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.
...which makes it a serious health problem when their body temperature drops low enough to turn their lips/blood blue. Not that I've ever seen a dog with blue lips (unlike humans). But the analogy was always going to be a bit of a stretch, I guess. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Monastic Orders and Handwritten Manuscripts
I recently was in a discussion which touched upon the stereotype of medieval monks spending their time handwriting manuscripts, and I realized that I was unfamiliar with how closely that activity was associated with the various monastic orders. I understand that pre-printing press, a large number of the monastic orders were involved in copying the bible and other religious texts (among other things) out of sheer necessity. I was wondering if there was a monastic order that had a particular connection to the production of handwritten manuscripts. That is, is there a monastic order which has/had the production of (handwritten) books as part of its core mission, or was particularly know for its written output, or perhaps persisted the longest in maintaining the copyist tradition? To put it glibly, if I was to metaphorically refer to a person writing longhand, how would I complete the phrase "a _______ monk" to have the most historical relevance? "Carthusian"? "Trappist"? - I'm most interested in the western European tradition (so likely a Roman Catholic order), but I'd also be interested to learn about Orthodox or non-Christian monks with a particularly strong connection to producing handwritten manuscripts. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out here that prior to the enlightenment, literacy rates (pretty much everywhere) were exceedingly low. Religious orders were one of the few groups that prized literacy (unlike almost everyone else, they needed to be able to read, and had the free time to dedicate themselves to the task), and so monks were often used as scribes for large ranges of mundane tasks, such as reading and writing letters and documents. Transcription of religious texts was generally for monks who had withdrawn from more mundane aspects of the world, so it would have largely been left to orders that had cloister traditions (the biggest being the Benedictines and the Dominicans, I imagine). This is also true of other faiths that relied on written (rather than oral) transmission of doctrine - Buddhist monastics (particularly in the Chinese and Japanese traditions) spent large portions of their time transcribing religious texts, and even elevated calligraphy to a form of art (much the way that Christian monks created illustrated manuscripts). --Ludwigs205:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the major orders copied manuscripts, I think...although for different time periods there were different orders. For example, in the early Middle Ages manuscripts were likely to be copied by Irish monks, or in monasteries founded by them on the Continent. But when you think of medieval monks living together in a big monastery with vows of silence and chastity and all that, you're usually thinking of Benedictines. They were the oldest order, and Cluny, Monte Cassino, Westminster, Malmesbury, etc, were all Benedictine. Others, like Citeaux, were newer foundations but based on the Benedictine order. The Franciscans and Dominicans, the other two orders that I would assume people imagine when they think of medieval monks, were founded much later, in the 13th century. They were originally intended to be preaching orders, but they also wrote and copied manuscripts like other monks. (I would associate this more with the Dominicans though; they were stern intellectual types, like Thomas Aquinas. Of course there were intellectual Franciscans, but when you think of Franciscans you either think of poor wandering monks talking to the animals, or Friar Tuck. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is said that the loss of its American colonies led Britain to send convicts to Australia. If that hadn't happened, the nation of Australia may not have been created, and I might not be here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you would be here instead. :) I wonder, if the colonies remained British, how the slavery question would have turned out. The British might have abolished it, and then the south might have seceded anyway? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of excellent forums on the internet, both on the world wide web, and on USENET, which seriously discuss counterfactual history. In particular, searching soc.history.what-if might prove useful (this from 2006: [1]). There are a number of counterfactual books. Some tend to be science-fantasy nationalist clap trap, some are whiggish history nationalist clap trap, the best are deeply interrogative academic studies of a proposed actual causation and its reversal.
Regarding the ARW and counterfactuals—you may wish to consider the Irish or Indian revolutions and mutinies against British rule as models. The long standing disputes between certain British colonists in the Americas and the British government indicates that there was running disagreement, which could result in further revolts and revolutionary incidents. An issue to bear in mind is the failure of the revolution in the Caribbean, Canada and in Great Britain itself. Britain was going through a period of social unrest in this period which ended with Peterloo. The recurring social unrest in the UK (Peterloo, Chartism, The General Strike, The Winter of Discontent) indicates that capitalist social systems regularly go through local crisis. A UK which still possessed colonies in the central Eastern coast of North America would be no exception. The chief counterfactual question then is: would social discontent in British North America again result in revolutionary violent uprisings? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One would picture that America would have eventually gained its independence, though likely through the mechanism of Dominionhood through Responsible government, much as other Commonwealth nations had, rather than through war. Instead of having the U.S. and Canada being seperate nations, one would picture some sort of unified nation which would be composed of Modern Canada and the U.S. east of the Mississippi. Greater Louisiana would have remained a French posession; and likely would have become an independent state in its own right; so most of the Central U.S. would have been a French-speaking nation of Louisiana. Mexico would be much larger, as the Mexican cession would not have happened; Oregon would likely have been British, either as a seperate colony or as an appenage on British Columbia. Likewise, Russian Alaska would have remained Russian, and may have been a Russian territory until today. So, if I were to draw a map, I'd expect the modern Canadamerican States to consist of all of Modern Canada, plus the U.S. territory East of the Mississippi along with the modern U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (maybe some of Montana). In the middle would be the independent Francophone nation of Louisiana, and in the west Mexico would extend as far north as the northern border of California/Nevada and include all of Texas as well. --Jayron3203:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the World Series not being of baseball; not necessarily. There are British antecedants to Baseball, and just like American Football decends not from Association Football, but rather from Rugby, American Baseball decends from its British cousins British baseball and Rounders. Cricket isn't related at all to Baseball, having a closer connection to the French sport of Croquet than to baseball. --Jayron3205:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we might have a World Series of Rounders. The so-called "Massachusetts Game" was fairly similar to rounders and was a bit more like cricket than the New York game was. The New York game won out, though. Maybe in this imagined alternate universe, the Massachusetts game would have won out. And then it would be the Boston Yankees with 27 Rounders World Championship rings. And Babe Ruth would have been the ultimate Rounders All-Rounder (in more ways than one, if he had the same eating habits). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jayron, except that I disagree about Louisiana. If Louisiana had remained in French possession, it is hard to imagine North America not becoming a theater of the Napoleonic Wars. Given the much greater population of British North America (including the formerly rebellious 13 colonies) at that point, it seems nearly certain to me that Louisiana would have ended up in British hands. Another issue would have been the abolition of slavery in the British empire. It was relatively easy for the British to abolish slavery within the empire when it affected only a few Caribbean islands. It would have been a much more serious matter if abolition would have threatened both a second rebellion in the southern colonies of North America while at the same time threatening a source of cheap cotton for the industrialists of Lancashire. I suspect that the British abolitionists would have had a much more difficult fight, perhaps culminating in something similar to the American Civil War in the mid-19th century, but with British troops doing much of the fighting against the colonists. Marco polo (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While slavery would have been important to the southern "colonies" in 1807 (when the British outlawed the slave trade), it was not seen as being quite the economic necessity that it became later in the century. Cotton was not yet King. While the southern plantation owners would have been upset, I don't think they would have rebelled over the issue (especially if Parliament had approved a form of "gradual emancipation" and payment for freed slaves). As for Louisiana... even in our real time line, there was some question as to whether the French or the Spanish owned it. Yes, Napoleon sold it to the US, but he had to do some diplomatic maneuvering with Spain (then under French control) to make sure they went along with the deal. In our counterfactual time line, it is quite possible that Louisiana would have ended up remaining Spanish. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. national government abolished the slave trade at the same time as the British, and all individual U.S. states had abolished it on their own before then (though South Carolina reversed course and lifted its ban). Given that many Americans (including some southerners) were calling for such a ban before the American Revolution, in an alternate history, the British ban would have been accepted in North America -- and even been seen as rather tardy. Marco polo is right: if Great Britain wins the American War of Independence, the abolition of slavery becomes a major British problem. There's no way the British could enforce the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 in South Carolina and Georgia without a fight. —KevinMyers00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Napoleonic Wars... If there's no American Revolution, there's no Napoleonic Wars. One of the major factors in pushing France to its own revolution was King Louis XVI's open support of the Colonies during the American Revolution and using it as a proxy war against Britain. If France does not have an American Revolution to support, it doesn't nearly go bankrupt, people don't starve as a result of the financial mismanagement of the Monarchy, no Estates General is called, no French Revolution happens, and no Coriscan artillery officer is given the chance to rise through the ranks and establish himself as dictator. No Napoleonic Wars thus means no reason for there to be a Front opened up to fight it in North America. Regarding French Louisiana; admittedly a Spanish-owned territory at during the 1770's, according to Louisiana_(New_France)#The_Seven_Years.27_War_and_its_consequences, the area saw negligible Spanish immigration to it; it is quite likely that when it inevitibly became an independent nation it would have likely still been a Francophone nation. It may have perhaps been a part of an even larger Mexico, but I'm not sure the cultural clash between francophone Louisiana and hispanophone Mexico would have "fit". --Jayron3220:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we are supposing what if Britain won the war, not what if the war never took place (which, given the antecedents to it, would seem implausible), so yes, the alliances made for the war would stand, and the consequences of the war unrelated to the outcome (such as the financial cost) would stand as well. As for the Napoleonic Wars, we may made a comparison with the Spanish front: during the Peninsular War Spain was almost completely conquered, and the Spanish South American colonies rebeled. The conflict was initially between South American patriots and "loyalists", and Spain could only take direct action after Napoleon's defeat. Britain was never in that war at such a risky situation as Spain in 1810, but a similar scenario may be considered: if there was still an independentist sentiment in the defeated North America, and Napoleon was defying all the British power, that would be an ideal time to start a new revolutionary war, as the British forces would be divided. Cambalachero (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Living with unmarried partner in Singapore
I am an Australian about to move to Singpore with my girlfriend.
My uncle seems to think that "living in sin" is not permitted in SG, but I cannot find any information to support or refute his claim.
Are you really willing to trust your fate to anonymous internet users, to give valid advice on a legal question of this importance? You need to talk to a lawyer in Singapore and find out for sure. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I live in a neighboring country to Singapore, have been there many times and yes, living together is permitted in Singapore. It is not a Muslim country and is pretty "open". You might want to check with a Singaporean lawyer just to verify, though. Bejinhantalks10:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah I forgot about the "no legal advice" bit. I was expecting personal experience responses though, and I'm quite sure my uncle is mistaken Ballchef (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would still be a good idea to consult a lawyer about Singapore law regarding tax, residency status, visas, joint contracts for accomodation, joint finances etc. for unmarried couples. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most people answering here suppose that the OP is a guy. Possibly, the OP is a gay girl, moving with her girlfriend to Singapore to live in sin, which could be deemed a serious offense in Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.191.245 (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main question isn't whether you two can live in the same place, but whether your partner can get a visa to live in Singapore. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps I have confused a few of you. Let me rephrase the question.
I am a male, moving to singapore with my female partner. we are unmarried. We are both professionals and have our own work visas (this question is not about permission to enter and getting visas, as DOR said).
I want to know whether it is ok for us to live together, as my uncle (who is not sure) informed me that living with a partner while unmarried is not permitted. Ballchef (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Cameron's Attire for the upcoming Royal Wedding
The old tradition was that male guests to a wedding should wear a morning suit (or "cut-away") for a day time wedding, and white tie or black tie ("tuxedo") for evening weddings. Such traditions are (sadly) increasingly becoming seen as "out-dated". In normal society, it is more typical for a male guest to wear a dark suit and tie (ie "work clothes" for Cameron) as an acceptable alternative (for both day and evening weddings). However, the Royals are not "normal society". They tend to do things the "old fashioned" way... at least for ceremony. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am a forensics-type person and I have recently become interested in a new division, where we have to give speeches, but without aids except our own hands. I'm pretty good with the giving speeches part, but I don't know what to do with my hands. Whenever I see great speech-givers, in such as Cicero (played in films) or modern politicians, or (let's face it: he was one of the greatest orators in history despite what he did to the Jews) Adolf Hitler, or even more experienced people who also do this division, they use very animated hand gestures to get their point across. How do I use hand gestures to similarly communicate my argument? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite likely you already do - most people use hand (etc) gestures unconsciously when not constrained (by holding on to something, for example) and most people (in the same culture, at any rate) unconsciously understand them. You might initially try ensuring that you're not inhibiting your movement by, say, standing at a lectern, and just forgetting about them (easier said than done, I agree) - a video of the result might surprise you. It might also allow you to judge whether some of your existing gestures (assuming you are indeed using any) are effective and others counter-productive.
That said, the use of gestures is a formally recognised subset of the skills of Oratory or Public speaking, in which one can be formally trained, and as you will see from that last link, various organisations offer such training: some of the links towards the end of that article may lead you towards publications on the subject, if direct interaction with some organisation is not convenient for you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll want to take care; some people have idiosyncratic hand gestures which are uniquely associated with them and if you use the same gestures you may be seen to be deliberately copying their style, which could have an unfavorable effect on audiences. I think specifically about Bill Clinton, who used to "point" by using a closed fist with his thumb laid over the top, usually when trying to emphasize a point, as in this picture. What you will want to do is find what feels "natural" to you; insincerity will show through if it looks like you are doing a deliberate, artificial motion which is unnatural to you. --Jayron3217:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the above people wrote, try recording a video of yourself and watching it. For some people, this can be squirm-inducing, but you'll probably notice things about your posture, tics, and gestures that you might not have caught otherwise. Usually, the best way to go is to try to make your personal quirks and tendencies work for you, rather than suppressing them or adopting new ones. Also, remember the size of the audience. Big, dramatic gestures often play better in big audiences; subdued gestures tend to work better when it's just you and a few co-workers. --M@rēino17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try practicing your speech with both hands in your pockets, standing completely still. Then do it again, and pace around, trying to keep your hands at or above waist level, and animated, the whole time. Practicing at those two extremes seems to help me find a more natural middle ground when I have to come out and do it for real. Like suggested above, during the actual speech, try not to think about it at all. But you should have a planned "safe" position for your hands if you start to become self conscious of them, like interlocking your fingers, or closing you right hand in a fist...something that feels comfortable. Anyway, that worked for me. QuinnCLOUDY19:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
72.128.95.0 -- This was a whole area of training and stylized conventions in ancient rhetorical traditions. We have an article on such traditions, Chironomia, though it's only a stub... AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patriotism is more important than Universal Brotherhood
This is a debate topic.
Debate collapsed.
Therefore you can be either for or against it. You might get a lot of point against it, i.e. Universal Brotherhood is more important. But if somebody has to speak for the topic, then what?Please contribute for the topic, i.e. patriotism is more important.
Some points in favor or the topic might be
Consider a person in Police service. If he has the feeling of universal brotherhood, it will stop him from performing his duties properly as he would be lenient in his approach towards small crimes.
You would forgive a person who speaks against your country because you believe in universal brotherhood.
Even as a part of a family, you take care that no one tries to hurt your family members' sentiments.
For that you would even be ready to go against your society members.
Its like all people in the world are brothers and sisters. But at the same time our country is like our family and we have some respect for her. |}
Can therapists ever correspond by texting and email?
If it's a long time until the next appointment but client needs to send a needed message, do you know of any mental health agencies that allow electronic client-therapist communication by texting and email? Pawnee Mental Health doesn't for some reason.
But I may have heard of some other places and contexts that do, but can't quite place where I remember it from. So in what areas, agencies, circumstances or etc. would a client be able to email or text their therapist? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I googlede-mail therapy and many, many links were listed, so some therapists are OK with actual therapy taking place over e-mail. Since they're OK with actually providing therapy over e-mail, they've got to be OK with receiving other messages as well. In the meantime, you could call Pawnee Mental Health on the phone to leave the message. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This made me chuckle. The term "psychotherapist" has no legal meaning whatsoever in many jurisdictions. Where I live, anyone can call himself a psychotherapist - trained or not, new age or traditional, grade school dropout or Ph.D. In places where the term actually has a legal meaning, accreditation may only require as little as two years' training at a community college. Maybe look at the individual's credentials instead. --NellieBly (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
advises the Sovereign on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative (certain powers retained - but I stress not used to any significance - by the monarch)
Makes government regulations and appointments (almost all of a boring nature).
Regulate public institutions, and potentially other powers.
Influences royal charters, which grant special status to incorporated bodies and city and borough status to towns.
Most of these are powers which do not need governmental approval each time they happen. They have been granted - or at least, are allowed to keep - powers to say, appoint to a specific position. They do not need to go back to formal government each time they appoint someone to it, and therefore can in theory act outside parliamentary approval. However, this is a common feature of governments worldwide, with the assumed suggestion that these powers would be removed if abused. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
96.246.68.89 -- A result of the way that the British system of government has been slowly built up by stages over the centuries is that there are number of ceremonial or semi-ceremonial institutions and personages who have theoretical powers which are never in fact exercised (and would lead to an immediate crisis if they were exercised). Bagehot's classic book goes into this... AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find that's site's logic a little confusing. Most republicans (that is, those in favour of abolishing the monarchy, not these other people) here would say that the monarchy has too much power - if if not used - or too much influence; they believe this is a problem because the monarchy is unelected, and sometimes goes against public opinion. This site, on the other hand, is arguing that elected politicians have too much power, and thus wants to replace the monarchy with an elected executive to take away power from MPs. On a point that might be interesting to the OP, some people have argued that the head of state (currently the monarchy) has too little power, not a problem in itself, but this leaves too much power with the head of government (the Prime Minister) at the expense of other MPs. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 09:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The constitutional role of the Privy Council is discussed in paragraphs 27-35 of the UK's newly-published Cabinet Manual – in essence, there are several types of "order" which can be passed by the Council, almost all of which are either authorised in advance by Parliament ("The Privy Council may make an order saying XYZ...") or specifically scrutinised afterwards ("Such an order shall not come into effect until it has been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament...") – ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 10:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weymouth Rhymer
Dear Sir/Madame,
I have been seaching for biographical information regarding Mr. Weymouth Rhymer of St. Thomas US Virgin Islands. I found only one citation
which described him as a former slave who was a carpenter by trade. Once freed he became a politician. He was an alternate delegate at a Democratic National convention. This citation also lists Mr Rhymer as the first African American US Senator. There is a Highway in St. Thomas currently named in his honor. Do you have any biographical information on Mr. Rhymer and can you verify any of the above mentioned information?
Rhymer was a Virgin Islands Senator (he never served in the U.S. Congress). He began his career as a municipal councilman from St. Thomas and St. John in 1938 and later moved to the Legislative Assembly and Legislature (whose members are referred to as Senators), retiring in 1958. He died in 1963. Here is a news story about his death on the front page of the September 17, 1963 edition of the Virgin Islands Daily News. The highway from Estate Tutu to Charlotte Amalie was named in his honor in 1970. Neutralitytalk17:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the idea was to convey the thought that "to survive, we will need to do things we formerly considered unthinkable". Steinbeck was probably implying that a socialist revolution was needed. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point is that it is supposed to be disturbing. There are lots of good reasons to be deliberatly provocative, and Steinbeck does an excellent job of it in that scene. As others have noted, being deliberately disturbing doesn't mean that the author is sexually perverted. You are supposed to feel queesy and unsettled by the act; but that's exactly why Steinbeck wrote it. As others have hinted, however, its not a gratuitously disturbing act, it clearly has a message behind it, and if that message didn't reach you in the several hundred pages of the book that happened before the scene in question, you should probably re-read those pages and see if the scene makes sense in Steinbeck's overall message from the book... --Jayron3200:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An artist can express the perversity of humanity without being perverse themselves. In this case, as noted above, Steinbeck's interest is more than merely human perversity, but the perversity of human society. Emile Zola's L'Assommoir documents the descent of a woman from tradesperson respectability through to death by physical alcohol addiction—Zola, as far as I'm aware, was neither an addicted terminal stage alcoholic nor a tradesman. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can also be noted that there is a similar ending in the short story "Idylle" by Guy de Maupassant, from the collection "Miss Harriet" (1883). Steinbeck may have been familiar with that story, but if not, it shows that two writers can come up with that same image. I take that as a sign that's it's not a product of some terrible perversion. --Xuxl (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recall reading now and then the claim that in former times, men were more directly fixated on the reproductive organs, with the greater emphasis on the breasts being more recent. I have no idea if it's true, though when I think of old-time entertainments like the can can, it seems plausible. Though I don't doubt that every part of woman has always been beautiful, I wonder whether the situation would have been seen as quite so sexual for contemporaries of these authors. Wnt (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long time since I read the book, but if I remember correctly one of the themes of the book was how human life and human decency find affirmation even in the midst of desperate, brutal chaos. Symbolically, I can't think of a better way close that book than with an utterly maternal 'rebirth' image coming out of absolute tragedy. I don't think it was intended to be disturbing at all (certainly not in the puritanical sense), but rather kind of morbidly inspirational. --Ludwigs219:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Luke 16:18 says "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." (ESV). How do those Protestant sects that condone remarriage justify the practice in light of this quote, and how do Catholics account for their prohibition on divorce without an annulment? Furthermore, are there many Protestants who don't accept remarriage, exactly in line with this quote? I've checked some of our articles, but they don't make the answer to this exact question clear. Please note that I am not a Christian, so I do not have an agenda to push; I just want to know. It's been emotional (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having been a member of churches on both sides of the divide, I can say that Protestants in general (in my experience) spend less time on individual sins than do Catholics. The core theology for many protestant groups on this issue goes something like this:
Everyone commits sins
God cannot tolerate any sin
There is no sin that faith in Jesus cannot overcome (i.e. you are not more powerful than Jesus, and Jesus sacrifice was perfect and whole and great enough to make up for any sin you have committed)
Given all of that, the individual nature of YOUR sins versus MY sins isn't that important; we all have them, and we're all supposed to be working towards a more Christlike existance by reducing sin in our lives. There's some difference between protestant groups as to the nature of God's grace. Some groups hold that you can only earn it once (i.e. once you have accepted God's grace, and then fallen out of it, you cannot regain it). Others believe that once you are saved, you are always saved; that sin will still come into your life, but its how you recognize and deal with sin that makes you different from non-Christians. This theology is often captured by the pithy statement "Being a true Christian doesn't make you "sinless", but it should make you "sin less". In otherwords, perfection is an unattainable ideal, but you should still always work towards it. Catholics hold a different view of sin, that each sin represents something that must be individually atoned for: If I commit action X, then I must make reparations Y to cancel out the effect. This is part of the whole confession and absolution cycle. Because you continue to sin, you must continue to atone for your sins with specific acts. If you stop atoning, your sins pile up and God cannot let you into heaven. This also explains the Catholic concepts of purgatory where you can work off your sins in death, and Cardinal sins which are sins which are so dire that you cannot possibly atone for them during your lifetime. This makes part of the divide between Catholics and many Protestant groups over "Grace through acts" and "Grace through faith alone". Most protestants believe in Free grace, that is God's grace is given to freely, and it cannot be "earned" by your acts. In the context of Divorce, catholics hold that if you are already a catholic, you should not willingly divorce someone because this represents a deliberate act of sin, and fits with their stance on grace as something earned or lost through individual acts. Protestants recognize that divorce is a sin, but its not "worse" or "better" than any other sin, and so don't dwell on it over any other sin, instead focusing on reducing future sins and becoming closer in spirit and in act to Christ. (be aware that the term "Protestant" is not universal here, for every belief I explain as protestant above there are a sizable number of protestants who do not hold it.) --Jayron3223:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the Catholic view: Catholics also hold that perfection is unattainable ("we are all sinners"), but is the target. Catholics do not believe that one works off sins because God's grace is not enough: genuinely repenting of a sin is enough for God to forgive it, which is what 'confession' is about. However, Catholics also believe that how you act, speak, pray and think affects how close you are to God, and the state of your soul. So, if you've killed a dozen people for the fun of it, and then genuinely repented of it, God will forgive you, but the wounds on your soul are still there, you have to work to reshape yourself into someone who doesn't enjoy killing or want to kill! And, if you've genuinely repented, you'll want to repair the damage. Purgatory isn't 'working after death' to work off sins, it's a process of being cleansed, of all that is bad in you being burnt up, leaving only the good (eg, 1Cor 3). You only pass through Purgatory if you're on your way to Heaven, if your sins are already forgiven. And, to specifically address the original question, the Catholic Church doesn't allow divorce with annulment, since it believes divorce isn't possible (eg, someone who thinks they've divorced and has a further relationship commits adultery). It does, however, include annulment which claims there was never a valid marriage in the first place. 86.163.212.179 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
:I find it interesting that the "not a Christian" OP quotes that piece of scripture in the very structured way a Christian would, unlike how I would expect a non-Christian to quote a book he/she is unfamiliar with. (I smell a troll.) I wonder if the OP has read every other bit of the Bible, untranslated from its original form, in order to get the full story? HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all surprised. What does surprise me is that someone would assume that because someone is not a Christian they would not be familiar with the bible. I also think the insistence on reading it "untranslated from its original form" is a trollish comment. Quite apart from the ridiculousness of the notion of "original form" of a book compiled from a variety of sources and modified over the years by countless editors, to require a knowledge of biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek of anyone who wants to ask about sectarian disagreements in christianity seems ludicrous. DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, HiLo48's comment seems to assume bad faith from the outset. Its better if you don't wish to answer the question to just not answer it. Its not terribly friendly to claim that an editor is acting in bad faith without any real evidence to support it. They seemed to have a genuine question regarding differences in Christian theology regarding divorce. Let people answer said question in good faith before poisoning the well and calling the OP disingenuous... --Jayron3200:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, how many non-Christians would quote chapter and verse, AND the version, in exactly the formal Christian way? I was raised a Christian, and I would struggle to do it so well. My point about translation was referring to the fact that Bible can be and is used by diverse sects to mean many different things. The fact that it's been translated many times DOES matter. As for people being offended, don't be so precious. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I don't see what's so hard about the format. List the quote, chapter and verse number, and translation. Is that really so difficult? I use the same or similar format when discussing Christian Bible passages (Or Torah, for that matter) - does my familiarity with formatting make me a Christian? Many non-Christians can be familiar with the Christian bible, and the specific ways of quoting it. Please, assume good faith. I'm going to collapse this section now, as it adds nothing of value to the question. Avicennasis @ 00:34, 16 Nisan 5771 / 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I know many non-christians who would quote chapter and verse (me included). Many of us are also familiar with the whole book (though not in an untranslated form). This is because many non-christians go to school, have grown up in a culture where biblical references abound, or are otherwise not complete planks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find the censorship here disturbing. I DO smell a troll. I gave reasons. I've seen similar suggestions on many topics, always without a very rapid hiding of the suggestion. Why the difference this time? Maybe Americans cannot deal with such a frank discussion of Christianity. I am now the offended one. Disagreeing with my view is fine. Hiding it is unhealthy. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to those who have backed me on not being a troll, and thanks for Jayron's answer. I was thinking of just not replying to the comment on trolling, simply because these things can get out of hand very quickly, and I am afraid that is what may be occurring. Whilst I have thanked people for the support, I'm hoping we can all assume good faith for the rest of this discussion, because I think there is much more to say. Jayron has definitely begun well, but there is much room for theology students and others to give more detail. I'm sincerely flattered that HiLo48 thinks my style would be de rigeur if I were a Christian, since it means I pay attention to religious discussions, and appear to know what I'm on about, or, well, sort of. Trolls, in my experience, don't use logins, they use ip's, and you can visit their talk pages to see what they are like if they do log in. They will be usually "one-issue independents" or such like, and it will show. Thanks in advance for what I hope will produce much topical discussion. It's been emotional (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my apologies to you. And I do congratulate you on your precise use of Biblical quoting. But, on topic, I am always concerned when anyone attempts to use just one quotation from such a complex and frequently contradictory book as a "rule" for living as a Christian. Even if it is the only seemingly relevant one, most Christians treat many parts of the Bible as cultural or allegorical references of their time, rather than strict rules. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly speaking, Christian means anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, and includes a wide varience of both institutional theology and personal theology. You quite correctly note, HiLo48, that this means that there is an unimaginibly wide range of interpretations of the Bible, both passage-by-passage and in general themes. Different interpretations of the Bible thus often differ to the point of being contradictory, i.e. group Y says that Book Chapter Verse means A, while Group Z says that Book Chapter Verse means not-A. Given the OPs initial question, and desire to seek additional views, Christian views on divorce may provide some additional insight, but only a bit as the article is sadly lacking in comprehensiveness, even for the largest groups of Christians (for example, it mentions the most conservative Protestant sects, but gives no amount of coverage for mainline Protestant groups). --Jayron3202:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be positive about this, at least you've brought to our attention what an unbalanced mess the Christian views on divorce article is - maybe someone can improve it (but not me, I'm an atheist - though I've been known to cite the bible...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Andy... having an Atheist involved might be just what is needed. You can ask questions and make suggestions that Christians may not think to ask or make. And nothing unifies POV pushing Christians of various stripes more than having an Atheist around. It gives us common ground to meet on... something to unite against. :>) Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) There would seem to be several references to divorce and marriage in the Bible, but for once, I couldn't find anything, either by looking myself or checking our articles (or google for that matter), to create a composite or complex picture. They all seem to say the same thing (as far as I can tell), so I was curious to hear more. It's been emotional (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. Yes, there are Protestants who would hold to no remarriage. The Church of England held a strong line until the twentieth century, hence the abdication crisis. The nominee to be Bishop of Salisbury is married to a divorcee and there is opposition to his appointment on this ground. On the other side of the debate, I've seen a textbook (Ward Powers' Marriage and Divorce ) on this topic that raised John 4.17ff.: "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true." Powers argued that this demonstrated Jesus considered remarriage to be valid marriage, even when it was obviously a bad thing, as the Samaritan woman's reputation implied. Note also the Pauline privilege could be liberally interpreted so as to permit remarriage. Matt's talk20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
April 20
Economical side of friendship
Have any economist (or the like) already calculate the cost/benefit ratio of having friends? Indeed, you spend money going out, calling people, gifts, ... but you also obtain thing: people who listen, help moving homes, ... . So, is there any study out there that comes to the conclusion that people with +10 or +5 earn 10,000 more or things like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.181.129 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subdicipline of happiness economics, if you page down to the section titled "Relationships and children" there is a small amount there, but if you work through the works of people who deal with the field of happiness economics, you'll likely find exactly the sort of studies and data you are looking for. --Jayron3200:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many scholars have the view that many of the traditions in the Pentateuch go back to the pre-monarchy period (before 1000 B.C.), but that the books were not really assembled in more or less the form we have them today until around the 6th or 7th centuries B.C. (not before the reign of Josiah in the case of Deuteronomy). So no, Moses did not write the books we have now. AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Jewish tradition the Torah was dictated to Moses by God, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy which describe his death.[19] Today, the majority of scholars agree that the Pentateuch does not have a single author, and that its composition took place over centuries.[20] From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BC).[21]" Torah#Composition
There is a widespread cultural belief, which is of significance to the people who hold it, that Moses wrote the Torah. Mosaic authorship
This cultural belief (which is important to people), is not the accepted scholarly view.
For a long period of time the scholarly view was that four separate oral/written traditions were redacted (ie: edited) into one single literary tradition at a much later date. Eventually some people came to believe that this hypothesis meant material composed or orally transmitted by Moses was genuinely found in the text, even if in a fragmented and mistransmitted form. Documentary hypothesis
Somebody once told me the following story (most likely taking place in the 1980s): At the MF Norwegian School of Theology, educating the ministers of the Church of Norway, a lot of students from rural areas with a tradition of relatively literal Bible interpretation attend. At one of the very first lectures at the start of the first term, they were taught that Moses did not write Genesis (known as "the first book of Moses" in most Norwegian translations). That afternoon, there were long lines outside the prayer room. Jørgen (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Cameron vetoing British prestige appointments?
1) Was David Cameron really responsible for Britain missing out on the prestige and honour of a British person being the first president of Europe? Or was he just trying to seem to do so? He was against the former Labour prime minister being considered for the role, which seems mean and petty - putting party political backbiting before national interests. I note that support for the Conservatives took a dip in polls afterwards, so many people may have had the same opinion as myself.
2) Does David Cameron have the power to veto the appointment of Gordon Brown as head of the IMF? It is said that GB was responsible for avoiding another 30s style depression by containing the banking crisis, so if that is true then he seems suited to the job. BTW I did vote Tory for the first time at the last election. 92.29.124.83 (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On point 1), I'm sure he, as well as many people, honestly believed that Tony Blair becoming "president of Europe" would be a bad idea. Much of the Conservative Party, as you probably know, are euroskeptic, and so this isn't particularly surprising. On point 2) according to this: "The IMF's executive board picks the body's managing director, with the world's larger economies having the most votes. In practice a candidate, who needs a majority of the vote to succeed, can effectively be vetoed by countries like the US, France and the UK." I'm not entirely sure how that works - no single nation can have more than 50% of the vote - but I'm sure the BBC (and all other media outlets) know how the system works. The BBC's summary of the press mentions a few viewpoints "The Daily Telegraph is in no doubt the prime minister's remarks have shattered Mr Brown's hopes. The Daily Express says Mr Cameron spoke with commendable vehemence. But the Daily Mirror says outside the UK, Mr Brown's swift action to shore up the banks is credited with helping to avoid global economic meltdown." Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 09:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BOE "asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves"
In the minutes ( http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/minutes/mpc/pdf/2011/mpc1104.pdf ) to the latest Bank Of England voting session regarding interest rates, it said that as well as voting to keep interest rates the same, they also voted that "The Bank Of England should maintain the stock of asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves at £200 billion."
What does that mean? Is it quantitative easing, or the opposite? If the former, why did the interest rate hawk Andrew Sentance vote for it? Thanks 92.29.124.83 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the decision was to "maintain the stock" at £200 billion (emphasis added). In other words, they decided not to increase the stock of asset purchases any further. This is in effect a decision to end quantitative easing. Marco polo (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In one comment JN466 says @ 05:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC) "I find it equally amazing that you would "educate" readers about the Iraqi murder victims by including the videos of their killings in their biographies, without considering readers' feelings, or indeed the feelings of these people's families. (Present consensus at these articles does not even support linking to the videos."
This title of a Manic Street Preachers album is widely attributed to a speech made by Aneurin Bevan, however I've not been able to find more. Which speech it is taken from, what is the context it was spoken in? Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the results from Google books, we was fond of the quotation, and used it at least fairly frequently, seemingly in the form "This is my truth, now tell me yours", called a "favourite quotation" in a couple of biographies that come up (and introductions to his autobiography). One I did see said a Welsh Labour Party conference, though. No sign of any context. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago someone commented here that the Windsors will not have to pay any death duties when our dear queen pops her cloggs. Is that true? Is it fair? How much will they avoid, roughly? Thanks 92.15.24.113 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Since 1993 the Queen's personal estate (e.g. shareholdings, personal jewellery, Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle) will be subject to Inheritance Tax, though bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt". There seem to be conflicting other sources. I add that this reference desk is unlikely to pass comment on the fairness of the action. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 21:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who made the assertion. What about cash? What about investment properties in London? Is the Duchy of Cornwall exempt if the Prince of Wales predeceases the queen? Sleigh (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Grandiose notes the family will have to pay death duties when Elizabeth dies, just like everyone else. However, it is important to understand the difference between her personal assets (which are taxed) and crown assets (which are not). The family will have to pay death duties on the personal assets of Elizabeth Windsor (her privately owned houses, the money in her investment portfolio, etc... all of which amounts to a hefty sum). They will not owe death duties on the Crown properties that are associated with the monarchy (Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, The Crown Jewels, etc.) as Elizabeth Windsor does not actually own these assets (they are owned by the state and not by Elizabeth Windsor as a private individual... she merely gets to use them in her role as Queen. (and the state does not tax itself... nor does the Crown die when the current monarch does, so no death duty would be due even if it did tax itself). Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberate obfustication so that the British public cannot tell where our money comes from or goes to! Having free use of a selection of palaces for life (and similarly for your children, grandchildren and so on in perpituity) with lots of flunkies thrown in is even better than "owning" them! Its a royal fiddle! Rip off! 92.24.177.153 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the Windsors, Britain must seem like an enormous luxury hotel where they never ever have to pay the bill. Not only that, but they get stuffed with free money too. 92.28.253.8 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you add on all the free stuff, then the Windsors must be the wealthiest family on earth, and the dear queen the wealthiest person too. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Windsor is best seen as a public housing tenant with a fixed social income. Public housing tenants don't pay death duties or heritance taxes on public housing. In many instances public housing tenants are lucky if the Government doesn't kick their children out of the house they've grown up with and become accustomed to. The constitutional reasons are those that Blueboar indicates; however, constitutions are malleable. In relation to the question of "Fairness" you're asking about the control of social production, distribution and exchange in UKGBNI. This is a matter of politics, ideology, ethics, and political economy—views will vary. For example, I disagree with HiLo48: I have no thanks to the people and parliament of UKGBNI for maintaining the Royals. If Britain was a true Commonwealth without gentlemen* then Australia probably would follow. Also, the family Windsor is liable—in my mind, along with the government of the UKGBNI, Australia and the Australian states—for reparations towards the indigenous people of Australia. But in Commonwealth countries these matters are normally a matter for personal or party political opinion. AFAIK, the data on the public and private finances of the House of Windsor is not particularly good and is publicly contested. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i) What is a "gentleman*" and how does that differ from a "gentleman"? (ii) Australia is already a Commonwealth. Do you mean Republic? Or a Commonwealth in a Cromwellian sense? (iii) What's wrong with the data? Is it corrupted? (iv) Who uses "UKGBNI"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i) "When Adam Delved and Eve Span, Who Was Then A Gentleman?"—I forgot to append the end note ; (ii) I mean a commonwealth in the digger and leveller and chartist sense ; (iii) AFAIK the Windsors don't render complete accounts, the sums involved are large enough and spread across sufficient family members that it makes it a serious higher accounting problem, that state aid to the Windsors is quantifiable in multiple forms, some wish to take all state aid even that not given expressly, other expressly only, others to separate their crown and personal functions as a result of state aid—what data is valid is under debate, and the openness and completeness of the data is politically disputed ; (iv) people who've got sick of naming dispute for the states, countries, nationalities and islands off the West Coast of France and wish to name the UKGBNI state run out of Westminster and its unique relationship to the house of Windsor as the object of discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Adam wasn't a Gentleman, he was just a man. And Eve wasn't a Lady, she was a woman. The terms Gentleman and Lady were reserved for members of "gentile society", i.e. the upper classes, i.e. people who didn't have to work. The arguement of the day was that the social order in England was divinely ordained, that there should be upper classes and working classes, and to argue against such a divinely ordained social order was to argue against God himself. The contrary arguement is that when God created Man and Woman, there was no social classes, Adam and Eve were working class (they delved and span; that is he dug holes and she spun yarn, both activities only done by the working classes in England, and never by the aristocracy) and there was no upper class; so the social order was, of course, not divinely ordained, quite the contrary God's divinely ordained social order was egalitarianism; that all people before God are equal, so any social system which perpetuates unequalness is the abomination. The problem is that this 600-year-old couplet is filled with words whose meaning is either obscure (delved? span? Who talks like that anymore) or whose meaning has drifted (Gentleman is now applied to any man; though at the time the couplet was written, that was NOT The case). --Jayron3215:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, yet another Australian who refuses to accept Australia's own responsibility for its own form of government, and wants to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for the chip on his shoulder. It's the one thing that really puts me off Australians, they are the undisputed whinging champions of the Commonwealth - the Scousers of the South Pacific. You want a republic in Australia? Go persuade Australians of it, don't blame us in Britain for the choices your compatriots have made. DuncanHill (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer it, Duncan, if you kept your criticisms focussed on the individuals who raise your hackles, and not extend it to the entire nation to which those individuals belong. Is the UK to be considered a nation of murderers because of Jack the Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, John Christie, Harold Shipman and various other rotten apples? -- Jack of Oz[your turn]09:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point by HiLo48. Why should only the UK bear the burden of keeping the Windsors in fabulous wealth and luxury? Lets demand that Australia, Canada, Fiji, and all the rest, pay their contributions to our heriditary masters on a per-capita basis. With the money freed up in the UK, we can build our dear queen her own pyramid, instead of wasting it on public services. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without the Windsors, the UK economy would not have all that tourist money coming in from Australians, Canadians, Jiji Islanders (not to mention Americans, French, Japanese, and other non-Commonwealth folk) who come to England to gawp at the Windsors. That tourist money adds more to the economy than keeping the Windsors in place removes. Seems like a fair trade off to me. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say there would be no tourist money... but it would be a lot less. Your are really comparing apples and oranges. Different cities and nations have different attractions for tourists. France has, for example, French cuisine (and let's be honest... tourists don't come to the UK for the food). Florida has Disney World. In the case of the UK, Royal watching is one of the major draws. With no Royals to watch, the UK loses that draw. A lot of tourists would go and spend their vacation money somewhere else (they might go and visit France instead).Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever seen a dear Windsor in the flesh? A lack of current royalty does not put people off from going to France. One of the reasons for coming here is that there isnt any "Disney". Our food is far better than US food and judging by the prestigeous international awards that british chefs get, must be pretty good. Stop trotting out stereotypes. People would also go to gorp at Stalin or Hitler if it were possible to do so. Even when the Windsors no longer have such an excess of taxpayers money poured into them, the palaces, Beefeaters, and changing of the gaurd will still be there. The Tower of London is jam-packed with tourists all the time, yet the Windsors never go there. 92.29.123.26 (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the case of Hitler they do... Hitler's bunker is a tourist draw for Berlin. Germany has successfully turned the horrors of the Nazis into a tourist attraction. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! So Hilter didnt shoot himself in the bunker, he and Eva had kids who now grown up wave at tourists on state ocassions? I was tempted to say that tourists visit Auschwitz, so tourism isnt a recommendation of the system they observe nor does it require current personnel, but that is too disrespectful of the suffering there. 92.28.253.51 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DucanHill: The Windsors have a continuing responsibility for reparations, as do the state prior to 1901, as does the UKGBNI prior to responsible government. You might have noticed the multiplicity of assignment of responsibility in my post. JackofOz, despite my apparent incompatibility of my and his politics raises a real point. IP92 also raises a point regarding economic responsibility for maintaining a family of UK welfare bludgers. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Various UK relevant financial amounts graphically displayed
In a video fairly recently I saw mention of a graphical display of things like the national debt and various other things. They were shown as squares or oblongs with size proprtional to the amounts so that they could be easily seen and compared. Does anyone know where I can see this? Thanks 92.15.24.113 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! The second one, the Billion Pound-O-Gram, is what I was looking for. Its a simple but great idea - I wish we had more diagrams like that in various national and local public accounts to make it easier to appreciate the relative amounts of money involved. Thanks. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would also be interesting to see would be discretionary public expenditure counted in terms of public employee units - ie how many nurses, teachers, or police(wo)men the same money would pay for. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
April 21
atlas shrugged
was the book atlas shrugged banned in the former soviet union? and is it banned in china today? is there any reliable information available? --Douploas1254 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to see this. As you can see, Atlas Shrugged is not a very widely translated book. As a matter of fact, it's nearly unknown in mainland Europe. Ayn Rand was a control freak, and wanted to check the translations... It is translated in Chinese, but I don't know if one can find it in China. 194.6.163.234 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 'Atlas shrugged' is an evocative title that plays off the Greco-Roman myth of Atlas holding up the bowl of the sky and the American dual meaning of the word shrug (to show indifference or to 'shrug off' an annoyance). the first wouldn't make any sense in cultures that weren't well-versed in GR mythology, and the second probably wouldn't translate to non-english languages at all.--Ludwigs207:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on some online searches, you can definitely buy the Chinese translation in China. Here is the book's page on the website of Xinhua, the leading government-owned book store in China. A clue in the table referred to above is that the book was published by Chongqing Publishing, a state owned publisher. However, I second the point above that the book is nowhere near as influential elsewhere in the world than in the US, but (from some brief browsing of google hits for the Chinese title) seems surprisingly quite well known in China. Quite interestingly, the "Editor's Recommendation" on the Xinhua page linked above compares the author to (and contrasts with) Karl Marx. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I thought this book would have been banned in China. It is very surprising communists are recommending Ayn Rand!!! --Douploas1254 (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would Earth be like if it was 82% more wonderful?
This was already halted at WP:RDS. The reference desks are not an appropriate place for this kind of dicussion. It has nothing to do with being "scientific". This is an inappropriate discussion for anywhere at Wikipedia. No means no.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I first posed this question on the Science Desk several hours ago, whence it was removed by someone who felt that it was not sufficiently scientific, and would find a better home here. I have retained the respondents' replies, which are not bad.
When people think of environments much better than those found on Earth, they invariably talk of Heaven and its variants, which are INCOMPARABLY better. Earth is amazing, wonderful, astonishing, charming, exciting and deep, but the world to which I refer is 82% more enhanced in all of these properties. What would such an Earth, one that is better but not incomparably better to the one we know be like? The immediate objection to this question will be that it is not “scientific” because the properties of “amazing, astonishing…etc” are subjective descriptions. This is so, but subjective evaluations can be quantified and measured by psychometric means. We don’t need to do that here; for the time being a respondent can estimate what features such a planet might have that would render it 82% more wonderful in every way to the one we live in. Not 100%, or 200%, but 82% - it is important that the last figure be the one under consideration, although respondents to this query might wish to compare their 82% ideal with what would be the case if the figure were much higher.
For myself, I believe the following would be a reality in such an Earth:
1. There would be four sexes, male, female, devotrain and andila. Everyone would be male or female but also be either devotrain or andilian. A devotrainian male could make love to an andilian male without being homosexual. There would be an another entirely different kind of eroticism which would run parallel with the one we know. Human navels would become powerfully erotic organs which, when joined with another’s, would emanate fibres that would extend through the other’s body. When the moment of devotrainian or andilian orgams occurred, it would be felt from head to toe.
2. Humans would have eyes which, when properly trained upon the night sky for half an hour or so, can see the cosmos as clearly as the Hubble Telescope does now. Indeed, humans will be able to see in the infra red and unlta violet, and the brain will be hard wired to see two extra colours.
3. People will be able to glide for considerable distances, and death by falling will no longer occur. To fly like a bird, however, would require an Earth 128% better than the one we have.
4. There will be creatures like vast air ships, 10 times larger than the biggest whale, which will be tame and carry thousands of passengers across the seas in great comfort, requiring only some food and love.
5. The Earth will be 34% larger, but correspondingly less dense so that gravity is largely unaffected. There will be two extra continents.
6. We will share the planet with another species equal to our own in intelligence, and with whom we can communicate.
7. During the night when we sleep, we will be able to join in a universal dream in which all sleeping people of good will can partake, involving vast on-going dramas ranging from passionate love to intense adventure.
Wait, you've invented a fantasy world and now you want us to provide you with more information about it? The world is in your head. You can give it all the background information you want. The reference desks aren't really an appropriate place to try to write a crowdsourced science fiction novel. Do you have a specific factual question we can help you find answers to in Wikipedia articles? --Jayron3202:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Op myles325a back live. Sigh...sigh...I DID say, above "The immediate objection to this question will be that it is not “scientific” because the properties of “amazing, astonishing…etc” are subjective descriptions. This is so, but subjective evaluations can be quantified and measured by psychometric means. We don’t need to do that here...". And so you go ahead and make exactly the same objection I had already tried to pre-empt. You very well might not agree with this pre-emption, but you could have at least acknowledged that I made it.
A couple of other points. One: These questions are not just for people who can't use the Search function in WP. And two: It's not just IN my head. You are assuming that. The reality is more complicated. Myles325a (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in Leibniz's 'Theodicy', which argues that we live in the best possible world (and hence it cannot be made 82% more wonderful). Or you may be interested in Voltaire's Candide, which was influenced by Leibniz's work, and largely ridicules this notion. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In English, the "Leeward Islands" are defined almost opposite to other languages. (See Windward Islands#Terminology.) In a discussion at WP:RD/S#Windward Islands and trade winds, it was proposed that "windward" and "leeward", in this case, mean "nearer" and "further", respectively. Since that wouldn't make sense for ships coming from Britain, the hypothesis emerged that that is so because the British engaged in the triangular trade, so the ships that came from Africa would reach the "Windward Islands" before the "Leeward Islands". Could that explain why the English nomenclature is different from the German, as Germans did not engage in the triangular trade, and would therefore come directly from Europe? This sounds like a bold hypothesis; what do other editors think? — Sebastian07:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The labels windward and leeward clearly date from the age of sail. When sailing, windward simply means upwind, while leeward means downwind. I think that it is just something of an accident that the English used the term leeward to refer to the northern Lesser Antilles whereas other Europeans did not. You may be right that it was related to their experience of approaching the West Indies from Africa in the triangular trade. Also, the English had less to do with the islands off the coast of present-day Venezuela than, for example, the Dutch, who founded colonies on those islands. By contrast, unlike other European powers, the English had a number of colonies on both the Windward and the Leeward Islands (as defined in English), so it might have been more important to the English to distinguish between the islands farther upwind and those farther downwind within the eastern Lesser Antilles. Note that the map that you linked is somewhat in error in suggesting that the islands known as "leeward" in other languages are known as "windward" in English. In fact, the islands known as "leeward" in other languages are not known as "windward" in English. Instead, as in other languages, the word leeward is sometimes used. (See Leeward Antilles.) Marco polo (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still incredibly confused by this. Sailing from the east/Old World, at its most complicated the winds from what I can gather blow southwest (from the north) and northwest (from the south). In either case, that would seem to point to ALL of the Lesser Antilles being considered "leeward" (downwind) of either Europe or Africa. When were ships ever sailing into the wind to get to the Lesser Antilles from the east? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose you were to coast on a bicycle from the top of a tall hill, past one park, then a few block later past a second park. You may choose to refer to the first park as the uphill park, and the second park as the downhill park, even though the both parks are downhill from your starting point. -- ToE13:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but then this should be made clear on each of the pages for these islands. As it's written now, it seems to imply the starting point is the Old World for both definitions. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into this a bit more, and it seems that the Leewards were named relative to the Windward, which I imagine must have been the first reached. The sources I found spoke more to the winds from south of the island blowing northward and the winds from the Old World shipping routes blowing more south-southeasterly than I thought meaning they probably reached the Windwards first. So, it would mean that the Leewards are windward from the perspective of being on the Windwards, not necessarily the Old World. I guess it would help on each page describing more specifically which way the winds are blowing, because the way most of us first understand it it sounds like they are nearly blowing straight west, which is what confuses so many people. Perhaps it would help to make clear that the islands are named in relation to each other, and not in relation to Old World. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In trashy spy fiction, you occasionally read about particularly sensitive spy/terrorist trials being held in secret, without juries, and the subjects being sent to absurdly well-guarded offshore prisons. I know that the latter part is drivel, but is there any legal provision for British criminal trials to be held in secret? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢14:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the last "secret" court in the UK was the Star Chamber, and people lost their heads over closing that one down. I don't beleive there is any provision in the modern UK for a true secret court. I think what the spy novels are counting on is the belief that, if it is truly "secret", then you would have no reason to even know they exist. I.e., its not just the proceedings that are secret, its that the entire court is unknown, so you would have no cause to even suppose it existed. --Jayron3215:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to In camera (not a very good article), "entire cases may be heard in camera when, for example, matters of national security are involved", though it doesn't actually specify what jurisdictions this applies to. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What justification is given for superinjunctions ? I have a hard time seeing how such a thing serves the public good. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was watching the ChineseFormula One race last weekend and at the end the three drivers on the winner's podium were given huge bottles (magnums?) of champagne with which to shower their colleagues. Is the liquid in the bottles actually champagne? It looks fizzy enough to produce a nice white foam, but when the winner took a swig from the bottle and spat it out again, it looked very much like plain water to me. Also, if it is real champagne, can a F1 driver get arrested soon after for driving with excess alcohol, or being under age in some jurisdictions? And is spitting it out again usual practice? Astronaut (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though if they are spitting it out, it may mean they are intending to drive some more. Wine tasting, for example, usually involves spilling out the wine, because you aren't trying to get drunk off of it. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that they would be serving anything other than champagne (or a similarly sparkling wine) at such an event. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the liquid in those bottles could only be called Champagne if it actually came from France. If it were bottled in China, perhpas they are worried about the lead content, seeing as humans prefer unleaded fuels. Googlemeister (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly used to be: Moët & Chandon very successfully set up the entire idea of celebrating with champagne like that. Not sure if it still is, though. It's unlikely to be "made in China", given it's probably provided by teh F1 organisation. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 19:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures from the Shanghai race clearly show the champagne bottles marked "Moët et Chandon", which is a longtime F1 sponsor. Typically, the drivers will take a sip or two and then hand the bottle to their pit crew, who will enjoy the remainder. I doubt the drivers do much driving on public roads after a race: they're usually rushed to the airport so they can fly to their next destination, plus the quantity they drink is minimal. As for Lewis Hamilton spitting out a watery-looking gulp: I've seen the picture and I agree with the OP that's its quite unusual; someone will need to ask him what was going on. Other things to note about the champagne ceremony: they don't use champagne in places where alcohol is culturally or legally unacceptable, they tone down the ceremony if there's been serious accident during the race. Very few drivers, and even fewer race winners are under 21 years of age, so the issue of underage drinking is fairly rare (in the few places where the drinking age is that high). --Xuxl (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If my memory serves me Lewis Hamilton is teetotal (non-drinker) but he likes to have a taste of the champagne so has a sip and spits it out. I seem to recall them discussing this with him when he was on Top Gear ny156uk (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where you do find younger winners in similar ceremonies is in motor cycle racing. Often there the majority would be under 21. But I do remind our American cousins that in most of the world the legal drinking age is younger than in their country. At a personal level, I've always regarded those champagne spraying exercises as simply a waste of a good drink. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in Britain we don't have a "legal drinking age" - it is illegal to give alcohol to a person under 5 except on medical advice (but that's an offence committed by the person giving the alcohol, not by the child), 18 is the minimum age for purchase, and in licensed premises people under 18 may not consume alcohol (unless they are at least 16 and it is wine, beer, cider or perry and accompanying a meal) - but there is no law setting a "minimum drinking age". DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, in the US, it's illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under 21 (each state sets its own laws in that regard), and that's the "legal drinking age", but as a practical matter, there's nothing to stop someone from sharing it with someone under 21 in the privacy of their own home. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much the case in Australia too, although the age is 18, not 21. But I see the Victorian government has introduced a new law that would prohibit an adult providing alcohol to a minor in a private home, unless approved by the child's parent.[4]. This means that an uncle could be in big trouble for giving their 17-years-and-11-months-old nephew a shandy, but a parent can still get away with giving their 12-year-old child a bottle of vodka. Hmmm, methinks this law does not go far enough. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]21:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a secondary teacher, I see another perspective on this. It's very common for kids who have turned 18 (just) to buy alcohol for kids who are not quite there. That is now illegal and worth 7 years in prison. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something I always wondered about is getting champagne in the eyes. It must burn, and presumably a racer wouldn't want red eyes for his next race, so I'd think they might want to avoid pouring alcoholic beverages on each other. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long ago when I was a kid I remember newspapers showing a partially blank front page instead of a photo of Elizabeth Windsor in her gold carriage I think. I expect she was sneezing or something. D-Notices and partially blank pages do not seem to happen anymore. Is there a list of them, and what was EW actually doing in the incident I've described. Thanks 92.28.253.8 (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As that article notes, a DA notice was issued (in regard Wikileaks documents) on 25 November 2010, so evidently they are still in use. A D notice is a request to the newspaper, asking them not to publish something on the grounds of national security; the newspaper is quite free to ignore a D notice. If HMG feels it necessary to force a newspaper not to publish something, they take out an injunction, as they did (for example) in regard to Spycatcher(ref), Zircon(ref), and Chevaline(ref). I expect blank pages or sections were a result of a D-notice or injunction being received shortly before the newspaper was due to print (and with old metal type setting, it wasn't practical to reset new copy into the space lost to the notice before print time). That is, I don't think it was evidence of the newspaper protesting the notice: for a D notice they voluntarily complied with it, and for an injunction they'd want to run a story about them being injuncted. If the injunction forbade even mentioning the injunction itself, wilfully blanking a section of the newspaper would risk being a breach of that injunction. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk10:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to imagine a D-notice being issued for a spurious reason like an embarrassing photo of the Queen. The D-notice system relies on mutual trust between the Government and the press; it means "you might not understand why, but trust us when we say this is a matter of significant security concern to the realm, and we really think you mustn't publish this". It is particularly of value to the Government when the press intends to publish something that, to it, seems rather minor (e.g. the odd behaviour of an ambassador at a recent function) but which really signify something of genuine national security concern (e.g. said ambassador plans to defect to the UK and bring juicy details of his country's government). If the Government started issuing D-notices for daft things like bad photos of the Queen or what Prince Andrew said to the chauffeur, they'd destroy that trust and lose the utility of the system. They'd be forced to rely only on injunctions, a process that is complicated, expensive, risky, and very newsworthy. I can see how Buckingham Palace might object to a photo or story and write a stroppy letter (they have done so in the past), and a newspaper might reluctantly spike it in fear of losing access - but that's very far from a D-notice. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She is a woman who has been divenely ordained by God to be kept in the greatest possible luxury by the British taxpayer. This luxury must be maintained at all costs even if public services have to be cut back (ie people die and suffer) to pay for it. 92.15.4.2 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't "have", i.e. "own" it: it's a publicly owned vehicle she sometimes has to use as part of her job, despite its primitive suspension, unreliable motive power, and lack of air conditioning, stereo, and most other routine modern features :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that - if the queen owns all freeholds, then dosnt the queen also ultimately own everything in Britain? Job? Is going to a wedding or a toadying session part of a job? And since she is the head of a state which could (until recently) kill people for cowardice etc, then perhaps she owns all of us also. 92.15.4.2 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some confusion between ownership and allegiance. Not sure that EW owns the freehold to much I think you may be confusing the head of state with the individual. Perhaps it should be noted that without the house of windsor the UK still has to have a head of state and some fancy building to entertain visitors, they would still have to represent the country at events. I suspect the cost would not be much different. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The OP said "partially blank front page instead of a photo of Elizabeth Windsor in her gold carriage I think", how would you know that it was if it had been censored? I would think if it had happened then some record of it would exist. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "hole" was described on radio or tv. They said it was a picture of EW in her coach, but did not give any further details. Seeing a blanked part of the front page of some major national newspapers was quite something. 92.28.252.136 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Children's Day / Boys' Day / Girls' Day in Sweden
I read on Chinese Wikipedia that Sweden does not have a Children's Day for both male and female kids, but a boys' day and a girls' day separately. I can't find the same description on English:Childrens' Day, which instead says Swedes celebrate 2 Children's Day, one in October as International Children's Day and one on 13 May as national children's day. For the Chinese claim I can actually find a source, "Backgrounder: Children's holidays around the world", from the state-owned xinhuanet. Could anyone please confirm whether the source correctly describes the situation in Sweden? It's interesting to know Sweden has Lobster Festival as Boys' Day and Saint Lucia's Day as Girls' Day!! English wikipedia should mention it too if it's confirmed!! Thank you very much!! :) --Poeticlion (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That information is not correct. I have never heard of any Boys' and Girls' days, and Saint Lucia's Day is definitely not regarded as a Girls' day. It is Saint Lucia's Day which, as that article describes, has a bunch of traditional activities associated, where the main part of the main one is usually done by a girl, but that does not make the day a girls' day. The part about two Children's Days is a bit more correct, though neither celebrated as such. On International Children's Day, there is usually features in media about poor kids in other parts of the world, associated fund-raiser events on TV etc., but no celebrations as such. The national one Barnens dag in May has a ring of maybe 1910-1970 about it. Back then, there were apparently fairs, fun-fairs, parades etc. in cities and towns. (For example, one such event in the sixties is a part of the plot of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.) My home town seems to have had such an event in August last year, so it seems it is now more of a generic name for a town fair with focus on events for children. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The passage on Sweden in the Xinhua article is, as pointed out, totally false. It brings to mind the Chako Paul City story, seems that somehow individual journalist thinks it's ok to cough up any story to fill out space, but a practice made more complicated in the internet age. --Soman (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, Coffeeshivers. As I understand, there is no nation-wide children's day celebration after 1970s, and now celebration is not limited to 13 May. Considering xinhuanet's background, its local news in Chinese language is most likely unreliable (to me at least), but it is hard to think why they even bother fabricating news in a country soooo unrelated to China. I thought this piece of article could somehow be true since it's published in xinhuanet's English version. Am I to crush someone's fantasy about a Northern paradise again :( ?--Poeticlion (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geography/GK question
Which city went green in a big way in the last 5 years. It is the site of one of the Worlds's major developments. It was a small sleepy town in the early 19th century. Security is tight as international terrorism is a concern here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sleigh was making an oblique allusion, not a direct answer, but I think was in any case wrong. Think Olympic Games and other forthcoming sporting events, droogs. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
San Francisco was NOT a small, sleepy town at the end of the 19th century, it was far-and-away the largest city on the West Coast. It was only surpassed by Los Angeles in the 20th century, which was a small, sleepy town in the 1800s. --Jayron3202:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman a Cold War figure? How is Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 considered as part of Cold War? United States and Russia were not involved in this? Were they? How are Indira Gandhi and her father Jawaharlal Nehru Cold War figures? In Pakistan, how are Muhammed Ayub Khan and Muhammed Zia-ul-Haq Cold War figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.145 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any politician on the international scene 1948-1991 would be, willingly or unwillingly, involved in the Cold War. The 1971 was certainly a Cold War proxy conflict, in which USA and China backed (to some degree at least) Pakistan and India and Soviet Union supported the formation of independent Bangladesh. --Soman (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "proxy conflict" is inaccurate if it is used to imply that the Soviets and U.S. were directly and proximately supporting the sides to any degree remotely comparable to what went on in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war etc. Rather, each power's general approach to the overall issue was influenced by their pre-existing regional alliances... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? Wherein lies the difference? Around the Bangladesh Liberation War there was definately a diplomatic and political battle, demarkated along Cold War rivalry-lines. --Soman (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, both sides were directly shoveling large quantities of fairly high-tech arms to their clients, and U.S. and Soviet military observers were taking careful notes about how their weapons stood up against those of the other side (this was in fact pretty much the last war in which aerial dogfighting played a significant military role) -- and there was an aggravation of the tensions in direct U.S.-Soviet relations. I don't think any of this was true to anything near the same degree in Bangladesh. AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Official Bible of the Roman Catholic religion
Does the Roman Catholic religion have an "official" Bible? That is, scripture that can be quoted verbatim (chapter and verse) — for official Roman Catholic purposes — should be quoted from which Bible exactly? (I am referring to the English language, also ... not Latin, Italian, etc.) Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The Douai Bible was considered somewhat official before the 20th century (even though in its original form, before the 18th-century Challoner revisions, it was idiosyncratic and rather unidiomatic, sometimes being almost more of a gloss on the Latin Vulgate than a true translation). One well-known mid-20th century predominantly Catholic effort was the Jerusalem Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, that is exactly my point. There are many, many Bibles (and translations) out there. So, I am not sure which one to refer to. Let me re-phrase my question. What Bible version does the Roman Catholic Church/the Vatican/the Pope/etc. "officially" use or endorse or sanction (or whatever the correct term would be)? I am assuming that there is one specific Bible version. Perhaps my assumption is wrong? Does anyone know? I mean, I am sure that they do not endorse/use/sanction the Protestant version or translation, for example. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I've sometimes seen reference to a Psalm that uses 2 numbers, one in parentheses, e.g. Psalm 47 (45) (those numbers are made up for this example) . On checking out Psalms, I see that the number of Psalms varies between versions. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches use the numbering system from the Hebrew manuscript, and the Protestant churches use the system from the Greek manuscript. I conclude from this that a Greek-sourced Bible would not be acceptable to Catholicism, but a Hebrew-sourced one might stand a chance.
Bible#Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books lists various books that are considered canonical by Catholics, but apocryphal or deuterocanonical by Protestants. Again, this would be a point of departure for assessing whether a particular edition of a Bible is possibly OK or definitely not.
Then there's the language question. We tend to think of the Bible, whatever version we're talking about, as a book written in English. That's fine for English-speaking countries, but what about all the others? I find it hard to believe there would be one and only one core Bible approved by the Catholic Church, which is the basis of all the approved translations into the thousands of languages and dialects found on Earth. For all their famed rigidity, it surely can't be as black-and-white as that. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]20:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Latin is still the official language of the Holy See, and by extension, the Roman Catholic Church. (It was really only after Vatican II that Mass was officially allowed to be conducted in local languages.) The "official" version of the bible for Roman Catholics is thus the Vulgate. That said, in practice most Roman Catholics these days use a translation of the bible into the local language, and this practice is supported by the Roman Catholic Church. For English Speakers, we have a list of various R.C.-relevant translations at Modern English Bible translations#Catholic translations. Catholic Online claims the New Jerusalem Bible is the most widely used Catholic bible outside the United states [6]. EWTN and americancatholic.org both note that a modified version of the "New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament" is the official American bible for services - i.e. it's the one the lector/priest will do the readings from during Mass [7][8]. Those two links also discuss other bibles and make comments on the differences/merits. P.S. I make no endorsements of the linked organizations, they're just what I found when I did a Google search of "official catholic bible".) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
140 has it accurately and correctly. I would add that lectionaries in England and Wales (and probably many other English-speaking places, but not the USA) use the Jerusalem Bible (not the New Jerusalem Bible), but that the Vatican seems to prefer the NRSV-Catholic Edition when translating Biblical quotes in official documents that are written and released in Latin, and translated into English for English-speakers. So, the original document will quote the Vulgate, and the English version will quote the NRSV-CE. For example, look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Vatican website. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is sometimes described as the "youth of Mytilene", a boy whom George rescued from captivity. But in this article other explanations are given for the child (see page 19 [the 13th page of the pdf]).--Cam (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've noticed many languages/cultures have certain art forms for which it is very famous across cultural boundaries; for example English is known for its plays (specifically those of Shakespeare) and Italian for its operas. What is French known for? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I am not sure the premise of the OP is correct. It is true that Shakespeare, arguably the greatest playwright ever, is from England, but I wouldn't say that England is generally known for its plays. I would guess most people outside of the UK would be hard pressed to mention an English playwright besides Shakespeare. Likewise Italy may be known for operas because opera was an artform originally developed there, but I would argue that the works of Wagner or Mozart are generally more known internationally than Italian operas (for example a standard comic cliché concerning operas are fat ladies in horned helmets, stemming from Wagner). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Italy is also known for food. I would say England is much better known for Shakespeare than for cuisine. The old joke goes, "If your guests are Italian, serve French. If they're French, serve Italian. And if they're English, boil something." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But being known for Shakespeare does not mean that England is known for its plays in general. It means that it is known for a singular playwright. Like Wagner with opera in Germany. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. In my book if a country should be defined as being known for an artform, it should be because a school or even generations of artists produced continually, or at least during a longer period, many examples of that artform that are generally and internationally known. Though of course I admit a precise definition is difficult, because many of the truly great, like Wagner, Ibsen or Shakespeare did seem to stand alone and appear out of nowhere, yet have defined a lot of the internal culture of their origin country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have to make this clear once more, but I am perfectly well aware Shakespeare was not a stand-alone. I was merely concerned with replying to the wording of the OP. And as I said above, you would be hard pressed to find someone outside of the UK (and someone that was not generally well-versed in English literature history, since most people wouldn't be) that would know Bacon (as a playwright), Marlowe or Webster. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No (small!) part of the appeal of all-things-French is the language. If I go to McDonald's in the US, I'll order "French fries" or just "fries". If I go to McDonald's in Paris, I'll order pommes de terre frites or just frites. (They don't need to call them French fries, since they are already there.) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a period in the 18th Century when all operas were written in Italian. Handel and Mozart's operas mostly have Italian librettos despite being intended for the ears of German-speakers. French is famously used to describe the techniques of classical ballet. Alansplodge (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course to people who really know an artform, what a country is known for undoubtedly is markedly different than what a person that just has a basic knowledge. So I would agree that to opera-fans, Italy would be the country, but in a popular mind, I would still say, based entirely on anecdotal evidence, it would be somewhere where there's big blonde girls with pigtails, chainmails and horned helmets. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the English language be best known for its popular music? There are people all over the world who know the lyrics "You ain't nothin' but a hound dog" without having a club what the words mean. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No question, the USA is a prolific source of various kinds of popular music - much of which originated from the ABBA-American population. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
Remissions in US law
Do you get automatic remissions on your imprisonment sentence in the US? (for example, for working, for going through a therapy, for good behavior). 212.169.189.166 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic? Yes and no. They are generally called "reductions" (in sentence), rather than "remissions". A state may have a statute that (automatically) credits a prisoner's sentence by X number of days/years for good behavior, for example. Instances such as working, therapy, etc., are generally voluntary (not required) and may or may not carry a reduction. It all depends on the state, its statutes, and how its prison system is administered. So, yes, some of these reductions may be automatic (i.e., a prisoner is entitled to them by state law); some of these reductions are not automatic (i.e., the prison warden has discretion to award or withhold them). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Some folks automatically say "Thanks" when they sign their names. I've had colleagues who include it as part of their signature [on e-mails]. I think what they're saying is "Thanks for your time and attention". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It very much depends on the state involved. Rhode Island (in the northeastern U.S.) is at this very moment engaged in a heated debate about "good time" (a reduction in time in prison for good behavior) for a convicted killer, Michael Woodmansee [see Cannibalism#Recent examples], whose 40-year sentence was reduced under then-applicable laws and rules by 12 years (up to one-third remission for good behavior used to be a common standard in the U.S.) Woodmansee is thus due to be released from incarceration this summer. The Rhode Island General Assembly is being presented with many proposals to limit or even abolish good time for future felony convicts, as it's generally conceded that under the ex post facto and bill of attainder clauses of the United States Bill of Rights and the Rhode Island Constitution, new laws can't be applied retroactively to Woodmansee's particular case. Correctional officials see the hope of getting good time, and the fear of losing it, as very useful tools in the control and rehabilitation of inmates. For these purposes, good time can also be an important element of flexibility when the indeterminate sentence (such as "5-10 years") and parole for Federal convicts have been abolished or drastically curtailed. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I heard something on NPR about a documentary about a group of archeologists who say they may have found the remnants of Atlantis in marshland in Spain. Do we have an article on that site whose name I can't remember? RJFJR (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there it is. I must have type Spain wrong when I searched the Atlantis article for it and I didn't spot it when I checked the headings. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quote
I heard that the chief accuser of William Tyndale said something like "it doesn't matter if the accused is innocent or guilty, so long as it inspires terror in the people." I am having troubling sourcing this claim. Is it true? Does anyone know the primary source? Thanks. 129.120.4.2 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found the following in "William Tyndale: The Translator of the English Bible, by William Dallmann.
"It is no great matter whether they that die on account of religion be guilty or innocent, provided we terrify the people by such examples; which generally succeeds best when persons eminent for learning, riches, nobility, or high station are thus sacrificed," said Ruwart Tapper, Doctor of Theology, Chancellor of the University of Louvain, one of the judges, fore-most among the accusers of Tyndale and
most relentless in opposition to him.
Looking at this BBC video, beginning at about 1:47 Andy North is shown in front of one of those backgrounds that are supposed to make it seem as though the reporter is standing in front of the place. However, the camera is at an angle such that the background is crooked revealing the wall and it is obvious he is in a studio and not in front of the White House. Is this a mistake? If intentional why would they do this? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're just using it as a general prop, rather than expecting the viewer to think he's actually there; after all, the angle of the shot is highly unlikely. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 08:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly a screen. I don't think there are any buildings in the right position to have windows like that - it's looking down on the White House, which would make it a fairly tall building. I think it's just supposed to be a visual aid to demonstrate that he's in Washington DC in the same way that you see St. Stephen's Tower ("Big Ben") behind newsreaders in London studios. --Tango (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they wanted you to think it's a real view, the frame either would be hidden or would look more like a real window-frame. In my humble judgement. —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Econometrics question
Hey guys,
I was wondering if any of you knew where I could find a dataset with the Democrat/Republican breakdown for state legislatures, preferably going back to 1997. Wikipedia has it back to 2004, but I need it farther back for a paper I'm writing. (Also, if any of you could think of a variable that's correlated with observed effective tax rates but uncorrelated with GDP growth, that'd also be helpful)
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.109.170 (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could try the legislature websites for the individual states. alternaatively a website on elections may have it (CNN?) or some indiv source.
for the 2nd question those details will probably need someone to do it (your paper perhaps?), unless its done in adademia somewhere.Lihaas (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well, I would prefer not to have to collect the data myself. First it would be much more prone to error than if i got it pre-collated from somewhere else, second, it would obviously be quite time consuming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.35.175 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Keep in mind that four states (Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia) elect their state legislatures in odd-numbered years, and also that the single-chamber (unicameral) Nebraska Legislature is not elected on a partisan basis.
¶ While in the last couple of decades there has been a concerted effort to co-ordinate the conservative/Republican caucuses in different legislatures (American Legislative Exchange Council), and a less-disciplined counter-effort to co-ordinate progressive, liberal and Democratic legislators (Progressive States Network), it's still not easy, for a number of reasons, to align state lawmakers into cohesive ideological blocs. A moderate Democratic legislator in a state such as Montana or Utah, who campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008, might still be slightly to the "right" of a moderate Republican legislator in New England on many issues, including taxes and social spending. And most legislatures are still part-time: convening in January, passing a budget by July 1st (in theory) and then dispersing (in some states for 18 months) until or unless called back by their leaders or the governor. Some legislatures are very tightly controlled by the leaders of their majority-party caucuses (the Speaker of the lower house and the president or majority leader of the upper one), while in others, the legislators only identify very loosely with parties and are essentially independent, concentrating on issues that concern their own districts or professions. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want the 120 legislators of the most populous state to be weighted equally with the much more numerous legislators of some smaller states? —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for good, succinct accounts of the issue of examining historical periods from the perspective of the time versus the perspective of the historians time. i.e. the meta-debate behind "George Washington was an evil man for treating black people like property" vs "George Washington had quite liberal views on slavery for his time". I skimmed through historiography but couldn't see anything, and to my surprise the name(s) of this debate elude(s) me. Can anyone link me? Grazi, Skomorokh05:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good question, and I would like to know the answer so I could label it when I hear it. I think of it in connection with Lincoln, for one. In Don't Know Much about the Civil War, the author Davis says, "By today's standards, Lincoln was a racist. But by standards of his day, he was a liberal." Also the ones who look at the expressive letters men wrote to each other (as Lincoln did, and as women did to each other also) and conclude that they were gay, just because they were much more effusive than folks write nowadays. I call it "trying to apply 20th/21st century mores to the 19th century." It's kind of like "recentism", but I would think there's a better term for it. Notice how we still have a vestige of that flowery prose when writing letters, or even e-mails, when we say "Dear Sir/Madam" to someone we've never met or even heard of before. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This idea is also satirized in Peanuts, when Lucy tells Schroeder that his idol, Beethoven "wasn't so great - because he never got his picture on a bubble-gum card." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC
Many years ago, David Hackett Fischer wrote a very readable book about the pitfalls of historiographical research, verification, interpretation and expression, called Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (Harper, 1970; ISBN 0-06-131545-1). It discusses various variations of your question about recentism or "presentism", although I can't at the moment recall precisely in which sections. You could start with pages 133-141 (discussing presentism and other forms of anachronism) in the Google Books preview, if you don't have ready, convenient access to a printed copy. See also the Wikipedia articles on presentism and historian's fallacy. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of those links also leads to the related topic of "Hindsight bias". The article you mentioned, which redirects to Presentism (literary and historical analysis), I think yields the best answer to the OP's question. "Presentism" zeroes in on just the kind of thing the OP was talking about. I recall in Ken Burns' lengthy film essay about baseball, there was a lot of time spent criticizing the color line. While he was not necessarily wrong, as baseball apartheid was controversial in its day, just as slavery was in its day, this is still "presentism". The Historian's fallacy mentions "hindsight bias" and uses Pearl Harbor as an example. There are a number of parallels between Pearl Harbor and 9/11, which goes unmentioned in the article probably because it could, ironically, precipitate a war (of the editing variety). But consider this: Opponents of the subsequent war, learning that there were signals that were apparently ignored, theorized that it was at least incompetency, and at worst it was deliberate ignoring for the purpose of dragging us into war. Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists take it a step further by claiming that the US not only knew it was coming, but were part of the operation. I don't think that claim was made about Pearl Harbor, but I can't swear to that. However, that fallacy is at the root of many of the conspiracy theories. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it might seem more remote, the deepest discussion in Wikipedia of anachronistic historical misinterpretations seems to be at Whig history, which is more than a history of or by the historical British Whigs. Whig interpretations of history, according to the article, have even been ascribed to histories of natural science. Also see James Loewen's book Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (1995 & 2008, ISBN 1595583262 ; Google Books preview), which criticizes those textbooks for the way they trivialize some very troubling and difficult questions in America's past. PBS in Rhode Island is currently rebroadcasting Ken Burns' history of Baseball, so I did see "Shadow Ball", his account of the Gentlemen's Agreement (to exclude colored players from the major leagues), the Negro Leagues, and Jackie Robinson's integration of the Dodgers. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that term "Whiggish", and it certainly could fit, it's just kind of obscure unless you already know what it is. To my mind, "presentism" is probably the better general term since it doesn't necessarily require looking something up. Regarding "shadow ball", it's important to keep Branch Rickey in the story prominently, because it was his vision and force of personality that smoothed the way for bringing Jackie in. Rickey, like Bill Veeck, saw an untapped pool of talent, and being good businessmen, they wanted to use that resource and not be bound by precedents set 60 years earlier thanks to Cap Anson. (And I admit that talking about Anson also betrays some "presentism". He's a good scapegoat.) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shakescene: nailed it, thanks so much. I'm surprised at how poor our coverage of the topic is, but I'll definitely check out Historians’ Fallacies. BB: yes, recentism was the project-context that moved me to think about the issue, and that's interesting about Lincoln. Arigato, Skomorokh11:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't think I'd heard of "presentism" before this discussion! I've always heard the "Whig interpretation" used generally to describe this kind of fallacy - perhaps it's a UK-US difference, and we never picked up Fisher's new phrase? Shimgray | talk | 13:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given your example of George Washington, you may be interested in a collection of reviews by Gordon S. Wood entitled The purpose of the past: reflections on the uses of history (2008). Wood is a frequent critic of historians who don't distinguish present-day perspectives from past ones. —KevinMyers16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A similar concept sometimes used in the context of Science Fiction litery criticism is "time binding", a term taken from General semantics (popularised within SF by A. E. van Vogt and others). In SF circles it refers to a reader's conscious awareness that because knowledge, cultural contexts and values have varied over time, one should interpret a text in the light of where and when it was written, not purely by one's own contemporary knowledge and values: it may also signify such an awareness by the author of a text; for example, in avoiding the logical error of having a 16th-century character perceiving a situation with 21st-century sensibilities. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a guess... but they are probably there so someone playing the game can more easily see which way the animated tank's gun is pointed. I don't think real life tiger tanks had such stripes (but I could be wrong). Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some similar stripes, although a lot smaller, can be seen on this photo from WWII. But that was the only example on a contemporary photo I could find on a Google image search of Tiger tanks, so it does not look like they were mandatory. I don't know what the purpose of the stripes are, though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Kill markings" or "kill rings"; pretty much what they sound like! They would have been unofficial and down to the whims of the crew, presumably getting overpainted every now and again (hence why they don't appear in many pictures). A picture of a vehicle with most of the gun barrel covered is here. Some crews used small symbols painted on the side of the vehicle instead; this is often seen on aircraft. Shimgray | talk | 13:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of sizeable, overlapping fan fiction communities on livejournal.com. That might be a good place to start. fanfiction.net is also a huge site, but maybe more as a repository than as a writing community. I'm not a participant so I don't know too much about exactly what's going on where, but I've read some of the stuff and know a few of the writers. I'd also say use google to find sites related to fanfic in the universes you want to write in. I'd never heard of fanstory and am frankly kind of appalled to hear about it. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shot for cowardice = we are slaves?
During WW1 a number of British people got shot for cowardice. Does the power to order someone to do something, and them kill them if they don't, mean that they are slaves? Thanks 92.15.4.2 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that they were soldiers, and thus under military law (and thus subject to the penalties for breaking that law). Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cowardice is a charge applied to enlisted soldiers who have (for example) deserted their post, or surrendered to the enemy against orders. If one did not want to be a soldier, there were other options available (e.g. conscientious objector, or simple imprisonment). Now you may view this as tyrannical, but it is not slavery — slavery is when a human being is legal property of another. You are not legal property of the state, even though you may be (in your eyes) oppressed by the state. They may be mutually unagreeable states, but they are not the same thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's true. You couldn't just refuse to contribute to the war effort, but you could request a non-combat role (although one of the main ones was stretcher-bearing, which was at least as dangerous as being a solider - there were alternatives, though). --Tango (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, our article conscientious objector gives some numbers. 6,000 people that applied to conscientious objector status in Britain between 1916 and 1918, out of 16,000, were refused. That is a large number, but not remotely "nearly all". --Tango (talk)
You ommitted to say that the article also says there were 750000 tribunal cases, that some COs were sent to the front and sentenced to death (later reprived), that COing only started in 1916, that the criteria for successfully COing was very narrow, and that COs were treated very badly. 92.24.182.118 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly says that on 16,000 of the 750,000 cases were to do with conscientious objectors. Conscription only started in 1916, so there was nothing to object to before then. I'm not going to debate the merits of conscription with you. I have given you the facts. What you do with those facts is up to you. --Tango (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are conscripted to the military. You try to apply to be a conscientious objector, but are refused. Now what? And why should only a CO be excused from likely death? 92.24.182.118 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You fight or you go to prison. The argument for conscription is that you need soldiers to defend the country so, if there aren't enough volunteers, you have to force people. You may or may not agree with that, but the elected leaders of the country agreed with it in 1916 and everything else had to go along with it. That's the nature of governance. --Tango (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add they were either all or mostly conscripted. So, back in WW1, you are conscripted with the threat of punishment into the army. During battle, in fear of death, you run away. You are then shot for cowardice. You have no choice in any of the steps of that process. Is that not being a slave, owned by the state?
By the way by all accounts from what I've read the trenches in WW1 were like slaughter houses, literally, with the probability that you would soon be killed and lots of unburied bodies and body parts strewn about. Would anyone else but slaves tolerate such conditions? 92.24.182.118 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has to follow laws. Am I a slave because I am forced, with threat of punishment, to pay my taxes? No. Neither that the law in question involves risking your life or that the punishment is death changes that. You may feel the law was unjust and a lot of people would agree with you (especially since a lot of people shot as cowards were actually suffering from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) but that doesn't mean that people subject to that law were slaves. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using that kind of reasoning, you would say that even plantation slaves were not slaves, as they were following the plantation laws and rules, and many of them were born in slavery. 92.24.182.118 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has all the earmarks of trolling, where the questioner is more interested in debating with the respondents than in an answer. I suggest it stop now. Bielle (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, its trying to find the truth among a tangle of different posibilities. Not every question has a yes-or-no unambiguous answer. I think we have previously discussed that one is entitled to discuss the truth or relevance of the answers offered. 92.24.182.118 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what sort of answer are you looking for here? If you are looking for our opinions or arguments, you've come to the wrong place Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for reference to some philosophical discussion of this issue, but havnt got any yet. I had expected that some philosopher(s) somewhere would have already considered this question. 92.24.182.118 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can find loads of philosophical treatise on the thesis that conscription is slavery. We could find just as many that argue the opposite, though. Philosophical arguments aren't particularly useful... --Tango (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, The Social Contract (at wikisource) would be a good start for this sort apparently pointless discussion. The difference he draws, as I remember is about force; slavery, he says, is like a mugging by thieves. He goes on to say that, ideally, everyone should give everything to society and the combined benefits be split back apart for maximum effect (like soldiers). Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why you think it is pointless, I found your description of the Social Contract moderately interesting. Is Tango correct in saying that many philosophers have considered this? If so, can more details be provided? 92.28.252.136 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing it to slavery is just misleading. The UK government couldn't buy or sell people. They paid the actual soldiers. The soldiers themselves could vote. You can call it oppressive, you can call it tyrannical, and so on. But calling it slavery is just not right — you undersell what it means to be a "slave." It doesn't just mean you are oppressed. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The soldiers could vote? In 1914? Are you sure about that? Anyway, the OP is either a determined troll or a very boring person with no desire to actually process any answers that disagree with them (they're the one obsessed with the British monarchy, among other things), so I'm not sure what purpose answering really serves. 86.163.212.179 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting dynamic in Last of the Mohicans (the 1992 film) where a British soldier expects Hawkeye to aid his cause, while Hawkeye doesn't see much use in that. Vranak (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried collapsing the thread (WP:NOTFORUM) but 92 uncollapsed it.[12] Maybe someone else can recollapse it and suggest 92 try some other site if s/he wants to continue debating these topics. Reference desk is for questions with answers, not for debates and extended discussions. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some difference of opinion here on the definition of a slave. According to the article, slaves are defined as property and forced to work. But is that private property, or does public property suffice? I would lean toward defining it even as public property, because kings and nobles could own slaves. We call what concentration camp inmates were forced to do, "slave labor". Additionally, one can say that the World War soldier was in a sense a private property, at wager for the aristocratic officer class to win or lose great glory. Unlike members of an underclass, for example, the soldiers couldn't decide to leave a vainglorious officer in favor of someone more level-headed. While this can be termed a legal duty, it was not a legal duty for the wealthy - it was just a continuation of an effort to get rid of surplus low-classed men, often by means of tuberculosis, elsewhere pursued via the Corn Laws and simultaneous removals of grains produced in Ireland during the Potato Famine, in workhouses, and in concentration camps.
Of course no one is a slave unless he submits to compulsions; to editorialize a moment, the military draft for an unjust war presents the individual with a decision of whether just war is possible. One decision demands pacifism at any price; the other leaves no alternative but that the draftee take up arms and murder those seeking to kill him, which is to say, those who commanded or benefit by the draft. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why JW's go to jail, because they refuse to serve their country in any way. Alternative service is possible for those who can demonstrate sincerity as conscientious objectors. What it comes down to is the question of whether a citizen has any responsibility to defend his own country when called upon to do so. Legalistically in the U.S., the answer to that question is "Yes", as the Supreme Court ruled a few decades back that the "slavery or involuntary servitude" amendment did not apply to the draft, because the government has the constitutional right "to raise armies". And by the way, war is not necessarily "murder". Murder is the unlawful taking of life. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bugs, that hasn't been strictly true since 1996: JWs are allowed to serve their country now, although presumably in a way that doesn't kill people. [13]82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JW's have always been allowed by law to serve their country. They were not allowed by their own faith to serve their country, as that was putting the will of man above the will of God, in their viewpoint, as noted here:[14] There's nothing there about the church changing its stance in 1996, so you'll need to explain that comment in more detail. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I need to explain this in more detail? If you followed the link I provided, it gives the reference and quote from their own official publication, The Watchtower, from 1996, as well as earlier quotes that say the opposite. Things written in The Watchtower are automatically What Jehovah's Witnesses Are Supposed To Believe until 'the light gets brighter' and The Watchtower prints an opposite view: since 1996, it has said that JWs can serve their country if their conscience allows. It is sometimes difficult to get this information on Wikipedia, because Jehovah's Witnesses are fairly driven when it comes to articles about their organisation: for example, check out our article Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. If you had never read anything about it in the newspapers, or in studies into the prevalence of abuse in various communities, would you even understand from our article that there had been a problem? Would you understand why someone had created the article in the first place, or why statements had been issued? Would you know that practices (and teaching) have, in the recent past, been appalling on this issue, and that this is why official policy changed?
Since changes in policy are something JWs don't really like outsiders to see about themselves, and even internally 'the light gets brighter' isn't really meant to be dwelt on too much, they aren't going to want a change laid out on Wikipedia. Unless a handful of editors armed with references cares enough about a JW thing to maintain an article, it basically won't be in the encyclopedia. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Algeria Tree planting
What is the name of the French general who was probably suffering from heat stroke who suggested that trees be planted along the roads in Algeria?Smallman12q (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but Napoleon Bonaparte ordered fast-growing London plane trees to be planted along main roads in France a) so that troops could march in the shade and b) so that the sun wouldn't dry the road surface so quickly and help prevent its loss in clouds of dust. Not quite as barmy as it first appears. In England, because of different agricultural techniques, nearly all lowland roads have traditionally been bounded by hedges, and it isn't so hot, so the need for such grandiose schemes never arose. Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
President Kennedy supposedly told the story of a French general in Algeria who wanted to plant a special kind of tree to line the road to his chateau. "But, mon general," protested his gardener, "that tree takes one hundred years to bloom." The general smiled and said, "Then we have no time to lose. Start planting today."
This sounds like the story I heard...though I remember it with 25 years...(and the general's name as latou...but I haven't gotten any hits for that name)...if anyone could find who the actual general was, it'd be much appreciated!Smallman12q (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the specific job and what the potential employer is looking for. For example, "Very weird" might be an excellent answer if you are interviewing for a job that requires artistic creativity (say at an ad agency)... it might be a terrible answer if you are interviewing for a job in sales. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better if you had followed the instruction and used a scale of 1 to 10... I agree that it's probably better to avoid an employer that asks that kind of question. If won't tell them anything useful. If they want weird employees, they would be better off asking you to describe a weird characteristic you have rather than asking you for an arbitrary number. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Oh I dunno. If the job was one that might favour weirdness, as Blueboar suggests, then "very" might have been a doubly good answer, because it was demonstrating additional weirdness by not adhering to the 1-10 default. Something to remember is that questions like these do not necessarily have a "right" answer, rather the answers you give (usually in lists of a hundred or so) may say a lot about your individual personality provided they are composed and assessed by someone competent in Psychometrics. It's also pointless trying to guess what answers the employer might favour, because this will show up as inconsistencies and the assessors will know you're trying to cheat the system. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked in a written university entrance exam whether I preferred a square or a circle. I'm still agonizing over the "right" answer to that one forty years later.--Shantavira|feed me16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a right answer. The point of the question will have been your reasons for your answer, not the answer itself. --Tango (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tango, the correct answer to "Do you prefer a square or a circle" is: "Actually, it's funny that you should ask. I prefer a square with a circle inscribed in it. The circle represents those creative ideas that only a background as diverse and multifaceted as mine can prepare a person to come up with, and the square represents follow-through on these ideas in the way that best serves the fundamental mission of this company/institution. I think that mine is the correct approach for true, innovative results - I don't know if you have other candidates like that, but anyone who is as creative, driven, yet also disciplined as me, but who would have the square on the inside with the circle on the outside, is, I would argue, really thinking of possibilities external to the company. They might have creative ideas, but there is no guarantee that they will keep them with the company. I like the rigor and dependability of being an employee with clear career goals within the company - like those who would answer "square" - but I also have sufficient creativity to be a real innovative power and key player here; like those who would answer "circle". And as you can see from the resume in front of you, I have a proven track record of combining the two in a way that has served my previous employers outstandingly, as you can also see from the recognitions I received at my previous company. Finally, you will note that some of the positions I stuck with could be considered monotonous or lacking in possibility. Whenever I've had to choose only one of a square or a circle, you can see that I've always put the interests of the company ahead of my own." 94.27.134.222 (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago I attended a course on legal and other compliance issues in interviewing and hiring. Questions like this were absolutely forbidden; they insisted we ask questions which had right answers that had objective, repeatable criteria. (That doesn't mean every question had to have a definite, yes/no/42 answer, but questions like "how would you implement XYZ" had to have some written points that the candidate was supposed to be able to cover, to show they had the necessary knowledge and understanding of the topic in hand.) The trouble with questions which have no objective answer, the lawyer giving the class explained, is that if a candidate is asked such a question and is then not hired, you run the risk of them suing and claiming the impossible question is a smokescreen, and that they were really not hired because they were a member of some protected class; and because the question can't be answered "correctly", you can't stand up in court and say that the candidate got the question "wrong", just that you didn't like their answer. There was pretty much unanimity, anyway, among the hiring managers present (all of whom had more experience in interviewing than I) that these kind of questions were bullshit, and always elicited bullshit answers. I think that class would agree with 92.24.182.118's sentiment. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk17:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to agree with 92's sentiment on this. Although a good answer might be, "How weird do you want me to be, on a scale of 1 to 10?" However, interview questions are usually more along the lines of (1) do you have the skills for this job? and (2) how do you get along with others? And the general clincher, "Why should we hire you?" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Survival rates for soldiers in WW1
What were the survival rates for soldiers in the trenches of WW1 please? I believe it varied according to rank, and was surprisingly short. Thanks 92.24.182.118 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of the average length of time a soldier would survive at the front, they were regularly moved to and from the front all the time so the "exposure time" to the enemey varied. They didnt all move into the trenches and then stay. We have an article on World War I casualties but a quick bit of original research on British figures indicates about 42% of those involved were killed, about 6% were officers. I dont know the total split of those in the trenches but I suspect the soldier/officer ratio may well reflect the numbers of each involved. Shell and gun fire didnt really take into account rank. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It varied quite a lot by "cohort," if I recall. E.g. the early cohorts (e.g. the soldier who start up in 1914) in particular end up with extremely awful survival rates, while the later ones average out a bit better. But I don't have the statistics handy. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the vast majority of WWI casualties came during offensives. Being in a trench was no doubt very unpleasant but not all that deadly. It was when the soldiers were forced to come up out of the trenches and charge through barbed wire and machine gun fire toward the opposing trenches that the real carnage occurred. (Although the highest rate of casualties of all actually came during the Battle of the Frontiers at the start of the war, before any trenches existed.) Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any idea who this statue is? It's in Zbraslav on the outskirts of Prague, and the text reads "for truth". I have a feeling it's probably a scientist who got burned for saying the Earth goes around the Sun or something but it doesn't look anything like Giordano Bruno... - filelakeshoe17:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the christians view about the event one year before the birth of Prophet Muhammad.The destuction of army of the negus Abraha who want to attacked on kaaba.This event is also mentioned in Qurran . — Preceding unsigned comment added by True path finder (talk • contribs) 18:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that many individual Christians are familiar with the event, and the event does not enter into Christianity in any institutional sense; i.e. Christian theology does not deal with it. --Jayron3219:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The writings of the New Testament were completed around the end of the 1st century, so obviously there is nothing directly about Islam in it. Revelation is often taken to be talking about the Roman Empire in a highly disguised way. And to be blunt, many strict Christians regard Islam as a false religion (although it's fair to say that many Muslims probably regard Christianity the same way). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see. See Wikipedia's articles on Abraha and the Year of the Elephant. And the answer to the original question is that Western Christians in general know nothing about this event. Many of them know about the Ka'aba and perhaps a few other prominent events in and just after Mohammed's life on earth, but this isn't one of them. On the other hand, I can't say what Christians (and Jews) in the Middle East, or Christian and Jewish scholars and theologians familiar with Islam, might think. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, keep up. Its the Century of the Anchovy now. The Century of the Fruit Bat ended some years ago. Didn't you get the clacks? --Jayron3223:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the OP wants Abraha's side of the story, or that of Christian historians friendly to his cause. I don't know how easy that is to find - we need a real scholar of history here to tell us if it exists. The idea that an elephant would refuse the suicide mission of going first through the gate doesn't seem implausible - they're not stupid. I don't know what to make of the rock-throwing birds, but it is known that birds can drop objects from a great height, and birds can be trained ... I can't rule it out (though it would make more sense for them to use something sharp and pointed!). Wnt (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between a monarchical title and a vassal is often context dependent, just about any title of nobility becomes a title of monarchy when the holder of the title is (either de jure or de facto) ruling a territory independently. For example, the Lord of the Isles was essentially an independent monarch; though at times they were nominally vassals of the King of Scotland, they operated as an independent state at other times. There have been monarchical dukes (Duchy of Benevento), monarchical counts (County of Burgundy), and there have also been Kings who were not truly independent monarchs (the Kingdom of Bohemia was a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire). So, before one can answer the question, one needs to consider what the relationship is between the title and other titles; that is if it is treated like an independent title or one which is a vassal of a higher title. --Jayron3219:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Lord of Ireland was the King of England. I think you are thinking of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. According to some the Lordship of Ireland was a fief of the Pope, but does that make the Lord of Ireland not an Irish monarch especially since the Pope probably had absolutely no secular power in Ireland at the time. Please discuss some more..--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally Wikipedia has an article on Lord. I found it when looking for the Christian use of "Lord" to refer to God. Lord#Religion covers this, and the way a whole lot of other religions use it too. In the religious context it certainly overlaps the idea of King at times. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why and when was it decided that Asia and Europe, which are virtually all on the same landmass that they should be two different continents? If its all on the same piece of earth shouldnt it be just one? --Thanks, Hadseys22:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of Asia being separate from Europe comes from what the ancient Greeks and Romans knew about geography... to them "Asia" was separated from "Europe" by the Ionian sea, the Dardanelles-Bosporus straits, and the Black Sea and so was a separate continent. They had no real concept of what the land was like north of the Danube and thought the Black Sea might be connected to a world circling Ocean. By the time we knew better, the idea of Europe and Asia being separate continents had become stuck in European minds. Blueboar (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes for a tricky definitional problem - see continent. It's even worse when we look at places like Australia, often referred to as an "island continent", but it may not be either of those things, depending on which Australia you're talking about: Australia; or Australia (continent), which includes the separate island of New Guinea, which is partly occupied by Indonesia. Just don't tell any Indonesians that they occupy part of Australia. Don't tell any Australians either. But one thing's for sure: under current definitional conventions, if a place is a continent, it can't also be an island. Next year, who knows what the geographers will have decided amongst themselves? -- Jack of Oz[your turn]01:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any consolation, finding the line that divides North and South America has proven somewhat elusive as well. Some maps use the Panama Canal, some use the border between Panama and Colombia, and some use the plate boundary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A set of continents consisting only of Eurasia and Africa wouldn't be exceptionally useful. ;) Besides, the Ural Mountains actually do mark an old continental boundary, the east edge of Laurussia during the Uralian orogeny. Wnt (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hadseys -- When the Greeks first used these terms, they were very local to Greece, and didn't really refer to continents: "Asia" meant Anatolia (now called "Asia minor"), "Europa" meant mainly Greece and the immediately neighboring areas to the north, and "Libya" meant distant regions all the way across the Mediterranean... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
April 24
US: friend/family/acquaintance in prison
With an incarceration rate in the US as high as it is, is it common for Americans to know someone who served time, who is serving time or who is on parole? 212.169.184.23 (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the community. There are certain subpopulations which have an incarceration rate which is much higher than others, and that skews the national average. I don't know anyone who has ever been in prison, or been convicted of anything more serious than a moving violation. I would suspect what you would find is that among some people, your statement would be true, but for most people it isn't. --Jayron3200:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know or you think that you don't know? There are unknown unknowns. Even wealthy people who got an expensive college education might well know people who take drugs every now and then, and that served time as a consequence. 212.169.184.23 (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The graph in isolation doesn't tell us that Blacks, Latinos and Whites live in separate communities, which I guess you're also telling us. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading about a teacher who was shocked when she started teaching in an inner-city school and asked if the students knew someone who was (or maybe had been) in prison. Half of the kids raised their hands. It's likely that most suburbanites don't know anyone who is in prison. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we'd need a further variable here. Probably big city dwellers, who happen to know more people and live in an environment with higher criminality, potentially know more people serving time and ex-convicts. 212.169.184.23 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
212 has an important point. It's likely that among some subpopulations (referring to some of the above the wealthy and suburbnites for example) there is far greater likelihood of hiding such a history and of those around not asking if there are details which suggest such a possibility. 'People don't talk about such things in polite company' as they say. (This doesn't of course change the fact there are also much higher incarceration rates among some subpopulations mostly those who are more willing to talk about it. Nor am I suggesting Jayron32 does know someone who has gone to prison. ) In a relation fashion, someone who has gone to prison is more likely to be ostracised in some subpopulations/communities meaning less such people would know them particularly if you only count current acquitance. Of course that means on the flipside, particularly for some more serious crimes some people are more likely to try and find out if there is something to suggest a historic incarceration. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Australia I guess we don't boast about current family and acquaintances in prison, but it's become very fashionable to demonstrate that one has a convict ancestor. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point that there may be ex-cons around us who we don't know are ex-cons is an important one. I've worked around someone for ~6 years who only last year did I find out had been convicted of child molestation. They're on the state's sex offender web site but I hadn't checked it because I don't have a specific need (e.g. no kids) Dismas|(talk)07:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to remember that imprisonment in the U.S. has a strong racial bias and a strong socioeconomic bias. I think it's 1 in 9 black men in prison - unless that's increased again. Also, some of the same groups frequently imprisoned have much larger families. Also, the wealthy go to trial first, and then to prison if they're unlucky - the poor go to prison first, then eventually plead out to "time served" at the trial. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I live in the white middle class suburbs, and I know people who have served time, someone who is serving time, and someone who is on parole. And I believe that many folks who know these prisoners/ex-prisoners have no idea that the person ever served time. These are things that rarely get talked about. I find it hard to imagine that there are Americans that don't know anyone who has served time, as long as you include casual acquaintances (maybe that guy at the gas station you chat with in the morning) and past acquaintances (that guy from high school you haven't seen in years). —KevinMyers07:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This question also depends on what you mean by "knowing someone". For example, a person I vaguely knew in high school, but never more than passingly, went to prison for robbing an armored car in Las Vegas, of all things. Sadly, her Wikipedia page was deleted, because she was only notable for one thing, per WP:BLP1E. Guess what the one thing was? Anyway, did I know her? ...maybe? Pfly (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience as a white middle class American, I don't personally come into contact with anyone on a regular basis that I know has been in Jail. There have been a few people that I've been acquainted with over the years that I know had been in jail. Off the top of my head I've only been close enough with one former prisoner to actually ask him questions about Jail. I went to a very middle class white college and in one Psychology class (talking about the Stanford Prison Experiment, I think) one of the students mentioned that he had done a stint in jail. The entire class seemed pretty shocked. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience as a white middle class American, I didn't personally know anyone who had ever been in jail either until I moved to Germany - but here I do know someone who spent several years in prison, and briefly met someone else who spent a year or two there. (I don't count spending a few hours in a drunk tank as being "in jail", which happened to someone I know, nor do I count the prisoners I met when I participated in my church's prison visiting program.) —Angr (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, people don't necessarily live in the same country throughout their entire life. Perhaps in US this factor isn't so significant for prison rates, but in a country like Sweden you will find quite a few middle-aged white collar academics who came to the country as political refugees, out of whom quite many have prison experiences from political struggles in their home countries. --Soman (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rape penalty
It is well known that prison rape is very widespread in harsh prisons in the U.S.4.5% per year, 2005 and other countries. It is used by gangs to keep their members in line - which they do so far more effectively than prison authorities. Pundits routinely mention it as the real penalty for crime - without rape, a prison is a mere "country club" where prisoners are guaranteed "three squares a day". It can instantly transform the fearsome "vor v zakone" into the gentle "petukh".
Has anyone seriously proposed using measured and deliberate rape under governmental control as a means of correction, to supplement or replace a prison term?
Has the recidivism rate of raped vs. non-raped prisoners been compared?
Are there aspects of rape trauma syndrome that would make prisoners more compliant?
Is rape + a shorter prison term viewed as less humane than a longer prison term? Why?
Is there a legal basis to declare that the rape penalty is an inhumane punishment, in jurisdictions that permit the death penalty?
I don't believe rape is very widespread in some prisons. Apparently, movies gave us the impression that it could happen all the time, but it doesn't. Equally, I don't believe that without rape a prison is a country club. Just think about all the things you are missing: family, friends, going out. 212.169.187.230 (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our article, Prison rape, says about 2% of inmates in the US are raped. Higher statistics have also been quoted, but it seems they aren't particularly reliable. 2% is still pretty high, though. Once you restrict it to "harsh prisons" (to use the OP's term) it will obviously be much higher. --Tango (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this study was crafted. Good statistics would be choosing prisoners absolutely at random. However, if you go to a max-security prison, full of predators, full of lifers, then your data is not random anymore. 212.169.188.3 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. It's a random selection of people serving life sentences in a maximum security prison. If those are the people you are studying, that's a perfectly good sample. --Tango (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. But randomly analyzing date on rape among lifers in a max-security prison won't allow you to jump to the conclusion that 2% of inmates in the US were raped. So, either we know how this (and other) statistics were produced, or we end up dealing with meaningless numbers. 212.169.188.3 (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2% figure actually comes from a meta-analysis of several studies. I haven't read the paper, but hopefully whoever wrote it knows about good sampling techniques. You are right, though, that we should always be careful using statistics without knowing the methodology. --Tango (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rape as punishment is fairly common is some parts of the world for women that are accused of dishonouring their family (by marrying without permission or having sex outside marriage, usually - sometimes that includes being the victim of rape). Such punishments are handed down by "village elders" and similar rather than formal state judicial systems, though. --Tango (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Which "parts of the world" do you have in mind ? And do you have a source for that - specifically, one that says that this type of behaviour by "village elders" is "fairly common", as opposed to isolated incidents ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This BBC News article talks about such an attack in Pakistan. It says "Hundreds of women are killed or injured in honour attacks each year." although it doesn't say how many of those are rapes. It also says that most such attacks aren't reported, so it is probably difficult to get accurate statistics. (The article is from 2005 - it is possible that Pakistani government has managed to improve the situation since then. I don't know.) --Tango (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my point is that a report of one incident from six years ago does not justify your assertion that this practice is "fairly common". It is not pleasant to see another culture casually accused of barbaric atrosities without a sound factual basis. This how racial, religious and cultural stereotypes get thoughtlessly propogated. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article wasn't the source for my statement, it just happened to be the first reliable source on a Google search. My source is years of watching the news and seeing numerous stories like the one described in that article. I haven't been able to find any statistics on honour rapes, but there are plenty on honour killings, which are at least as barbaric. These things really happen, it isn't just a stereotype. --Tango (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, honour killings do, sadly, happen. Usually they are commited by a member of the victim's family. Our article says that there were 4,000 women victims of honour killings over the course of 6 years in Pakistan - a country with a population of 170 million. I fail to see how this justifies your casual assertion that punishment rapes by village elders in Pakistan are "fairly common". If you watch the news through prejudiced eyes then you will tend to remember those reports that reinforce those prejudices. May I suggest you try to develop a less distorted and more balanced view of other cultures. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I can't believe government sanctioned rape is legal internationally. See also Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 for the US. On another note, from prison rape "In 2001, Human Rights Watch estimated that at least 140,000 inmates in the US had been raped while incarcerated ... a meta-analysis published in 2004 found a prevalence rate of 1.91% ... it suggests that raped inmates number 43,800." Looking at war rape, "The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum, which defines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, recognises rape [as a] crime against humanity if the action is part of a widespread or systematic practice." This extract doesn't seem to restrict it to war practices, although I haven't looked it up. In other words, it'll never happen. Imagine public opinion on the issue. So it's arbitrary whether it would work; so would shooting every prisoner. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 13:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the U.S. is culturally incapable of ending the War on Drugs, and assuming parallel development with China during the Opium Wars, within 50 years someone like the Zetas or the Sinaloas should be formally dictating policy to the White House. At such time it seems possible that many of their prison practices will become formal institutions of the national culture. The question is, does the gang's rape penalty actually work, or is it simply another quasi-religious sacrificial ceremony? Wnt (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still see no basis for rape ever being institutionalised, given the historical background. Regardless, it's impossible to know whether it would work. Assuming it runs at a couple of percent of inmates, scaling it up to what I'd exepct to be 25-50% institutionalised is a huge jump, which could have numerous effects. If it is about power, then obviously scaling up makes a lot of difference, because of the complexity of power holders it creates. Similarly, the fact these are government mandated punishments also makes a difference. [If a man came up to you in the street and demanded 20% of your income, you'd scream; if the government does it, it's taxation.] No studies have been run, and those examining rape expose a very complex world. So we can't say, and attempts to do so will be arguments from ignorance, there simply isn't enough information to make a reasonable judgement. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 17:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, statements like "It is very well known that" followed by no citations, and then a series of responses that suggest it is not "very well known" at all and "assuming the U.S. is culturally incapable", also without citation, are all continuing invitations to debate a premise that has no support. To continue this thread is to bear off into a fantasy land. Bielle (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference for the first "well known" - I don't see anywhere that I said "not well known". At 4.5% per year, even if as the ref I found said, most of the incidents are committed by guards (which I hadn't been aware of), rape is still as common a penalty for prison inmates to impose as prison is in general society. As for the War on Drugs, extrapolating that one century of stupidity will be followed by another is not a great reach. Wnt (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In both 1st-century A.D. Rome and 1980's Iran, there was no basis in law for executing a girl who was a virgin, so in certain notorious cases where it was deemed expedient to execute girls, the executioner raped the girl so she wouldn't be a virgin when she was killed... AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you mean Cuttack, not Cuttuck. Google isn't finding much of use, though. Does the book have an ISBN? When was it published? Can you write the book and author names more carefully? Neither seems to exist. Do you perhaps mean the poet Acyutananda? It is possible you won't find anything, since the publisher may not still be in business (what I have been able to find is all references to books published at least 15 years ago). --Tango (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Johnson (North Carolina/Tennessee) (Was a democrat before serving as Lincoln's Vice President/Successor, when he was part of the National Union party)
Not necessarily. Although he was later president of Princeton University and Governor of New Jersey, Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) was a Virginian both by birth and in many ways in spirit. Like Andrew Johnson, John Tyler of Virginia (1841-45) was a Democrat who ran against the Democratic ticket and then ascended to the Presidency (succeeding William Henry Harrison of the Whigs). Once he was in the Presidency, the Whigs in Congress very soon broke with him on issues such as the tariff, and expelled him from the Whig Party. Tyler wanted to run for a full term at the next election in 1844, but had no luck in winning back support from the Democratic Party he'd run against in 1840, nor in creating a third, Presidential party. [Actually, Andrew Johnson has a stronger claim than Tyler to having stayed a Democrat; the War Democrats who supported the Lincoln-Johnson ticket in 1864 insisted on calling themselves Union Democrats and not Unionists or Republicans.] And Harry S. Truman (1945-53) was from Missouri, a border state but not one in the Deep South.
The list of clearly northern Democratic Presidents is probably no longer than that of southern ones:
Barack Obama (Illinois, also Hawaii & Kansas) 2009-
If you believe that the disputed Election of 1876 was stolen you could add Samuel J. Tilden of New York to the northern list. If you believe that the disputed Election of 2000 was stolen, you could add Al Gore of Tennessee to the southern list.
And if you consider members of the Democratic-Republican Party to be Democrats, then you could add these southern Democratic presidents:
If you consider Jefferson to have been improperly elected President by a corrupt bargain in 1800, then you could add Aaron Burr of New York (who won the same number of Electoral Votes as Jefferson) to the northern list. In the disputed Election of 1824, all the candidates were members of the Democratic-Republican party. Since none of them won a majority in the Electoral College, the U.S. House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (who later became a Whig) over Andrew Jackson (who won more popular votes than Adams) in what some consider to be another corrupt bargain. If you consider J.Q. Adams (portrayed by Anthony Hopkins in the film Amistad) to have been both a Democrat and properly elected, then you can add him to the list of northern Democrats. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obama being born in Hawaii, Kansas and Illinois tells us more than we need to know about his mother's anatomy - especially when you consider he was also born in Kenya and Indonesia. This compares favorably with Lincoln, who "was born in 3 states, and also in 2 cabins: the original, and the reconstructed." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding those disputed elections: Tilden, Gore, Burr and Adams might be able to claim that they should have become president, but the fact remains that they did not become president. Whatever the merits of their claims, presidential history is not going to be rewritten (plus, 3 of them are long dead). -- Jack of Oz[your turn]21:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jack (out in the land whose Labor Party still disputes Gough Whitlam's dismissal by Gov.-Gen. Sir John Kerr), unless you're planning to rewrite American history yourself, John Quincy Adams did become President in 1824, over the protests of the Jacksonians. If, unlike the Jacksonians, you accept Adams' presidency (1825-29), then the question is whether you consider him to be a Democrat; if so, then he's a northern one. In 1828, Adams ran for re-election as a National Republican, but lost to Andrew Jackson (Democratic or Democratic-Republican). The National Republican Party later became the Whigs. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What has been the average annual percentage salary increase in the USA in the last decades?
Percentage relative to a workers previous year's salary. Then average across all US workers in a year, then average across years.
Please only respond if you have a reliable source.
Resolved
.JPG){kind=link}
