Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 30

Catholic in Scotland during Mary, Queen of Scots

Were there any influential Catholic noble/aristoratic families left in Scotland during the reign of Mary, Queen of Scots?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet, but History of Christianity in Scotland may be a good place for you to start. --Jayron32 00:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Earl of Arran was still Catholic until 1559, but then he switched. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The article Mary, Queen of Scots says of 1561 "Only four [of the 16 Privy] ... councillors were Catholic: the Earls of Atholl, Erroll, Montrose, and Huntly, who was Lord Chancellor". Thincat (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Closest named thing to this

Amongst all the ethical theories I hear about (such as deontological ethics, discussed in a thread above) I notice one thing: you could justify a lot of things using some theory of ethics, and you could have debates about the smallest things that go on forever. My practical solution is what I call "accountability ethics", but it isn't quite a proper approach to ethics. It simply goes like this: both decisions, eg. commit euthanasia/ don't commit euthanasia, could be unethical, so which of the two mistakes would you be most prepared to live with? That isn't a theory, because it doesn't say what is right or wrong about something, but it gives you a way of thinking about ethics without the abstract droning on that is otherwise needed. Is there any approach that is closest to this? That could be a general system, such as exwhyzedological ethics, or the theory of a particular philosopher (or even political theorist, since there is some overlap). IBE (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If you accept the overlap with decision theory, there is the concept and application of (post-decision) regret. For one randomly selected example: Choice processes and their post-decisional consequences in morally conflicting decisions (Amy R. Krosch, Bernd Figner, Elke U. Weber, Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7, no. 3, May 2012, pp. 224-234. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would accept the overlap, not least because my approach does not require any particular decision about the pure "right" or "wrong" of a particular action. Certainly a good start, although I wonder if there is something in the field of ethics proper that resembles my suggestion. IBE (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice you there, and added the example by Krosch, Figner, and Weber after you had posted your reply) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• What you describe as justifying a lot of things is called casuistry and doing so based on intuitions can be considered ethical intuitionism. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of Whittaker Chambers remark

I was looking at the Alger Hiss article, and I came across this exchange between Hiss and Whittaker Chambers, in testimony before HUAC. The background is that Chambers had accused Hiss of being a Communist, and Hiss had denied ever knowing Chambers. But on seeing his photo, Hiss allowed that he might have known him under a different name.

HISS. Did you ever go under the name of George Crosley?

CHAMBERS. Not to my knowledge.

HISS. Did you ever sublet an apartment on Twenty-ninth Street from me?

CHAMBERS. No; I did not.

HISS. You did not?

CHAMBERS. No.

HISS. Did you ever spend any time with your wife and child in an apartment on Twenty-ninth Street in Washington when I was not there because I and my family were living on P Street?

CHAMBERS. I most certainly did.

HISS. You did or did not?

CHAMBERS. I did.

HISS. Would you tell me how you reconcile your negative answers with this affirmative answer?

CHAMBERS. Very easily, Alger. I was a Communist and you were a Communist.

Now, can anyone figure out how Chambers' final remark above is supposed to explain anything? Logically, there's not necessarily anything to explain, of course, as Chambers could certainly have had an apartment on 29th Street without having sublet it from Hiss. But does anyone see how it's in any way relevant to the exchange, or is it just a way to be heard repeating his accusation? --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The continuation:here

Mr. HISS. Would yon be responsive and continue with your answer?

Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not think it is needed.

Mr. HISS. That is the answer.

Mr. NIXON. I will help you with the answer, Mr. Hiss. The question, Mr. Chambers, is, as I understand it, that Mr. Hiss cannot understand how you would deny that you were George Crosley and yet admit that you spent time in his apartment. Now would you explain the circumstances? I don't want to put that until Mr. Hiss agrees that is one of his questions.

Mr. HISS. You have the privilege of asking any questions you want. I think that is an accurate phrasing.

Mr. NIXON. Go ahead.

Mr. CHAMBERS. As I have testified before, I came to Washington as a Communist functionary, a functionary of the American Communist Party. I was connected with the underground group of which Mr. Hiss was a member. Mr. Hiss and I became friends. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Hiss himself suggested that I go there, and I accepted gratefully.

Mr. HISS. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. NIXON. Just a moment. How long did you stay there?

Mr. CHAMBERS. My recollection, about 3 weeks. It may have been longer. I brought no furniture, I might add.

Mr. HISS. Mr. Chairman, I don't need to ask Mr. Whittaker Chambers any more questions. I am now perfectly prepared to identify this man as George Crosley..

The idea seems to be that Chambers is saying that he was granted use of the apartment to expedite the Communist conspiracy of which Hiss was part.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks very much. That does help. I think the way it stands in the Hiss article is confusing, but the page is currently protected, and I don't really want to wade into the content dispute, not being particularly qualified to evaluate the evidence. --Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought of doing that article as part of my Nixon project but it was a huge quagmire and I dropped the idea in a hurry.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I think that the key word is "sublet". IMHO, Chambers is being pedantic (aggressively so, by not explaining without being pushed every step of the way) but accurate in his answers. It's not about a plot. It's about the terminology of economics. A true Communist by definition does not sublet to another Communist, as neither believes that such a concept has a valid place in society. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Come on, that's really forced. Whether they believe in subletting or not has nothing to do with the factual question of whether subletting occurred. Also, Chambers had renounced communism by then. (Hiss, presumably, had not, either because he had never been a communist, or because he still was, depending on who was telling the truth.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it forced? It's a totally natural understanding of the text:

HISS. Did you ever sublet an apartment on Twenty-ninth Street from me?

CHAMBERS. No; I did not.

...

HISS. Did you ever spend any time with your wife and child in an apartment on Twenty-ninth Street in Washington...

CHAMBERS. I most certainly did.

...

HISS. Would you tell me how you reconcile your negative answers with this affirmative answer?

CHAMBERS. Very easily, Alger. I was a Communist and you were a Communist.

ie "I lived there, but didn't sublet because we were both Communists."

I don't see how the interpretation could be any less "forced". The factual answer is he lived there, but without paying rent. --Dweller (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose it's possible, but I really doubt it. I don't think there were very many Communists who just let fellow Party members stay at their place for free out of pure ideological solidarity. Also, Chambers seems to be using the word "Communist" more in the sense of "Soviet agent" than "person who's read Das Kapital and agreed with some of it". --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither man could have lived a truly communist lifestyle without attracting unwanted attention. I don't see the issue. Chambers needed a place to stay, Hiss had something available, and an informal arrangement took place motivated by the fact that they were working for the same cause, i.e. spying for the USSR. Both men were angry during the testimony and were constantly zinging each other. Remember the suave Hiss's constant references to Chambers (who was physically unimpressive) and his bad teeth. They were going at it hammer and sickle tongs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, are you agreeing that Chambers was pedantically responding to the use of the word "sublet"? --Dweller (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There was no subletting as there was no lease. He did not pay Hiss, nor give him a deposit. Presumably he considered himself Hiss's guest. It's all about the closeness of the "relationship". Chambers is trying to characterize it as host/guest. Hiss wants it to be seen as an arms-length business transaction.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

To expand a bit: You'd have to know someone pretty well to let them stay gratis in an apartment you own for some weeks. Were that so, it would be damaging for Hiss. Chambers had been, by his own admission, a Soviet agent. There would be nothing obviously wrong with subletting as a business relationship to someone who had been a Soviet agent, after all, they have to live somewhere and a landlord, receiving rent, would not be presumed to know. Staying there gratis, with wife and small child for three weeks is quite another matter and Hiss was a very smart man.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia delete the part who says Albanian first kingdom is created in 200bc from the illyrians?

> Hello Wikipedia!! > I have a question about Albania? > Why wikipedia delete that part who says albania first is createt in 200BC from the illyrians? > it was very nice to see that and is certified that albanians are descendants of the illyrians and is think is only is just the right too see that again there. > But if this is not possible to write more in the page "albania" that albanian's are the illyrians. > Greetings from Kosovo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.175.126.168 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a nation to have enemies who will try to write its history out of the history books as much as possible, and claim that they couldn't be descended from anyone in ancient times (so they must have landed from another planet?) etc. This is called damnatio memoriae and has been going on for thousands of years, for example the Romans tried to erase the Judaeans' history after the Bar Kokhba revolt. So one would expect it to be continuing today, naturally with the support of "experts" since only the books that they wrote count, and books written by others saying something else don't count! Welcome to wikipedia, I've been seeing this for 8 years. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when in doubt, invent a conspiracy. I can't find a version of that article that had that information in it, so I can't explain why it was deleted. The most likely explanation is that no high-quality sources are available to support the story. Further information would be helpful.

Our Albania article says: "The history of Albania emerged from the prehistoric stage from the 4th century BC, with early records of Illyria inGreco-Roman historiography. The modern territory of Albania has no counterpart in antiquity, comprising parts of the Roman provinces ofDalmatia (southern Illyricum) and Macedonia(particularly Epirus Nova). The territory remained under Roman (Byzantine) control until theSlavic migrations of the 7th century, and was integrated into the Bulgarian Empire in the 9th century. The territorial nucleus of the Albanian state formed in the Middle Ages, as the Principality of Arbër and the Kingdom of Albania. The first records of the Albanian people as a distinct ethnicity also date to this period." That passage does not cite any sources, but relies on our History of Albania article, which covers the material in more detail and does cite sources. Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Looie, it seems the part that the "experts" probably would rather not be mentioned there is covered at Albanoi. According to the "experts" it is a complete coincidence that they lived in what is now Albania, since everyone knows the Albanians had no ancestors before the Middle Ages. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

While it is quite possible Albanians descend from Illyrians, there is no evidence supporting such an identification. It is a surmise based on (a) population continuities in the region (b) the Albanian language as a possible unique survival from Illyrian. We have, however, almost no evidence about Illyrian that would secure a nexus. It is anachronistic to use the word 'Albania' of prehistoric and historic Illyria.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will second everything Nishidani has said. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Has mitochondrial DNA been sequenced from bones buried in what is now Albania back in the period in question, around 200 BC? The bones of kings would be particularly interesting, if such have been found. If so then comparison to the DNA of present day Albanians would be interesting. Similar testing has been done in other regions: Cheddar man lived in England 9000 years ago, and his DNA was matched by Bryan Sykes to that of some present day inhabitants of his locale. Of course more data would be needed from other locations to rule out the DNA being common in other possible origin sites. Linguistic comparison can also be informative in historical research on populations, as done by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. It would not be surprising for some nationalistic Europeans to make false claims about the history of people inhabiting a country, since there is quite a history of such disputes, such as the Macedonia naming dispute. Edison (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Many linguists are not too persuaded by many aspects of Cavalli-Sforza's attempts to link other things with linguistics... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There's also Origin of the Albanians. Pfly (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Language continuity is no guarantee of genetic continuity, as Hungarian linguistics and genetic studies of Hungarians show.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

American education culture

Hi, I'm from India and, as expected, I don't much about American culture than what's shown on films and TV. Recently, I was watching the TV show "One Tree Hill" and one episode got me very curious about the way Americans view education. The character Jake, who had a baby with his ex-girlfriend (I can't remember her name, so I'll just refer to her as just "mother"), wanted the mother to stay away from his baby. So, his friend, and later girlfriend, Peyton fooled the mother into believing that Jake had gone to Seattle with the baby, and so she immediately started off for Seattle. My question is: these are high school students. don't they have school to go to? don't they have studies to complete? do American teenagers just go off to a different city or state just for their personal problems, without seemingly a care about their school life? In India, no high school student would ever dream of leaving behind studies and if for some reason, he/she has to go some place for a long period of time, he/she ask to seek permission from the school authorities.

Please forgive me if I come across as arrogant or xenophobic, but please enlighten me about the study culture in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.233.218 (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Anything can happen in the fantasy world of film and TV. In real life, this scenario would be unlikely, unless they had wealthy parents who gave them large allowances and otherwise paid no attention to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

American TV shows about high school typically portray the students as much more mature and independent than high school students really are. The level of oversight for high school students varies widely -- it tends to be lower in more rural areas. Substantial numbers of students drop out of school or only attend school for part of the day. Also, students are usually on vacation (and completely free of school) during the summer months, if that matters. Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The OP might benefit from watching the films Heathers and Donnie Darko. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a suspicion the writers of those shows might be projecting their own fantasies on what they wish they had done in high school. The movie Peggy Sue Got Married gets into that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying the writers of Heathers wish they had been serial killers in high school? --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I liked but do not (after one viewing 30 years ago) remember the details of Peggy Sue. The point is that good art distills the (moral) essence of things. The OP would be extremely poorly served by watching a commentariless unselective documentary of an American school day. The movies I mentioned are great commentaries, and highly selective works of art, pungent with moral implications. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What about The Breakfast Club, which is intended to depict how some American high school students in the late 20th century supposedly had to spend large parts of their weekends? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What a tiresome piece of tripe that was. --Trovatore (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That teen exploitation movie had about as much insight as a can of spam. Not to put down spam in comparison. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

When watching it a decade or so later, I mostly just found it odd. (My school, in England, looked very different and had very different rules.) And a bit slow. Is it more realistic than the OP-mentioned One Tree Hill in terms of how much control American high schools have over their pupils? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's almost like a Mediaeval morality play, with stock characters as seen from the imagination of a Hollywood casting director; the nerd, the jock, the stoner, the princess. The essence of formulaicity. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Homer had some success with formulaic material, too. You didn't answer my question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't personally say if it's better than One Tree Hill, not having seen the latter. I can say that the first season of Heroes was hugely more realistic (Save the cheerleader; save the world!) than The Breakfast Club. And from what I remember, it was strange how much control the school seemed to assume over the students in TBC. I saw the film while in high school and did not find it realistic in characterization or plot. The theme of kids drop differences to defeat tyranny was good. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question: The law in most states requires students to stay in school until they are 16. Students who have reached the age of 16 can legally discontinue school ("drop out"). Of course, dropping out of school places the ex-student under a significant disadvantage in life, but it is something that is possible and that some people do. I haven't seen One Tree Hill, but it's also possible that the trip to Seattle was during the long summer break, when for a period of about two and a half months (varying by location) schools are not in session.

If school was in session and the young mother intended to stay in school, American high schoolers would not necessary consider this an insuperable problem. An unexplained absence of a few days might do substantial harm to the student's standing that semester, but it probably would not mean she would be expelled or fail her courses, unless she was otherwise a marginal student. American high schoolers would be more concerned about getting permission from their parents, financing the trip, and finding a place to stay. John M Baker (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Most American high school students could not afford a trip to a distant city, whether they wanted to make such a trip or not. So the movie is unrealistic in that way. Even if they could afford such a trip, I think that most American parents would not allow their children to make such a trip without a good reason. That said, many American high school students do not take their studies very seriously. For students of average intelligence, it is possible to avoid failure in high school with a fairly minimal effort. As long as students don't fail or leave high school, they will be able to attend university if they choose (though maybe not a prestigious university), and they will have a fair chance of a middle-class standard of living. So there is less pressure on American students to achieve academically than there probably is in India. Certainly there is a significant subset of American high school students who are ambitious and who take their studies seriously because they hope to attend a more prestigious university as a launching pad for a more prestigious or lucrative career. Marco polo (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 1

Edward Lucett

Who was Edward Lucett, author of Rovings in the Pacific, from 1837 to 1849: with a glance at California? Minor details like his lifespan, occupation, and reason for traveling to the Pacific. Also who wrote this part of this book?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There's an entry for him in the Hawaiian National Bibliography, Vol 3: 1851-1880--Melburnian (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know who wrote this part of this book?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The author of the letter (Manono, February 25 1845) is Rev. T. Heath, presumably Reverend Thomas Heath[1]. The author of Preservation of Mr. Heath is "HR" (presumably Reverend Henry Royle[2]); Queen Pomare, no author given (a fuller version here); Lines on the above sentiment is JP" (no idea who that is).--Melburnian (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just asking for the letter from Manono.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Anthony T. Kahoʻohanohano

Was Anthony T. Kahoʻohanohano born in Wailuku? The article seems to only say he lived and went to school there.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This article just says he was "from" there - not sure if that counts? Horatio Snickers (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Economics of a phd part II

Hi all, I've asked a similar question before, archived here, but this is a finer-grained, practical version of the issue. I'm looking into the value of a PhD in the market place, and found one article here. There are many other interesting links in my previous thread. You can add more here if you think there is something that really trumps them all, but my question is as follows.

I was arguing these things with someone, saying a PhD was worth something, but not overly much, and he said it goes like this. Some regular office worker is doing the hiring, s/he sees two applicants, one with a PhD, one without. The PhD always gets the job. Why? Not because it means "good employee", but because the hirer is just some regular person who has to cover himself, and hiring a PhD is an easy thing to defend if something goes wrong. Is there any truth in this, and any evidence for or against? I'm happy with people's interesting side comments, but my main focus is on the mechanism presented here, or, if this is false, on a similar mechanism that others have discovered. Anything about what the hiring person is thinking when s/he sees the letters PhD would be directly relevant, with the primary focus being on the specific suggestion of my interlocutor. Many thanks to you all, you are always a big help. IBE (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The overwhelmingly important factor is: for what kind of job? For some jobs, mainly in academia, a PhD is essential. For another group, it is desirable. Those would include high tech engineering development, some kinds of software development, some kinds of management consultancy and accountancy, economic research and consultancy. For a large group of jobs it is neither here nor there. And for another large group of jobs it is a positive disadvantage, as the holder will be seen as not serious in entering that field of work; they are "overqualified". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, it's not all that complicated. A Ph.D. is evidence of a certain set of skills. If those skills are needed for a job, then a Ph.D. is helpful. If those skills are not needed, then a Ph.D. is not helpful and may even be harmful, since it may indicate that the applicant is overqualified. Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

European Commission

According to European Commissioner, the Treaty of Nice stipulated that 'once the number of members reached 27 then the number of Commissioners should be reduced to "less than the number of Member States"', and that that target was met when Romania and Bulgaria joined. Now that Croatia has made it 28, and apparently has its own commissioner, does that mean that another country has lost its place on the commission? Rojomoke (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

According to this blog, that original stipulation no longer applies. --Viennese Waltz 12:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A selection of hats

Please look at this image. Are all of them considered to be turbans, or is there a different term for one or more of them? If they're not all turbans, which ones aren't, and what are they? 2001:18E8:2:1020:24E8:AD2:D349:BF0 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the Wikipedia article titled Turban, they all seem to match various styles of turbans. Whether each style also has its own name, I don't know, but I would say that broadly speaking, they are all kinds of turbans. The Wikipedia article contains links to the names of some various turbans by specific style, though I don't know if every style in your picture is listed there. --Jayron32 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Enquiry about CBI

hi.. my name is sufian.. I want to join the central bureau of investigation (India).. What is the procedure..? What is the syllabus for the preparation of the entrance exams..? Please reply by email.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufyan22 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't do email replies here. We have an article on the Central Bureau of Investigation, but you might do better to look at their web page, http://cbi.nic.in. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ocherki perom i karandashom, iz krugosvetnogo plavaniya by Aleksei Vysheslavtsev

Does anyone know where I can find a copy of Ocherki perom i karandashom, iz krugosvetnogo plavaniya by Aleksei Vysheslavtsev? Preferably online. I think searching with Cyrillic might garner better results.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This place claims to have it, but you have to buy into a subscription to access it. Also I have no idea if that site is reputable or dodgy. I think you'll be doing very well to find it for free, though. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I found it here for free. But after combing the 1867 edition I can't seem to locate the thumbnail sketches of how various court officials appeared to him at the funeral of William Pitt Kīnau described by David Forbes. I think it might be in 1862 edition but the link for the 1862 edition on the site I found was dead. Any help locating the funerary sketches or the 1862 editions would be appreciated or maybe combing through it again or help translating the captions on each of the images in 1867 edition?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

psychology of raising a rape child

Edit. I've edited the below to make clear that I am interested in the perspectives of sociology, history, anthropology, demographics, etc, as well as simply psychology.

When women do decide to have children that are the result of rape, assuming their rapist does not remain in their lives, then in raising this child are the mother's as a rule negatively effected emotionally, are prone to have a degenerate/substance abuse/ whatever other negative result life? (As a tendency). I've removed speculation as to why it would or wouldn't. (Briefly: contra - reminded of incident frequently, lacking financial support, lacking parental bond with other parent; pro - maybe it is easier to raise however woman chooses best, which would apply just as easily to a single father, but for obvious reasons is rarer). 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So basically the less likely an answer is to be correct, the more interested you are in it? Looie496 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea that a child can only be raised successfully by a female and male adult who are the child's biological parents is simply not true. An awful lot of kids from single parent or step parent families turn out perfectly normal. (Whatever "normal" means.) The extra factor of the missing biological parent being a rapist would be bound to have an effect in some cases, but whether negative or positive would vary a lot and be impossible to predict. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking about tendencies, not for an actual prediction, nor about a particular case. I'd like to know about tendencies, or what 'tends to happen', which can be answered from the point of view of a psychologist, sociologist, historian, etc. I welcome all references, and am not really interested in speculation, which is what I can produce without research. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "tendencies"? A given woman is either going to love the child, resent the child, or somewhere in between. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious what s/he means, s/he is looking for references to studies involving a number of women and children, from which you could observe "tendencies". You would need a very large set to avoid skewed data, so I think it is unlikely that a good enough study exists. --Lgriot (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As in what percentage of such women love their children, what percentage resent them, and what percentage are somewhere in between? I would think that, at the very least, some of the propagandists (on either side) would have done such surveys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This Google search is not quite what you want, but may give some insights. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And here are three studies that I found while searching PubMed. You may wish to search further on your own after refining your criteria, because as even these three samples show, the answer may vary widely depending on the country and the circumstances of the violence. If you don't have access to academic papers via a library or similar, you can request them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, providing you intend to use them to add to the encyclopedia. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Social issues around advanced unwanted pregnancies in rural single women
• Rape as a weapon of war in modern conflicts
• Children of bad memories

Kawaihae Cave controversy

What ever happen to the Kawaihae Cave controversy? Briefly for those who don't know and to establish what I already know, Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawaii Nei repatriated 83 artifacts from the Bishop Museum to a cave in Kawaihae in 2000. The controversy arose from groups who disagreed with their actions and also the Museum's responsibility for this, had the Museum been complacent in the repatriation even though they claimed it was only a loan. Some lawsuits in 2005 were brought up about returning the artifacts, which were sealed in the cave with cement. From this [3], I think the ruling was to retrieve the artifacts, but Ayau of Hui Malama refused to do so. My question is what are the recent news on the issue, and what is the current fate of the artifacts (were they returned or are they still in the cave)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of famous paintings in people's houses/small galleries/studios before they were famous?

The other day I watched a documentary on Les Demoiselles d'Avignon which had pictures of it in Jacques Doucet's house. It was startling to see such an iconic work just sitting in someone's house. It also had some pictures of Picasso sitting in his studio with it just kind of leaning against the wall off in a corner. These kinds of images are fascinating. Are there any online galleries with similar images? I'm having difficulty googling as there isn't really a concise term. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "private gallery" is the kind of keyword that would help when combined with something else - on its own you would probably getway too much porn. For example, I tried the search string picasso "private gallery" and got several news reports about Picasso works appearing in private art galleries (and thefts from those galleries). That could lead to the names of private galleries, which may have some images online. Maybe a better search would be for "private collection". Astronaut (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2

Public opinion shift on abortion in the U.S between 1995 and 1997

In the days before and after Roe vs. Wade in which the Supreme Court in 1973 legalized abortion in all 50 states, support for abortion was rising in the polls and politicians where changing their stance on the issue. The trend was clear until support reached its peak in 1995 where according to Gallup, 56% of Americans claimed to be pro-choice and 33% claimed to be pro-life. For some reason, support for abortion dramatically dropped from 56% to 47% in just 2 years according to Gallup and the percentage of people claiming to be pro-life rose from 33% in 1995 to 44% in 1997. The issue of whether abortion should be legal or not has divided Americans ever since to the point that Americans are slightly more pro-life today than pro-choice in 2013 according to some of the latest polls. My question is what event, discovery, etc. caused the dramatic and astonishing drop in public opinion about abortion from 1995 to 1997? Willminator (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the Republican takeover of the Congress, and attendant propaganda? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Some references. Based on a quick skim, this paper argues that the changing trends are a function of America's two-party system and the subsequent polarization of public opinion that has been occurring on many issues. [4] seems to think it's something to do with America's racial and gender divides. Here is Gallup's 2002 review of the trends over time. And this is a review of US supreme court rulings on abortion over time. P.S. if I understand rightly how these polls work, one poll in 20 is inaccurate, based on the standards used in polling. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This does not appear to be the case with the issue of gay marriage. Is that the exception? It appears that Americans are becoming less polarized on that subject as more and more Americans are beginning to support it. Willminator (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The big shift during those two years probably had a lot to do with effective fundraising by Pat Robertson as head of the Christian Coalition of America. As a result of this fundraising, Robertson became very influential both within the Republican Party—due to his ability to support Republican candidates who echoed his views—and publicly—through television and print advertisements. During the mid-1990s, abortion opponents showered negative publicity on types of abortion most likely to cause revulsion, such as intact dilation and extraction. During this period, anti-abortion activists also picketed frequently in public places, displaying images of aborted fetuses emphasizing their resemblance to newborn babies. This publicity and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 helped crystallize opposition not only to this form of abortion but to all forms. In effect, abortion opponents, including the National Right to Life Committee, used the most gruesome forms of abortion to convince a significant portion of the public that all abortion was gruesome and cruel. Marco polo (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the premise of the question is flawed, in that it assumes that opinion polls are a reliable barometer of public opinion. I would say that they are not, and even if they were, a shift from 56% to 47% support is not at all dramatic but merely a reflection of the margin of error within opinion polls. --Viennese Waltz 12:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, opinion polls are generally pretty accurate in determining how elections will turn out and the winner's approximate margin of victory as well. Thus, why can't they be a reliable barometer of public opinion on an issue such as this with a clearly worded question? Futurist110 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. 56 to 47 may sound significant, but may not be statistically significant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting to see what the data for the early 1990s and the late 1990s for all of the years was. If the data (hypothetically) went 45, 47, 46, 48, 49, 56, 50, 47, 45, 46, then the polling data from 1995 and/or 1996 was probably a fluke. If the data (hypothetically) went 45, 47, 50, 53, 54, 56, 52, 47, 45, 46, then it is more likely than in the other data set that the poll results from between 1995 and 1997 on this question were not flukes. Futurist110 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So there's no reason people given about why polls on abortion declined so quickly from 1995 to 1997? Since 1995, support for abortion has never gone up to 56% again. It has not even gone up above 50% in the polls for a quite long time. Willminator (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the launch of Fox News Channel in 1996 also has something to do with influencing public opinion in the USA, with its supposed conservative bias. The impact of Fox News on voting patterns (and therefore I presume public opinion over controvertial topics such as abortion) has been examined by by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt in their book The Fox Effect. Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Don Quixote question

Edmund Gayton's Festivous Notes (1654) mentions the following: "Pacolet’s horse for the lords, and Ephialtes the night-mare for their viragoes; Probably Dulcinea, committed Sancho to the care of one of her familiars, who gave him the Presto and a vade celeriter through the air; but he came not flying, but lying, all the way." I know "Pacolet's horse" is a literary reference to the wooden horse that both Don Quixote and Sancho ride, and I know that "Ephialtes the night-mare" refers to the mare. However, I am unsure what Gayton is referring to about Dulcinea and Sancho. Who or what is this familiar, and what is the "Presto and a vade celeriter"? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ephialtes presumably also refers to Ephialtes, who was responsible for nightmares, according to the Greeks (but not Ephialtes of Trachis, the traitor at Thermopylae, although the two are often confused). For the rest, he seems to think Dulcinea is a witch or a magician? A "familiar" could just be a family member or friend, but also a shape that a witch could take (turning into a bat or a cat or whatever). "Presto" and "vade celeriter" are supposed to be magic words (see Hocus Pocus for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When did humans first start believing in any form of a deity?

When was it, and where were these people located? I am interested for various reasons. Some might rephrase the question as:

• "When did religion start?"
• "Who were the first group of people to have/believe in a religion?"
• "When did the concept of a deity first arise within humanity?"

Nicholasprado (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the short answer is anywhere between 100,000 BCE and 223,000 BCE. This was less to to with deity worship, however, and more to do with ceremonial rites. If you want a grey definition of when religion was born, this could be a proto form of it. The first real recorded deity, however, would be in 38,000 BCE. The Aurignacian Lion man of the Hohlenstein Stadel, the oldest known zoomorphic (animal-shaped) sculpture in the world and one of the oldest known sculptures in general, was made at this time. — Richard BB 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The article only indirectly mentions paganism, but that has to have been around for nearly as long as humans began using their big brains. The core idea is that all of nature is "alive", not just the obviously-alive animals and plants. For example, volcanoes were associated with the wrath of gods. And paganism persists to this day, when we anthropomorphize nature, talking about storms having "angry" clouds and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The history of the human race is the history of people arguing about the answer to this question for untold thousands of years. Nobody yet, to date, has ever convinced everyone else they have the correct answer. How many religions are there on Earth? More than you've heard of, and each one has a different answer, not to mention those who are against religion all have different answers too. Therefore such a question does not seem well suited to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Like everyone else, you will probably have to spend a whole lifetime researching and drawing your own conclusions. Happy hunting! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Til U: The OP dis not ask if any of the established belief systems were correct / factual / true. They did pose the query when, in prehistoric and preliterate times, humans invented divine entities. Maybe the question can´t be answered as any evidence is sparse and open to fuzzy interpretation, nevertheless it seems a vaild enquiry for the RD. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

1) I never said the OP asked that. 2) I can read for myself what the OP asked. 3) None of the questions can be answered here, only different opinions given. 4) These are the sorts of questions that almost always open up cans of worms, which is why they were one of the topics avoided, back when people had more sense. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't say it, but you implied it. You're just trying to deter the OP from asking a perfectly valid question. This question is entirely capable of historical investigation, and presumably has a factual answer, although not one we may be able to determine. It is absolutely not purely a matter of opinion. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't infer things I did not say. If I mean to say something I will say it. For instance, I mean to say that yes, contradicting what you said, it is absolutely, 100% a matter of opinion (aka hypothesis / conjecture), and remains a mystery that cannot be answered without undertaking our own original research. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Til, your statement "[S]uch a question does not seem well suited to the Wikipedia Reference desk" is wrong, there are anthropologists/archeologists who are trying to find answers to that very "when" question, even though it is a very difficult one, and they must have written articles about their studies, so we could find references that the OP could find useful. --08:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure they are. They've been trying to convince everyone else on Earth of their views for several centuries now, and they aren't really getting any closer to a breakthrough on that in any of our lifetimes, no matter how much "wishful thinking" or other bells and whistles are applied. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I suspect it is like war, a phenomenon that predates us as a species. Dominant male chimps will shake the trees and make threat displays toward the sky when it rains. That's implicit belief in a sky god. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

War does not predate us as a species. In fact, the earliest evidence of war--and some archeologists dispute even this--is cemetery 117, from 13,000 years ago. By comparison human prehistory spans 200,000 to 6 million years, depending on your definition. In prehistoric and pre-agricultural times, few had the authority, the manpower, the resources, or the motive for going to war, as the world was a big empty place. --Bowlhover (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The subsequent articles may be of help to the OP: Evolutionary origin of religions, History of religions, Timeline of religion. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: As a plug for my late countryman (whose couch I have narrowly missed thousands of times): Freud and religion. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure Freud has much to say about religion, when "Totem and Taboo" and "Moses and Monotheism" are two of his worst books (both quite strange, and both widely considered historically worthless by scholars in the relevant fields)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Til Eulenspiegel: I do disagree that the question I posed earlier to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk is a matter of opinion, since the topic on my mind is a exploration into when creatures, rather they be human or any other form of intelligent life, first started "believing" in a force that had power over them and could manipulate or control them, in other words a "belief" in something that they don't really have proof of, but something they feel exists to due to various experiences they've had. I'm also pointing to fellow user μηδείς post about chimps being angered at the sky pouring rain onto them, the chimps might feel that there is an enemy chimp or human or anything in the sky there for the sole purpose of throwing rain on them. The chimps would have no proof of this assertion, but they really couldn't find any other explanation as to why rain pours on them.

• At what point in human history did we start to "believe" in a force that made any assortment of things happen?, and the more complicated and difficult to answer question:
• Where were these human located on the planet?

Again I'm looking for when, where etc..., I don't have much experience in this topic so I posted it here, now it's seeming more likely that that part of history was never recorded. Thanks! Nicholasprado (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"that part of history was never recorded"... And in case I haven't used enough synonyms yet, here's one more: speculation. Again, nobody in several millennia has yet come up with any arguments that have proved to be compelling to most of earth's population. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of our modern concepts like "conscious being" don't even apply to the earliest humans. They seemed to take all active entities (growing organisms, fire, heavenly bodies) as having an animating spirit the same as oneself and other people. That is called animism. Animism as the earliest stage of natural history seems universal to all culturally modern humans, which means humans who possessed art and memorial burial in archaeology. That gives you a date of maybe 100,000 BC. On the other hand, Julian Jaynes theorized that humans only became "conscious" in his sense about 1,500 BC, when they began to realize that the thoughts in their heads were not the speech of others, but their own minds. (Consider even as late as the time of Aristotle gravity was explained as the "desire" of heavy bodies to occupy the center of the earth.) Before that point men were functionally schizophrenic, to put his theory in otherwords. This topic is so broad it would fill a bookshelf. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's amazing, then, that we've even gotten past that point. I wonder if a person from one of those eras would be as functional as someone today if raised in modern society. — Melab±1 ☎ 03:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, you might be able to see some kind of resurgence in the mystical if you follow the rantings of individuals who believe in the government men behind the curtain. — Melab±1 ☎ 03:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You mean this shaman troll? He still exists. But no, no rant today. He's listening. Happy thoughts... InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You may find tracking down and taking a look at the following useful and/or interesting:

• Harrod, James B. "A Trans-Species Definition Of Religion." Journal For The Study Of Religion, Nature & Culture 5.3 (2011): 327-353. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.
• L., G. "DEATH. (Cover Story)." New Scientist 216.2887 (2012): 32-36. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.
• Deeley, Peter Q. "THE RELIGIOUS BRAIN: Turning Ideas Into Convictions." Anthropology & Medicine 11.3 (2004): 245-267. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.
• Rossano, Matt. "Supernaturalizing Social Life." Human Nature 18.3 (2007): 272-294. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.

All except the New Scientist article have what look to be pretty extensive references that are also probably worth pursuing. No definitive answer to your question in any of them, I'm afraid, but an avenue to explore, at the very least. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Lion Gate

Are there any reconstruction or depictions of how the Lion Gate of Mycenae might have looked when the lion reliefs had heads on them? I know the article say they are missing and they are suppose to face down at the person approaching the gate, but looking at the image there seems to be very little room for a head between the neck and pillar and face of the wall above.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are two paintings: [5] and [6] but I think your motherlode may be this site, where someone asked the same question as you and a ton of helpful reconstruction images were posted in reply. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Lost Classical Music

(I think this is more relevant to humanities than entertainment)

Wikipedia has articles for lost_art and lost literature (entitled lost_work) but I can't find an equivalent for classical music. Does Wikipedia currently have such an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.210.47 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 July 2013

See Category:Lost musical works.—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Books on German war medals

Hi all,

Seeing as this is a reference desk, could one of you kind editors refer me to a book regarding such medals? I would be interested to in writing some articles on German war medals in the WW1-2 era. Anyone know of such a book, or even an online database? Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 16:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There certainly are lots of books available to buy or from the library, such as Medals and Decorations of Hitler's Germany, German War Medals in the Light of History, A Collector's Guide to German World War 2 Medals and Political Awards.

As for free online sources, there is some very general info in The German Soldier in World War II pp13 ff. As you’ve seen, our articles Orders, decorations, and medals of Imperial Germany and Orders, decorations, and medals of Nazi Germany are each sourced to a single collector website, so it’s great you’re doing this!

If you read German, you might try the sources in the German Wikipedia article which include one book and several websites. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I will look into all of that. Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Six heroic men

There is a book called Six Heroic Men: John Frith; T. Fowell Buxton; David Livingstone; Richard Baxter; John Lawrence; Claude Brousson. by William Garden Blaikie. Who is the T Fowell Buxton? Presumably Sir Thomas Buxton, 1st Baronet in which case his article should be renamed on the grounds of "known as". I come to this conclusion because of WG Blaikie's religious views. But I refer you also to the section in Buxton's article called "Descendants". Kittybrewster ☎ 18:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've created redirects for T. Fowell Buxton and T Fowell Buxton - WP:RM is the place to go if you think the article should be renamed, although the current title complies with WP:NCPEER and I think it's unlikely to be eligible for an exception. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know some detective novels of the Decadent Movement?

I need a detective novel from the Decadent Movement, is there any you can reccomend? -- 20:13, 2 July 2013‎ 189.222.240.18

A quick Google search comes up with Prince Zaleski by M. P. Shiel, although I've not read it myself. Tevildo (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Shiel's Zaleski is certainly decadent, but Prince Zaleski is a collection of short stories, not a novel. Deor (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Portrait of Lady Diana Spencer by Isaac Whood

I am trying find a photograph of Isaac Whood's three-quarter length portrait of Diana Russell, Duchess of Bedford (née Lady Diana Spencer), painted in the early 1730s. The Duchess is depicted wearing a "Van Dyck costume", "sitting, in white satin". I was able to find much information about the portrait and how it came to be, but could not find an image of it no matter how hard I tried. Any help would be appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it in the Woburn Abbey? I saw the description in a book cataloging stuff in abbey and in a roundabout way find these two links [7] and [8], although I don't think they are by Whood or is it the one on the book cover.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, yes, it is supposed to be in Woburn Abbey. Whood is definitely the author, but many thanks for finding the one by Hudson! I'll upload it immediately. I believe the portrait on the book cover is the one I am looking for, as it depicts her "sitting, in white satin". I don't think it would be a copyright violation if I cropped the book title out of the cover and used that image, but the resolution is rather low. It would be great if we could find an image of the portrait on its own, so to speak. By the way, I am ashamed to admit that I came across the cover while looking for the portrait but never realized that the painting on the cover might actually be that portrait! Thank you once again. Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that "Isaac Whood's companion portraits of the Duke and Duchess of Bedford in Vandyke mode are now untraced." The portrait on the book cover was painted by Charles Jervas. Thanks once again! Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nahl's Portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii

In 1856 or 1857 (authenticating the date would be helpful too), Charles Christian Nahl created a portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii on horseback that was exhibited in San Francisco. When and what was this exhibit? I see one source that said it was exhibited in the Mechanics' Institute Fair in 1857 but this New York Times article said that the painting was still being exhibited when Kamehameha V (a prince at the time) visited in 1860. How long was this exhibition? Also can anybody find out what happened to the original; source just said that it was lost with no info on who last owned it/saw it or what may have happened to it or other exhibition items like it after the event (maybe they were donated, destroyed, auction, etc). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There were 30 some Mechanics' Institute of SF expositions between 1857 and 1899. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It was probably first exhibited in 1857, and put on show again during the visit in 1860. Local newpapers would give you information about the length of the exhibitions, but they would probably be only for a few weeks. "Lost" just means it disappears from records. It could still exist. Paul B (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Homework

im really stuck on my homework im doing an invention from 1600-1900

I may misunderstand your question, but is our article Timeline of historic inventions of any help? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Several interesting and useful things were invented during the assigned period. Is there any particular type of invention you want to report on? Things in transportation, energy, chemistry, medicine, communications, food preservation, entertainment, lighting, or warfare, perhaps? Edison (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

July 3

James A. King

Does anybody know the exact date of birth for James A. King in the year 1832?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

His tombstone says Dec. 4, 1833 - October 16, 1899. [9] --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

which makes me ask a real dumb question: are tombstones automatically WP:RS? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

They're primary sources, so they're not generally RS at all. I'd say only use a tombstone as a source if there's no reliable printed secondary source. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Um... not so fast. Primary sources most certainly can be RS... However, a lot depends on how you word the specific statement you are supporting with the primary source.

For example, consider the statement: "James A. King's tombstone gives Dec. 4, 1833 as his date of death." For this statement, the tombstone itself is not only a reliable source... it's the single most reliable source possible.

Now consider another statement: "James A. King died on Dec. 4 1833." For this statement the actual tombstone is probably reliable, but since it is a primary source we should be cautious... it is not the most reliable source possible - because there exists at least the potential that it might have been mis-carved (unlikely, but it could happen). We can use it in the absence of secondary reliable sources, but should defer to those other sources if they exist.

Finally, let us consider a third statement: "King died during the great epidemic of 1833." Here, his tombstone would not be reliable. The tombstone says nothing about the epidemic. While there might well have been a "great epidemic of 1833", one that took place around the date listed on his tombstone ... to draw the two facts together involves making an original inference that is not justified by looking at just the tombstone. For more on the proper (and improper) use of primary sources see our WP:No original research policy... and the essay WP:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In genealogical research I frequently find tombstones with birth and death dates which disagree with official birth and death certificates signed by the doctor. I tend to believe the official certificates in these cases. The tombstone carver writes whatever the person hiring him tells him to, and the person buying the tombstone may well be mistaken about the birthdate if it was long before the informant was born. People were not always well informed about their own birth dates, or they may have chosen to report a different date (such as vanity leading them to make themselves younger or even older than they really were). The death date would seem to be an obviously correct one, but even these are often off by a day from the death certificate, for unknown reasons. Sometimes a grave only has a temporary marker or no marker for many years until someone buys a tombstone, or the old frail marble slab might be vandalized and replaced by a new tombstone with the purchaser unsure of what dates were on the original. Edison (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Israel Population Projections

In this article -- http://www.jpost.com/National-News/CBS-study-projects-114-million-Israelis-in-2035-317738 -- among a couple of other articles, it means that Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics recently created new population projections for Israel up to 2035. Does anyone know where the original population projections here are located? I checked the English version of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics website, but I couldn't find them, and I don't speak or read Hebrew (anymore), so I was unable to thoroughly search the Hebrew version of this website for these projections. Also, are these projections only in Hebrew or is there an English version of them? As a side note, I might be able to add some of the information in these population projections to some Wikipedia articles. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Projections of Israel Population until 2035" and "Population in base year 2010 and Projection for 2015 - 2035, by variant, population group and religion". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I strongly appreciate it. Futurist110 (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Laprobe of a hack

What exactly is a "laprobe of a hack" mentioned here?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In 1904, a hack might have meant a hackney carriage.
Sleigh (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Which fits in nicely with the definition of a lap robe (not what you find on le spaceship alien). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Age and intelligence

Age and intelligence is a redirect to intellectual giftedness, which seems completely wrong to me. I looked up that article because I wanted to know what research has been done on the correlation between age and intelligence. Any sourced information on this topic would be welcome, then I can figure out what to do about that redirect. --Viennese Waltz 11:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That redirect does not sound correct, especially if there's nothing about it in the target article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh yeah that's what I said. --Viennese Waltz 12:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for agreeing with you. I won't let it happen again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Developmental psychology is the best match that I can see, although there doesn't seem to be much about the relationship between age and intelligence. Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What to do about the redirect is to gather some sources and edit the redirect to create a new article which does not duplicate the intellectual giftedness article, but covers the topic broadly. For example, if the article covered not just precocious children, but also the effect of senescence on intelligence as well as on normal intellectual development of children, along side "giftedness", you'd be on to something. --Jayron32 13:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know, that's why I asked for sourced information on the topic – so that I could create the article. --Viennese Waltz 13:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This will get you started. --Jayron32 13:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Our intelligence quotient article contains relevant material, specifically the sections Early history and IQ and age. Note the the IQ measure was specifically designed to take age into account. Looie496 (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There are 3 chapters, "Intelligence in Infancy", "Intelligence in Childhood", and "Intelligence in Adulthood" in Sternberg and Kaufman (eds.), The Handbook of Intelligence (Cambridge University Press, 2011). These have lots of authoritative information in themselves, but also contain bibliographies to the most important recent writings on the topics. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Changes in Cognitive Function in Human Aging (2007 textbook chapter)
• The Lifespan Development of Individuals: Behavioral, Neurobiological, and... (book, see at least page 437)
• The Effects of Aging on Intelligence (course notes, click on the two subpages as well)
• Cognitive Function Can Start Failing At 45 Years Of Age (news article)
• Aging and Cognitive Function (hospital info sheet)
• What could account for our middle age peak in cognitive function: wiring? (blog post by a neuroscientist, see links in it)

and

• Adult Age Differences in Multiple Cognitive Functions (academic paper)
• Relationships among processing speed, working memory and fluid intelligence in children (academic paper)
• Trajectory of High Cognitive Functioning Among the Oldest Old (academic abstract, confirms decline after 40)
• Within-Cohort Age-Related Differences in Cognitive Functioning (academic abstract, of interest because "cohort effect" might be a fruitful line of research for you) 184.147.144.173 (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

All I conclude from this discussion is that the redirect of "Age and intelligence" should either (a) become it's own article or (b) redirect to the IQ & Age section of that other article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Entry on "Emptiness"

note-14 under "Emptiness" refers to a United States psychologist, but searching her doesn't lead to any article or remarks which are quoted. Were they from an article or oral remarks made at one of her presentations? If so, please add more information to support the quotation. Can I contact the author of the page?Dalancer (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A Google search indicates that "Awakening the Silent Soul: Treating Eating Disorders From the Inside Out" is the title of a workshop presentation that Jennifer Nardozzi has given in a number of places -- I see no indication that it has been published anywhere. As such, this probably ought not to be used as a source for our article. Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Interesting catch. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says sources have to be published - and as Looie496 says, this is an oral presentation ([10]). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard could tell you what do to next. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Since no one had edited the article, I asked the Reliable Sources folks and they said delete the whole paragraph, which I have done. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Egypt Rallies

Have the recent rallies in Egypt been the largest groups of protestors ever?

Probably not. — Lomn 18:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Qur'an and Torah belt? and equivalent to Jesusland

In Muslim nations, do they have their own "Qur'an belt"? In Israel, does it have its own "Torah belt"? In Muslim nations and Israel, do they have a region equivalent to America's "Jesusland map"? --Donmust90 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

I'm not sure what question you're asking. Can you rephrase the question, perhaps? --Jayron32 19:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

He's asking for local equivalents to the American "Bible Belt". Israel is small, but there are some neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and some towns, which are heavily Orthodox.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And there are more and less conservative areas in many Muslim countries. For example, in Egypt, it's often stated that Alexandria and the countryside are much more conservative than Cairo. The term "Koran Belt" (or other spellings) is not used, though. --Xuxl (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Female members of an American family I know living in Saudi Arabia in a compound for non-Muslims are severely limited in their lifestyle by the religious rules: They have to wear Muslim dress in public outside the compound. There are no movie theaters, they can't have a Christian church, but they can meet together at a "morality meeting" with no cross in evidence and sing some Christian songs. The girls cannot do a dance recital. This might be considered the "Koran Belt." If they drive (more accurately hire a male driver to take them) a short distance to Bahrain, then the girls could be confirmed in their Christian religion by a Bishop, they can watch movies,swim in a pool, buy DVDs, and attend a public Christian worship service. Bahrain would not be in the "Koran belt." Iraq was an example of a "non-Koran-Belt" country, at least before the US (and allies) invasion. Egypt was not much of a Koran belt country, with a tradition of secular government and Christians allowed to practice their religion freely. Afghanistan under the Taliban was extreme Koran Belt. Edison (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Bondage and Sexual Thoughts

Troll, now indef'd
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not a joke question, I swear. I like bondage, in a sexual way, and I take a keen interest in metal bondage, such as handcuffs, leg shackles, cages and other things. Why? What causes humans to enjoy such things? What is the catalyst? I am sorry if this question is inappropriate. --Kertial (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC) My pet theory is that bondage is the release from internal sexual repression. Bind the limbs to free the mind. [11] But I have no personal experience in such matters. Hcobb (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC) The article Bondage (BDSM) contains some thoughts on this matter. Bielle (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC) I thought the idea was that you could have wild sex, but not feel guilty, because you were tied up and thus had no say in the matter. StuRat (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Reports of signs specially written in Chinese that relates to impolite behaviour of Chinese?

I used to heard report like this in Chinese says that there is once a notice sign that tells "Do not spit" in Chinese in the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and it was reportedly removed some years later. However, I seemed to find no google results or google image results. Is it verifiable? Are there any reports of similar events about Chinese signs in other countries' tourist attractions?--Bnfbgfgk (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not quite the same, but these signs are all over the place in China, especially since just before the Beijing Olympics, as the Chinese Government did not want all of the foreign spectators to see this kind of behaviour (which is extremely common - hence the need for the signs). Another one is 'Do not blow your nose" - referring to the Chinese habit of blowing it straight onto the pavement with one finger covering each nostril alternately. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Though, my question is: are there such notices outside China that seemed to be dedicated to Chinese people and their behaviour? (e.g. multilingual notices and those in Chinatowns wouldn't be so plausible to mean "dedicated to Chinese...") Are there notices of this kind common in tourist attractions outside China(I have never seen one yet),or are those reports just made-up things or over-emphasizing of single events to make people aware?--Bnfbgfgk (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I knew that. That's why I said, 'Not quite the same, but...' KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Back in the day when I was an exchange student at Tsukuba University, the international office had signs on the trash bins telling people not to spit into them in several languages - Japanese, English, Korean and Chinese. The thing is, the Chinese sign used about three or four times as big a font as the others, which seemed to just have been tacked along for PC purposes. 192.51.44.21 (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Google found me this rather odd page, which I believe is Chinese, which says under the heading "How to develop good habits": South Korean public places, specially for Chinese posted "no spitting," Italy Leaning Tower of Pisa "don't spit" with the Chinese, the United States of America in the toilet use Chinese to write "flush after use"... Alansplodge (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

July 4

Cephalitis in the 1890s

Were people sent to insane asylums for having cephalitis (exact words) in the 1890s? The source said cephalitis. Correct me if I am wrong but it might be Encephalitis.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably a synonym,[12] like "sick head" vs. "sick in head". Similarly, an old variant on "encyclopedia" was "cyclopedia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You obviously have a source, may I ask what it is and what country it refers to? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that both "cephalitis" and "phrenitis" are obsolete synonyms of "encephalitis". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hard to know without seeing the source, but it was probably referring to syphilis, which was essentially incurable at that time, and in many victims would eventually invade the brain giving rise to neurosyphilis, a form of encephalitis that produced steadily worsening dementia. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

UTC)

Whoa no I don't think so. Her name was Mauli Keawepooole, a 14 year old girl who died in 1899 and lived during the beginning of the Territory of Hawaii, that is all the detail, attended by a Dr. Humphries. Here is the source [13] around the bottom of the second column. Does anyone know what was "the Insane asylum" referred to in the article like if its name and if it survives today? Also who is Dr. Humphries?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the reference to her burial but not to what she was suffering from. Where did you get that from? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A descendant of her mother.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a picture of the insane asylum (I assume there was just one in Honolulu) here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And Dr. Humphries is almost certainly one Francis Howard Humphries. See the first page of this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Communism, Nazism, fascism, and Thomism — is one of these things not like the others?

One of today's "did you know" blurbs points to the bio on Conyers Read, who apparently warned in one breath against "the Thomist, the Fascist, the Nazi, the Communist". I certainly agree with his point on the last three. But does anyone know what led him to classify Thomas Aquinas with the three proponents of extreme statism?

At a brief glance at the Thomism article, most of its main points seem to be abstract and metaphysical. There are probably some I would agree with and some I would disagree with, and some I would find not meaningful enough to say either way; I would have to give it some thought before assigning particular points to any of the three categories. But I didn't see anything that said to me that the individual should be completely at the service and mercy of the group. So what set Read off? --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Nazism is the odd one out. Nazism is a specific manifestation of Fasicsm, so it is the only one in the list that has a set-element relationship with any of the others. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the set-element relationship transitive? So A is an element of B, B is a set containing A, so they both have this relationship. Then Fascism is also an "odd one out". But I think I get your point.. IBE (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you are right. My bad. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the set-element relationship is not transitive. It's also not commutative. The subset relation (which is relevant here) is transitive (but also not commutative). See also Is-a (which is basically the same as the subset relationship, but is conceptually on the object level, not the set level). So Naziism is a form of fascism, which is a form of ideology (or, equivalently, the set of all Nazisms is a subset of the set of all fascisms, which is a subset of the set of all ideologies). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, guys, I did my PhD in set theory, so thanks, but to restate, the question is: I see what Nazism, fascism, and Communism have in common, all three being extreme statist ideologies at least in practice, but I don't get why Read thought that Thomism belonged in the same list. Any insight on that? --16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hardly an expert on this but it looks very much to me like the reason he picked on Thomism is because Thomism advocates the concept that a central belief system (in this case, everything written by Thomas Aquinas) cannot and indeed must not be questioned for any reason ever, and indeed doing so must be punished. That sounds very like the ideas that held up the fascist and Communist states - the idea that one group told you what to believe, and therefore you must believe in it as if it were your very own idea. It could be that he was using Thomism as a scapegoat - a well-known philosophy not affiliated to any specific political parties of the time and therefore to be considered a "general case", perhaps he considered it a metaphor, perhaps in the 1950s it was in fact an oft-cited example and far better known to the casual listener. Either way, I'd say this is why he uses it. Falastur2 ^Talk 17:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Could be anti-Catholic. Catholic theologians hold Aquinas in high regard. Read seems to have written about politics in Tudor England so would have had strong views about the Reformation. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want you can read Finnis, John, Aquinas: Moral, Political and Legal Theory (Oxford University Press, 1998). I can certainly see the relation between proponents of Thomism, Fascism, and National Socialism: They all focus on trying to align positive law with natural law. Most modern political groups don't seem to talk about natural law much if at all. I'm not sure about Communism. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see that. I imagine Italian Fascism threw some sops towards natural law because it might have resonated with native Catholicism, but Nazism seems to have been more about what the Volk could get for itself. When I think natural law, I think John Locke, whose views were virtually the opposite of fascism and communism. --Trovatore (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hitler was the archetypical anti-intellectual, but Marx was very much in the tradition of Locke. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Having a little trouble swallowing that last, but even if so, I very much doubt that Read meant to criticize Locke in this broadside. --Trovatore (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Likely not. Also, "communist" societies were only vaguely inspired by Marx anyways. I think Itsmejudith is on the right track. Read lived most of his life in a time when anti-Catholicism was very strong in the US. He might have included Thomism as the ideological base of Catholicism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I said that all three are about aligning positive law with natural law, not that they are just about natural law simpliciter. Locke is not like that all. He talks about natural law a lot, true, but then sets it aside, because he determines that natural law has it that people are free in a special sense. Positive laws placed upon free people then are to be determined by consent, not by nature. That's in fact a distinctive attribute of Locke and the early modernists in the history of political science: setting aside natural law more or less in determining positive law. From the Second Treatise, 119: "Every man being, as has been shown, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent;" That's exactly where a Thomist and a fascist and National Socialist would disagree: For them, the earthly powers are to be arranged according to natural law, whether the subjects of this earthly power consent or not.

To make the case that National Socialism was like that, I can only cite Mein Kampf and the Third Reich policies. Hitler goes on at length about laws of nature and "racial laws" in particular. One story he has is with regards to Germanic and Latin immigrants to the Americas: The Germanic immigrants, because they mixed with the aboriginals less than the Latin immigrants, rose to become masters of the continent. The general account of racial nature: Only a few or even just one race is the source of human progress and goodness, and miscegenation destroys this. The policies are then enacted in alignment with this racial law: citizenship is limited to those of "German or kindred blood". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Let me make sure we're speculating simply based on a four-term book title? Looking at what else Read's written, I would venture a guess he meant Catholic forces aligned against Elizabethan Britain. If so, it's not a very accurate choice of words, intellectually or historically. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No, we are not speculating on a book title, but on a quote by another historian about Read (which gives the impression that Read used the phrase in question himself). Check reference 14 (as of just now ;-) in Conyers Read. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thomism allows that the acquisition of wealth, when obtained by legal means, affords no occasion for guilt, which would be heretical for Communism; the Thomist account of man as intrinsically good is generic, to be applied to all members of mankind, and hence exclusive of race, which is diametrically opposed to Fascism and Nazism; the Thomist theory of government recognizes monarchy, and aristocracy but argues that people have a right to choose their leaders, where the rulers can be elected (the conditional is problematical), and therefore is consonant with democracy. In so far as law in Thomism derives from God, there is no room for a Fuehrerprinzip, or a secular appropriation of power that usurps principles that are regarded as transcendental and eternal. One could go on. But the conflation is rather pathetic. One might as well say Aristotelianism is totalitarian or the Bible is writ for genocide. Aquinas, with that extraordinary rigour of analytical reason, would have ended up like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Pavel Florensky, in any of the modern totalitarianisms.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Interest and Capital gains

It seems to me that in most jusrisdictions, interest received from a bank is taxed as a normal income (usually at the same rate as a salary), whereas capital gains are taxed seperately (or not at all). Am I right? Please feel free to shoot down my assumption here if I am wrong. What about interest payments from bonds, are they considered insterest or capital gains?

Also, if I am right that they are considered to be different, is there a theoretical or economical justification for this difference in the tax rate between interest and capital gains? Any reference to any government's statement, or economists' studies are welcome.

I am not currently receiving any of these types of income, so this is not a request for legal advice, only I am very interested in how those who do get these incomes are taxed. --Lgriot (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Complicated and jurisdiction-dependent. In the United States, there's a distinction between long-term capital gains and short-term capital gains; only the former gets privileged treatment (short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income, but it's still necessary to distinguish them from ordinary income because there are complicated rules about how they are offset by short-term and long-term capital losses).

Bank interest is generally not considered capital gains at all (at least in the US), but some forms of dividend interest are so considered. I think this is fairly new, arising from the (George W.) Bush tax reforms, but I'm not sure of that. This one kind of makes sense to me (the idea is to avoid penalizing dividend-paying stocks in relation to stocks that don't pay dividends). But also see carried interest — that one I don't get at all.

I am not an expert on any of this and no one should rely on it for any actual financial decisions. --Trovatore (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The OP is correct that capital gains, at least long-term capital gains, usually receive favorable tax treatment, see our articles on capital gains tax and capital gains tax in the United States. The usual rationale, briefly discussed in the latter article, is that lower taxes for capital gains results in increased investment, although factually this is questionable at best. Interest payments on bonds are ordinary income, not capital gains. Stock dividends are not capital gains, but qualified dividends also receive favorable tax treatment in the United States.

Trovatore, "carried interest" uses "interest" in the broad sense of ownership; it does not mean interest on debt. The carried interest may arise from any form of income received by the hedge fund, including interest on bonds or capital gains. John M Baker (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, so the main thing is that the government people assume that capital gains is a product of long term investment, whereas interest is not, that is why they give the former a preferential treatment. Thanks to all for your help.--Lgriot (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Godfather

My brother has had a baby. He (the child) is going to be christened. I'm atheist but was brought up Catholic and was consequently christened, made my first communion and was confirmed. Would it be possible for me to act as a witness (play some of the part of the godfather) at the christening, without making any religious vows or even statements of belief?

My brother is my only brother and my sister-in-law has only one sister. It would be natural to assume that we would be the godparents. I don't want to be egotistical and be pointy about the whole scenario (the day is not about me), but I really don't think I can make vows that I don't believe in. It would be good if there was a tidy way around the situation. I've read that it's possible for a non Catholic to be a Christian witness but that situation doesn't apply to me. Can a Catholic (in the Church's eyes) be a non Christian witness?

It will be a Roman Catholic baptism.

Thanks Stanstaple (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you read Godparent, and also talk to the priest in their church. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It depends very much on the church and the priest. I wasn't asked if I was a Christian or required to provide Christian upbringing when I became a godfather (in a protestant church), only to help and support the child in question. But that may be quite atypical. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the article, that is often the purpose of a godparent, and in fact I (a protestant) was always under the impression that that was the whole point of that role. And I wouldn't think a promise to support a child if it loses its parents would require religious faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I had exactly this issue. The RC ceremony in question (I don't know to what extent it varies) asked the Godparents to affirm that they believed in Jesus (and in the theological significance of Jesus) and to agree to help raise the child in the Roman Catholic faith. My cousin, who is a practising Roman Catholic, was actually questioned by the priest as to the theological underpinnings of his faith. On consultation with the parents, I agreed instead to be the "Science Father" (a role I invented for myself), which mostly entails buying the little tyke books about dinosaurs and minibeasts and stuff. 87.112.233.132 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's only an issue if you've got some lurking concern that lying to a priest might be a sin punishable by God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses thus far. I have read the Godparent article and searched a bit around the web, unfortunately I haven't found my answer. My understanding is that, as godfather, you do have to make vows at an RC baptism that I can't in good faith make. I know that for many it's okay just to go along with it and tell pseudo white lies. But, I think it would be better for all concerned if I could stand at the alter with my brother, sister-in-law & nephew, without lying, yet still affirm my guardianship of the little fella.

I've a feeling that there is an answer out there - but I don't know how to find it.

If anyone can search better than I, and find a method which maintains every ones integrity I'd very much appreciate it. I don't expect anyone to ask anyone on my behalf; if I could be pointed in the direction of a forum or wherever that I could get an answer, I'd be very grateful Stanstaple (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hold on thar, Baba Looey. Is it really about "integrity" or is it about imposing your view on someone else? Is your brother OK with you making such a promise, knowing that it's bogus? If so, then just do it. Why should you give a Hoot in Hades what some priest that you'll never see again thinks about it? Your role will be to support the child if something happens to the parents. That's what you're committing to, and it's all that really matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Presumably because not all atheists are the dishonest, amoral, and selfish people you think they are, and some atheists may actually believe in doing the right thing (i.e. being honest) for the sake of doing the right thing? It is intriguing that you think being honest is the equivalent of imposing one's view on someone else. --50.47.81.232 (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on where you live, and the wisdom of the priest. My atheist-communist friend and his formally converted wife asked me to be godfather of his child in a Catholic baptism in Italy. The priest, living in a communist township, posed no objections. Both the father and I undertook to have the child raised institutionally as a Catholic. In another district, the priest disallowed my playing a similar role for doctrinal reasons, and knowing I was a pagan.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I live in a Dublin. It's not so much a matter of what I can get away with or nudge a priest into. I'm not tring to pull a stroke or be cute.

I think what I'm trying to avoid is me imposing my beliefs on others by being conspicuosuly absent. I don't think it's okay to proclaim things which are fundamentally important but which I don't believe at, an occasion like this. That's why I can't stand up and speak words that I believe to be lies. I'm hoping for a solution, similar to their wedding, where I could be involved but not blatantly lie. Words do count. Especially at times like this.

And good on you for having the integrity to care about this issue. Best I can say is, as others have said, talk it over with the parents and/or the priest. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to these types of questions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The highest "integrity" would be to do what's best for the child and its parents, as opposed to tryng to impose one's (non-)religious views on a situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that seems somewhat overstated. Seems to me the OP has been invited to participate in this ceremony, and feels a degree of social/family obligation, but also has moral scruples about doing something he does not believe in. There's no imposition of non-religious views going on. The role of a godparent in a Catholic baptism is not about assuming the role of the parent if the real parents fall under a bus, except to the extent of the child's religious upbringing. There is no assumption that the godparent will adopt the child, for example (which would be a tough call if the godparents were married to different spouses, which is usually the case). This is more about setting an example of not acting contrary to one's conscience, at least until the matter can be sorted out in discussions with the appropriate parties. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither my friend nor I were 'nudging' the priest. He knew both of us, and trusted that, since the father wanted the child baptised, and was notoriously a man of his word, and, extremely choosy about his friends, he inferred that the baptism was sponsored by people who did not take their contracted obligations - a godfather assumes a moral responsibility for a child's welfare, ethical and existential- lightly. He never asked me to say anything. Perhaps it was enough that my wife, the godmother, was devout. He was, if you like, a Graham Greenish priest, not a pettifogger. Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Nishindani - I didn't mean to imply that you were. I just wanted to make clear that I don't want to pretend to be a Catholic for the sake of the ceremony. Stanstaple (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

My family is Roman Catholic, from Liverpool, of Irish immigrant stock. I think the godfather vow is just ceremonial. Like a mother marrying for the second time, yet wearing a white dress. It's just part of the tradition. I don't even know who my godfather is. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What did people in the GDR think of the Stasi

In the light of recent events, what did the people that actually lived in the GDR think of the Stasi? First of all, did they know to what extent they were watched, how many people were involved, etc? Would they have thought "this phone call might be listened to" on a daily basis, or was it the suspicious neighbour that would frighten them more, or was it something most people didn't really care about except for the few politically active? How many had a "nothing to hide" attitude? How many would say that that it would be no problem for them to have someone listening in on their sex life, as long as they wouldn't know about it? How many would actually have felt secure not because there would be less crimes against the state but just liked the idea that someone was watching them and could prevent mistakes, similar to God or parents? And would that differ between religious and non-religious people? Did the opinion change during the GDR regime? How many people wanted to know what was recorded after the Wall fell? Any research about this? Joepnl (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comparing the NSA with the GDR is highly offensive. The core premise of a state like the GDR is simply this: No dissension is allowed. The mere fact that the NSA stuff is a topic of discussion in the US (and now in France, apparently, as they're doing the same thing - and probably everyone else is too) makes the comparison bogus. As to whether they liked it, check how quickly they got rid of their dictator when they had the chance, and tore down the wall, and that should give you a hint of how well they liked it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Who mentioned the National Security Agency? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this is a case of If the shoe fits. And on a totally unrelated note, today I saw Chain of Command (part 2). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even specifically mean the NSA, nor do I want to stir a discussion. There are more reasons people must have disliked the GDR like being poor compared to West Germany. Joepnl (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Then what "recent events" are you talking about? Maybe the willingness of Facebook, Google, etc., to sell your personal info to anyone they feel like? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

NSA is one of the events, the Post Office another, bugging embassies yet another, and so are France's "NSA", Dutch internet providers, and then some more. It's quite hard to keep track these last weeks, really. I already said I didn't want a discussion, but since you ask. I don't have an account for Facebook, or Google, and they are not nearly as invasive. Also, fallacy.Joepnl (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that those entities are less invasive. The US government is collecting massive phone call lists because the phone companies won't retain the data for them. Those internet companies (and countless others) are actively invading your privacy. I fail to see how trying to carpet-bomb you with spam and identity theft is somehow more appropriate than trying to protect you from terrorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming a forum, isn't it. In the EU phone companies do have to retain that data, which is and was publicly known. I'm not carpet-bombed with spam or identity theft because I didn't opt-in with those companies. I'm not a member of Oprah's Book Club either, and she never sent me any spam but if she would, I'd be able to go to a public court and make it stop. IMHO, I need as much protection from terrorists as the people in the GDR needed a Wall to protect them from Western Imperialism. Joepnl (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC) (That last sentence is a bit overstated. I mean terrorism should be considered like any murder, instead of a special kind) Joepnl (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No. They are not the same. Terrorism is not "just" murder, it is an act of war against a nation. As regards the phone records, who cares where they are? Whether the government has them or the phone company has them, it still requires a warrant to investigate it. Internet hackers are a far greater danger to us, individually, than is a ginormous database of phone calls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? You're offended by an implied comparison to a non-existent state, but not offended at a government that spies on you without a warrant and can murder you without trial? Please, tell me more about how everyone should respect your distorted sensitivities. --50.47.81.232 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The US government is not "spying on me without a warrant". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You might like to see The Lives Of Others. It was by someone who never saw life under the Stasi, but I read a review, and the people from East Germany said, "Yes, that was what we lived through". The film portrays the fear of bugging (for a writer and activist, not an ordinary citizen) and the interest in seeing the file that the government kept. The bit about seeing the surveillance files was presumably based on knowledge, since von Donnersmarck lived in the united Germany, and would have been able to research that kind of stuff. I also read about Romania after the fall of the Ceausescu regime, and the people used to tell jokes to keep themselves sane. One joke ran: "Two people are standing on a bus, and one of them is standing on the other guy's foot. So the second guy says 'Are you a government minister?' 'No' 'Are you working for the secret police?' 'No' 'Oh - are you some kind of government official of some sort?' 'No' 'So you mean to tell me you are not working for the government in any way.' 'That's right' 'Then get the hell off my foot'." Others were along similar lines. I would say human psychology is similar enough anywhere, and a political system such as that in East Germany essentially pits people against their own kind. It would never create a harmonious society based around the idea that surveillance is a cultural norm. I don't know anything about the psychology of the people who conform, and rat on their neighbours, however. This has always amazed me. IBE (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the OP's final question: after reunification, there was a big controversy over access to Stasi files--our article has the details. Obviously most people wanted to see their own files, but ex-Stasi (most of whom had only marginal positions within the organization) were understandably concerned that open access would lead to a era of retribution and make it impossible for East Germany to leave the past behind. In the end, people were allowed to see their own files, while media and researchers had limited rights to viewing the files of others (including, in some cases, ex-Stasi). --50.47.81.232 (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

field of psychology about the misconceptions of individual experience

I think there is a field of psychology about this but I'm not getting anywhere with searching. The idea is that we believe our individual experience is unique to us, but that most of our experience is really not different from one person to another. Like we know that we all have similar experiences of adolescence (feeling outcast and angry for example) that seem to be unique until we grow older and find that everyone feels that way.

So this field takes that idea about adolescent experience and generalizes it to all human experience. My question is: what is the name of that field? With that information, I can carry on searching but I seem to be unable to progress without it. thanks, Tim (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Weekly and monthly magazines

What are the 5 best selling weekly and monthly magazines in the UK? I've done google search but found nothing. Pass a Method talk 21:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This site seems to have a reasonably comprehensive list. A quick collation of the data gives the top five weeklies as TV Choice, What's On TV, Take a Break, the Radio Times and New!, and the top five monthlies as Slimming World Magazine, Glamour, Moshi Monsters Magazine, Cosmopolitan, and Woman & Home (on which we don't have an article!). Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I'm assuming Moshi Monsters is monthly. If it's weekly, it doesn't make the top 10, and #5 on the monthly list goes to Yours - another magazine without an article.) Tevildo (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Rough House" Case

In this 1904 newspaper story about the so-called "Rough House" case, I am having some trouble making out what rough house means. Is the story basically speaking about Mary Morris being abused by her husband and then taking out her anger on three pedestrians after she left the house? Is "rough house" a common euphemism during that period?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I searched Google Newspaper Archive holdings for 1890 to 1910, and found "rough house" used only to describe physical struggle, fighting, or disorderly conduct. maybe "rough house" was local slang for a low-class saloon in Hawaii in 1904. Edison (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I would assume from the context that the phrase is the equivalent of the English legal term disorderly house (99% of the time a brothel, but occasionally a gambling den). Etymonline doesn't list this as a meaning of "rough-house", but does include "barrel house" ("cheap saloon, often with an associated brothel") in its search results for the term. Tevildo (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't access the newspaper clipping, but a possible alternative spelling of Roughhouse? 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

July 5

How to look up criminal complaints?

I would like to find a criminal complaint filed against Justin Carter by the New Braunfels Police Department in Texas. This is a notable case in which many news sources ^{[14] [15] [16]} have cited the complaint. (Don't worry about outing - the family would not be offended^[17] that people know about the case) I'm quite interested in this specific example (thinking to start an article in the next couple of days, time permitting) but in general, I often feel like I don't know the particulars of a situation for sure until I've seen the complaint and the specific laws involved. Alas, though news organizations always cite these things they seem to treat their sources like a proprietary asset. Is there some straightforward way to view criminal complaints online, or is it some deal where a reporter has to walk in an archive between 4 and 5 on a Wednesday and pay $10 a page for a copy? Wnt (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It may be a FOIA issue, which means that you would have to file a proper request. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that States do not have to grant FOIA requests to non-residents, so you may not even be able to access the complaint yourself if no one who has already requested it has not made it availible. --Jayron32 00:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for this information in order to use it in a Wikipedia article, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which explicitly cautions against using such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems hard to picture that so many different news organizations obtained FOIAs with such little fanfare - my impression was that it was no easy task to get one acted on. As for the article, it would be nice (for example) to know the specific laws involved (and beyond that article, who voted for them...) Wnt (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no general system for obtaining court documents; each court system varies in how much it puts online. There is a docket sheet for this case (which I do not link to because it contains the defendant's address and birthdate; you can find it by making an appropriate search here), but it does not link to the relevant documents. Sometimes one of the parties will make a document available on request; you could try informally contacting the district attorney's office. John M Baker (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Further to AndyTheGrump's point: An indictment is not an acceptable source for factual statements based upon the indictment's allegations, but is an excellent source for describing what the indictment itself says. However, indictments and other court documents often contain personal information that makes them unsuitable for linking. John M Baker (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Individualism and notions of justice

In the justice systems of the West, and in philosophical discussions of the idea of justice, it seems to be a given that justice must be at the level of the individual. That is, if you have done nothing wrong, you cannot be blamed because you are a member of a group that did something wrong. I can provide no reference, because it seems to be an implicit assumption, although (for all I know) references may abound. However, in Eastern countries, the importance of the group is often emphasised over the individual. I do not mean to say this is always present there, and never here, but the individualism of the West is a commonplace observation. It may seem that the collectivism of other societies could run contrary to the importance of the individual in matters of justice. Such may effectively be the case with blood feuds - someone has wronged your ancestor, you are part of the wronged group, so you take up the fight. But in jurisprudence and in higher level discussions, it seems that all societies agree that justice should focus on the individual. So that was all background.

I am wondering if anyone knows of any formal discussion of such an issue, that is, the potential conflict between the general spirit of collectivism, and the significance of the individual when apportioning blame, and dishing out punishments. I do not mean that such notions are contradictory, I merely want to see how these concerns are addressed in collectivist societies, where the group is strongly emphasised. I would welcome any scholarly references, but also even blogs by educated people from such cultures who are reflecting on such issues. I would take these sorts of things as essentially primary sources, since they show how people from these cultures think when confronting these concerns. IBE (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is. Geert Hofstede has spent his life researching and enumerating such cultural differences, and you would do well to read some of his books, particularly "Cultures and Organisations". Also Richard E Nisbett's book "The Geography of Thought" refers to the differences between Eastern and Western approaches to, for example, academic research. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice link. Following the refs led me to this on google books, although when they talk about cross-cultural perceptions of justice, they are making the aforementioned assumption. Eg. bottom of page 361: "retributive justice arises when one individual observers another's act that breaks a rule ..." (cut short here by google, just when it was getting really interesting). So unless they go on to talk about blood feuds and the like, they are making an individualist assumption, that it is about individuals doing things wrong, even when talking about collectivist-individualist cultural differences. Well, I find it interesting. More info welcome. IBE (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What became of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement in the '20 an '30 ?

Hello Learned Ones ! It seems to me the article Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement doesn't say how fruitful this agreement has been in the following years; & the blue link n° 1 seems to me to lead into cul-de-sac...It may not have been very "eupareunistic", since I notice that during the Great Purge, "espionnage for G.B." was frequently the reason for a bullet in the neck. Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers. T.y. PS : is "eupareunistic" (& "thanatophily") correct english ? Arapaima (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Diet Pepsi and Pepsi Max?

What's the difference? Why market 2 drinks with the only obvious differences being that Diet Pepsi has <1% salt (Pepsi MAX has none) and Pepsi MAX has 1 calorie per 250ml (Diet Pepsi has 2). Is there something i'm missing? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Diet" anything is often seen as being a bit soft or womanly, so Pepsi thought that not many men would buy "Diet Pepsi". As such, they created "Pepsi Max" which has a bit more of a hardcore name to encourage sales from people who would feel embarrassed about buying a product with "Diet" written on the front. This should explain more. — Richard BB 11:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

{edit conflict} Diet Pepsi is aimed at women, Pepsi Max is aimed at men. This article gives some background. The same dual marketing strategy is used by Coca Cola with Diet Coke (women) and Coke Zero (men). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Coke Zero and Diet Coke have different formulations, not just different marketing strategies. The artificial sweeteners used and the actual tastes differ. --Thomprod (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the whole idea is that men like to imagine that they are somehow actively crushing those calories underfoot, rather than passively resisting them. Paul B (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been buying Diet Pepsi because i thought there was hidden crap in Pepsi Max. If it's just a gender stereotyping thing, then i'll stick with Diet Pepsi. I bought Pepsi Max in the week to see if it tasted different - that's the reason for the question. Thanks for the responses guys ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Max" in Pepsi Max refers to caffeine content; it has 69 mg compared to 38 mg in a can of standard Pepsi Cola.[18] Personally, I'd rather have a nice cup of tea. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say on the bottle how much caffeine is in Diet Pepsi. Is it possible that Pepsi Max has a difference in the amount and is meant as a kind-of energy drink version? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Pepsi Max has nearly twice as much caffeine as Diet Pepsi - 115mg per 20fl oz for Max versus 59mg per 20fl oz for Diet. The figures are for the drinks as sold in the US - other markets may have different amounts. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is purely speculative, but look up shelf space... well, I guess not, but slotting fee provides a trace of insight on it. My impression is that the largest companies provide a really long line of products to distract the consumer from the fact that they've purchased total control over the supermarket and there isn't really any competition at all. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Introducing new flavors is also a way to steal market share, as there's a slight "novelty" bump from people who try it out (Oooh look, the new Bacon Pepsi! I'll have to try that). It doesn't last very long, which is why companies who use that as a marketing strategy need to keep a near constant stream of new products. --Jayron32 13:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

All interesting replies. I'm thinking after seeing this that it's simply just Diet Pepsi is diet, while Pepsi Max is an energy drink with no sugar content. It seems that simple. Pepsi don't release new products often and i assume that's to avoid a New Coke moment. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Pepsi is a very different business than Coke is. PepsiCo is a diversified food and beverage company that, besides making soft drinks, also makes snacks (FritoLay) and breakfast cereals (Quaker Oats) and formerly owned restaurants (Pizza Hut, KFC, etc.) and even at one time owned sporting goods brands (Wilson) and a trucking line (North American Van Lines). They've since divested themselves of the restaurants and non-food brands, but continue to have a wide variety of products and revenue streams. The Coca-Cola Company makes beverages only. So Coke has to manage it's beverage lines very carefully, and has different marketing strategies because it's a different kind of business than Pepsi, which can afford to run a smaller beverage product line, as it also dominates several other food-related markets. --Jayron32 15:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S. (but not other countries) they contain different sweeteners. Diet Pepsi has only aspartame while Pepsi Max has a mix of aspartame and acesulfame potassium. Pepsi Max also has ginseng extract. Rmhermen (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Egypt

Why do other Arab countries in the middle east support the military coup? What did they have against the Muslim Brotherhood? 163.202.48.126 (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Many are afraid that Islamist ideology will spread throughout Africa, that secularism will be eliminated, and that conservative, political Sharia law will become the governing principle, rather than more moderate forms of government. The Muslim Brotherhood were an Islamist group, and the military removed them from power. — Richard BB 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would Middle Eastern Arab countries worry about the spread in Africa of fundamental Islamism? Those countries supporting the coup are by no means secular or moderate or democratic or whatever in this direction. Check [| this source] as to why the Muslim Brotherhood has a disturbed relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest supported of the coup. Other countries, like Bahrain, being Shia, are also of a different denomination of Islam, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to beards and support for cool, Western-style haircuts. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, regarding Hamas, it is concerned with stability in Egypt, but do not care who is at charge there. And it certainly doesn't care with Richard's "spread throughout Africa, that secularism will be eliminated, and that conservative, political Sharia law will become the governing principle." Support for the coup is not about fighting fundamentalists. The supporters of the new government are by no means more Westernized, democratic or less radical. I'd even say that the Muslim Brotherhood is less radical that say Saudi Arabia. It's all about power, and threats to stability. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sociology

Which are the given subjects when you study Sociology as a career?? Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 14:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean rather, "which careers are open to someone who has studied Sociology?" --TammyMoet (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Or do you mean, "what topics are included in a course in Sociology"? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Itsmejudith and TammyMoet. Sorry, English is not my first language. I meant what topics are included in a course in Sociology: Thanks :) But you could answer both questions for me... ;) I am in my way to study Sociology at The University of Havana and I would like to be prepared. Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 14:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The only on-line information I can find for the University of Havana is in Spanish (not surprising !), but if you do a Google search for "department of sociology undergraduate course list" you can see a cross section of topics covered in various undergraduate sociology programs. Or you can read our article on sociology, which has a "Scope and topics" section. As well as content-oriented courses, you can also expect to have modules on study skills, research skiils and quantitative methods/statistics. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Gandalf61. Thanks for your answer. Unfortunately I don't have Google access, or other sites. I just have access here www.wikipedia.org. So i cannot follow any links or do Google research. Thanks! Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 15:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have email you could use Web2PDF to browse the web using your email address. Compose an email message, type the URL of any web page in the body of that message and send it to submit@web2pdfconvert.com. The service will then fetch the corresponding web page on its own servers and will send it back it you as a PDF attachment – all this takes no more than a few seconds. For example, for searching for sociology and topics, you put "http://www.google.es/search?q=sociology+topics" in the subject of the email and send it to submit@web2pdfconvert.com. Alternatively, put http://nytimes.com as the subject or http://www.cnn.com. They'll send back an email with the Google search results or the corresponding page attached.

I don't know if this is legal or possible in your country. I don't know if internet use is restricted due to technical, economical or national security issues. So, do it at your own peril! 87.217.149.193 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :)... Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 17:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Outline of sociology has it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 2 :) Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 17:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Alba --> Murray/Salmond

This is gonna be speculation, but is Alex Salmond gonna fly down for the Wimbledon final now that Murray is [almost] through? Pnly 1 year to go...and if he makes it next year too then you got commonwealth games as well. What a climax?Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask his office. How on earth would we know? Paul B (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Man of La Mancha

This might not be strictly referencable but what the hay... Should I read Don Quixote before seeing Man of La Mancha later this year? Dismas|^(talk) 20:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Effects of fiction on crime and criminals

There's a lively discussion on the effects that fictional works (movie, literature, etc.) have on crime. Are there any academic studies that examine if (and how much)

1. they increase the abundance and severity of crimes?
2. they help criminals to avoid convictions?

Thank you. 84.109.248.221 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)