Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 22

=October 22=

Naming Royalty
Is Charles the most common name for European Royalty? I noticed that there are King Charles (or the equivalent title for empires) from Great-Britain, Sweden, Spain, France, HRE, Monaco, Romania, and Italy. --The Dark Side 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not really. There have been two kings of England named Charles, but there have been eight Edwards and eight Henrys; even the Georges (six of them) have done better.  In Spain there have only been four named Charles (Charles V of the Empire was properly Charles I of Spain) compared with thirteen Alfonsos.  They have done better in France, getting as high as the number ten; but even here they were outweighed by the Louises, who went as high as eighteen. In the Empire their record is matched by the Henrys.  They do best in Sweden, but only just-the Erics got almost as high! Clio the Muse 05:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the hundreds of little kingdoms, principates, etc. that existed in Germany before ca. 1870, it would be a heck of a lot of work to figure out exactly which name was the most common in all of Europe. Maybe Ludwig?


 * BTW, there haven't been any kings of England named George; they were all Kings of the UK. The last sovereign of England was Queen Anne; in 1703 the kingdoms of Scotland and England merged to make the kingdom of the UK. Minor point, but sometimes it's tiring to hear people talk about "England" when they mean the entire United Kingdom. It would be like calling GWB the President of California. -- Charlene 04:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lectionary for October 22, 2006 Mary


 * Charlene, thank you for that; but you will note, to be absolutely precise, that I really only said there were more Georges than Charles. Also on a minor point, Scotland and England combined in 1707, not 1703, to form the Kingdom of Great Britain.  The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland dates to 1801.  Clio the Muse 05:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oooh! Well, the Act of Union is prior to the actual ratification and union. :-)  (Gosh, but it's been a long time since I've gotten to do this.  "The miners have reduced their demands to three reasons why Richard II was a bad king." (The Treaty of Utrecht being negotiated and agreed in 1712 but not ratified until 1713.))  The Charles habit in royals is likely going to wait for Charles Martel/Charlegmagne to really take off, so, if you want to count the unnumbered barons of raubriter's of Germany, you're going to still have a relatively shorter period for popular Charles than you would Leopolds, Fredericks, and various permutations of Sig/Vict.  Geogre 13:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Acts of Union did indeed preceed full incorporation (1 May 1707); but they were passed in 1706 and 1707 notwithstanding: so I am not really sure in what fashion your observation clarifies-or detracts from-what I have already written, namely that Scotland and England combined in 1707, not 1703. Clio the Muse 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, there were about eleven Edwards in England/UK. The regnal numbering only started after William the Conqueror, but prior to him there were Edward the Martyr, Edward the Elder, and Edward the Confessor.  In Germany, the Reuss house included Heinrich LXVII Reuss zu Schleiz (that's Henry the 67th !!).  JackofOz 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Reuss family is a special case though as every male child in every branch of the family was named Henry and numbered (well, you would have to since they all had the same name.) Rmhermen 04:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very true; one tends to overlook the pre-Conquest, and unnumbered Edwards. As far as Germany is concerned I suspect-though I have no intention of testing this-that there were far more Heinrichs, Friedrichs and Willhelms than Karls. Clio the Muse 22:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Were all of those Germans actually kings? I thought most of them were princes, dukes, grand dukes, counts, landgraves, margraves, electors, and so on. Do they count as "royalty" if they weren't kings? -- The Photon 04:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They most certainly were not all kings; but they still count as royalty. Clio the Muse 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Afonso/Alfonso V of Galicia??
In the article on Muxia, I make the following reference: Alfonso Raimúndez (King Afonso V of Galicia and the future King Alfonso VII of León and eventually of Castile, and of Spain) Does that look reasonably accurate? Should I spell Afonso as Alfonso?--Filll 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't he the one who killed his brother? Anyways, yeah, spell it Alfonso.  Яussiaп F  14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Racism
Is it being racist if you object to someones culture or way of thinking?--Light current 18:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say it depends on your reason for objecting to it. If it's solely dependant on the person's race, then that would be racism.  If there are other less subjective reasons then I don't feel it would be.  I don't know if you'll find much of an objective standard of racism though.  Dismas|(talk) 18:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no standard for racism. You can easily argue that anyone and everyone is a racist.  It is a term that has been diluted by years of special interests. --Kainaw (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because culture and race are two different things. Someone who discriminates by race is a racist and someone who discriminates by culture is ... ehm ... an ethnicist? DirkvdM 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hard to object to someone's entire culture or their entire way of thinking, because many of those things would overlap with your own culture and way of thinking. You might object to certain practices, eg. female circumcision; lynching negroes; putting Jews in gas chambers; Apartheid; eating Vegemite, or whatever - but that's confined to a particular behaviour, not the entire culture of the person practising that behaviour.  On the other hand, if you hated all Belgians and actively discriminated against them merely because they are Belgians, that would be "racism" in the common understanding of that term.  JackofOz 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's a different thing yet. Not race or culture but country. That would be ... ehm ... nationalism? Or anti-nationalism? Oops, we've even got an article on that, but as I suspected it's not what I meant (or rather 'you meant'). DirkvdM 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly, that depends on if your idea of the culture is based on an attempt to understand it, or just prejudice... 惑乱 分からん 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its just bias. Bias is favoring one side over the other, like the tendency of favoring one sides culture or race over someone elses culture or race. Racism, therefore, would be acting on your bais.


 * Of course objecting to a person based solely on his or her culture is...well not racism, but something equally objectionable. However, I take a slightly broader approach than Jack. If you believe that, say, Communism is backward, and that those who believe in it are backward to the extent of their belief in it, I wouldn't see anything objectionable in that at all. As long as you've been duly diligent in researching and are well enough educated in Communism, its origins, its tenets, its philosophy, etc, and after all that you decide that you reject it as a backward philosophy, then I wouldn't say that's being prejudiced at all. Prejudice is based on ignorance. Literally, it's to "pre-judge". However, having collected a reasonable amount of knowledge on the subject, and nonetheless rejecting it as nonsense is not prejudice at all. I see nothing objectionable about it.


 * With "culture" it's quite a bit tougher to be clear that you're objecting to a "way of thinking" rather than the person him/herself. I suspect that what your trying your best to avoid is whether or not it's "racist" on the one hand, or "legitimate" on the other, to object to Islam. (Of course I've been wrong so many times with my assumptions!) In any case, and though I'm sure this post will be met with a great deal of outrage, I've spent some time researching Islam, its holy book, its origins, its tenets, its philosophy etc, and I just can't help but be honest and finally say that I find the entire philosophy of the religion (no not just "fundamentalist" Islam, but Islam itself) to be quite objectionable to say the least. Though the "Islam is a Religion of Peace" mantra has been repeated over and over again, I can't help but conclude, that personally, I feel that I MUST break the silence and declare that I believe Islam to be an objectionable religion. Objectionable in its regard for human life. Objectionable in its regard for women's rights. Objectionable in its intolerance of the vast spectrum of human sexuality. Objectionable in its regard for those who don't share the Muslim faith. Islam is to me, a rather objectionable "religion". Bring on the outrage. Loomis 03:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, now it's political ideas and religion. I thought the question was about culture. What would be the terms here? Objecting to political ideas is ... ehm ... having your own political ideas? And objecting to a specific religion )not religion in general) is ... ehm ... religiism? Btw, you seem to think that your hatred of someone else's religion is something new and shocking. Ever bothered to have a look at the history of mankind, especially of your own people? DirkvdM 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OUTRAGE! communism backward?!?!? you attacked me personally with that as being a believer in the IDEOLOGY of communism YOU RACIST! should you not have disclaimed that could not have actually been considered racism but I still took the offence(since this is an open response site) . and saying an entire ideology is faulty however can not be seen as racism even if your knowledge is incomplete. if it would have been politics would be one OPEN game of racism*I mean out in the open with this, contrary to the backroom now*. however saying in a diminishing way TO someone or acting against someone such a thing could be considered Racism.

Someone explain this one to me, is it meant to be taken literally? If that's the case, I still can't figure out what's being said. Is it sarcasm? That would make it even tougher to figure out. Loomis 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * as for your view on the Islam-religion. I think I should support your opinion but then I would also have to suggest that litlle book the Bible(I'm sure it isn't that new, may even have lost its copyrights) in which quite a darn lot of racism and low regard for human life, women's rights, sexual spectrum is shown. but then I say you may have to read it in Latin(or greek preferably(first-ever "complete" bible was written in greek)) to comprehend what I mean to the full extent. Graendal 05:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point Graendal. I take it then that if I were to be living centuries back during the various Dark Ages of Christianity, such ages as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch Trials etc..., you'd support my right, during those dreary times of so much senseless bloodshed, to stand up and make the (rather mild, I should say,) assertion that I consider Christianity to be rather objectionable. Of course Christianity has matured, and it's come to accept that other religions have their rightful place within humanity. Oh, and also, that there's no such thing as witches. (Should I now expect similar outrage from the Wiccans?) :) Loomis 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * People seem to have a very odd understanding of racism. Objections to Islam and Communism can hardly be defined as 'racism' for the simple reason that as systems of belief they transcend both race and culture.  Both of the above contributions seem to be moving very far from the point.  Clio the Muse 06:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * At last someone else sees the light. :) DirkvdM 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Back to the original question, please. I would also like to know the word for objecting to someone's culture. Ethnicism seems like a logical word. There's no article here, but when I look it up, all I find in reference works is 'Heathenism, paganism, idolatry' (all sites seem to have copied the same source), which is something entirely different. But texts seem to use it in this sense too. Another word might be culturalism. Ah, an article in the Guardian uses the phrase "... as the anti-racist component of the struggle ebbed, multiculturalism as policy began to degenerate into what I would term culturalism or ethnicism." This seems to be about focussing on one cultural group, but that's the same as rejecting any other cultural groups, so same dif. DirkvdM 07:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I find loomis to be too offending in his ideas against one sect of faith. Every faith has two sides to it. It all depends on the way people interpret it. Loomis has revealed his hatred against islam for foolish reasons. This act of manifestation of ones feelings cant be tolerated even if its penned down. Christianity is faithlessness, it only leads to lack of faith, that people are totally driven by the state of mind. Every person can go endlessly debating on this foolishness. A few days back a person of asian descent was attacked on Russian streets on grounds of rascism. This acts of insanity clearly reflects the attitude towards freedom and democracy. The above act of racial violence can only be out of place in todays modern world of freedom and democracy. {kjvenus}


 * That's a relief! If "kjvenus" finds my comments to be offensive, at least I know I said something right! :) Loomis 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and Loomis is entitled to his opinion too. He was simply being honest (surprisingly so, in these PC bullshi**y times) and didn't hurt anyone at all. In "today's world of freedom and democracy" hundered's of thousands of ppl go on the rampage (and kill ppl in the confusion) because newspapers on another continent published some cartoon's. That's modern Freedom. Mighty countries invade other countries for political (nothing better than a war to win elections) and economical reasons (oil, soo much oil) loudly proclaiming that they only want to make the world safer and free the ppl from oppression and give them democracy. That's modern Democracy. Try to be a little more jaded and cynical or, if you prefer, realist and wiser. 10:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) And do me a favour and please really sign your posts, beside giving a "false signature".

Any more outrage? :) Loomis 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Outrage from the Wiccans? I thought you did not believe in witches?  Loomis, I must say I'm a little puzzled by your general approach: you seem to actively solicite 'storm and stress'.  Is any useful purpose served by creating a bear pit?  Clio the Muse 12:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Very astute of you, Clio. Yes there is indeed a method to my apparent fit of "madness". My semi-staged hyperbolic rant above was meant to burst that PC bubble that surrounds and protects Islam and Islam only from any criticism whatsoever. We feel compelled, in order to conform to political correctness, to qualify any criticism of Islam with words like "fundamentalist" or "extremist" or "radical", so as not to offend Muslims in the slightest possible way, as that, according to the laws of PC is verboten.


 * Pretty much every other religion bears its share of criticism, and that criticism, again according to the PC authorities, is just fine. Just don't ever criticize Islam! Don't even joke about it! "Have you heard the one about the Priest, the Minister and the Rabbi?"..."No...is it a good one? Tell me!" "Have you heard the other one about the Priest, the Minister, the Rabbi and the Mullah?"..."SHHHHHH!!!! Ixnay on the Ullahmay!"


 * Christianity, Judaism, and pretty much every other religion, gets its fair share of criticism. But as a Christian or a Jew, it just seems to go with the territory. Even here on Wiki, criticism of the Bible as even going so far as promoting genocide is common fare, yet Christians and Jews tend to take it in stride. If some idiotic cartoonist were to paint Moses or Jesus in an unflattering light, we'd respectfully and peacefully object, not descend into some mad frenzy resulting in actual deaths. It goes with the territory when you believe in something you can't prove, like the Divinity of the Bible. It seems to be okay to ridicule those who believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that Moses split the Sea, that Jesus walked on water, etc. It's all foolishness to many, and they feel no compunction in labelling those who take the Bible seriously in any form as being ignorant imbeciles, nor should they feel any. It's a matter of free speach, and tends to be harmless. Yet, while PC law tells us that it's okay to ridicule the Bible, even the slightest criticism of the Koran is off limits. (Yes, you read it "KORAN", not "Qur'an"...I'm sorry but in the English language, the syllable QUR is unpronounceable. It's a general rule in English that each syllable must contain a vowel. It's also a general rule in the English language that the consonant "Q" has no sound as a consonant on its own, unless followed by a "U". "QU" is therefore a "constructed" consonant, meant to express a consonant blend that can be expressed rather accurately as "KW". To expect the "word" "Qu'ran" to be prounceable by English speakers according to the rules of English is impossible. "Qu'ran" is basically the phonetic equivalent of "Kwran". Huh?) Same goes for the holy figures of the various religions. There's no scarcity when it comes to Jesus jokes. "How do we know that the Biblical account of Jesus walking on water is a lie? ... Because he had holes in his feet and would surely have sunk". Ha Ha...very funny. Besides being inaccurate, (the "walking on water" event was surely before his cricifixion,) much more importantly, it makes a mockery of a Biblical figure revered by a billion plus people. Yet Christians take it in stride. But criticize or mock the Koran, and boy, you're in for trouble! Thank goodness for the semi-anonymity of Wikipedia, and that no one knows my street address! Loomis 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Loomis, for that very detailed response: it's obviously something to feel strongly about. I wonder, though, if you have given full consideration to the historical conditions which shape certain types of extreme reaction?  If you look at the relative history of Christianity and Islam it is possible to conclude that people behave in extreme ways when they believe themselves, their faith, their culture and their whole way of life to be under some form of threat, real or imagined.    For centuries the most murderous forms of extremism were found in Christian Europe, defiled by pogroms, wholesale persecution and mass witch burnings, while Islam preserved the legacy of Classical learning, and made important contributions in the advacement of arts and science.  The Muslim world saw little of the persecution of Jewish communities, for instance, that became such a regular feature of Christian Europe from the Crusades onwards.   I'm not saying that Islam was completely free of the urge to persecute 'non-believers'; but for the most part minorities, both Jewish and Christian, lived in relative harmony with their Muslim neighbours.  So what has changed?  Well, for one thing the decline in faith over much of the western world has also seem the decline in the desire to defend the faith.  But where belief remains strong it can still result in murderous over-reactions.  Have there not been cases in the US where medical staff involved in abortions have been pursued and harmed by fundamentalist Christians?  But faith in general remains far stronger in the Islamic world.  When this is combined by the feeling many Muslim people have that their world is under threat from the secular western powers, in both political and cultural terms, then you have an explosive mixture.  For us cartoons and jokes depicting sacred figures may not be taken that seriously (though how do you think adverse depictions of Jesus would go down in the Bible Belt?), but for Muslims it's just another sign of western insensitivity and the danger they believe themselves to be under.  Fundamentalism is one form of reaction to this threat, and should be understood in political terms.  There is notwithstanding much beauty and wisdom in Islam; don't let your anger blind you to this simple fact.  Clio the Muse 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the intelligent and respectful response, Clio. I'm glad that at least someone, though they may disagree with me, understands that my post had a serious purpose, and wasn't just an empty attempt to provoke outrage for outrage's sake. You've offered some good food for thought. You say that historically non-Muslims, in Muslim society, lived in "relative harmony" with their Muslim "neighbours". Well, I suppose that's true to a certain extent. Historical Christian anti-Semitism has no parallel in the Muslim world, be it pogroms or the ultimate unmentionable attrocity that occured about a half-century ago, an attrocity it must be remembered that was strongly insipred and motivated by a feeling of insult and disgrace, a feeling all too similar to "the feeling [that] many Muslim people have that their world is under threat from the secular western powers, in both political and cultural terms,...an explosive mixture". An explosive mixture indeed!


 * We all of course agree that such feelings are no excuse for violence.


 * I disagree with you, though, in your assertion that faith is "much stronger in the Islamic World". I consider myself a rather devout person of faith. So when I'm offended by this or that insult to my faith, what do I do? I write. That's about it. I don't go out and get involved in physical violence. I simply write. And write and write and write. (Ad nauseum I'm sure some other Wikipedians would say!) To local newspapers, here at Wikipedia, wherever...I just keep on writing and writing and writing. The [keyboard] is indeed mightier than the sword.


 * Of course there'd be nothing I'd like better than for this so called "clash of cultures" to be resolved as peacefully as possible. You say Islam had a golden age of peace and goodwill? Great! I'd love to help my Muslim cousins in any way possible to finally return to that golden age.


 * But the PC bubble I spoke of is no help at all. Shelter a people from criticism when they stray from the path of peace and goodwill and you damn them to the suffering that the rejection of that path inevitably leads to. In other words, what I'm saying is that the Muslim world is suffering. Look at the Palestinians. They're suffering worst of all. Why? Israel? It's got nothing to do with Israel, and it's got all to do with the fact that they're brainwashed by an elite that has more hatred for Jews than a love for their own people. But these are human beings. Human beings deserving of peace and comfort and prosperity.


 * Again though, Political Correctness forbids us to criticize the Islam of today, which of course is the Islam that is defined by the Islamic elite. Inevitably, in turn, the suffering continues. On the other hand, if we'd only permit ourselves to stand up and criticize the Islam of 2006, perhaps some good can finally come of it. Perhaps my Muslim cousins will finally be able to create a new "golden age" of Islam.


 * And that, in short, (in short? who'm I kidding! :) is why I find the Islam of 2006 so objectionable. Loomis 04:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You defend your faith by writing? There are also a great many Muslims who take this road, who have always taken this road.  The whole concept of jihad has cultural as well as political meaning.  There are indeed people of faith in the western world, like yourself, who will always take the reasonable course; but there are still others less subject to reason.  The point remains, however, that faith in our world has long been surpassed in the world of Islam, where belief is not limited by a weekly and somewhat perfunctory visit to a local house of worship.  There are many people in the Muslim world who do not identify with the complacent and corrupt oligarchies that rule over them (at least some of whom are propped up by the west) and find identity in religion.  It's when they feel this to be under attack that their reaction is all the stronger.  Consider also the impact of forms of political hypocrisy on Muslim public opinion.  You say the Palestinian people (many of whom are Christian, incidentally) are suffering because they are brainwashed by an elite?  Well, they and other Muslims have been continually lectured to about the benefits of democracy.  But when they voted in a democratic way, what then happened?  I would not recommend that you ever go to Gaza; but try someday to visit parts of the West Bank-the legacy of anger and hatred over grievances past and present is poisonous.  But, I have to say, in conclusion, that our debate is probably without resolution.  There is a fire burning; I just question the wisdom of adding more fuel.  Clio the Muse 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I defend my faith by writing. You almost make it seem like there's something wrong with that! In any case, you're probably right, that our debate is probably without resolution. It's unfortunate though, because your manner of debating is rather intelligent and respectful, and I appreciate that. All the best. Loomis 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We are bound to come across each other again, Loomis, and feel sure that we will have other useful and civilized exchanges. Please do not misunderstand me.  I think it admirable that you defend your faith-whatever it is-by writing or any other means you consider appropriate.  The question was merely posed for dialectical purposes, followed, as it was, by the observation that this too is part of Muslim cultural discourse.  It's not all violence and outrage.  My best wishes to you too.  Clio the Muse 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia article on Cultural relativism (scroll down to get o the political stuff)... AnonMoos 14:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following: racism is one species within a much larger genus, and the genus is 'mistaking things which are morally irrelevant for things which are morally significant'. Racism is thought bad (by sane people) because someone's 'race' (skin colour, facial features, where her grandparents came from, etc.) has no relevance to moral questions about how she should be treated. The suggested parallel term, 'culturalism', should be avoided, because if culture is an institutionalised pattern of behaviour and attribution of significance, it certainly can be morally relevant. Aztec culture, so far as we know, had many admirable features but also condoned human sacrifice. Both of these things have obvious moral significance if true. That said, there is a related mistake about cultures: condemning or praising them without understanding their complexities and contestations. Cheers, Sam Clark 19:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I get you right, you are saying that objecting to someone's skincolour or nose-shape (or whatever physical feature) is inherently immoral, whereas objecting to someone's culture, something they can do something about, isn't. Good point. But that doesn't mean there should be no term for the latter. Maybe it should not be used in parallell with racism (to paraphrase you), suggesting they are of the same kind, but if something exists there should be a word for it.
 * Btw, 'racism' among humans is a misnomer because there is only one human race, homo sapiens sapiens. DirkvdM 07:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very wise wise of you to mention that, Dirk. But people do discriminate, appropriately or otherwise, on the basis of what they perceive to be another's race.   That's the issue.  JackofOz 09:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm a very wise wise homo (don't be getting any ideas, though). :)
 * Ok, it exists, so there should be a word for it. But that should then be a correct word. ... ehm ... appearancism? Also note that it is in essence the same as teasing the red haired kid. It's really just xenophobia in the literal meaning of the word (disliking anything that is different), except focused on appearance. DirkvdM 07:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

United States Police

 * I've been wondering about this and perhaps someone here can help. In the USA, who are the police employed by? I first thought that the US police were Federal, and employed by a nationwide agency in Washington, in the same way as the FBI. But I also wondered if the police were employed by individual states. Now I'm being told that American police are employed at the county level or by city authorities. Which is correct? It's very confusing. Here in Britain, the police are employed at county level (although our "counties" are mid-way between your counties and states), but I was never sure about America. And is there the same police force in the countryside as in the cities? And what's the difference between a sherriff and his deputies, and normal police officers and their commissioner? Do sherriffs exist in the cities, or are they just for rural areas and small towns? It's very confusing... Rusty2005 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Most often, police are employees of municipalities (towns or cities). But there are also county police and state police (so jurisdictions overlap), as well as police forces with specific responsibilities, such as park police or highway police. So the situation is every bit as confusing as you believe, and you can't really generalize about who employs police because almost all governmental entities do. But policing is generally a local rather than federal activity. - Nunh-huh 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no "united states police." There are numerous agencies, each with their own jurisdictions, from the town level up to federal special agents. Even state by state it varies, as some have sheriffs as their main structure of local law enforcement, while in others the sheriff handles only a handful of specific duties. I'd recommend starting with the relevant articles, which should have the information you want. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In the US there are many types of police (law enforcement agents with right of arrest):
 * There are many types of federal police (e.g., FBI, Park Rangers, Treasury, Drug Enforcement).
 * There are state police employed by each state, often referred to "state troopers" or "state highway patrol".
 * There are county police, usually termed "sheriffs".
 * Towns and cities of any size employ municipal police.
 * Many institutions (e.g., large universities) maintain private police forces. These private forces are often referred to as security guards, but may legally carry weapons in some circumstances, often drive "squad cars", and typically maintain close relationships with the municipal police. Legal ability to detain and arrest varies and is usually more limited than government police. alteripse 21:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The city police generally do law enforcement inside a city (unless they are outnumbered and outgunned, or the crime requires specialized forensic investigators a small town doesn't have.) The sheriff has primary responsibility for enforcing laws in unincorporated areas of a county outside a city, The state police have a statewide jurisdiction, and I'm not sure how their jurisdicion jibes with the city and county officers. Under the posse comitatus the military was barred from law enforcement, since shortly after the American Civil War, but that restriction may have been or is to be eliminated. Edison 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Category:United States law enforcement agencies. --Lambiam Talk  23:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify -- the FBI is not a police force like Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police. You will never find the FBI patrolling the streets and giving out speeding tickets. Its jurisdiction is limited to enforcing federal law and assisting other law-enforcement bodies as needed. Most run-of-the-mill crimes fall under state law and therefore are under the jurisdiction of state and local police. The role of state, county and municipal police differs by state and sometimes even within states. Ohio has no state police per se, but it has a highway patrol that patrols state highways and assists local law-enforcement agencies. County sheriffs are the primary law-enforcement bodies outside of municipalities, although some townships have their own police too. In cities, municipal police departments do the policing. The sheriff also runs the county jail. But in other states, they might have a county police with primary jurisdiction both inside and outside of cities. -- Mwalcoff 00:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The RCMP patrols the streets and gives out speeding tickets? I'd say the RCMP is a lot closer to a combination of American agencies such as the FBI the ATF and the DEA, (and even, up until the 1970's, the CIA), than a "regular" police force. Of course it's true that some more rural provinces (representing a minority of population) lend their inherent provincial jurisdiction to the RCMP, where they also act in the capacity of what would be equivalent in the states as "State Troopers". Loomis 01:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In Ontario and Quebec, the RCMP is like the FBI. Out West, the Mounties can give you a ticket. -- Mwalcoff 01:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. Here in Quebec we have the Sureté du Quebec (SQ), and in Ontario they've got the Ontario Provincial Police. As for the rest of the provinces, as I said, they choose to "outsource" their inherent jurisdiction to the RCMP. Of course in any municipality of any reasonable size outside these two provinces, the largest I can think of being Vancouver, BC, I can't see the RCMP patrolling the streets there, just as the SQ doesn't patrol the streets or hand out speeding tickets in Montréal, but leaves that jurisdiction to the Montréal police force. Loomis 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou all for your help, it's cleared up the matter a little but I'm still confused. Thanks though! Rusty2005 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to confuse you a bit more, you can not make any generalizations about any of this. For example, in my home state, Connecticut, counties are little more than vestigial boundary lines on a map.  There are country sheriffs, but their duties are limited to not much more than delivering subpoenas.  Police are employed at the town or city level, although some of the smaller towns might not have a local force at all, and rely on an assigned state trooper for law enforcement.  In Virginia, where I live now, there are no "town" governments at all, one lives either in a city or a county (and cities are NOT part of the surrounding counties, which can be confusing when you have the city of Fairfax, surrounded by the county of Fairfax.  But I digress).  As in Mwalcoff's example, the police in these municipalities are the patrolmen, detectives, etc, while the sheriff's office runs the jails.  --LarryMac 17:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The title for a US policeman is "Federal Marshall", and, indeed, they only investigate violations of federal laws and those which cross state boundaries. StuRat 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's United States Marshal. I don't know why Matt Dillon was called a Marshal on Gunsmoke, unless, during the entire run of the show, it took place while Kansas was still a territory, he should have been at least a sheriff.  The US has other types of police, as well, such as the New York Port Authority police, and airport police.  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true, Kansas became a state in 1861, and Gunsmoke appears to have been set after that. In such a case, state and local police would have been the normal law enforcement officers. StuRat 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Factual basis in psychology for claims about the power of the imagination
(These questions have been moved to the Science reference desk.) Marco polo 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Religion
I have looked through Wikipedia many times when I need questions answered and it has helped me alot, but there is something I can't find many specifics on. I want to become an actress or a movie director someday so, obviously, I read alot about celebrities, but I can't find that amny articles that actually state the celebrity's religion. I was wondering where I could find this information. If Wikipedia cannot provide most of it personally, I'd just like to find out about two specific actors: Christian Bale, and Johnny Depp. If you could help me find this information I'd be very grateful. Thank you.

Well the key is to latch on to the most recent popular trendie religion. My prediction? Islam.72.70.12.167 22:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)moe.ron


 * Hahaha. Very funny.  Seriously, it simply may not be known what religion, if any, they ascribe to.  Not everybody chooses to publicise their religious beliefs. And not everybody that believes in a god or gods attends organised religious services.


 * Moe.ron does have a point that actors, as a group, are not known being strongly represented in the ranks of the more conservative Christian churches, --Robert Merkel 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do assume that they have a religion? For many people today, even if they were brought up in a religion, it is not a significant part of their lives, and they would not mention it unless pressed? --ColinFine 13:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)