honest with themselves about what they are good at and what they are not good at, and try to find ways to accentuate the positive. That's my advice, anyway. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

At school/county level, it's not just about being the best either - you have to be a very long way ahead of everyone else. For example, at school I was the best by far, at my local club I was the best by a bit, but at county level I was simply average. I ran 54s for 400m aged 15 - which was the 'C' standard for 13 year-olds. So you can tell early on whether you'll ever be any good. (I live in England, by the way) 82.13.18.200 (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Is America in decline?

I was watching the opening ceremony of the Olympic games and ended up being depressed at the end. It brings be back to articles I've read recently by Fareed Zakaria and Kishore Mahbubani talking about the decline of the United States. Is the United States on the path towards decline and irrelevance like? Is the US going to be like France with our glory days behind us? Even though I am a Democrat, I am also skeptical about Barack Obama and whether he can change anything in this country, mostly because my views on people coming in and changing things have been somewhat colored and dashed by recent experience. Some signs:

1. American industry is struggling; note the inability of General Motors and Ford to beat out Toyota, Honda and even Hyundai in terms of sales and profit. 2. Increased discretionary spending on Social Security reflecting an aging population. 3. Decay of general infrastructure; see Minneapolis bridge collapse, Hurricane Katrina. 4. Myopic leadership in Washington; see anyone on within fifty mile radius of Washington.

Is America doomed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue387 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 9 August 2008

1. Certain industries have always struggled, but see below.

2. This will cause a problem, but certainly not the destruction of society.

3. Infrastructure in this country is as good as it's ever been; we just have a larger media to make a bigger deal out of problems. There are many natural disasters far worse than Katrina in the history of the US.

4. A subjective statement; there will always be alternating good and bad administrations, as there have been for 200 years.

It is important to point out that the United States has been at the top of the world for 100 years, but since the fall of the USSR, it has enjoyed its most prominent position ever. From here, the only direction for it to go is downward. I would not say that we are in danger, within our lifetimes, of seeing the US lose much of its political, economic, or military power (it will lose some, but will be at the top). However, the growing influence of China may eventually put it on top, as would a possible European Union as one country or Russia. Theoretically, any unforseeable wars could destroy the American backbone of power. Eventually, something will have to happen, though it might be a long time. But personally, I find warnings of the US losing some world power in small increments but still remaining very powerful (in the model of the UK of the 19th century) much more credible than some of the doomsday sayers - the US simply has too powerful an influence in too many powerful places to fall suddenly, short of a sudden catastrophe. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

People can argue one way or another about America being in decline. However, that is not the purpose of the Wikipedia reference desk. I'm sure there are plenty of forums out there with passionate ongoing discussions about this very issue. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline of a world power is a long-term thing that only becomes clear over a matter of decades. During the 1990s, the consensus among world experts on macroeconomics and geopolitics was that the United States was the undisputed world hegemon, more powerful than ever and head-and-shoulders above any potential challenger. The United States has had several bad years, and looks set to have several more, but it is too soon to draw long-term conclusions. Other nations are likely to be as challenged as the United States in the aftermath of the global credit bubble. Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A book on this general topic is Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. It explores the era from 1500 to 1980 and the politics and economics involved with rising and falling "Great Powers". He has some interesting ways to measure the strength of countries and comparing strength relative to other countries. One example for the 20th century is based on population, urbanization, industrialization and industrial output, energy consumption, and other factors. He points out that for some time after World War II the United States produced about 50% of the world's industrial output, and that this is way out of balance with the US's population and resource base as a percent of the world's total. Naturally, this could not be maintained forever, and other nations have come to "take over" various industries that had once been dominated by the US. Calling this kind of thing "decline" may be literally true, but the word has connotations that suggest it shouldn't be happening or somehow the nation is at fault or doing something wrong.

At the end of the book, which was published in 1987 (just before the Soviet collapse), Kennedy makes some predictions about the future, based on trends in the statistics in the rest of the book. These include the rise of China and the relative decline of the US.

An exercise one could do to calculate, very roughly, a country's "natural power" could compare population and resources against other countries (add more factors and detail for less roughness). This suggests that the US still has some "decline" to go, but that the country has a large land base and is rich in various resources-- closer to Europe as a whole than France. One of Kennedy's main points is that historically Great Powers have ended up with "interests" beyond their long-term ability to defend militarily, which can result in higher and higher military spending and debt. The suggestion is that a Great Power in decline, like the US today, needs to abandon some of its less important interests in order to decline without crisis. He gives plenty of examples of Great Powers that did not do this and ended up declining "catastrophically".

In any case, if the "glory days" of the US were around the mid-20th century, then I think yes, they are behind us. Unless the rest of the world destroys itself again as happened in the early 20th century. This raises a question. Which factor contributed more to the US reaching such a height of relative power around 1950: Its natural greatness, or that other world powers self-destructed in long and terrible total war? This is the kind of question Kennedy explores in this book. Pfly (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well first off I think it's difficult to forecast these matters, and indeed a lot of people were saying these sort of things in the late 70s and had just as much if not more reason to say so. But even if America does lose its position as the worlds only superpower, I don't think it's necessarily something to get depressed about. It's likely to be more a matter of other parts of the world catching up to America than America's standard of living going down the crapper. Just as Britons today live better lives than they did while they were the preeminent power, I don't see any reason to believe not being "number 1" would necessarily impact the everdyay lives of Americans. TastyCakes (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In case anybody in the USA might be interested, "America" ist the name of a continent, which is not identical with the "United States of America". -- Meister (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling the USA America is common throughout the English speaking world, including Canada which would seem to have the most reason to be touchy about it. And for the record, neither of the continents is "America", they are North and South America or the Americas. TastyCakes (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

All great civilizations eventually fail. America is not going to collapse anytime soon, but big changes are almost certainly going to happen soon. No country can continue burning resources at the level America does indefinably. I’m fairly sure that the peak of America’s power came sometime around 1945. We are now only slowly realizing that we are no longer the absolute power we once were. Asia will no doubt continue to strengthen from now on, as America very gradually weakens. However there should be no shame in not being a superpower. In many ways Europeans have a far better quality of life than Americans. No doubt the world will be a slightly more sensible place without our particular brand of foreign policy insanity. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Michigan/Ontario geography

After visiting in Oscoda Michigan I was curious to find out which city in Ontario is opposite or might be considered a "sister city" if they do that. GBbookerGbbooker (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean an official sister city, or a city that has the same "spirit" as Oscoda? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this site, its sister city is Diss, Norfolk, England, and the context suggests there is only the one sister city. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean a similar city across the lake from Oscoda - something like Wiarton, Ontario? Rmhermen (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened?

Acer became BenQ and all of the sudden even though its site is still online none of the CD drivers, warranties, data sheets, applications, driver, or firmware updates will download. Plus you can not reach them by phone or by fax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.162.249 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this question to the Computing Reference Desk for more attention. Follow up here. Franamax (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Characters of x" vs. "List of x characters"

I've noticed that the "characters" articles on Wikipedia seem to be titled in two different ways: "characters of x" and "list of x characters". "List of x characters" end up being lists, while "characters of x" articles are just, well, articles. For example, why is list of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow a list, while characters of Kingdom Hearts not a list? They both appear to be lists. Can someone clarify this for me? Xnux the Echidna 03:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency. Or hobgoblins. OtherDave (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So... what should I do about this, eh? Xnux the Echidna 17:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You could go around and try changing all of one format to the other, though I think that's a thankless and ultimately futile task. (You may have a different opinion. I can be bold, but more often, I'm lazy.) Trying to get all the character lists in Wikipedia to be consistent is something that will happen only after we resolve more burning issues like U.K. versus American spelling, the serial comma, and the hidden meaning of userboxes. If there's a project that crosses lots of these lists (like "characters in games"), you might join the project and see if others want to work on the consistency of nomenclature for lists. OtherDave (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest trying to start a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) - this is an area where standardisation could be quite useful. Grutness...wha? 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

CASH WITHDRAWAL SECURITY??

I have been told that recently there has been a security development whereby if you are coerced into drawing cash by another person by entering your PIN in reverse order the money will be paid but the police will be immediately alerted and directed to the scene of the incident. I find this a tad implausible. Can anyone confirm or deny this or add any further information? I'm talking about the UK Richard Avery (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in the UK, but Snopes seems to have weighed, measured, and found this notion wanting. (And besides, if youse try puttin' ya number in backwards, I'm gonna be sorry but you're gonna be sorrier.) OtherDave (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds implausible to me, too. I'm in the UK and have never heard of it. If there was such a system, you would expect it to be widely known - it's pretty pointless otherwise. --Tango (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a "D'you know what they should have?" evolved into a "D'you what they have?". Standard urban legend progression. I can think of countless drunken moments where I could have put my pin in backwards and alerted the police inadvertently. Fribbler (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that everybody. I had serious doubts but didn't think of Snopes. I couldn't understand why my bank had not told me and what do people with palindromic numbers do!!! I also thought the same as Tango. Richard Avery (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Online clearance

Some sites like ebay serve as clearance between seller and buyers. Where can I obtain an authoritative list of the most important clearance sites? Perhaps organized by revenue.Mr.K. (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lord's Prayer in parliament

Above, JackofOz writes that MPs in Australia recite the Lord's prayer at the beginning of sessions. Hearing of such practises always makes me sad about the state of the so-called free world. This is what you might expect from bible belt school districts in the USA, but I wouldn't have thought it existed in a place like Australia. It isn't so much the religion as such, but the mandatory, hollow, routine-like, pointless recital of a statement. You know: "Sure, mate, we're a free country with freedom of religion, freedom of speech and stuff like that. But, if you want to take part in making laws, you have to ask the lord for forgiveness and protection, acknowledge his kingdom's will come and that you're sinful". It kind of seems to be along the same lines as making MPs/citizens declare their allegiance to Mao, Kim Il-sung or somebody like that with regular intervals. My question is, do we have articles on these issues, in Australia or other places? Has there been challenges, controversy at all? Any good pointers to outside articles on this (except for the ones I seem to find all the time, with American conservatives blaming wars and economic decline on the lack of church-going in Europe)? /Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting contraposition with the US. Of course in the US we have a constitutional bar on establishment of religion; while no one has managed to get any traction on the issue of banning non-denominational prayer to open a session of Congress, I'm pretty sure something as specific as the Lord's Prayer would be out of bounds. On the other hand, as far as I know Australia has no such restriction, though I can't find any reference to an official state church. --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)We do have an article on discrimination against atheists. There is no section on Australia, however. Here in the US, the situation is similar. Congress is lead in prayer daily by a chaplain. Although the Supreme Court overruled them, some states (mostly in the Deep South) symbolically forbid those that "deny the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments" from office. Arkansas won't even let you testify (once again, overruled in courts). On the other hand, no politician running for President would be caught dead saying atheism caused economic decline, or for that matter no one short of maybe the Westboro Baptists. As a fellow atheist, I'd say just deal with it. Run for Parliment, and if you win, make a big deal out of it. You'd probably get them to change their mind about it.Paragon12321 (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Standing Orders provide for the Speaker/President only to say prayers; it's become traditional, but by no means mandatory, for individual senators and members to join in. This is a little of the history of the practice in the House of Reps (from [1]):

Upon taking the Chair of the House each day, and a quorum of Members being present (see p. 265), the Speaker reads the following Prayers: Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouch safe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia. Our Father, which art in Heaven: Hallowed be Thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

On 7 June 1901 the House agreed to a motion ‘That the Standing Orders should provide that, upon Mr Speaker taking the Chair, he shall read a prayer’. An amendment providing for the appointment of a chaplain for the purpose was withdrawn, as it was agreed that the Speaker was the most appropriate person to read Prayers in the House. The standing order was amended in 1918 when the initial Prayer or preface was amended and an additional Prayer was added before the Lord’s Prayer for the duration of the war. In its report of 21 March 1972 the Standing Orders Committee considered a submission from a Member which suggested a different form of Prayer, and that Prayers once a week would suffice. The committee agreed that there should be no change either in the frequency of offering Prayers or in their content.107 When the Procedure Committee reviewed the standing orders in 2002–2003, partly with a view to modernising their language, the committee made no recommendation in relation to the Prayers, and the revised standing orders adopted in November 2004 retained the original wording.

The UK Act that established our Constitution opens with: Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth .... However, the Constitution itself, at s.116, explicitly prohibits the parliament from making "any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

And here are some snippets that may be of interest: [2], [3], [4], [5]. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

THey say the Lord's Prayer in the Parliament of Ontario too. There was a huge controversy when it was suggested that they stop; the vast overwhelming majority of people either supported it or did not care. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Declarations of allegiance... You might be interested to read Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom), explaining briefly the requirement for an MP to take their seat in Parliament in Britain. 79.66.38.215 (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, people. Most interesting, and discouraging. "So help me God" required in the British citizenship ceremony. The rest of it seems reasonable, why tag on such a thing to invalidate it all? (I know the answer. It has always been like that, and it would be more controversial to try to remove it. But still...) Re Paragon12321's entry above: Obviously it is not a mainstream idea that atheism is to blame for whichever kinds of decline, I was merely commenting on the types of articles I seem to come across when googling for information on issues like these. I.e. Westboro Baptists and their likes being outraged over a jurisdiction loosening the requirements on claiming to be a Christian to perform certain duties. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

medicine

i had rasied liver function and high trigylines doctor put me on metforim 500mg 3 times a day and bezafibrate 200mg twice a day can u take both together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.181.156 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We cannot offer medical advice; you need to ask your health-care provider and/or pharmacist. Out of curiosity, though, what's a "trigyline"? --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If the same doctor put you on both, then I would expect so. Doctors generally know quite a lot about medicine, and certainly more than random people on the internet. If you think he's made a mistake, ask for a second opinion, either from another doctor, or your local pharmacist (they also know a lot about medicines). --Tango (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant high triglycerides--79.76.203.9 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Daughter's Female Partner

My daughter will have a civil ceromony this year with her female partner. What will her partner's relationship be to me? The definition of daughter-in-law is "the wife of one's son". I have not seen any definition to include "the female partner of one's daughter". Would the French term "belle fille" encompass it? Any ideas please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.181.240 (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think daughter-in-law works, the definition is just out-of-date. A daughter-in-law is someone that has become a member of your family through law, rather than birth, and a same-sex civil partnership seems to fit that definition just as well as a conventional marriage does. --Tango (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's one case where language hasn't caught up with social change. I'd use the term "De facto daughter-in-law" - it gets the point across without fuss although (a the article de facto points out), technically speaking it's incorrect. We do need a separate set of terms both for civil ceremonies and for LGBT couples, really though. Grutness...wha? 21:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would interpret "de facto daughter-in-law" as meaning the "common law wife" of your son (or, possibly, daughter). If they've actually had a civil ceremony, then the relationship is de jure, not de facto. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

These type of situations get a little touchy. There are those who strongly oppose the uses of conventional family terms in reference to same sex relationships. Thus it's not just the idea of language catching up to society. Marrage, wife, husband, aunt, and uncle are all terms that fall into this area. To my ears Tango's logic is sound enough but that doesn't mean everyone will consider it so. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the Wikipedia article on Affinity (law) states that in-law terms apply to kin of "husband and wife" rather than husband or wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omahapubliclibrary (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, what's the distinction you're trying to make? --Tango (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"husband and wife" automatically precludes the possibility of husband and husband, or wife and wife (or husband and wives/husbands and wife for that matter) - husband or wife as separate terms allows for any of the glorious multitude of possible combinations. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, like I say, the definition of out-of-date. It wasn't a concious decision to exclude same-sex partnerships from the definition, they simply didn't exist until recently. --Tango (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You could always ask your daughter -- or, even better, her partner. I'm sure she's been asked before, and your openness about your uncertainty could help strengthen your relationship with her, especially if you ask in a "how would you like me to refer to you" way. (By way of analogy, in a different situation she might prefer to be called "black" rather than, say, "African-American," or vice-versa. That could count for a lot more than how someone else might decide to label her. OtherDave (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just "daughter's partner"? It has no more syllables than "daughter-in-law", and it is accurate. The word "partner" sort of suggests "same-sex", but what does the gender of your daughter's partner matter anyway? If in some context the gender of your daughter's partner is important, you could say "daughter's female partner" or maybe better still "my daughter's partner, Linda" (or whatever her name is). Marco polo (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Partner" could suggest they were unmarried. You could go with "daughter's civil partner" to make it clear exactly what the nature of the relationship is. --Tango (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In English, definitions describe usage instead of dictating usage. You should use the term that you think best describes the relationship, and only you and your new family member really get a vote in this. -Arch dude (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think of her as your daughter's wife, and consider her part of your family, then you should just use 'my daughter-in-law,' which is a simple and clear description of your relationship to each other, even if the actual law has not yet caught up with you. If you don't think of her as part of your family but tolerate her presence out of a desire to avoid conflict with your daughter, you should refer to her as 'my daughter's partner,' which will establish that she is related to your daughter but not to you and maintain the distance you desire. If you deeply resent her presence, 'That Woman' is the traditional address, or 'my daughter's ... friend.' It all depends on what message you'd like to convey about your relationship to her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trolling on foreign-language wikis?

Is there much trolling on foreign-language wikipedias? It would be interesting to see how different cultures vandalise and troll. DrugProblemm (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't there be?78.149.94.253 (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I also thought it was a silly question on first reading it but it may well be a very useful learning experience. DrugProblemm might want to consider visiting Wikiversity and conducting research as part of a learning project. Sensible question :) 79.184.38.147 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

McKinney, Texas

If Linda Theret's daughter treated McKinney, Texas very bad, should she expect the same treatment? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a matter of opinion. The reference desk is not a venue for debate, it's a place to get answers to questions which actually have answers. --Tango (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Definitely not. Well, she should expect no worse treatment than that meted out to editors who ask incomprehensible questions on the Ref Desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If Tuesday Weld had married Hal March II, would she have been Tuesday March the Second? OtherDave (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, no. The wife would only use the "II" part if she used her husband's first name as well. They could have a daughter and name it after the mother, though, that would do it (it would be a little unusual to use "II", but it would be valid). --Tango (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But if Wanda Jackson had married Howard Hughes, divorced him, then married Henry Kissinger, would she be Wanda Hughes Kissinger now? --Trovatore (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC) I should say, to avoid accusations of plagiarism, that this is not original with me; however I don't know to whom to attribute it.

What the !#@$! are you talking about? And who is Linda Theret? DrugProblemm (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The principle of some school in McKinney, Texas whose daughter was involved in some scandal. Google will give you the details if you care. --Tango (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Do Texan schools operate on principles?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I don't know the difference between an 'a' and an 'e', so sue me! ;) --Tango (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)