Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 28

= June 28 =

Women on juries
When did women begin to serve on juries? 208.114.153.254 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Any jury? Anywhere in the world?  At any time?  Or, are you asking about a specific country? -- (¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 02:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know the answer to this question, but assuming you mean the United States, the federal nature (50 different State court systems plus the federal court system) makes it difficult to even know which State allowed women to first serve. There is evidence that women first began to serve on juries (albeit illegally!) beginning in 1870, see "The Woman Juror".  The same law journal article notes that the State of Washington first lifted its ban on excluding women from juries in 1911, and the implication was that it was the first State to do so (women at that point were not given an expressly protected right to vote in the 19th Amendment until 1920, but this was pre-incorporation, so this was mostly a federally protected right).
 * However, it took longer until States were prohibited from barring women from juries (see ). In Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 (1946), the Supreme Court held that "[T]he purposeful and systematic exclusion of women from the panel in this case was a departure from the scheme of jury selection"; however this holding only applied to federal juries, not to State juries.  In Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Florida statute that allowed women to serve on juries (the opinion noted that Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina still did not allow women to serve on juries), but only allowed them to be selected if they registered to their consent to serve on a jury with the clerk of court.  Finally in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to jury trial, having been incorporated onto the States in 1968, prohibited such an opt-in because the jury would not be drawn from "a body truly representative of the community ... [or] a cross-section of the community."  This decision was not unanimous; Chief Justice Burger concurred in the judgment, and Rehnquist dissented. –Pakman044 02:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Pakman. I was remembering a group of films set in the 50s and 60s, and it felt odd seeing their fully-male juries. In response to Kainaw, I meant North America. Sorry for not specifying. Thanks again! 208.114.153.254 02:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, women were not allowed to serve on juries in Canada according to this webpage until 1972—a lot later than I would have expected. –Pakman044 03:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is only the date when the final province, Quebec, allowed women. British Columbia was the first, allowing women in 1922, and most provinces followed in the 1950s. - SimonP 15:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not produce evidence instead of arguing?
Why do people spend so much time and effort arguing about the existence of god. Or rather arguing about the existence of a particular god.

Either god exists or he/she/it does not. The existence of god is not dependent on the opinions of mere mortals.

Would it be better if people spend their effort instead on producing evidence of the existence of god that is acceptable to everyone. Most of the time, they just produce evidence that is acceptable to a smaller group of people. There is even a term for this, it is called "Preaching to the converted."

So why don't religious groups produce evidence (of the existence of god) that is acceptable to everyone?

202.168.50.40 03:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The easy answer to your question is that they can't, but there is an inherent problem in your question. What kind of evidence is acceptable to everyone? Everyone has different standards of acceptable "evidence." Evidence to some may be an enlightening experience they had or heard from a trusted friend. Evidence for others may mean concrete measurements and observable features validated with full scientific rigor. I would imagine that if someone found something truly divine that could be validated as such with scientific rigor we would have heard of it by now. Sifaka   talk  04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Elijah reportedly did some neat demonstrations of his God's power: the article reports that per the Bible he raised the dead, brought fire down from the sky, and ascended into heaven on a whirlwind. It also says that some Christians and some Jews expect him to return. Maybe then he could repeat the demonstrations. Would that be evidence? Or would people say "Nah, I've seen magicians on TV do better tricks". Edison 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you catch evidence by trolling? Bielle 04:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be painful. ---Sluzzelin talk  04:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pass out the ice packs; then trolls can think! Bielle 04:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is a troll question or not but there is a simple reason why people cannot put out evidence that is acceptable to everyone.

You can put out evidence that is acceptable to everyone that electricity exists because you can define the behavior of electricity. The reason you cannot put out evidence of the existence of God, that is acceptable to everyone, is because (the concept of) God is ill-defined. I hope this answers your question. I think you are asking an question about the validity of evidence. What makes some evidence acceptable to everyone while other evidence are not acceptable to everyone. I don't think your question is about God at all. 210.49.121.169 09:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "I refuse to prove I exist" says God, "for Proof Denies Faith, and without Faith I am nothing." .  See also: . -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If God wanted to prove that it exists, would there be a way to do it? A.Z. 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to scold, but this is a trawling question. It's inherently unanswerable and really isn't worth humoring.  "Why" don't people X?  First, it begs the question of "who says they don't?"  Second, it begs the question of "why don't people accept evidence that is acceptable to others?"  Finally, it requires any of us to know the minds of "people" at all times and places.  That's a silly request and designed to get attention and an argument going.  It's not a reference question.  Geogre 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Jade Knight 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll disagree. The question seems to be about the relationship between reason and faith.  If faith is necessarily a suspension of reason, then what's the value in providing an argument at all?  This was taken up by Kierkegaard, in Either/or, and in Fear and trembling.  Although, I'm confused about this argument: ``Either god exists or he/she/it does not. The existence of god is not dependent on the opinions of mere mortals''.  The point is not that the existence of something depends on the proof for it, although the first part is true: god exists or doesn't, regardless of our epistemic position on the matter. 68.42.59.190 16:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Spanish had landed
Do we know what would have happened if the Spanish Armada had succeeded and the Duke of Parma had landed in england in 1588?Hollyandivy 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We have no way of knowing. Some people have speculated and you might find their speculations entertaining. See the article on Pavane (novel) which also mentions other examples in alternate history fiction such as Ruled Britannia. ---Sluzzelin talk  06:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternate history questions are a fine springboard to fiction. For want of a nail is an alternate history book of this sort. But I wonder if there is a method, such as war games or computer simulations, which can be used in a scientific way to research the likelihood of various outcomes? I seem to remember a computer war game simulation of the Battle of Stalingrad wherein every possible tactic by the commanding German general yielded defeat after varying lengths of time. Alternative history questions also reminds me of a comedy skit in the early years of Saturday Night Live where they asked and answered questions like "What if Spartacus had had a Piper Cub airplane in his fight against the Romans(it didn't help at all). Looking back, we tend to have a sense of inevitability that wars and battles would take place as they did, when the truth is that different tactics, a spy getting a message through, a message captured, a different commander being in charge, someone getting sick, a stray bullet going 2 inches to the left, an airplane engine failing, even a change in the weather could have changed a victory to a defeat or an armistice. The Point of divergence is where the speculative history diverged from our history, such as the assassins bullet fired at Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 killing him as intended instead of Chicago Mayor Cermak. The Multiverse theory is that such alternative timelines actualy do diverge in countless versions every second. soc.history.what-if is a group on Google   which discusses such alternate histories. They have 242 postings discussing various outcomes with respect to the Spanish Armada, and 14 of these also discuss the Duke of Parma .Edison 16:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternate dimensions in experience and time: I suppose we are entering the realm of history as a form of 'game theory'. It is possible, in such abstract situations, to construct just about any senario, with equal degrees of conviction. The answer that I am about to shape is probably no more convincing than any other, but I will try to build on the foundations of evidence.

If Parma had landed on the south coast of England his professional army would have faced a national levy of volunteers, badly trained and even more badly equipped. He would, in other words, have faced almost precisely the same situation as the Germans, if they had managed to effect a landing in 1940. For months, Lord Burghley, Elizabeth I's chief minister, had been taking steps to ensure that all due preparations had been made. England did posses a kind of 'home guard', based on the county levies, the so-called trained bands; but the training these men had received was haphazard and patchy at best. The Privy Council received numerous reports on the inadequecy of the county forces, including one from Sir Edward Stanley, who wrote that the men of Cheshire and Lancashire had not been mustered, and had received no training, in two years. A Spanish agent also reported that from the whole population of London scarcely 10,000 men had been assembled. Some of the men in trained bands were armed with muskets, some with pikes, and still others with the longbow, the traditional English infantry weapon going all the way back to the Hundred Years War. Against well trained Spanish tercios they are likely to have fared badly. There again, the rate of fire of a well-trained bowman was considerably in excess of the cumbersome and slow loading fire arms of the day, so enemy casualties are likely to have been high.

As for Parma, on the assumption that he borought his whole force safely across the Channel, he would have had 40,000 men at his command, plus another 20,000 from the Armada itself. Exactly where the landing would have come we cannot be certain, though Kent seems more likely than Essex, as the Spanish would have known that the English forces were concentrating at Tilbury, to the north of the Thames. Robert Dudley, the English commander-in-chief, at the very last minute sent 1000 men to strengthen the defences of Dover. Once the point of invasion was known, all of the English forces, along the whole of the south coast and the home counties, would have massed for a counter-attack, which would have demanded the utmost speed before the Spanish took Rochester and crossed the Medway. The Tower would have been able to withstand a siege, although for how long is almost impossible to say. If Leicester's army had been defeated, all that would remain would be the levies of the north. The Queen had her own personal army, though for the sake of royal security that may have fallen back on Wales, which would have become the centre of national resistence. It is likely that every able bodied boy and man, from the age of sixteen and sixty, would have been mustered, around 130,000 from a population of just under 5 million.

From the Spanish archives we know, in outline, what would have happened in the event of victory. The country would have been subject to complete military occupation. A viceroy would have been appointed, or Phillip II may have nominated a king, possibly Parma, from his own family. Before her execution, Phillip had hoped to marry Parma to the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots, which would have greatly strengthened his claim. Elizabeth, if captured, is unlikely to have lived, because of the threat she posed to the security of the occupation regime. The heretical English Church would have come under the control of the Spanish clergy, 1200 of whom sailed with the Armada. Catholic recusants are likely to have received favourable treatment, though whether many would have chosen to be cast in the role of traitors and collaborators is impossible to say. In 1588 England was a much more unified nation than it had been in 1066, the time of the last full-scale conquest, so resistance would have been prolonged and bitter, possibly aided by James VI of Scotland, whose ambitions for the southern throne would have been ruined by the Spanish conquest. Clio the Muse 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A large well equipped army and a strong navy should have been able to seize port cities and thus destroy the commerce in a similar way to the British capture of New York and Boston in the American Revolution. Would there have been similar problems when they ventured out into the country to try and complete the conquest of the entire country? Would the equivalent of Washington have rallied the troops and kept up their fighting spirit? And more crucially who might have played the essential role the French did in the American Revolution of supporting the anti-Spanish resistance. The resistance, to be effective, would have probably needed the promise of support from outside forces. The Spanish plans you outlined, where they crush the coultry like Conquistadors, would have made a costly struggle all around, compared to one of seizing the port cities and the Queen, then settling for regime change, reimposition of Catholicism (not so different from the Church of England at that time, except for the leadership), and gaining concessions of colonies. Royal marriage was often used for pacification wasn't it? And were there nobles who could be bought off? What would Macchiavelli do? Edison 14:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You make some interesting points, Edison. As I have said, the English resistance is likely to have received support-possibly of a substantial nature-from King James in Scotland, perhaps in return for general acceptance of his right to succeed Elizabeth to the throne of England.  Phillip may have invaded Scotland in retaliation, but this would involve warfare in some difficult mountain terrain, much like the fighting in north Wales.  However, on refection, I think the main source of support for those resisting the Spanish conquerors would have come from, well, the French.  After all, consider the long-standing struggle in Europe between Valois France and the Habsburgs.  Phillip's conquest of England would have left France completely surrounded, with the Habsburg's in control of Spain, present-day Belgium, Austria and the Empire, and now the Channel.  In strategic terms the position would have been desperate.  Prolonged English resistance would have been the one sure way of preventing the consolidation of Habsburg power.


 * Catholicism would certainly have been reimposed, though the transition may not have been quite as simple as you seem to suggest. The Elizabethan church was essentially a compromise between Catholic and Protestant elements, and the latter, in the shape of the puritans, had been growing ever stronger.  Also, state-sponsored propaganda, in the form of the Book of Martyrs, and other anti-Catholic polemics, kept the memory of the Marian Persecutions very much alive in the mind of the English people.  Almost certainly there would have been some collaboration, though it is difficult to say to what degree.  English Catholics, despite official persecution, were often among the most patriotic sections of the community.  There had been little enthusiasm for Bloody Mary's marriage to Phillip earlier in the century, at a time when Catholicism was in the ascendency, and there is no reason to suppose he would be any more welcome thirty years later.  What would Macchiavelli have done?  He would have watched and waited, and then written a book justifying the actions of the victor!  Clio the Muse 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1944 Bomb Plot
I also have a 'what if' kind of question. Next month sees the sixty-third anniversary of the failed plot to kill Hitler in 1944. I understand that the whole affair is to be made into a movie, with Tom Cruise playing the role of Count Claus von Stauffenberg. I also read a newspaper feature article not so long ago which said, amongst other things, that the history of Europe would have been completely different if the assassination attempt had succeeded. Here is the exact quote:

"But what if Allied support had been forthcoming? What if the coup d’état had succeeded and a government of decent men had managed to take over the Germany of July 1944? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives could have been saved: in the cities later bombed, in the death camps, on the battlefields.

If Germany at that stage had surrendered on all fronts, as the Allies wanted, and the war had ended before the Red Army overran eastern and much of central Europe, how different might the maps have looked in the second half of the 20th century? "

Here is my question(s): is there any substance to this? Would things have been so different? What course would European history have taken? I understand no 'authoritative' answer can be given, though I think some informed speculation might be valid. Thanks. Captainhardy 07:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well this question seems to ask for a lot of speculation but I would say, that Hitler was only one man, yes it was a blow and bad for morale, but would it really have changed that much? The final solution although authorised by Hitler wasn't organised by him, so would have continued. There were plenty of leading Nazis who could stepped up as leader, and maybe Hitler's instability and insecurity was damaging the war effort? On the other hand, the resulting power struggle may have destabilised the leadership making it easy for the Allies to win? Or the German people without the Fuhrer they had been so taught to worship may have seen through some of the facade and lost enthusiasm for the fight? I have deliberately ended all my comments with question marks, unless anyone has a time machine we'll never know. And be careful, Hitler might be your Granddad!
 * On a less speculative note, I have read somewhere that the Allies wanted Hitler in power towards the end, as his paranoia and playing rival Nazi powers off against each other was seen as beneficial to us. No reference though sorry, just a memory. Cyta 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be thinking of the Lee Marvin film The Dirty Dozen. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone more organized would have taken Hitler's place. Or more unstable. Or maybe, since the Allies had already landed in Europe and the Soviets were already moving west, there would have been an even greater hurry to reach Berlin and claim victory, and maybe the war would have continued - between the Allies and Soviets (which some people, like Patton, apparently wanted anyways). Adam Bishop 08:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if Hitler had just concentrated on world domination rather than on giving Jews a hard time, the best physicists in Europe would not have ended up in Los Alamos? We might all be on de.wikipedia.org if he hadn't been such a rabid racist.  --TotoBaggins 13:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, it would be De.Schnellkollaborativeschreibenenzyklopädie.Org. --Anon, June 28, 20:15 (UTC).
 * Probably right Toto. On another note, things would also be different if Hitler did not attack the Soviets.--GTPoompt (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in the article on counterfactual history. I also seem to remember a book or article exploring the scenario you outlined, but unfortunately I can recall title nor author... Random Nonsense 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Germans on the eastern front probably wouldn't have surrendered, knowing what kind of treatment they could expect as POWs. The Soviets would still have taken over Eastern Europe. There would have been far fewer casualties, civilian and military, in the west and I suppose that the Western Allies would have been able to advance and occupy more territory, but I rather doubt that much else would have been significantly different. Germany was already losing the war, and a subsequent clash between democracy and communism was inevitable. (Tom Cruise as Claus von Stauffenberg?! Please, say it ain't so.) Clarityfiend 16:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As to the last point, that's what the German government said... the reason being Cruise's association with Scientology. See the Tom Cruise article.  --Anonymous, June 28, 2007, 20:20 (UTC).

Personally, I don't think it would be a massive achievement for a new government to have been more tactically pragmatic than Hitler - to make a strategic retreat, give up some conquered lands for sake of defending Germany. Historians have long considered this one of Hitler's biggest tactical mistakes, as was invading Russia in the first place - who might have left Germany alone otherwise.martianlostinspace 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

More history as speculation, but quite timely, perhaps, because there are a whole number of issues here that have never been properly aired. Moreover, whoever is responsible for the words quoted in Captainhardy's opening statement clearly knows little or nothing about the nature, the ideology and the exact composition of the German Resistance. Would the government of 'decent men', one wonders, have included Artur Nebe, executed for his part in the July Plot, who in 1941 had commnaded Einsatzgruppe B during the invasion of the Soviet Union?

It was once written that the SS were the 'Alibi of a Nation'. Well, by that measure, the German Resistance has become the 'Conscience of a Nation', proof that there were good Germans who were prepared to act in desperate circumstances. Now, I should preface what follows by a simple statement that there were people in the resistance who are indeed worthy of admiration, people who opposed Hitler and Nazism from the very outset; people like Sophie Scholl. But there were still others who became 'resisters of occasion', people, in other words, who wanted the Reich, even if they-by 1944 anyway-did not want Hitler. What I mean by this is that the conservative elites, especially those in the army and the diplomatic service, wanted to preserve the pre-war borders, Hitler's 'peaceful' conquests, before the country was overrun. It's as well to remember that the action of 1944 was to be based on a military coup, dominated, for the most part, by the resisters of occasion. The chief aim was to kill Hitler: the second aim was to stop Stalin.

So, are we to assume then that the Allies would have left a strong Germany under the control of a Prussian elite, dominating of a good bit of central Europe after years of bloodshed? It does not seem very likely. Just imagine, moreover, how the Soviets would have reacted to a coup, controlled by a military clique, and supported by the western Allies. It would look like a deliberate attempt to deny them the victory and keep them out of central Europe; it would look, in other words, like a new version of the 'Hess Plan' of 1941. The suggestion that Stalin, whose army was approaching the Vistula, having fought through devastated Russian territory, would somehow have halted his advance because of the 'decent men' is, to be quite frank, a ludicrous proposition. I cannot conceive of any circumsatances in which the Red Army would have halted, not even if the western powers threatened war. And I am sure some people will be aware that an alliance between Britain, the United States and Germany against Russia was one of the fantasies that kept Hitler going in his last days, and why he insisted on the need to maintain a bridgehead in Courland.

Let's look at the issue from a slightly different dimension; let's assume that Hitler was killed, and the opposition took control, and Germany avoided total defeat and occupation, what then would have happened? Why, another myth would have been conveniently nurtured, another 'stab in the back' legend to comfort coming generations of right-wing extremists. Even at the height of the war there is plenty of evidence that Hitler remained popular with ordinary Germans. His sudden removal is likely to have created a sense of loss and betrayal, in much the same fashion as the flight of the Kaiser in 1918. Germany had to be defeated amd seen to be defeated. It's as simple, and as brutal, as that. Clio the Muse 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Evil breeders
Hi, Like Fred and Rosemary West, what other unambiguously evil people had children? thanks130.88.243.227 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, assuming anyone can really be "unambiguously evil", Karla Homolka is usually considered to be such (but fortunately the father wasn't Paul Bernardo). Adam Bishop 15:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, well, I'd say Ted Turner and Jane Fonda. Definitely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. - MSTCrow 15:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to say he is evil, then someone will have to respond with George W. Bush. Sigh. Adam Bishop 16:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lord of all Creation, Al Gore. - MSTCrow 16:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought of several names, then remembered WP:BLP. There should be reliable references which identify the people as unambiguously evil. A Google search for "unambiguously evil" +Bush yields 232 hits. For "unambiguously evil" +"Fred West" there are no hits. Ditto with Rosemary West, Karla Homolka. With Ted Turner and with Jane Fonda there are 4 hits, but they refer to characters in shows on his network. None of the sourcesw appear to satisfy WP:RS. I expect that many unambiguously evil people think themselves pretty fine folks, and so do their associates. Edison 16:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Search engine hit results for words aren't usable for serious statistical analysis. What if 231 of the hits related to Bush, the phrase "unambiguously evil" is prefaced with "not"?  While you're at it, Google "Earth is flat." - MSTCrow 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not purport that it was "serious statistical analysis" at all. And sewveral of the non WP:RS sites did in fact associate "unambiguously evil" with Bush. I myself do not consider him unambiguously evil. But the first 3 refer to members of his administration and policies such as those which led to prisoners being tortured. Many of the sites deplore the use of terms like "bad guys" and "axis of evil" to refer to the enemy, as if one side is all goodness and light and freedom and justice and liberty and the other is unambiguously evil demons who deserve anything we can dish out. One of the sites  is interesting referring to a book "The Roots of Evil," by philosopher John Kekes, who is quoted as saying actions are evil if they have three qualities: the “malevolent motivation” of actors, the “serious excessive harm caused by their actions,” and the lack of a “morally acceptable excuse for their actions.” Utopians such as Robespierre are called evil, even though he demonized his opponents and justified his actions. Ditto the Argentinial junta during the 'dirty war" of the 1970's, ditto religious zealots of the past and present. Edison 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Pol Pot and possibly Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler would make the list of "unambiguously evil," even if their evil wasn't known when they were alive, but we should remember what Swift said: most monsters believe that they're saving the world. Heroes make the worst monsters of all, and those who think they're going to save the world often do the most harm to it.  All three of those people, for example, share a belief that they were universally right and that they were saving the world.  So, who among these living persons believes that he has rights beyond the law because of his vision for saving the world?  Al Gore?  No.  Ted Turner?  No.  Dick "Fourth Branch of Government" Cheney?  George W. "I can spell W" Bush?  There is a reason post-war Europe and America mistrust anyone too sure of himself, as villains are always sure of themselves, and the conflicted, often questioning, and introspective don't generally go about killing millions to "improve" the world.
 * Of course, this whole question seems to sneak in the idea of inheritable characteristics. Lamarquean evolution?  Kallikaks?  Social Darwinism?  Eugenics?  Humans are remarkably unlike cattle and dogs in terms of reliable personalities being inherited.  Geogre 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * al-Gore and Ted Turner seem pretty sure of themselves to me...messianic, even. - MSTCrow 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeesh, does no one read the reference desk guidelines? Wow, look at all the partisan sniping (I wonder whether it's WP in general or just the people who feel inclined to post here in this way that lean right this much). The problem with the question is the phrase unambiguously evil. There have been few academic studies into evil that manage to escape the trap of focusing on literary depictions of evil rather than looking at actual individuals. A good survey and summary is by Roy F. Baumeister . I would tend to limit the category myself to some serial killers (I'm not sure that some who have killed as a consequence of mental illness would qualify as "evil") and those who have directed genocides. Perhaps not even that much. Moral theologians tend to speak of acts rather than people as being evil. That is probably a useful distinction. Incidentally, if you look at, say, serial killers, you'll find that it's very rare that they have children usually because they also rarely have the sort of relationships with others that would lead to childhood birth courtesy of a stunted emotional growth. Donald Hosek 18:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reply isn't completely coherent, but I figured the first post from the IP address was a joke. "Breeders" is a derogative term for heterosexuals.  You just don't post questions that ripe for exploitation (ambiguous, open ended, derogatorily referring to straights) expecting it to be taken seriously. - MSTCrow 19:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's plenty coherent, other than jamming a bunch of thoughts into a single paragraph. Let me summarize for you:
 * partisan sniping is well outside the guidelines for answers
 * unambiguously evil is an ambiguous phrase. Click the link for a book (available at your local library no doubt) which covers the question well
 * talking about evil as a character trait is not necessarily a sensible idea and should be limited to the most extreme cases in any event
 * those most extreme cases lead to social difficulties which likely impede the individual's ability to breed
 * I hope the conversion of the argument into a nice power-point-style bulleted list helps with your reading comprension difficulties. Donald Hosek 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Depending on your consideration of 'evil' you could have many people. What would be interesting would be to wonder what the effect of having such parents has on their lives. I suspect that the children of someone so hated publically would have a very difficult life. I understand the surname Hitler has pretty much died out due to the connotations. Also someone once told me that many relatives of Hitler purposefully did not reproduce because of some (in my view unbelievably idiotic) idea that they may give birth to another like Adolf.

The impact your name has on your life is discussed in that book Freakanomics I think (not read it myself) but I understand they seem to suggest that certain names lead to certain outcomes in life. I expect that the is a gravitation to certain names in sub-cultures and that these names are picked in social-groups so your name has no bearing on your life-outcome but certain name will give rise to stereotype/will be more prevelent in certain instances due to the sub-culture idea. I mean think about it...Many christians will name their children after biblical characters, perhaps people from 'upper class' societies are more likely to continue 'family' names due to them having 'made the family proud' thus perpetuating old-fashion names in their sub-culture. All made-up gibberish and not really on your question but hey ho. ny156uk 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, effect of a name on a life sounds like Walter Shandy's theory. The power of a name on something like human psychology is so indeterminate that ...  Oh, never mind.  Ever known any "preacher's sons" or "preacher's daughters?"  Names can make replication and repudiation, footsteps and rebellion, and both the following and rebellion can take so many individual forms that speculating on the mass of humanity is just spurious.  Geogre 13:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reichsführer-SS Uniform
Why did the right arm of Himmler's SS uniform have a single chevron, similar to the insignia of a Private in the US military? - MSTCrow 16:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this may be to indicate that he is an Altekämpfer, one of the original, pre Munich Putsch, members of the NSDAP. It would be worn with the black Allgemeine uniform.  Clio the Muse 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic model
I wanna build a big model of the Titanic at least 1:100 scale. I wanna light it too; I'll build it from scratch if I have to, but I can't seem to fine one anywhere, does anybody know anywhere that does the parts or sells a model kit? If so, your help is greatly appreciated; thanks, Brent Ward
 * I found a 1:192 scale model. Only $12,500.  1:48 model available designed for sale, currently unbuilt.  http://www.fineartmodels.com/pages/product.asp?content_area=3&sub_area=11&product_area=80.  Might also look into and inquire at http://titanic-model.com/. - MSTCrow 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Theological strife in Eastern faiths
Do Dharmic, Taoic, or other faiths originating east of the Indus have anything like Christianity's history of confessional conflict? Anything like the Christological warfare of Late Antiquity? Anything like the schism in the Reformed community during the Reformation resulting from concerns over the Eucharist? As a further question, to non-Abrahamic faiths have any concept of "Holy War"? Thanks in advance! 208.114.153.254 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's Mahayana vs. Theravada, which led to much ink being spilled, but I don't know whether there was any militant odium theologicum. Buddhism underwent several periods of persecution in China, but more because it was considered a pernicious foreign alien religion than because of theological factors. AnonMoos 21:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The world's first Holy War was fought by Buddhists, against the invading Alexander the Great. 82.36.179.20 01:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Narrative via dialogue
I'm looking for contemporary (I know Joseph Conrad very well, thank you), fiction in which a story is told in dialogue (and while I don't want pointers at Conrad, that's kind of the thing that I'm looking for). Pretty much I'm looking for good cases of someone conveying plot by telling a story to another character. I've got two works in progress where I'm struggling with this, one where I want to do this partly for stylistic reasons (and also because part of the plot is the listener's reaction to the story), and one where it's necessary for plot reasons (the person telling the story is lying and I want the fact that the story is given in dialogue to be a subtle clue to that fact). I've been tipped on Interview with a Vampire by Anne Rice and Shipwreck by Louis Begley. I really want something where the dialogue narrative is maybe half of the story and the rest is the listener's interactions with/reactions to the storyteller. Donald Hosek 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Deception: A Novel by Philip Roth springs to mind. I love the Unreliable narrator but I know that is not really the gist of the question. This site [] and this [] imply there is a genre called dialogue novels if thats any help Mhicaoidh 02:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Time Enough for Love. 152.16.188.111 03:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Try Robbe-Grillet, e.g., Projet pour une révolution à New York, where extensive, detailed descriptions of events periodically resolve into a sort of formal interrogation. I have no idea whether it's contemporary enough for you. "Narrative via dialogue" is typical for drama rather than for prose, and I would question the wisdom of any novelist who blurs the distinction. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a difficult thing I'm attempting, and the fact that it's coming up twice in my current writing is reason for concern. The situations are different enough that different solutions are called for. I picked up the Philip Roth book over lunch since in one of the works part of my inspiration for what I'm trying to do is similar to some of what Roth does in American Pastoral. The other story, I suppose, is closest in spirit to Graham Greene's "A Hint of an Explanation" (in Twenty-One Stories), where one character tells another character a story and the point of the story lies in the listener's reaction. The Robbe-Grillet sounds a bit far off from what I'm attempting so I'll probably pass on that. The Heinlein, like Anne Rice's book I think I'm also passing on since I'm not writing genre (plus I'd like to stay 1980 or later, I think). Donald Hosek 21:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no rules, the novel is a wonderful form in which to practice innovation. Ghirla, I would question the wisdom of any novelist who does not want to stretch the boundaries to keep their storytelling fresh! ; ) Mhicaoidh 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What about Yann Martel's The Life Of Pi? As I recall, it is a narrative told to a writer/reporter attempting to ferret out the truth of the story being told. I don't think that the writer is involved to the degree that interests you, though. The book certainly fits your time line. Bielle 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Picasso paintings
Which of these works – 1, 2 – was painted first? Are both of the paintings known as The Three Musicians, or do they have separate titles? Zagalejo 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Number Two is the well known "Three Musicians" in the MoMA New York collection, summer 1921 and One is "Three Musicians" in the Philadelphia Museum of Art collection, 1921,  also painted in summer some say. Will consult my Synthetic Cubism books to see which came first, although Picasso (and other artists who paint in series) often had several works on the go at the same time, or reworked them. Mhicaoidh 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm nothing that specific but if you can acess this: Theodore Reff, "Picasso's Three Musicians: Maskers, Artists and Friends," Art in America, December 1980, pp. 124-142. it may help. Mhicaoidh 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look into that. Thanks! Zagalejo 18:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)