Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 8

= November 8 =

Poem
Hi, I’m a student classical composer and I’m looking for a poem to set for choir. Obviously I need one from the public domain (so know later then about 1920). I would like to find a poet who writes extensively in free verse (no rhyming necessary). It would also be great if the poetry contains strong imagery and is descriptive of a thing or place. I’ve been looking at Walt Whitman and John Donne but I was wondering if any one has any other suggestions for poets that I might not have thought of. Thanks! S.dedalus 00:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll limit my suggestions to the first two that came to mind: All in green went my love riding (E. E. Cummings, 1923), Philomela (Matthew Arnold, 1853).---Sluzzelin 00:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please tell us which poem you ultimately picked, I'm genuinely curious. Also good luck on your work! ---Sluzzelin 00:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will put in a bid for Dover Beach, because it is one of my favourite poems, no better reason than that. Clio the Muse 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost. StuRat 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have good taste, Stu.  That poem has been on my notice board for years.  JackofOz 07:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! StuRat 08:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Emily Dickinson? --Richardrj talkemail 06:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gerard Manley Hopkins, Carrion Comfort. Not only a wonderful poem, but rhythmically and sonically interesting. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat partial to Carl Sandburg myself - some of his work might be in the public domain. Virogtheconq 01:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your great suggestions! I need to talk to my composition teacher before I decide what poem to use, but I’ll be sure to tell you what I finely decide. S.dedalus 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, and be sure to tell us what you finally decide, as well. :-) StuRat 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question for New-Yorkers or Constitutional loiterers.
In New York State, do people in the state Legislature who run for other elected office have to resign? For example, Raymond Meier, running in the 24 district seems to be losing. Does he have to resign for campaigning for a separate office regardless of his winning? I know in some states it's absolutely required. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 04:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No. B00P 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Source? --Amists 16:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look up the outgoing governor George Pataki. He was a State Senator when elected Governor in 1998, and it was not necessary for him to resign in order to run.


 * Regarding the original question, I am not aware of any state where it is necessary to resign from office in order to run for another. In fact, I would deem such a requirement to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If, for example, Pataki had been required to resign from the Sate Senate when challenging then-Governor Mario Cuomo, who wouldn't need to resign in order to run, then the playing field would be skewed in favor of incumbents.


 * Perhaps what the questioner has misunderstood is that some states do not allow one person to run for more than one office at a time, such as Lyndon Johnson did in 1960 when he stood for election as Vice President and also for re-election as US Senator. B00P 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I've definately seen people who had to resign a seat to campaign for another, however I'm not sure who or where, so it may not even be under the 14th Amendment. 68.39.174.238 07:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "I've definately seen people who had to resign" Name one. B00P 08:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, for example, in many state including New York, a judge would have to resign to run for another office (other than a higher judgeship). Newyorkbrad 15:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

History of High-heeled Shoes
When in time did the fashion of wearing high-heeled shoes switch from men to women?

Gretchen
 * Have you checked out the article on High heels? Anchoress 05:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean high heels were once fashionable for men? - Mgm|(talk) 11:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mgm ought to check out a full-length portrait of Louis XIV. B00P 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One area where high heels for men were functional is for horseback riding. If the shoe lacks an extended heel (like paddock shoes or cowboy boots) the foot can slip through the stirrup, resulting in fatal injuries if the rider then falls off. The foot is apt to slip through the sitrrup as the rider is losing his balance in the process of falling. Edison 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that big cloak he's wearing doesn't look very practical. --Username132 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a silly question, but interesting I'd say. What are the highest high heels ever (certainly not Louis'). | A ndonic O   Talk  16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Elton John?? JackofOz 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How long after a failed appeal does the defendant go to jail?
Pretty somber subject, but does anyone know what happens if this occurs in Queensland, Australia? If someone is found guilty, then appeals and loses the appeal, how long until they go to jail (if that is what is happening?) Thanks for your help.


 * I don't see why there should be any delay at all. In any case, if they were found guilty and given a custodial sentence, they are probably in jail already.--Shantavira 11:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. Upon the verdict of guilty in the trial court, the accused is immediately cuffed (by the bailiffs in the courtroom) and shipped off to prison. At appeal, the accused would already be a prisoner. Although I'm Canadian, and not from Queensland, or even Australia for that matter, I can't possibly imagine our two justice systems (which are both no doubt built on the British model) differing in any sense in this matter. Loomis 12:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As a former resident of Queensland, I can confirm Loomis is telling the truth. JackofOz 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From experience? :-) | A ndonic O   Talk  16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you mean by "experience". I have experienced the acts of reading newspapers and watching television and engaging in conversation with knowledgeable persons, and it is these "experiences" that informed my contribution.  However, I have never had the dubious honour of being convicted of any offence in Queensland, if that's what you're referring to.  :)  JackofOz 02:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Scottish system, the reverse occasionally has unfortunate consequences - last year there were a number of well publicised cases where a prisoner had been found guilty of crime A, and was serving a jail term for this. Whilst in jail for A, they were also suspected of crime B, and were taken to court, for trial.  When found innocent of crime B - they were let go.  Not on purpose, just on the reasonable point that a court lets an innocent person go, and everybody involved being too brain dead to remember they were in jail anyway for something else... --Mnem e son 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds so crazy, it must be true. I seem to remember hearing of cases where a convicted person is released pending an appeal, but I don't know what level of criminality is involved, or where these practices occur.  JackofOz 02:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely your intentionally ambiguous statement: "I have never had the dubious honour of being convicted of any offence in Queensland" was only meant to be all the more provocative than your last. You're toying with us Jack, and I'm sure you're enjoying every bit of it! ;-) Loomis 04:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So you have had the dubious honor of being convicted somewhere? Pray, tell us, how long from court, to jail? ;-) | A ndonic O   Talk  12:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Charity given in a Mosque
I heard rumors of this but I do not know if it is a malicious lie or the truth.

The rumor is that charity (by muslim worshipers) collected within a Mosque cannot be given to non-muslims not even if the non-muslims are victims of a natural disaster (eg. earthquake). The money collected can only be given to other muslims in need.

220.237.181.185 10:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would depend on the imam running the mosque, but I've heard a good muslim should help a person in need. It didn't say anything about their belief and I suspect what you heard was a rumor caused by islamophobia. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In my experience, Mgm is right. Charity can be given to anyone.  In Trinidad at Eid and Eid-ul-Adha there is always a crowd of non-Muslims outside the mosque waiting for alms.  Guettarda 13:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true that a good muslim should give to charity. I believe it sais somewhere in the Koran about an exact amount(percentage of total income) that should be donated to the Mosque charity or directly. though preferably via the Mosque because Allah would know it would be well-spent then for sure. and just for the record; it is also required of a good Christian to donate to those in extensive need, though through time this changed into small doations for the church and when disasters occur the majority of it will be spent on disaster relief via the central organ of the church.Graendal 07:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See Zakat. 惑乱 分からん 15:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A MSc or an MSc
Is it correct to write a MSc or an MSc (the 'em' sound sounds better with an an). --Username132 (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "An MSc". A, an says that 'an' is "used before words starting with a vowel sound, regardless of whether the word begins with a vowel letter". Ironfrost 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you much! --Username132 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So would it be a historian, or an historian? Does it depend on your pronunciation? | A ndonic O   Talk  16:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you pronounce "historian" without the h, then it would be "an historian". Otherwise, its "a historian" or "a hotel" or "a hopsital".  But the question is, who pronounces historian without the h?  Chickenflicker 04:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Peter Weller on "Engineering an Empire" on the History Channel | A ndonic O   Talk  12:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Czech currency during WWII
On the Czech Republic page, the country's present currency is given as koruna -- and I need to know: Thank you! -- Deborahjay 13:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Was that the currency used during WWII, particularly in the Terezin (Theresienstadt) ghetto?
 * Would a suitable English-language gloss for koruna be "crown"?


 * Don't know about the first question (although my guess would be 'yes'); but on the second, my Czech father-in-law calls them 'Crowns'. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bohemian and Moravian koruna was the official currency at the time but Theresienstadt Ghetto inmates had their own currency.1 Lowerarchy 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Crown" is a suitable gloss if you want one, but English-speakers today who deal with foreign currencies usually use the foreign-language name (although we may be confused about how to  pluralize it) rather than learning what it means. So most people would say "one koruna" for Czech money, or "one krona" for Swedish money, rather than saying "one crown" for either one. (You will hear the Swedish unit called a "crown" if you go to Sweden and talk to people in English -- after all, they do know that "krona" means "crown". I expect Czechs who speak English will do the same thing, but I haven't been there.) --Anonymous, 05:22 UTC, November 9.


 * Czech shopkeepers, waiters, etc., ask for e.g. 'three crowns' rather than 'three koruna' in my experience. The younger ones, at least, mostly speak English well. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Where Should My Three References Come From
I'm making an MSc application in the Netherlands and have to provide three references. My course leader suggested all three coming from different members of the university (where I was doing my BSc), since I'm applying for an academic position. Would you advise that all three references come from the same place or perhaps I should ask for a reference from my head of sixth-form also? I don't have any relevant work experience (although I'm trying hard to get it) so a reference from a pub that I worked probably wont do. --Username132 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Referees from your university, I'd say. There's a big step up from 6th-form to university, some people who do well in the first falter at the second, and admissions tutors know it, so they'll want to hear from people who can judge the work you did at that level. (Note: I'm an academic, so know something about the issue; but I'm not an admissions tutor, so can't claim that much authority). Cheers, Sam Clark 16:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say you could use the head of your sixth-form if he/she is positive about you and using two (if your max is three) university references. If they as well say you have a positive attitude and good working attitude then if the references are checked and when proven to be constantly positive and attitude-correct that will set a rather good image of you as a good working-attitude MSs-student. (dutch: en dat is kat in het bakkie! :P)Graendal 07:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaker of the House
Hello,

My question is in regards to the Speaker of the House. I visited your page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives but it does not answer my question. It says that the Speaker of the House is traditionally the highest ranking officer of the majority party of the House of Reps, but it doesn't say HOW Representatives are "ranked". Does it have to do with the number of years they have served in the House? Does it have to do with what committees they serve on? How does one become a high ranking officer? Basically what I am wondering is why is Nancy Pelosi "destined" to be the next Speaker of the House when the Speaker is elected?

Thanks,

Brad


 * Hey Brad - Nancy Pelosi is currently the House Minority Leader, which means she was chosen by the Democratic caucus in the American House of Representatives to be their leader. United_States_House_of_Representatives gives more information on the interplay between Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Speaker of the House, and the other offices.  As the House Minority Leader is the head of the minority party, and the minority party has now been made the Majority party, the assumption that she will be speaker is based on the assumption that she will be elected to continue to be the leader of the party, because if she only became House Majority Leader, then that would mean somebody else, the Speaker of the House, outranked her.  I hope this helps you.  --Mnem e son 18:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite. If she only became Majority Leader, it wouldn't have anything to do with rank per se, but rather, it would be because she the Democratic caucus voted for her. It's a decision, not an entitlement. (On the other hand, President Pro Tem of the Senate is generally the most senior member of the majority party.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no guarantee Pelosi will be elected speaker. Bob Livingston was supposed to be Speaker in 1999, but he resigned due to a sex scandal before the start of the session. I remember one Democrat voted for John Murtha instead of Richard Gephardt in 2001. It would be wrong to call Pelosi the speaker-elect. Speaker-presumptive would be a better term. -- Mwalcoff 02:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Murtha has said that he's interested in running for Majority Leader, so that's probably one obstacle out of Pelosi's way. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaker-presumptive seems to be a neologism, and has echoes of hereditary titles like "heir presumptive", which would be anathema to democratically-minded Americans. I have seen Pelosi called the "putative Speaker", which sits well with me.  JackofOz 02:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In general, ranking in (either House of) Congress goes by seniority. However, the top leadership positions go by internal election.

In the Senate, each party elects a leader and a deputy leader. The head of the majority party is the Majority Leader, the head of the minority party is the Minority Leader. The deputies are called "Whips."

The House of Representatives works the same way, with two modifications. As there are more members, there are more than one Whip per party to maintain contact between the leadership and the rank-and-file members. Additionally - and here's the answer to your question - the the head of the majority party does not sit on the floor with the other members, but runs the show from a desk facing the membership and is the Speaker of the House. (The US Vice President does this in the Senate.) This means that the #2 member of the majority party is called the Majority Leader. The #3 is the Chief Whip.

For example, way back in the (Republican) Eisenhower Administration, the Democrats ran Congress. In the Senate, their #1 was Lyndon Johnson, the Majority Leader. In the House, the #1 was Sam Rayburn, the Speaker of the House.

Nancy Pelosi a Democratic Representative from California is the current House Minority Leader. When the new Congress organizes itself in January, it is expected that she will be re-elected to the head of the Democratic leadership in the House. If so, as the Democrats will be in the majority, she will become the Speaker of the House.

Seniority counts toward Committee assignments and chairmanships. B00P 04:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And then on the first day of the new Congress (January 3, 2006), there will be an election within the House of Representatives. Because the Democrats will have the majority, Rep. Pelosi will be elected Speaker over the Republic nominee on a pretty-much straight party-line vote. See Speaker of the United States House of Representatives for more. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I live in a parliamentary democracy that also has a Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Speaker is elected by all the members of the house, but because the government by definition has the numbers, the Speaker is always the candidate chosen by the governing party. There are all manner of mechanisms to ensure the Speaker is fair and impartial (but whether these always work is another question). Speaker Billy Snedden even proposed that Australia copy the UK model where the Speaker, once elected, resigns from their party and their seat is not contested by other parties until such time as the Speaker leaves the office of Speaker, for whatever reason. That hasn't happened here yet. Given that the US Speaker is not just a member of their party but the Leader, what guarantees are there that he/she will preside fairly and impartially and not veer into conflicts of interest, particularly where there are close votes on crucial issues? JackofOz 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * None at all. Some, like the aforementioned Sam Rayburn, were, while authoritarian, fair-minded and respected by members of both parties. Others like Newt Gingrich have been party hatchet men, who went after the opposition with a vengeance. B00P 08:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

us congress
I have read almost through your whole web page it has not yet shown me who the US Congressperson is.Ρш —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.100.244 (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry, but your question isn't clear. What are you asking for? About which US Congressperson? Sam Clark 19:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Which voting district are you in ? StuRat 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe the OP is asking about the term "congressperson". It's a gender-free term, encompassing both congressmen and congresswomen. If you were talking about members of the House of Representatives generally, rather than particular people, you might refer to them as "congresspersons" to avoid assuming they are all of one sex. JackofOz 00:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the confusion stems from a different source.

The US Congress is made up of two parts: The House of Representatives and the Senate. Members of either are "Congressmen." That, however, is an informal term. The more correct terms are "Representatives" and "Senators." Now, since "Senator" is a more exclusive title than "Representative" (there are less of them), Senators are always called "Senator," thus "Congressman" is, essentially an equivalent (and more often used) term for "Representative."

B00P 04:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Question relating to the Gospel of Mark and the Parable of the Banquet/Wedding Feast
Basically I've been assigned with the question Why does Mark's Gospel not feature the Parable of the Wedding Banquet? Now I have not got a clue on how to answer, I have tried looking on google, but to no avail any help would be much appreciated thanks.


 * You might like to start with Gospel of Mark, especially "Mark and the Synoptic problem" and the next section. DJ Clayworth 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * More generally, the question could be "Why do some of the gospels include certain events while others omit them? Why aren't all the gospels the same or at least consistant?" Now, laying aside the unique symbolic character of the Gospel of John, the answer has to consider that according to both historical scholarship and Christian tradition, the gospels were written starting c. 70 C.E./A.D. at the earliest (Mark's is thought to have been this early).  This is around 35 years after the date historical accounts give for Jesus' death.  What were Christ's followers doing during that time? Preaching, e.i., spreading their message through word of mouth, and ministering.  They were also conducting liturgies where the stories of the gospels were retold.  Because of that, an oral tradition developed. And you'll see that discrepancies emerge naturally as this happens. People remember things differently, especially with the passage of time, they elaborate and embellish story elements with each retelling, etc. The evangelists' task consisted of basically compiling these oral accounts into a more or less coherent narrative which was theologically accurate and useful for spreading their creed. This is all without considering that the evangelists themselves came from different backgrounds (Jew, Gentile, Roman citizen) and were editing this oral tradition with different audiences in mind.  Those factors would have influenced the inclusion of certain stories. -Fsotrain09 04:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Or the short version: Because the two versions, Matthew 22.1-14 and Luke 14:16-24, are derived from the Q document, probably at the Q2 level. In Mark's day, only the original Q1 level existed, so the parable didn't exist for him to include. In the decades following Mark, the parable was invented and edited into Q. Matthew and Luke thus had it in their source, although one of them, at least, recast it when writing his gospel. B00P 05:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ashamed about the past
I´m looking for examples of common cultural or social uses of the past that we now feel are unthinkable or ridiculous. Some examples: slavery, women not voting in country´s elections, some medical treatments of the past, etc. Obviously, we can argue that in some regions of the World, these are still common practices. However, in most of the developed countries (at least) most people would see these practices of the past as horrendous, although they were commonly accepted not long ago. I would like to find more examples and more info about the above and other examples. I´m particularly interested in current views (articles, papers, etc.) that reflect on the past and shed some light into the metal/cultural shifts that took place.


 * You might find some of Bernard Williams's work interesting: see especially his Shame and Necessity, which considers the similarities and differences between our and classical Greek ways of thinking about moral responsibility. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any links, but here are a few ideas:
 * Kids being taken out of school to work for the family
 * Kids working period
 * Debtor's prison
 * Marrying children to each other, or children to adults
 * Wet nursing by servants
 * Lynching
 * Different washrooms/water fountains/enterances for people of colour
 * Different citizenship rights for people of different races/cultural backgrounds/countries of origin
 * Forced sterilisation of psychiatric patients and people with cognitive impairments or other disabilities
 * Institutionalisation of people with disabilities
 * Hysterectomies, electroshock or lobotomies for women as treatment for psychiatric problems or depression (I know electroshock is still used sometimes)
 * Putting petty criminals in the stocks, floggings, public humiliation, scarlet letter etc (although it may actually be popular despite being out of fashion)
 * --Anchoress 20:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few:


 * Human sacrifices.


 * Genocide.


 * Men owning their wives, including the right to rape or kill them.


 * Parents owning their children, including the right to kill them.

StuRat 20:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Death by hanging, electric chair, and other barbaric practices
 * Giving lethal weapons to people and have them kill each other on the command of "superiors"
 * Inserting commercials in children's programs
 * Taking children away from their indigenous families (e.g. the Stolen Generation)
 * --Lambiam Talk 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Death penalty
 * Trial by jury
 * Posession of dangerous weapons by the general population (no monopoly of violence by the state)
 * Monotheism(s)
 * Shitting behind doors
 * -All understandable, all unthinkable and ridiculous Keria 21:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox abuse warning, but I got this message from the future: Treating our environment like a public restroom. Terminating the life of animals for the selfish purpose of pleasure. Not trying to give every earthling equal chances of getting an education and access to health care. ---Sluzzelin 22:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you been watching reruns of Star Trek? --Lambiam Talk  22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! Been a long time, but perhaps they somehow got irreversibly woven into my moral fabric. Dammit Jim, how sad. ---Sluzzelin 23:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Luckily for the researcher there is a ton of literature on slavery published every year, especially stuff on the Atlantic trade, and double-especially (bless the humble hyphen) stuff on the antebellum South. Both of the following books go into the reasons behind the abolition movement aside from the dismal economic aspects - the mental shift, as you referred to above. Hopefully, both will provide tons of citations if you want to get deep into it.


 * Christopher Leslie Brown. Moral capital : foundations of British abolitionism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.


 * Davis, David Brion. Inhuman bondage : the rise and fall of slavery in the New World. NY: Oxford University Press, 2006.

I guess this attempt at an answer ignores the basic question (if indeed I understood your question) of what happens to people over a generation or two to make them adopt a wildly different moral stance on something. Sorry.

Lowerarchy 23:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I should point out that some of the things that people have identified as dreadful practices from the past still exist today-and not just in the Third World; and this includes forms of slavery. Beware of cultural hypocrisy. Clio the Muse 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That was really covered by the OP, who framed the question as identifying historical practices generally held to be abhorrent to present-day Westerners. S/he acknowledged that such things may still take place. Anchoress 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anchoress. But that is really what I meant by cultural hypocrisy: condemning something in theory (or being blind to its existence) and ignoring it in practice.  We may think People Trafficking, to take but one example, is 'unthinkable or ridiculous'-though as forms of critique both words seem lame and inappropriate-but it exists notwithstanding.  Its existence may not be 'tolerated'; but its continuation is effectively ignored.  Clio the Muse 00:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. But answering a question on the RD desk doesn't equal cultural hypocrisy. Who says that we are ignoring it in practice? Who says its continuation is effectively ignored? Such a sweeping assessment (of RD editors) is as much outside the purpose of the RD board as discussions about these problems and their solutions are. Anchoress 01:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are either misinterpreting or misunderstanding the point I am trying to make, and the direction in which I am aiming, nothing at all to do with RD editors. I have nothing more to add, and leave it for others to make their own judgements.  But thanks anyway for your observations.  Clio the Muse 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * NP. :-) Anchoress 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No-one mentioned torture. Of course, it's still being used by the United States...but I think many US citizens are actually unaware of this and would find it abhorrent if they knew it to be the case. Plus, not just the death penalty in general, but the death penalty for offenses we now consider minor. And forced labor for prisoners, like with the convicts that were sent to Australia. (Off topic, but all Wikipedia editors should download the new version of Firefox - you can see spelling mistakes in the edit window!) --Grace 01:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The rest of the world seems to know about it, along with the goings on at Guantanamo Bay. Are Americans as generally unaware of current affairs as you claim?  I thought the prevailing stereotype (which may have some measure of truth in it) was that they have little knowledge of the outside world but they know a lot about their own country and its policies.  JackofOz 01:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Cutting off bakers' hands for shortchanging customers' on the amount of bread purchased, Trepanation, the Four humours the Geocentric model, demons causing disease,phrenology, numerology, astrology, God etc. (well at least to me).--Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Collective punishment
 * Divine right of kings
 * Having an absolute monarch
 * Colonization
 * Mistreating, sometimes even killing, aboriginal peoples.
 * Forcibly converting someone to another religion.


 * By the way StuRat, when were husbands ever allowed to kill their wives? --Bowlhover 02:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That was quite common in the ancient world, since wives were considered to be the property of the husband, they could do whatever they wanted with them. It's still the practice (although officially illegal), in many Muslim countries, where it's called an "honor killing".  For example, if a woman wanted to leave her husband for another man, the husband would have the right to kill her, in the eyes of the community. StuRat 01:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Purdah. Sati.  (not in response to Bowlhover, but to the original questioner).  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to Bowlhover: the ancient Greeks and Romans treated them very badly, I supposed they often killed them.


 * Burning "witches" at the stake.
 * A ndonic O  Talk  16:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if its what you meant, but Trail of Tears is supposed to be one of the most regretted events in US history. Philc TECI 18:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa! Whoa! Wait a sec here! Let's not get carried away! "Kids working period"? Are you saying that the paper-route I had as a child is today "unthinkable, shameful or ridiculous"? To me it was a rather rewarding and educational preparation for the discipline required in the adult work-force. "Wet-nursing"? Perhaps it's out of fashion, but is there really anything inhumane about it? "ECT"? Have you ever suffered the torment that is chronic major depression? "Trial by Jury"? That one I totally don't get. "Monotheism"? Besides being downright insulting, it's actually quite ironic, in the sense that degrading monotheists is actually an example of a true "unthinkable, shameful and ridiculous" pratice that is apparently alive and well, that being religious intolerance. Loomis 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if I go outside and kill every religious person I see, that would be religious intolerance. But I don't see anything "unthinkable, shameful, [or] ridiculous" about having a debate.  --Bowlhover 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not per se, of course not.  But if, in the course of a debate, you were to say "I advocate the killing or brutalisation of all members of X religion", that would be just as much a case of religious intolerance as actually killing them.  JackofOz 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that wouldn't be religious intolerance, that would be a homicidal rampage. Just as if I were to go about killing every Black person I see, that wouldn't be mere racism, rather, it too would be a homicidal rampage. Yet if I were to sit back in my comfy loungchair and rather peacefully go about "debating" about how I feel that Black people are racially inferiour, would that be simple debate, or would it indeed be unthinkable, shameful and ridiculous racism? Loomis 10:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather than squabble over the meaning of a word, we should get to the main point. You're using a strawman argument.  It would be shameful to say that black people are racially inferior, because that's not how the society feels right now.  It wouldn't be shameful to be an atheist, because our society tolerates it.  Also, I'll have no problem if you "debate about how I feel that black people are racially inferiour", because I respect your freedom of speech.  As long as you don't break the law (which atheists aren't doing), I'm happy.  --Bowlhover 17:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have another one: The Screw in Victorian prisons. This is how it worked: prisoners had to turn a crank 10,000 times a day, and it didn't do anything. It was just turn, turn, and turn. It gets worse, the prison warden would come around every now and then to tighten it, in order to further torture the prisoners. I can tell you, it hurts; my arm almost fell off back in 1864, but I escaped. ;-) | A ndonic O   Talk  12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Voter Turnout
I can't seem to find voter turnout information about the 2006 midterm elections. There are some info out there that seems to state record turnouts, but I haven't seen anything definite. Is there a site or something that lists voter turnout by state, and compares it historically? Thank you.Knyazhna 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Try this msnbc article, for a start at least. --Cody.Pope 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which country? DirkvdM 05:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I realise questioners are supposed to state the country they are interested in, but in this case isn't it rather obvious? --Richardrj talkemail 06:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that there are more than half as many countries in the world as there are days in the year, and many countries have several levels of elections, there should be several election counts going on every week (note that the question doesn't specify on what day the elections were held). So no, it is by no means obvious. The likeliness of someone from outside the US assuming everyone will understand what they are talking about is another matter, though. :) DirkvdM 08:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, but it's also pretty likely that they are asking about the US, so I submit that further disambiguation is not required. --Richardrj talkemail 10:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Given my reasoning it is only likely if one knows how self-centered USians are. In that sense it would work, yes. But it would also be nice if people were a bit more polite. DirkvdM 06:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, can someone help with this: How many people are estimated to comprise the entire US eletorate?? 11:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1919 or 20 cruise liner photograph
Hello all. While recently doing some family history research I have been going through some photographs taken by my great-grandfather. Amongst them is this picture of a cruise liner, a White Star Line or a Cunard vessel I would assume. However, I don't know enough about such ships to be able to guess what one it might be. The photograph was probably taken in either 1919 or 1920 &mdash; is there enough in the picture for any ship experts out there to be able to identify it? This may or may not be relevant, but it is pasted on the same page as some photos which were almost certainly taken on the Yorkshire coast. Many thanks. Angmering 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks a little like the RMS Queen Mary; but that was launched in the 1930s, and therefore outwith your time frame. Clio the Muse 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Going back and looking at the pages again, the page immediately before is definitely from 1919, but the subsequent pages might well be 1930s... so actually it could be the ship you suggested. I agree the image on the Queen Mary page certainly looks like it could be it. Angmering 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the picture is from 1919 or 1920, she may be the the SS Imperator. It was docked in Liverpool during those years,1. However, if the picture was definitely taken in Yorkshire, it probably is not the Imperator. Lowerarchy 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note the row of 12 lifeboats in the original poster's picture. That doesn't match the Imperator picture. --Anon, 05:30 UTC, November 9.


 * A number of genealogy websites and books have pictures of passenger ships that delibered immigrants to U.S. ports. Typically, one enters or looks up the name of the ship to get the picture, but one could equally browse the pictures to see if you can find a given ship. here is one place you could start. Alternatively, if the ship in question is one on which your ancestor travelled from abroad to the United States, you can check [www.ellisisland.com] or the ship passenger microfilms (or naturalization papers) from the National Archives and you will find an arrival record which will have the name of the ship. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The number of lifeboats could change. -THB 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This ship is definitely RMS Queen Mary (three stacks with the Cunard "lines" is the dead giveaway, along with a few other telltale signs) meaning the picture was probably taken after 1936 (the Queen's maiden voyage). --RadStude 05:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyrant
Tyrant = dictator?--Patchouli 23:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually tyrant is considered worse. To be a tyrant is to be cruel and oppresive. A dictator can be tyranical, but they could also be positive image. Dictator is more or less along the lines of not being held by rules. So, it depends on how you view it, it's subjective. Yank sox  23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see little objective difference between the one and the other; and any good dictionary will have 'tyrant' among the definitions of dictator, and 'dictator' among the definitions of tyrant. However, if you take this back to source in the ancient Roman Republic 'dictator' was an officially recognized office, whereas 'tyrant' was a pejorative description for the actual exercise of that office.  Clio the Muse 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) It's interesting to compare the corresponding articles on tyrant and dictator. The meanings of both words have changed a lot, and, depending on the cultural context, still carry varying meanings in modern usage as well. For example, dictator can also be used as a simile for an elected or appointed official with cruel and absolutist tendencies, or just for a poltical opponent whom you wish to slander.---Sluzzelin 00:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Being pedantic, "tyrant" (as it's usage of the letter "y" hints) is a Greek work and hugely predates the Roman Republic. It originates from Archaic Greece (that's the period that predates Classical Greece). --Dweller 09:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On reflection, even in a modern context, tyrant is probably the more pejorative of the two. I know of no modern politician who would welcome being labeled as a tyrant-even if they are-but some, including Fidel Castro, I understand, can live with the description of dictator.  Clio the Muse 00:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all dictators are tyrants and not all tyrants are dictators. A dictator can in principle be benevolent, but since power corrupts, that is rarely the case (for long). Clio mentioned Castro, and he might be an example, although I'm not sure if the word 'dictator' applies here and I wouldn't go so far as to call him a tyrant. And many kings and tsars and what have you were tyrants, but not dictators since dictatorship is not heredetary, whereas royalty is. DirkvdM 05:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with Clio the Muse rather than DirkvdM. All tyrants are dictators, but all dictators are not necessarily tyrants. The notion that dictatorship can not be hereditary has no basis in fact. (See the United States Declaration of Independence wherein Thomas Jefferson calls King George a "Tyrant...unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.")


 * The factors involved are Collegiality and Societal Norms. Anyone who runs the show by himself is a dictator. So, for example, the Captain of a ship in the US Navy is a dictator. It matters no one whit what the officers and crew think, the Captain's legal orders are absolute; there is no collegiality. However, should a Captain trample even the lowliest recruit's rights - say by having him flogged - then he would have violated Societal Norms (as spelled out in the Code of Military Conduct) and become a tyrant (and subject to the penalties therein provided).


 * Modern "political" dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc) are all but universally tyrants, but it need not be so. Nonetheless, granting any one person total power is not a good idea (cf: Borg Queen). B00P 05:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia itself is a good example of the difference. As the Wikimedia foundation issues list, Jimmy Wales is the "ultimate authority on any matter". This, technically, makes him a dictator, at least as far as Wikimedia projects go. But I think it would be laughable to consider him a tyrant in any sense of the word. The idea of a benevolent dictator is common enough in general, but is particularly common in the software/open source world. The fact that it would be easier to use a different operating system if you didn't like what Linus Torvalds was doing, as opposed to live in a different country if you didn't like what Kim Jong-Il was doing may have something to do with it. --ByeByeBaby 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)