Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 27

= April 27 =

origin of St. Peter at the pearly gates
I would lke to know where the origin of St. Peter being at the pearly gates to gain entrance to Heaven came from? Ďďŭçķ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.239.111.153 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Read the article on St Peter. The image of Peter as guardian of the gates of heaven comes from the words of Jesus in Matthew, Chapter 16, Verses 18-19: And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shall bind in earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  Clio the Muse 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Pearly gates for the origin of that precise phrase. JackofOz 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

vietnam war
Why many historians view McNamara as the leading architect of the Vietnam war? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.188.59 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Robert McNamara was the US Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968. In that role, he was the leading architect of US involvement in Vietnam. As Donald Rumsfeld is to Iraq, so McNamara is to Vietnam. - Eron Talk 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do many historians view Robert McNamara as the 'leading' architect of the Vietnam War? This would seem to overestimate his individual significance, on the assumption we are talking here about the political thinking behind the American military build-up in south-east Asia. As Secretary of Defence he was an important voice in the administrations of both Kennedy and Johnson; but the growing military commitment in Vietnam surely has to be seen against the background of the determination of first Eisenhower, then Kennedy and, above all, Johnson to make a stand against communism. McNamarra did no more than provide the means to allow this struggle to take place. If he was in favour of Kennedy's initial strategy so too were Johnson, Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy and other figures of influence in the administration. McNamara, moreover, was one of the first to express doubts over the efficacy of the military path in south-east Asia, and there was no man better placed, it might be argued, to draw such a judgement. In his book, In Retrospect, he writes: ''We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in the light of these values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why. I truly believe that we made an error not of values and intentions, but of judgements and capabilities.'' I supppose the most trenchant criticism that can be made of McNamara is that both his political and strategic vision were far too narrow to begin with. His war was fought with the tactics and tools best suited to great power conflicts, not to defeating an ideologically motivated, elusive and mobile peasant army. McNamara's belief in the value of bombing as an end in itself only made matters considerably worse. Anyway, you will get a lot of useful additional information on this subject in David Kaiser's book American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War. Clio the Muse 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

SCOTUS opinions by justice
Does anybody know where I can find tabulated statistics on the SCOTUS opinions broken down by justice? I've googled it, but all I've found are links to the text of actual opinions. --JianLi 00:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, tabulated statistics of US Senate votes broken down by senator? --JianLi 00:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a book in my office that may have good statistics on the Justices' opinions. I'll try to post the information about it when I'm at work tomorrow. If I forget, please remind me on my talkpage. Newyorkbrad 00:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'll be planning to do it tonight, so that won't be necessary. --JianLi 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found one possible candidate: --JianLi 00:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For the Supreme Court part of your question, The Supreme Court Compendium by Lee Epstein et al. has useful tables, as does the Congressional Quarterly Supreme Court Companion. Hope this helps if it's not too late. Newyorkbrad 20:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have access to Lexis or Westlaw, available at law libraries, you can do a targeted search for opinions by a certain justice. The ability to do this was one of the main selling points when commercial computer law databases became available.75Janice 03:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)75Janice


 * Thanks for everybody's help. I've already handed in my project using senators, but it'll be interesting as a personal curiosity to analyze the justices. The analysis I did was to compare the relatedness of these individuals based on their voting records. --JianLi 04:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Burke and Romanticism
Given his opposition to the Enlightenment, would Burke be considered a Romantic? Is the Counter-Enlightenment roughly the same as Romanticism or is there a difference between the two movements? --66.214.21.91 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On the assumption that you are referring to Edmund Burke the wells of his inspiration were about as far removed from the Romantic vision, both intellectually and temperamentally, as it is possible to get. First of all, Burke was a uniquely political thinker, an 'Old Whig', who took a stand on the 'ancient constitution' of England, settled in its definitive form by the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  His opposition to the Enlightenment, such as it was, was based on its rejection of 'irrational' traditions as superstition and prejudice.  Tradition, like religion, was for Burke an important means of ensuring stability and continuity.  Romanticism in this regard, far from contradicting the Enlightenment, might be said to be its fullest expression, in its opposition to all forms of inherited order.  But good order, as Burke wrote, "is the foundation of all things."  Clio the Muse 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this but according to the Romanticism article Burke fits many of the criteria: elevating folk art, custom, and medievalism and reacting against the rationalization of nature and the "social and political norms" of the Enlightenment. From Burke's writings it seems he was fond of nature: "It is an incontestable truth, that there is more havoc made in one year by Men, of Men, than has been made by all the lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, hyenas, rhinoceroses, elephants, bears, and wolves, upon their several species, since the beginning of the world…" The contention that Romanticism is a more extreme version of the Enlightenment is certainly unorthodox and I have not heard of it before. In any case, I suppose it depends on the definition of Romanticism before one can determine whether one person or another qualifies as a Romantic. Certainly "A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful" has some Romantic ideas in it? --66.214.21.91 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not 'more extreme', just the 'fullest expression', in that Romanticism takes the Enlightenment as its point of departure, and both reject the traditional order of things, as expressed in the Ancien Regime. I cannot conceive of any of the Romantics attempting to defend the 'higher moral law' as Burke does at length.  Your quote from Burke reveals much more about his view on the deletarious effects of human action than it does about his love of nature, no matter how many species he catalogues!  Yes, you are right; much depends on one's definition of Romanticism.  But knowing the political writing of Burke as I do, I believe he would have viewed the aesthetic Revolutionaries of the early nineteenth century with as much distaste and disquiet as he viewed their political predecessors on the streets of Paris.  Clio the Muse 03:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that many of the definitions of Romanticism are actually better called "descriptions of the 1780's." Many of the elements attributed to Romanticism were, in fact, commonplace among all literati in the time, and many of the things supposedly part of the "Romantic revolution" were not at all new.  The most clear sighted among those who speak on Romanticism will acknowledge that what made Romanticism different was that it said it was different, when prior thinkers did not wish to be apart.  If we accept the commonplaces about Romanticism, we find many, many figures fitting, from Edward Young (who is far too early) to Blake to Thomas Percy (who would have been horrified).  The better question, I find, is whether or not there is such a thing as "The Enlightenment."  Many folks argue over this point.  Roy Porter's last books tried to argue for the existence of it, but I'm unswayed.  At the very least, we have to say that Romanticism emerges from its own time, a time that included Burke, a revival of what had been the "radical Whig" view (e.g. Charles D'Avenant), then the Patriot Whig, then the Old Whig views, a nascent reaction to the industrial revolution that was underway, and the culmination (?) of a century of movement toward the individual's rights and away from the public's rights.  Burke is a man of the 1780's - 1790's, just as Wordsworth and Coleridge were, but he was an accepted and illustrious man, where they were not (yet).  Geogre 10:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The four basic/fundamental types of democracy
I can find LOTS of different types of democracy, but I am trying to find more information on the basic four types of democracy. Does anyone know specifically the basic four types of democracy? --Doctorcherokee 01:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this classification into four types is the one used in the textbook for the course that this homework is for? --Anon, April 26, 02:52 (UTC).


 * The book says nothing of the kind, thanks for being snide though! --Doctorcherokee 03:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The real question is, who says that there are exactly four basic types of democracy? I'm not aware of a standard typology that divides democracy into four basic types. Once we know who is claiming there are four basic types, we may be able to better answer your question. --Metropolitan90 03:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than chastising and scoffing, there's a much lazier way to resolve this: . Wikipedia Google Queen 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Catholics' Responses to their Criticisms
Since the Reformation, Catholics and and the Catholic Church have faced many criticisms from other Christians, such as Protestants. Many critics have said that many teachings, claims, beliefs, ideas, acts, and practices of the Catholic Church are wrong, false, un-Christian, or un-Biblical. Some claim that Catholics are not really Christians. Others go even even claim that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation.

How have Catholics, the Catholic Church, and the Pope reacted and responded to its criticisms? How have they reacted and responded to the claims of the Catholic Church not being Christian? Has the Church accepted those criticisms and decided to change, or has it made arguments to logically, theologically, and ethically defend its beliefs, teachings, and practices? Has it made arguments about why it is Christian and why its beliefs, teachings, and practices are true, right, Christian, or Biblical?

Are there any websites, articles on Wikipedia, or sections of articles on Wikipedia that talk about the Catholic Church's reactions and respones to its critcisms, including the claims of it not being Christian or being the Whore of Babylon? If not, then can someone please write and make one?

The Anonymous One 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You could probably make a start by reading Counter-reformation. Take a look at the Second Vatican Council too. On a personal note, as a Roman Catholic myself, I rarely bother trying to respond to such claims; use of the term "Whore of Babylon" is normally sufficient to tell me that the individual expressing the sentiment is probably a fanatic and immune to any persuasion. - Eron Talk 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked these same loaded questions here and here. Please either come up with some original trolling, or take it somewhere else; you're boring us.  --TotoBaggins 03:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those links are identical, Toto. Where was the 2nd one?  JackofOz 04:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My linking skills are a little off tonight. Some of these:, ,  ,   might be dupes, but a perusal of The Anonymous One's "contributions" gives the general idea.  The main activity on his/her talk page seems to be deleting complaints and vandalism warnings from other users. --TotoBaggins 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose I have my own sexist assumptions, Toto, but I find it difficult to believe that any woman could be so tiresomely obsessive. You may have noticed but it's now becoming circular, to the extent that the same language is being used, virtually word for word. Yawn! Clio the Muse 05:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then there is always the Spanish Inquisition. Edison 05:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah ha! NOBODY expects the Spanish Inqusition.  Sigh-those were the days!  Clio the Muse 05:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've come late to this series of threads, and to be honest I'm not sure that this particular question (even if it is being asked in a series of questions on the same subject, some of which may indeed be loaded) is deserving of the vilification that is being heaped on it here. It's a straightforward enough question - paraphrased, it simply asks "how has the Catholic church responded to the criticisms that have been made of it"?  Personally I think that is a reasonable question that merits a reasonable answer.   I'm not the person to give it, though. --Richardrj talkemail 08:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, similar 'crap' appears just 2 days ago (April 25). Something about the pope and the bible and stuff Nil Einne 12:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do I recall removing this crap before? --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a manifesto, Richardj, and it appears at regular intervals. You would really have to follow the detailed history to understand.  The questions are always incidental to the central thrust, and I guarantee that it will appear again, in one form or another, no matter what answer is elicited.  I did, at one time, assume this person was in search of genuine enlightenment, and responded accordingly, and at length; but my response was effectively ignored as the agenda moved relentlessly forward.  I personally find it contemptable.  Clio the Muse 08:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see this contribution and this edit for food for thought. Similar concerns have been raised on the talk page before, and that's where this discussion belongs, I think. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. This fellow is not reading -- only writing -- and not listening -- only speaking.  Above, I thought out loud that the way we should respond is by figuring out what can be answered with references and what cannot ("How did the bishops respond to caricatures" can be answered, but "Why are Catholics unChristian" cannot).  Well, this particular person tries to game us.  I think perhaps our second rule ought to be to only answer people who read.  Any hot topic question should get no response for a day and see if there is some interaction from the author.  Why, though, are we not dealing with this particular creature on AN/I?  Geogre 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We are. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Far out! I encourage any of like mind ("religious polemics are best for other websites, not Wikipedia") to check that out and register their opinion.  Utgard Loki 12:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * as a catholic, i can only say that on a day to day basis i don't react to criticisms of the religion, i feel that most people, what ever religion they practice, just get on with being people, with all their foibles, faults and fortitudes, with all the unsung good works, 'bad thoughts' and general crap that life entails, there is always something else to do/see/deal with which takes presedent over having to justify any beliefs you hold, anon one, stop trolling and have some fun...and always look on the bright side of life. Perry-mankster 12:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I reported the user at ANI. He's currently blocked. I'll be keeping an eye on him when the block expires. --Dweller 13:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

scientific method
Who Created scientific method? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bullton (talk • contribs) 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


 * History of scientific method will reveal all. --TotoBaggins 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

philosophy
what is moral relativism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.165.140.139 (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


 * This is moral relativism. If it is still not clear to you after reading the page come back here and I will try to disentagle some of the issues.  Clio the Muse 08:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

our freedom to choose where we live.
do the courts of Dallas Texas have the right to say where we live? Can the order us to move to another state? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjm512 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Some crimes apparently limit freedom to associate and where one can live. I am not sure if this has been fully tested in the Supreme Court, but there are laws that attempt to regulate where convicted sex offenders may live.  The state of Georgia has a law just on the books, and not fully tested by the courts yet, saying that sex offenders cannot live within 1000' of a bus stop, school, etc.  The same could be applied to other sorts of felons, as felons are presumed to have given up a number of their fundamental rights (including the right to vote).  As for whether any state may impose a sentence of exile, I'm not sure.  Utgard Loki 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember a case about 20 years ago where an apparently senile American judge sentenced an offender to penal transportation to New South Wales! Needless to say, he had to change the sentence to something more appropriate.  JackofOz 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The 1000' feet of a bus stop ruling may be incredibly hard to implement though due to the fact that many places don't have "bus stops" for school buses anymore. I've lived in two different states now where the bus will pick the kids up at their home. They no longer walk to a communal stop. So that would mean that the person would not be allowed to live within 1000' of any school aged child. And yes, it was annoying if I caught it at the wrong time and got behind a bus that stopped to pick up some kids at one driveway and then drove 50 feet to stop at another driveway for more kids. The two houses were within full view of one another. Dismas |(talk) 12:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Would that still be defined as a bus stop tho? In Malaysia similarly most school buses pick up children from their home but at least in the ordinary sense of the word, I wouldn't define homes as a bus stop. Of course, I can't comment on whether this is the same interpretation a court in Malaysia or the US would apply Nil Einne 14:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the difference. Literally, the bus stops there.  Aside from that, the kids are on the side of the road and some daring pedophile could drive by and snatch a kid rather easily while the kid is standing there.  I don't think that a court would see a difference between a communal public bus stop and a school bus stopping at the end of a driveway.  Dismas |(talk) 14:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't the kids wait inside and run out to catch the bus when they see it, in those cases ? Apparently not in all cases, as I've seen some homes (usually set way back from the road) which have a nice little shelter for the kids to wait for the bus.  One even had a heating system.  Hmm, if that house ever goes on sale that can become the new owner's mother-in-law quarters. :-) StuRat 03:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the courts saying where you can't live isn't quite the same as saying where you must live. StuRat 03:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Paying for Church service
In not being a church goer I don't understand why one must give money for Church service. To me it looks like one must give money to clergy (i.e. Pastor or Priest) to interpret the Bible and for other "services". Why? Who determines how much one should give? Is it something like how you would give money (i.e. tip) to a waitress for "service" (the better the service, the better the tip)? How would one know they are getting a good product or the correct service for the hard earned money given to the church? --Doug talk 13:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is based on the assumption that the clergy have expenses - church maintenance, food, housing on a continuing basis and that they are also usually attemoting to coordinate the promotion of their faith - usually a costly exercise. The church attenders are assumed to be in favour of the institution and its aims and thus this provides an easy mechanism to contribute to the running costs. If you had a church costing $100,000 a year to run, with a congregation of 100, then to break even they would need $1000 from each attnder per year or $20 a head a weekend. There are many references to tithes which are always (often?) 10% of income. -- SGBailey 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be like a tip in the way that you phrase your question. The purpose is to support the church and its activities such as evangelical missions and such things. The idea is for the parishiners to support the churches programs so that the word of their god can be spread and the non-members of the religion may thus be saved. Although, some people use the money for their own luxeries and comfort. Dismas |(talk) 13:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks like yet another provocation. Doug: please see tithe for information.  No one "pays for church service."  No one.  Once upon a distant time, there were things like chantry, but those days are long, long gone.  Utgard Loki 13:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some people do pay for some church services. While I know of no requirement to pay to attend a typical Sunday service in a Christian church, people do pay for special services such as weddings or funerals. - Eron Talk 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, special services have expenses, but that is paying for the rearrangement of the church and the minister acting in, frankly, a civil role. One pays a JP for a marriage or the county/parish for a funeral as well.  Our provocateur's question was about "pay to pray," and no one does that.  Besides, he should see tithe if he wants a full discussion in an NPOV manner.  Utgard Loki 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Charging someone for religious services such as hearing confession or a prayer or a mass was long considered a violation of Canon law and was referred to as Simony. But a church would function about as well with no income as a restaurant, hotel or theater would. A church could meet in someone's home with an unpaid pastor. Many start out this way, then decide to construct a church building to make provide an atmosphere more conducive to worship and to extend the mission of the congregation. To purchase property and build a church seating hundreds of people can cost millions of dollars. In the U.S., the government does not directly support churches as was done in some European countries with established churches, and does not collect a church tax from members or from all citizens as is done in some countries.  The indirect support is that since the church is a not-for profit religious establishment, it does not pay the property tax that it would if it were run for profit, and as a 501c-3 charity, donations to a church are deductible on the tax return. Some states allow churches to buy lower cost "charitable" plates for church-owned vehicles.  A church has to maintain the "bricks and mortar" and usually has a property committee. It may cost about 1% of the construction cost for long term annual maintenance. The structure usually starts with a mortgage which must be paid, and then there are improvements, such as adding a parish hall or fellowship hall, and perhaps an educational wing for sunday school. Volunteers can paint and such, but construction companies do not build churches for free. The pastor, secretary, janitor, and music director are often paid workers. The gas, electric and water bills must be paid. Some churches are finding that to make an old building handicapped accessible, it may cost half a million dollars for an elevator and accessible bathrooms. Cities require a church kitchen to be built to the same standard as a restaurant kitchen, with state of the art commercial appliances. Some give a tithe, but in the U.S. giving by members averages closer to 2 or 3% of income. And averages are deceiving: some feel that a dollar a week in the collection plate is plenty, while others give over $100 a week. It is often 10% of the members who give over half of the offerings. Many churches pass along a significant fraction of their receipts to charities and to the national church body to supprt their work and seminaries to train ministers. Edison 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all these great detailed answers; appreciate them! It looks like a "business' to me; perhaps a very lucrative one based on some church structures. I have noticed in some cities a nice large Bank building on a corner, however on the next block an even bigger church. Apparently there is much money to be made in the religion business. I won't remark on the scandals of some people. Even though many churches pass along a significant fraction of their receipts to charities (which is a very nice thing to do to help people in need), apparently also there are similar problems in the religion business as in the corporate world when money is involved. Thanks again for the detailed answers. --Doug talk 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some churches do quite well, yes. Especially those with large congregations in affluent areas or with a televised ministry.  Small rural churches in poor areas losing population tend to be quite poor, however, and are closing their doors one by one. StuRat 03:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Scientology is quite frank about charging for "spiritual auditing" services . To each their own, I guess. --TotoBaggins 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Profit and Loss
Hi, I have a job interview tomorrow morning and I will have to explain my accountability for managing my P&L (Profit and Loss) for my accounts. It is in the beauty industry and truthfully major financial decisions are always made much farther up the line. What exactly is a P&L?

Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aliciapahl (talk • contribs) 14:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Profit and loss statement may be helpful. Since nobody else has responded yet, I'm throwing that up there.  Best I can do really.  I hate economics.  Dismas |(talk) 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the P&L account is nothing to do with economics. It's part of accountancy, which is an entirely different discipline. --Richardrj talkemail 18:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't have any such accountability, I suggest, after years of interviewing job candidates, that you just say so, but state your willingness to learn, if that is so. Those who tell lies about specific experience are usually readily identifiable, and that leaves the interviewer with a bad feeling, when everything else may be right. To take the time to learn what P&L is, and how it works, is a good move, but I strongly suggest you don't promise more than you can deliver. Bielle 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

American cultural literacy tests
If you have a moment, I'd be interested in hearing any critique of the following cultural literacy tests. I know many of the regs here could easily score 90% or better on all or most of these, but these tests are mainly intended for a randomly sampled audience of U.S. readers. Do you see any glaring omissions or problems in the material presented here? NoClutter 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I took one of the tests, Myth and Religion I, and I scored a 96%. I got all of them right, except for the one about revelation. I answered correctly on the second try. But anyways, I'm not sure what exactly it is trying to test. How come there wasn't anything on Hinduism, the third largest religion? A lot of the questions were focused on Christianity, and there was only one question on Islam. Is this supposed to be a test of American culture (Greco-Roman + Judeo-Christian)?--Kirby♥time 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I took Myth and Religion II and scored 88%. My comment still stands however; it is very Judeo-Christian + Greco-Roman oriented. For instance, it took me a second try to answer the David and Goliath question. That kind of question is much more "indepth" than "What is the Koran". I would have enjoyed it if it included Arjuna's dilemma or Islamic view of Jesus.--Kirby♥time 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I took "World History I". I couldn't figure out how to get a score, though I am fairly certain that I knew the answer to every question.  With only a couple of exceptions, the questions had to do with European history.  I don't think that there were any questions on places outside of Europe before European colonization or imperialism began.  So the test was extremely eurocentric.  There were also several misspellings.  I saw several instances of "Britian" and maybe none of "Britain".  Marco polo 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Physical Science I and II are listed twice in the "additional test" selector at the bottom of a page.--Kirby♥time 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In physical science I, it says that Pluto is a planet. WRONG! =P--Kirby♥time 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In world history I, it talk about apartheid as still ongoing. That's pretty out of date for the internet. Algebraist 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are simply too many to do them all. I did three: Famous Authors, World Literature I and World History II (just to be different from Marco!). The Author questions are very 'amerocentric' (?), no great surprise, I suppose. As a general reaction, I would say that the whole thing, despites some clumsy wording and the occasional misspelling, is a reasonable test of general knowledge. If one scores 100%, incidentally, a little pop up appears asking one to rate the whole thing. I didn't bother! Thanks for the diversion, NoClutter! Clio the Muse 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Flawed question alert on "American History I". The question:

23. What was the League of the Iroquois?
 * an Indian congress formed to oppose the resettlement of Indians on reservations
 * a group of Plains Indians who united to oppose white settlement
 * a group of five eastern Indian tribes that shared a common language
 * a community of pueblo-dwelling Indians who lived by farming

They want you to pick "a group of five eastern Indian tribes that shared a common language", which is not true. The Iroquois do not share a common language. Plus, depending on what time in history, there were five or six tribes in the League. The question needs rewritten. —Kevin Myers 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Geography II is easier than Geography I, especially for non-Americans. Both seem to concentrate too much on capital cities and remembering map images (which states border Iowa?). &mdash;eric 20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I 18. Which country is not an island chain? The territory of Indonesia includes parts of more than one island chain. Burma is now Myanmar, depending on who you ask.
 * II 7. Which countries do not border the Soviet Union? should be reworded and in the history test.
 * II 22. The Persian Gulf is the section of the map labeled uses an unusual map projection as does 23 (which i guess, could be a good thing)
 * II 25. Which of the following is not true of the Amazon River? better to ask about volume or drained area of a river rather than length.


 * Alan Bloom and E. D. Hirsch might have some information. The Closing of the American Mind and Cultural Literacy provoked small discussions.  Most recently, Religious Illiteracy has been/is on the Best seller's list (NYT).  The fundamental complaint -- that today's generation cannot understand the past because it has willfully or accidentally cut itself off from the material and fine culture that "we" share -- has been around at least since Swift (Book III of Gulliver's Travels and Advice for Servants inter al.).  It's hard to argue that we are not in a culturally illiterate time, just as it was hard for people in the eras we identify as highly cultural not to see themselves as suffering exactly the same way.  Are we really, truly, honestly more ignorant now than we were?  It's hard to argue honestly and honestly impossible to know.  Perhaps there has never been more than an elite that was truly culturally aware, and that elite has always lamented its inability to share.  Perhaps now we have such rapid and open communication between the "classes" that we are more aware of ignorance and feel the illiteracy more.  Perhaps X Idol has simply replaced local village gossips as the thing that the hoi poloi concern themselves with instead of culture.
 * However, as the question cannot be asked meaningfully and the answer known definitively, the metric by which anyone would judge would simply have to be skewed. Since there is no un-skewed or proper instrument for testing "culture" and "cultural literacy," there is nearly no point in complaining about a biased one.  After all, what is being tested is what matters to the author and the author's readers.  Beyond that, it's darned difficult (except through a literary Google test, where you look for most-name-dropped terms) what core literacy could be.  Geogre 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, it seems they don't work with all browsers. Using Safari, for example, there is no scoring after a question is answered. - Nunh-huh 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Several items in several of the quizzes (or their explanatory notes to the answers) are out of date. Besides apartheid and the Soviet Union, noted above, there are also references to East Germany and Yugoslavia as current countries, to Andrew Johnson as the only US president who was impeached, and to the large billion as the (only) one used in the UK. One question gives Lewis Carroll's real name as Dodson (and this is the answer to be selected, not a decoy). A number of others have questionable wording, although I did not note specifics. Again, I didn't note specifics, but one question came up on two different quizzes, and some quizzes had a series of questions on closely related topics, which is a bad choice if they're supposed to be measuring breadth of knowledge. --Anonymous, April 28, 00:17 (UTC).


 * I took several of the tests and they seemed fun, easy to take, and reasonable enough, but most had one or more garbled questions or questions in need of editing or revision. First, the garbled questions: Civics 1 question 5: the first choice is "select the president of the United States b. nominate a party candidate" and the fourth choice is "elect delegates to a party's national convention and" which does not make any sense. Civics 1 Question 9 is garbled, with choice four saying "The acquisition of empire is the lifeblood of the." Now for quibbling about the questions content and the selection of the correct answer. Physical science 1, question 19 says that black holes would appear to astronomers as black patches in space. This is not my field, but I understand astronomers see radiation from around a black hole. Physical science 2 Q 11 credits Galileo with "discovering the composition of the Milky Way." Milky Way says "The Greek philosopher Democritus (450 BC–370 BC) was the first known person to claim that the Milky Way consists of distant stars." I did not choose the correct answer because I thought it implied a more detailed understanding than Galileo had. Why not rephrase it to "observing that the Milky Way was made up of stars" rather than the present vague wording. Technology 1 Q 17 credits Thomas Edison with inventing the "record player." I would use the term "phonograph." It was his term and it certainly recorded as well as playing. Technology 2 Q 8 says that toxic waste is disposed of by "sealing in drums and burying" and after answering adds the statement "Toxic waste, which consists of chemicals such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and poisonous solvents, is usually disposed of by sealing it In metal cans and burying it. Often the drums corrode, leaking toxic waste into the environment. The other waste disposal methods are used on solid wastes." Extremely high temperature incineration is commonly used and it breaks down PCB and other such waste. The question and answer are polemic and of doubtful accuracy. Myth and religion 1 Q 9 refers to major protestant churches as "sects." This is an objectionable term, since Sect says "a sect is generally a small religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example from a large, well-established religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters. In its historical usage in Christendom the term has a pejorative connotation and refers to a movement committed to heretical beliefs and that often deviated from orthodox practices." You might sunstitute "denomination." Q15 says in the popup after answering "The Gospel of Matthew is the most complete account of Jesus' sayings and is called the Gospel of the Son of David; the Gospel of Mark is an account of Jesus' actions and is called the Gospel of the Son of God." These are not common names. "Gospel of the Son of David" does not appear in Wikipedia anywhere and gets only 1 Google hit.  "Gospel of the Son of God" only gets 837 Google hits, but most of these are not referring to the Gospel of Mark; it more often refers to Mormon writings. This is an obscure claim, so there is no point in showing it to the test taker after he has answered the question. Myth and religion 2 Q 3 ignores the common view seen in the article Holy Grail "In Christianity, the Holy Grail was the dish, plate, or cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper, said to possess miraculous powers."  Per Holy Chalice, "In Christian tradition the Holy Chalice is the vessel which Jesus used at the Last Supper to serve the wine. In the development of medieval legends, the Holy Chalice has often been identified with the Holy Grail, which is said to be the cup used to catch Jesus' dripping blood on the Cross." The "correct" answer is that it is a "mystic talisman." There should be a chalice reference in the "correct" answer. Then it goes on in the popup blurb with claims based on post 12th century fiction that Joseph of Arimathea caught drops of Jesus blood in it, which are much of the flavor of an Indiana Jones  yarn and do not belong in a test of cultural literacy. Then it says "More recent theories claim that the Grail was an ancient fertility symbol" which is plain hogwash so far as belonging on a cultural literacy test. Quotations and phrases 1 Q 18 says Hobson's Choice is "no choice at all" and counts "a choice between two equally terrible events" as incorrect, but Hobson's choice says under modern usage "often used not to mean a false illusion of choice, but simply a choice between two undesirable options." A "culturally literate" 21st century person should not be scored wrong for this answer. Civics 2 Q 7 is ill phrased. The question does not specify a "direct" democracy in which each citizen votes directly on issues or a "representative" democracy with elected representatives. The question is a devious trap, straining at how the test writer chose to use words, rather than probing the test takers familiarity with the history and forms of democracy and elected government. "None of the above" questions are inferior to forced choice questions. Only in the popup blurb does the distinction between representative and direct democracy come into play. Edison 05:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hobson's choice really is "take it or leave it", i.e., no choice at all, and our article is overgenerous in thinking that because some people misuse or misunderstand it it has changed in meaning. - Nunh-huh 18:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no "really" to it. That is a rather authoritarian, pedantic and retrospective view. There is no "misunderstanding." There is just usage. As in the section I cited, it has, since at least the 1940's, also meant a choice between two unattractive alternatives (the Scylla and Charybdis, between the devil and the deep blue sea, like Morton's fork between a rock and a hard place  , or my folks' favorite, between the devil and a man eating possum (which always called up the image of a guy with a cooked possum on his plate).) Edison 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Damages awarded would be tripled?
I read this article, which says: "The speedway is asking that ISC be ordered to sell at least eight of the 12 tracks it owns that host Nextel Cup races and that the speedway be awarded more than $200 million in damages, which automatically would be tripled under federal law if the speedway wins." Why would they be tripled? IDGI. Recury 20:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Damage awards under the United States federal antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, are automatically trebled. Newyorkbrad 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't know that. Thanks! Recury 20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Author/professor
I am looking for an author / college professor who was hired by a famous photographer to interview his subjects in order to personalize their portraits. Famous portraits by this photographer include JFK in his sailboat and Chief Justice Earl Warren in his library. The professor and photographer were eventually married and when he died she went back to teaching. She wrote a book and teaches a class about what she learned from interviewing people who were successful in their fields. It is about building on your interests to be fulfilled and to find a like-minded relationship. I had thought the name of the book was "Marrying Up" but it isn't.

Can you help me find the name of this author and the university where she teaches?


 * Could this be Joanna Steichen, who wrote Marrying Up: An American Dream--And Reality and Steichen's Legacy, Photographs 1895-1973? She is associated with The Center for Group Studies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HJMG (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC).