Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 30

= November 30 =

Barcode Tattoo Scenario
What are the chances of the Barcode Tattoo scenario coming true. I know I should be concerned about being implanted with a micorchip but do I have to worry about it happening? Should I be a strong activist against it or be comfortable knowing it's very unlikely it will happen? --Melab±1[[User_talk:Melab-1|&#9742; 03:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your best defense against this occuring is to wear a tinfoil hat... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 03:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The government just loves to spy on us, but one of the prerequisites for spying is that the subjects be unaware of the surveillance. Since it would be literally painfully obvious when they tattoed you with a bar code, this would cause people to vote out any politician which voted for such a thing.  We would need to have democracy abolished before such a program could be forced upon us.  And, since Dick Cheney didn't run for President, there's no chance of that happening any time soon. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Mark of the Beast.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  05:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could look at the book Database Nation written in the late 1990's. No tattoos needed, all that info can instead be stored on remote computers.  Consider a V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask for when you go out in public, to defeat being recognized by the surveillance cameras that are already everywhere.  Who needs RFID? 67.122.210.149 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you carry a cell phone? If so, anybody who really wants to can know where you are. -Arch dude (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The respondents so far seem to be treating this in a fairly light-hearted manner and I'm not sure that's helpful. Any politician that took the platform of "Hey guys, we'd like to microchip you and maybe slap a UPC on your neck just for show!" would obviously get drummed out of office pretty quickly, but I don't think that's the route an attempt at tracking would take. As StuRat says, it's not really spying if everyone knows about it beforehand... or is it? Our cellphones are equipped with GPS technology so our positions can be targeted at all times. You're under video surveillance every time you enter a retail store or buy gas and sometimes even when you go out to dine (especially fast food). If you drive on toll roads, your license plate is captured when you get on and when you get off. Unless you're using that old "cash" thing, most financial transactions you make are recorded down to the minute of purchase. If you buy goods at a "club" store (i.e. where you need to be a member), you'll get a call if one of the items you bought was involved with a food safety recall. We appreciate the safety and convenience, but seldom consider the downside. Will we be forced to get micro-chipped? Nah, not in the very near future. On the other hand, many of the children in my kid's school have already been finger-printed (to "help track them down in case of them getting lost or abducted"), which is basically only one step away. Many people already chip their pets (with short distance RFIDs). I would not be at all surprised if the next generation chips their children in the name of "safety". In other words, "Yes, you should be worried about it happening, but beware that we're already partway there - of our own choice." Matt Deres (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but I mean like actually being chipped. It's one thing to be followed by satellite but it's another to have someone (gov't) force you to chipped. And I'm asking is our gov't and others like UK, Germany, France, Canada, and the EU level headed enough not to do so. --Melab±1&#9742; 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who keeps copies of the fingerprints? The schools or the parents?  If only the parents have copies, I don't think that's too big of a problem. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I should point out a number of countries already have, and have had for a while, finger prints as part of a national identity document. Also many mobiles still don't have GPS although this is likely to change over time and you can track phones resonably well without GPS. And BTW, people are already RFID their kids (whether any of these are implants or not, I haven't found out, I suspect not though since most parents interested quickly realise it's somewhat useless. They'd much rather have a trackable chip and we can't achieve that in implants yet) see also Microchip implant (human) Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Person mentioned in Letters to Olga
Who is/was Andulka? Havel mentions her several times, but there's no explanation of who she is in the notes about the names mentioned in the back. Vltava  68   (contribs)  12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a passage where Havel asks Olga to congratulate and greet "Andrej and Andulka" and asks what they will call their daughter (Letter to Olga dated August 13, 1979). One of the Havels' good friends was the theater director Andrej Krob. Maybe Andulka was his wife, but I found no information confirming this. Just a guess. ---Sluzzelin talk  16:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which copy is this? The letter for that date in the copy I'm reading doesn't mention anything like that. -- Vltava  68   (contribs)  09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps it's dubious, Vitava, sorry. I saw it in a French lesson on epistolary literature on "Académie de Versaille"'s website. here, search for "Andulka". On that site, it is dated "Lundi 13.8.79" I assumed the date and content were correct, but of course this isn't what is considered a reliable source at all. ---Sluzzelin talk  10:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian language query: Dolgozók vs Munkás
What would be the difference in generic meaning between Magyar Dolgozók Pártja and Magyarországi Munkáspárt? At present one is at Hungarian Workers Party and one at Hungarian Labour Party, but I think that difference might be rather arbitrary. Perhaps one should be 'Toilers' or 'of Labour'. Also, whats the difference between Magyar and Magyarországi? --Soman (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This should be on the Language Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Shifted there now. --Soman (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Authenticity of a history doctrate
I'm aware of my ex brother in law referring to himself as a 'doctor' of history.Is it possible to find out whether this is a genuine qualification?
 * Probably. Whether university documents would be public access info depends from country you live in. The easiest is probably to call up the historical faculty of the university in question. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A doctorate in history is a Ph.D. in history. Call up the department or university and they'll tell you, it's all on records. Depending on the university it might eve be online, as dissertations are usually listed in their library catalogues. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I always thought that you have to publish your doctorate dissertation. If this holds true, you could just search for this publication.--Mr.K. (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * UMI indexes and sells copies of almost all doctoral dissertations submitted to U.S. institutions... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Or anyone with access to ProQuest could look it up. But again, you almost always have one in the home institution library system, which is an easier way than trying to look up the dissertation itself if you don't have easy access to tools that do that. (Academics do, but most other people don't.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to publish your dissertation, but most people re-work it into a book or break it up into a bunch of articles. Otherwise you just waste a lot of time and money! (People sometimes disown their embarrassing BA or MA dissertations but for a PhD it's harder to get away with writing a bunch of crap.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never heard a person with a Ph.D. in X say, "I'm a doctor of X". Are you sure he didn't say he was "a student of history"?  --Sean 20:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a "doctor of X" suggests a higher doctorate to me - but higher doctorates aren't usually given in history (except, it seems, in the Soviet Union), and if your brother-in-law had a higher doctorate, you'd probably know about his distinguished career. Warofdreams talk 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Having a Ph.D. means that you are a "doctor" of the philosophy involved in the study of "X," to begin with. Also, no, receiving a Ph.D. is not dependent upon publication of your dissertation, thank god.

How to deal with weasels?
And please don´t point me to How to Win Friends and Influence People, since I don´t want to make friends.--Mr.K. (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Stock up on horned owls, martens and wolves. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Or you can badger them or rat them out. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget about the "influence people" part. What precisely is the issue and what exactly do you want to accomplish ? StuRat (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For anyone who doesn't want to win friends, but give their spin doctor the sack, there's the spin-spotting tool, weasel words. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First make sure it's a weasel you're dealing with, not a stoat. It's easy to tell them apart. A weasel is weasily wecognised, while a stoat is stoatally different. --Richardrj talkemail 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are weasels. Making "innocent" comments that serve no other purpose than to cause discomfort to someone, believing that they are much more competent than others, watching for mistakes of others, remembering everybody of said mistakes, selectively perceiving and questioning, and more, much more... The only useful advice -when the relationship is between co-workers- that I received until now is making their strategy the topic of conversation in front of them, since they are acting as if everything is business-as-usual and they have normally a long list of enemies. As employer is probably better just to fire these people. Mr.K. (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a stoat to me Nil Einne (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a boss like that. Pretty much everyone who worked for him decided that avoidance was the best strategy.  When we saw him coming we would all manage to be elsewhere.  We all found that the less contact we had with him on a given day, the more we got done, and the better we felt. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Was he a weasel, a stoat, or a ferrit? Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He liked to badger people, by constantly annoying all of us. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Marriage in the New Testament Bible
Where does it say that marriage must be sanctified in the New Testament? If the Bible say marriage must be sanctified, does it mean people must go to CHURCH to get marry. Sonic99 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. The NT mentions the institution of marriage (see Christian views of marriage) but never specifies anything regarding the act of marriage.  Our current concept of church marriages with liturgy was not developed in Europe until the 11th/12th centuries, but it was a while before they were universally adopted.  Common law marriage was legally and religiously acceptable for quite some time (its legal status in England was abolished in the mid 18th Century, and lasted longer in Scotland, USA, and other countries).  Gwinva (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In early Christian times, if weddings were connected with a church at all, they would be celeebrated at the church door (not inside the church), and marriage was not usually considered a sacrament... AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In our era, marriage, in almost all cultures, is both a religious and a civil matter. In many of the so-called western cultures, the religious aspect is fading, except by way of the rituals involved, and it is only the legal aspect that matters. If the civil authority says you are married, then, for the purpose of all civil matters (laws on child support, taxation and the like), you are. Some religious authorities may not accept this as a marriage under their doctrine, however. If that matters to you, then you will likely have both civil and religious involvement. Marriages in the province of Ontario, for example, no matter how profoundly religious the celebrant, the place, the ritual and the vows, still require a marriage licence from the civil authority and take from the ceremony, as proof of the civil contract, a properly witnessed Certificate of Marriage. Sometimes the solely civil marrriage also has a ceremony with a non-religious celebrant, licensed by the civil authorities,  officiating. In Ontario, even this much is not required as the concept of common-law marriage is alive and well, and all the laws that apply to those married by ceremony equally apply to those who have lived together for a minimum period of time and so declare themselves to be married. As far as I can tell, the only need for a marriage licence and subsequent marriage certificate would be for jurisdictions in which one might find oneself where common-law unions are not recognized, or for evidence in some estate or other legal matter should one partner no longer be living, (or to please your mother.) :-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * People didn't go to church in Old Testament times (to get married, or to do anything else), though some close enough to Jerusalem might have gone to the temple. Genesis 2:24 does say that a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife -- an odd statement, since Adam had no father or mother.  Matthew 19:6 has Jesus deprecating divorce (permitted under Mosaic law), though five verses later he concedes that not everyone can accept this.
 * In Roman Catholicism, there's no requirement that a marriage occur in a particular place; the core of the sacrament is the mutual consent of the two parties -- the officiating priest is present as a witness for the church, but he doesn't marry the couple; they marry each other.
 * Many people conflate religious marriage with civil marriage, especially here in the States. In fact the state of Maryland couldn't care less what religious denomination you adhere to, so long as there's a qualified person who will attest that you and your partner met the requirements of the state.  This person might a judge, a minister, a priest, a rabbi, and so on.  Similarly, the archdiocese of Baltimore couldn't care less what's on the records of the state of Maryland; the archdiocese concerns itself with whether the two parties met the requirements of the church.  --- OtherDave (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that last sentence: most dioceses won't marry you without a (civil) license, or begin proceedings for an annulment before there's a (civil) divorce. - Nunh-huh 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was only that the diocese isn't interested in the state's definition of marriage; you're right that the diocese follows procedural instructions for the state (e.g., signing the certificate and sending it in). If you get divorced in Maryland,  you're no longer married in the state's eyes.  This has no effect on the archdiocese and its marriage tribunal, who  consider themselves experts on whether you're still married from the church's point of view (you are).  A civil divorce is in no way a requirement for a Catholic annulment, particularly since the church doesn't recognize divorce; there are thousands if not tens of thousands of Catholics with civil divorces who cannot have their religious marriages annulled.  --- OtherDave (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Annulment (Catholic Church) "An annulment from the Catholic Church is independent from obtaining a civil divorce, although before beginning a process before an Ecclesiastical Tribunal, it has to be clear that the marriage cannot be rebuilt." To me this sounds like commonly you'd need a civil divorce first otherwise the tribunal would not be convinced you aren't able to rebuild your marriage or may be concerned you aren't serious about the annulment if you haven't at least initiated the process for a civil divorce. This is supported by in the US (well there is uncertainty about the reasons). Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "cannot be rebuilt" evidence could come in many forms. It's amusing to think of tribunals, which technically don't believe in divorce, using them as evidence in support of annulment.  A civil divorce remains neither necessary (though possibly useful) nor sufficient.  Every day of the week, marriage tribunals deny annulments to someone with a civil divorce and a partner who's remarried.  The key question is the state of the parties on the day of the (religious) marriage.  Bending somewhat to reality, tribunals have come up with "defect of discretion" -- legalese for "you didn't know what you were getting into that day."  This allows the tribunal to find the original marriage was invalid (e.g., because you did not intend to remain married for life, or didn't really know that's what the church expects) -- the route used for Joseph Kennedy, Jr.  Ironically, a decision by the Roman Rota (14 years after the civil divorce) held that Kennedy and his ex, Sheila Rausch, are still married in the eyes of the church.  The reversal poses an obstacle to having his subsequent marriage in 1993 recognized by the church.  --- OtherDave (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying the tribunals/Catholic church isn't stricter on annulments then divorves in most countries or that they don't recognise divorces, I would just expect that in many countries they would want you to be civilly divorced unless perhaps you have a very good reason for why you haven't. Other then the fact it may mean you marriage could be rebuilt (since if it can't why haven't you divorced?), it may create a whole bunch of legal problems for you and for them they likely don't want, and don't want you to have to deal with. The situation is the same with marriages I believe, in many countries they will require you to take care of the civil aspect or they won't marry you even though the civil aspect is irrelevant in religious terms. Obviously if there is an exceptional reason then they may ignore the requirement but I'm pretty sure it is a common requirement. While the Catholic church may have many odd aspects, they don't tend to completely ignore practical realities without (in their opinion) good reason. In this case, there's usually no harm to them to if they accept the practical/legal realities even if they don't agree with them, so they usually do. In other words, while obviously being divorced is never going to be sufficient and there will be exceptions, it seems likely to me that in the US, and I expect often in the rest of the world they will expect you to be civilly divorced. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)