Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 2

= May 2 =

re: Robert Williams (psychologist)
The article on Robert Williams (psychologist) states: "He earned a M.Ed. from Wayne State University in Educational Psychology in 1955 at a time when all graduate programs in the South remained segregated." Although it is a medical school, he's not listed at List of Wayne State University people, and the University is in Michigan, not "in the South". Does anyone have any information if it is in fact Wayne State College that Robert Williams attended? If so, he should be added to the notable alumni list and his article edited for clarification. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 01:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I read it, the implication is that he had to go north for grad school because the southern grad schools wouldn't admit him (since they were segregated). I'll check for verification that his degree is indeed from Wayne State. Deor (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Harder to pin down than one would expect; accounts of scholars tend to focus on where they got their doctoral degrees rather than their masters. However, I don't think that the information given here, which does indeed specify Detroit as the location, would have passed unless it were accurate. So it's Wayne State University, not Wayne State College. Deor (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see thanks. I'll add him to List of Wayne State University people. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 13:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

IIPA (Institute of Incorporated Public Accountants) Ireland www.iipa.ie
Are IIPA Registered Auditors allowed to practice in the UK as statutory auditors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iunajam (talk • contribs) 12:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking credentials
Hi, how can I check if someone indeed have a Phd? Specifically, I want to know if James_Herndon_(media_psychologist) has a Dr. --83.59.232.115 (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He claims a Ph.D. in Educational Technology from Arizona State University. You could ask the university to verify this. Algebraist 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

does any country accept israeli citizens as their own?
are there any countries where israelis can just go and live + work the same as the country's own citizens? (i'm talking visa problems etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.41.137 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so. If there is, it will be mentioned in Foreign relations of Israel, but I don't see anything. I don't think there are many places that have agreements like the EU's granting any EU citizen the right to work in any EU country - in fact, the EU might be unique (I've just looked at our articles on a few other large free trade areas and none of them mention a right to work). --Tango (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * so what does the iranian president want israelis to do after dissolving their country, which he wants back off the map? (seriously). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.41.137 (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're assuming that the current president of Iran was/is serious in his statement of destroying Israel. You have to realize that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an elected politician and (like most politicians) is truly interested in gaining votes. Therefore he (like most politicians) is a populist and keenly interested in giving a proper show to his voters. Then you have to weigh in the fact that Israel is considered the common and public enemy by the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East. Any politician in that area is well advised to make popular statements against Israel. Destroying Israel is currently impossible and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The Israeli military seems to be more than able to defend their country and Iran is too far away. No rational person will use nuclear weapons because of the inevitable retaliation and that is ignoring the fact that bombing the Blue mosque is political suicide. Ahmadinejad is simply and merely making such statements to narrow the mind of the Iranian people (not a great challenge). Instead of concerning themselves with governmental corruption and incompetence, economic problems, and the lack of political, social, and religious freedoms the Iranians concern themselves with the "evil Israelis", "the American Satan", and the "international Western/Zionist plot to rule the world". Therefore many Iranians will vote for Ahmadinejad who was "so brave in telling the truth". In the bitter end Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will do nothing besides some inflammatory statements and backing some terrorist organizations. Flamarande (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC) PS: This is merely my humble and honest opinion. I don't claim to know the whole truth.


 * Not to be curt here, but what did the Israeli's do with the Palestinians when they formed Israel?!? The question of how to handle such displaced people has been up in the air for 60 years by now.  Other nations didn't want to accept the Palestinians as their own.  Its why most sides accept the two state solution as the most workable solution to the current problems.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (Reply to Jayron32, above): The residents of the newly formed State of Israel became citizens, regardless of nationality or religion. Of the resident Arabs, those hostile to the Jews before or during the war was declared and waged by neighboring Arab states, either fled or were expelled, which is described to some extent on the page titled: "1948 Palestinian exodus;" note citations and POV advisory. According to that page, Arabs who fled were not readmitted. Israel to this day has within its borders Arab citizens, some of whom identify as Palestinians, who vote in local and national elections (if they so choose); the Ministry of Education supports an entire primary/secondary school system with instruction in Arabic and the schools' day off is Friday for Moslems and Sunday for Christians. The Druze are drafted for compulsory IDF service and Bedouins volunteer. See also Law of Return and Palestinian right of return. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And the war refugees? The whole area including most neighbouring countries has several refugees camps since 1948. The basic problem is that these refugees can't live in these camps forever. Flamarande (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry for my ignorance, do you mean that there used to be a Palestine (as a state)? I thought there never was.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.41.137 (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no 'state of Palestine' as that area (between the sea and the river Jordan) belonged to several succeeding larger empires. The Muslims/Palestinians settled into that area since 631 and controlled it more or less until 1948 (don't forget the Crusader kingdoms). However there was no Israel/Jewish state for more or less 2000 years, and that detail didn't exactly stop them of proclaiming the independence of Israel in 1948. Flamarande (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't get it. Are there palestinians who have NO citizenship then, either in Israel or in any of the "several larger empires" it was carved from (per your description)?  79.122.41.137 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship, some of them accept this citizenship while others despise it. There are Palestinians which have received legal citizenship in whatever country they are living in, some of them are happy to live in the respective country while other long to return to a free Palestine. There are Palestinians who have Palestinian citizenship who live in Gaza currently under the rule of Hamas. There are Palestinians with Palestinian citizenship living in Israeli-occupied territories with precious little rights at all who are simply waiting for a Israeli withdrawal. I suggest you read Palestinian territories. Flamarande (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * your last two responses confuse the hell out of me. you just told me above that there never was a palestinian state.  then you say "...long to return to a free Palestine..." (what does that mean, if Palestine was never a state, but an area under control of different powers, none of which was "Palestine" -- how can your return to someplace that never was?) and you make my confusion even worse when you said "there are Palestinians with Palestinian citizenship"....  WHAT??  What can "Palestinian citizenship" possibly mean if there is no palestinian state and there never was a palestinian state :( :( :( :( :( Deeply confused. 79.122.41.137 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I could give you more precise answers but in view of your evident lack of knowledge I must strongly suggest you read Palestinian territories and Arab–Israeli conflict. Educate yourself upon the subject and reach you own conclusions instead of simply asking questions ad nauseam (which isn't the way to true knowledge). Flamarande (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * your links contain no mention of Palestinian citizenship (not even close, I checked every place the letters 'citizen' occur), so I must assume you were just full of bull when you referred to "Palestinians with Palestinian citizenship", but won't admit it. 79.122.41.137 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Nowadays all Palestinians (except for the Israeli ones, not sure about those, an interesting question if they could get Palestinian citizenship on demand.) are citizens of the State of Palestine and can travel under a Palestinian passport. At earlier times many were stateless ( or had Jordanian citizenship/passports).  How much use a Palestinian passport is depends on the recognition of the State of Palestine, about half the world's countries recognize Palestine as a state. Unfortunately the earlier State of Palestine article here was, incorrectly IMHO, merged into another one.John Z (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the page on the Palestinian National Authority. For further clarification, try contacting knowledgeable editors who have contributed content to that page (per its "edit history" tab and/or discussion page). -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

East European equivalent of "Frank"
What is the Medieval name for Orthodox Europeans? As I understand it, the Franks were the chief successors of the Western Roman Empire, originally from the border peoples of Roman Germania. I hypothesize that the Eastern Roman Empire was likewise replaced by the Russians, being descended from Roman Scythia, among other former barbarian peoples, but nevertheless Roman in a similar manner. Where am I right and wrong in comparing East and West, with barbarian assumption of Roman identity? Anyways, to the other question...what would be a comparable term for the Slavs, like "Frank"? Latin and Greek are terms used by the "in crowd" of Classical Rome (including the Byzantine), so please don't say that either term applies to post-Classical Roman empires. The Russians consider themselves to have succeeded Byzantium, but there were other tsardoms (e.g. Bulgaria, etc.) from Orthodox Europe, so I'm simply wondering what the catch-all term would be. I know they were not simply referred to as "Slavs". Gadsden, Arizona 13:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catterick (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, the term Franks only applies to a single Germanic tribe which established Hegemony over modern France and Germany. Slavs is a term like "Germanic" which applies in a very broad sense to a large number of ethnic groups from Eastern Europe.  The Slavs do not seem to have been as well organized as the Germanic peoples, as they seemed to be much later in organizing themselves on the same level as the Franks and Visigoths and Lombards did.  In the east, it was not the Slavs who were the first to organize states in the absense of Rome, but groups like the Bulgars (a Turkic group related to the Huns) who established a large Khanate in the balkans during the dark ages, and the Kievan Rus (a Germanic people from Scandanavia).  However, still most of what we think of as Eastern Europe (Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, etc.), excepting the Roman Balkans, were several hundred years behind in terms of state organization vis a vis Western Europe.  The earliest Slavic states which compare to, say, the Merovingian kingdoms are likely the Kingdom of Poland, established in the early 11th century, and the various Russian dukedoms and states organized in the 12th century or so.  Remember that the Roman Empire still ruled the East (Byzantine Empire) until the 1400's.  It was only at that late date that Russia began to be called the "Third Rome", however the Franks began to set up successor states to the Western Empire way back in the Ninth century (Carolingian Empire).  Also, your presupposition that the Russians are modern Scythians does not appear to be supported by our articles on Russians or Scythians, which has very different stories on the origins of the Russian peoples.  The Scythians spoke an Iranian language, and so were likely related to Persians.  The Russians are unambiguously a Slavic people.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  14:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Western Europeans were generally known as "Franks" from the Carolingian period onward, since inhabitants of the area that is now France were the most likely to meet non-Westerners; during the crusades, for example, the Muslims called them Franks partly because that's what the crusaders collectively called themselves, but also to distinguish them from eastern Europeans, who they called "Romans". From the perspective of Western Europe, those in the east, who were fellow Christians even if they followed a strange and possibly heretical form of Christianity, were referred to either by their specific nation, or simply as "easterners". And yeah...as Jayron said the Scythians have nothing to do with anything. But for some reason the Scythians have been romanticized so heavily that, at least in the west, they must necessarily be the ancestors of everyone in the east. Even the ancient Greeks thought so. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So, what you're telling me, is that there was no comparable, catch-all term for Romanized barbarians in the East, as there was for the West (Latin Germans called Franks, thus Greek Scythians called Russians)? Perhaps then, the Russians were simply the chief tribe in a similar sense to the Franks? Maybe Western studies don't have this all assimilated into our "knowledge radar". As to the usage of Scythia, e.g. Scythia Minor, one could just as easily use "Sarmatia" for this purpose of defining ancient Greek-influenced East European barbarians, on par with Latin Germania in the West. I'm not trying to split hairs, but assess a general, regional consciousness. Scythia could not be considered any different from the Slavs, really, for the Slavs' history of expansion pretty much retraces the same area and they both would have satem version of Indo-European speech. The descent of Scythia to the Slavic nations is what has changed the former, erroneous theory that "Aryan" culture went to Germania, when there was a group of peoples geographically in between the Germans and Persia. Since the Germans and Scythians were two regional peoples which lived side-by-side, there is no cause to dismiss the Persian-influenced roots of Eastern Europe. Just look at how the Greeks and especially, the Macedonians were influenced by the Persians, even if they are categorized separately. I just don't see how the modern Eastern Europeans can be any more separated from older peoples in the same region, when this act of denying the past is not established for the modern Western Europeans, who claim lineal descent from antiquity.

Yes, I am trying to understand the nature of the Greeks as the seed of Eastern Europe, on par with the Latins being origin behind Western Europe. It appears that barbarian peoples on each frontier, Germans and Scythians respectively (I'm just using Roman provincial administration and related jurisdictional toponymy to account for this), were responsible for changing the defining nature of what is Roman, to be represented by those who were once excluded, by their distance from the Mediterranean, but had "kept the faith" of Roman-hood by adopting its mantle in the vaccum of the original Rome, East and West. I fully realize the time delay for the East to catch up with the West. Basically, the Russians were the assimilationist linchpin of the East, as the Franks were for the West? That's not wrong, is it? Gadsden, Arizona 01:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your pretty much right about that, that is the Russians being the Hegemony in the east in the same way that the Franks were in the west, except about 500 years later. Remember that the Russians were still paying tribute to the Golden Horde until 1378 or so, when Dmitry Donskoy of Muscovy refused to pay tribute.  The major powers in the East before Russia was probably Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania both of which were much stronger than the various Russian principalities probably until the 1400's or so.  For any time close to contemporaneous with the Franks, there just was no non-Byzantine eastern European power with the possible exceptions of the Kievan Rus and the Bulgars, neither of which were "native" eastern Europe peoples.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Legality of preventing sports fans of rival team to attend games
I was reading this. Basically, can owners legally prevent sports fans of rival teams from attending the games of their own team ? Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the sport and the jurisdiction, really. For example, professional soccer in Western Europe, largely in response to hooliganism, has a number of restrictions on who can buy tickets and where they can sit. If you are a fan of a rival team and have a ticket for an area of the stadium that is for home fans, then you will not be permitted to enter. However, most professional sports regulatory bodies have rules that ensure at least of small number of visiting fans are always permitted to attend. Rockpock  e  t  01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sports teams and arena owners are private businesses. In many countries, there are certain legally protected reasons they can't deny you admission for (for example, skin color or race or being in a wheelchair).  However, beyond that, since they are privately owned businesses, they can refuse to serve any person for any reason or for no reason at all.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Arenas are rarely owned by teams and individuals these days, but by the local governmental authority. A team which tried to prevent access to a publicly-owned facility due to the area code of origin, could probably be sued.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends on the jurisdiction. Arenas in America are often owned by private individuals/corporations who have recieved government assistance in building them.  For example, Gillette Stadium is owned by Robert Kraft.  He is a private citizen, and free to operate his businesses however he chooses.  He may have received incentives from the government in the form of tax breaks and free infrastructure improvements (roads, sewer, water, etc.) but he's still the owner.  Come to think of it, in America, I am hard pressed to think of any stadium used primarily by a professional sports franchise which is NOT privately owned.  There are, of course, stadiums owned by public universities which could be said to be owned by the government, but in pro sports in America such stadiums seem to be exceedingly rare.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Verizon Center is owned by the ownership of the Washington Wizards (not the Capitals), but it's on city-owned property, with a 30-year lease. At the end of the lease, the arena ownership reverts to the city.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Candlestick Park, home of the San Francisco 49ers and formerly of the San Francisco Giants, belongs to the city. —Tamfang (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)