Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 7

= October 7 =

Who were some pre-Marxist Communists?
Who were some pre-Marxist Communists leaders, movements or communities? What are some good books or sites on this topic? --Gary123 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The history of Communism article isn't very helpful, but this section of the main article mentions a lot before Marx came along, including Plato, Jesus, Rousseau, Gracchus Babeuf, Étienne Cabet, and Robert Owen. Hope that's a good start. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just about to point you to Pre-Marxist Communism in case there was anything useful to you there and just happened to take a quick look at the history and realised that you created it about 5 minutes ago! Oops! --Tango (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The list at utopian socialism is a good start, as there wasn't any clear difference between communism and socialism. For some direct influences on Marx, see the Young Hegelians. Warofdreams talk 01:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a short account of Utopian Socialism in the U.S. in the first part of History of Socialism in the United States by Morris Hillquit, a non-Utopian founder of the Socialist Party of America (1903; 5th edition 1910, reprinted in 1971 by Dover Books – ISBN 0-486-22797-7). Contemporary accounts reprinted by Dover about the same time are History of American Socialisms by John Humphrey Noyes, a founder of the Oneida Community (ISBN 0-486-21581-4) and The Communistic Societies of the United States, from Personal Visit and Observation (1875) by Charles Nordhoff (the grandfather of The Mutiny on the Bounty's co-author) (ISBN 0-486-21580-6).
 * One intriguing utopian socialist was Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon, known as Saint-Simon. Flora Tristan asserted that Mary Wollstonecraft's ideas presaged his by a generation. MW wrote, inter alia, one of the first histories of the French Revolution, as it was still underway, when a lot of new ideas were fermenting merrily. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus a communist? That will take some serious evidence. One argument is that He told people to give up their worldly possessions and to follow him in a vow of poverty. That makes him something of a Buddhist, as the sharing was entirely voluntary (under Communism, volunteering is mandatory).
 * Another is that throwing the (licensed) money changers out of the temple was an act of revolution, but one might just as easily see it as good old American style separation of church and state, or non-profit tax status.
 * Charity? The biggest donors in the world are all capitalists. Property? in the fourth chapter of Acts, there is a real estate transaction that is defended as pure property-rights-loving capitalism.
 * Finally, let’s never forget that Communism is atheistic, and Jesus was anything but. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Temple moneychangers fracas should be interpreted not in modern economic/political terms (contemporary Jewish thought in any case favoured the identity of 'church' and state), but in the light of then-prevailing conditions and attitudes. The occupying Roman authorities required the Temple tax (some of which they presumably received) to be paid in Tyrian shekels, partly to emphasise Judea's lack of political autonomy. These coins bore the image of the Phoenician god Melqart; they were also heavier and had a higher silver purity than commonly circulating sheckels, but were deemed equivalent for religious tax purposes. Thus Temple moneychanging was a necessity to enable Jews to pay the tax, but involved a constant reminder of foreign occupation, imposed pagan impiety, and the wrong end of an unfavourable exchange rate. It's not surprising that an aspirant to Messiah-ship (which meant primarily expelling foreign occupiers and re-establishing a religiously-run Israel) would make a public 'statement' about this issue in the form of an arguably revolutionary act.
 * Let's also remember that although modern extant Marxist-derived Communism happens to be atheistic, it's not a necessary attribute of all communistic philosophies, and the OP specifically asked about Pre-Marxist communism. No teachings attributed to Jesus are incompatible with some form of communism, some of them can be interpreted as favourable to it, and early Christian communities and practices described in the New Testament could reasonable be described as communism of a sort. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I first heard that "Jesus is a communist" silliness decades ago. The comparison to Buddhism makes more sense. Jesus simply warned against placing too much importance on material things, "where fire consumes or thieves break in and steal", and to focus on the spiritual, which no one can steal. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See Christian Communism. Anyway, the point isn't to argue the desirability or dangers of Communism (which isn't always the same thing as Marxism or Leninism), but its origins and history before Marx. When someone earlier asked us (at Ref Desk/Misc.) about the distinction between Fascism and Nazism, no one was arguing the merits of either. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out Gerard Winstanley, William Blake, Robert Owen. Although not really pre-Marxist, William Morris may also be of interest. The label "communist" applied to these earlier thinkers will always be disputed, because it carries such negative connotations. "Utopian thinkers" applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Before Marx, what was the difference between the terms socialist and communist? --Gary123 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The English term "communist" was invented around 1840, possibly by John Goodwyn Barmby, to describe followers of François-Noël Babeuf - who called themselves "communistes", and it was rapidly picked up to describe the more radical utopian socialists. The French term seems to have been used for some time earlier - this work of 1818 makes an early claim to Jesus being a communist.  The OED dates "socialist" to 1827, when it was used to describe followers of Robert Owen. Warofdreams talk 20:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Common personality traits of wikipedians
I wonder if anyone ever done such research. Of course, wikipedians are different both in their style of editing and in the motives that lead them to edit in wikipedia, they also have different interests. However, most share similar levels of enthusiasm and the same will to spend hours on edits that probably will be read by few readers, if not reverted or modified before. So I wonder, what types of wikipedians there are and in these days, when revolutionary studies of critical importance such as "how does using mobile phones changed the average time old peoples spend daily in toilet" getting the headlines, do you think that this lind of study is worthwhile? and what common traits do you think they share?--Gilisa (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They're polymathic pan-talented people with brilliant minds, coruscating wit and a superb conceit, ever willing to make a difference in ways both great and small for the betterment of all humankind in perpetuity.
 * Oh, sorry, you were talking about all Wikipedians. I should keep my remarks about myself to myself in future.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You always have to add that they are never wrong however willing to hear other views :)--Gilisa (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is hard to do a proper survey, Wikipedia in academic studies lists the main ones involving wikipedia. If you google 'survey of wikipedians' you'll find evidence they are grumpy, introverted and closed-minded. It's surprising, I don't seem to be able to find an easily accessible article on that here. Oops must go back and put a comma in that list; should I put one before the 'and' I wonder? I think a semicolon is okay there. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also worth mentioning that there is a difference between Wikipedians and Wikimedians. enWiki is the largest WMF project by far, and is itself heavily biased, so while your question is probably only concerned with enWiki just keep in mind that any traits anyone sees, whether en or not, will have to deal with an over-abundance of Americans. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 13:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not an over-abundance, according to this chart. TastyCakes (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The main page of WikiProject Countering systemic bias has some helpful information, but obviously the one thing we all have in common is a crippling, crippling case of Asperger's. Recury (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly not all Wikipedians have Asperger's, much less a "crippling" case of it. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Denial. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aspies aren't great at picking up social cues, Marco. Social cues like sarcasm. Just saying. Recury (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one undeniable personality trait would be sociability, at least on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone works on Wikipedia because they want to work in seclusion. Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do. Recurry and Comet, self-diagnosis. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some wikipedia editors are actively social, some even meeting up as often as once a month. See WP:Meetup where there are actual pictures of some of these albeit probably rather atypical editors. Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I went to one of those. Just not my thing, I'm afraid, so never again.  They'd probably say the same thing about me, but most of the people I met there were not really the sort of people I'd want to associate with in real life (nothing negative, just no clicking going on), although I'm more than happy to have an online relationship with them.  Not sure what that says about me ....  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

are there secret laws in the united states?
are there laws whose existent is secret? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.123 (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If there were, how would we know about them? :) It's a matter of definition of "law". The budget of the CIA, which has to be approved by Congress, is secret. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the laws were secret then neither the police nor the judges who enforce them would know about them, so no. That's not to say there are not secret orders to law enforcement agencies. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The U.S. government is notoriously poor at keeping secrets anyway. Consider the prisoner abuses in Iraq, for example. The press rooted them out despite the government's best efforts to keep it quiet. Then there's the so-called "secret" Area 51, which has to put signs up warning the many tourists not to get too close. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And nobody anywhere knows anything about the very expensive NSA. If there were a secret law, anyone who knew about it who told you about it would have to kill you. PhGustaf (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that people are dying all the time. This cannot be a coincidence. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like Dr. Evil's plan to make a hole in the ozone and slowly kill the world via skin cancer. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 13:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the government wants something kept extremely secret, it won't concern itself with trivial things like laws. There are, however, secret courts for the purposes of warrants, and agencies such as the CIA often perform dubious activities in other countries... ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A Black budget is probably the closest to what you're looking for.  APL (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In New Zealand the term Black Budget refers to that of Minister of Finance Harold Nordemeyer, so be sure to know which sort you mean. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. There aren't secret laws (in the US, anyway, I don't know about elsewhere). They would be unenforceable. But there are secret budgets, secret funds, things that are labeled as one thing but really go to another, things of that nature. There are secret regulations, but that's not the same thing as a law. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are certainly secret Executive orders which have the force of law. - Nunh-huh 13:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Though I think it is worth distinguishing between policies and laws, and in the realm of "law", I think it's worth distinguishing between a law that regulates people or organizations or behavior, and one that is just in charge of dispersing funds, creating organizations, etc. There aren't going to be criminal codes that are secret, for example, because they would be unenforceable. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are executive orders and legal memos that dictate what behavior is legal or criminal. The obvious recent example being the torture program carried out by the CIA, authorized by secret legal memos from the justice department, which in a sense made certain behaviors legal (or at least the that was the idea).
 * The executive branch has often had legal cases against it thrown out by claiming State Secrets Privilege, notably recently when sued over issues of indefinite detention, warrant-less wiretapping, and other anti-terrorism policies.  That is to say that there are laws in effect that can't be subject to judicial oversight because they're secret.  In terms of the logistics of enforcing secret laws, they obviously aren't secret to the executive branch which is the branch charged with enforcing laws so there's no difficulty there. Rckrone (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are secret activities, not secret laws. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think by problems with enforcement, people are referring to the inability to actually penalise people in most ways for actions violating secret laws. For example if there was an secret law making it illegal to call George W. Bush an idiot and the penalty for violating the law is life imprisonment, the executive branch would have difficult enforcing this. They would be laughed out of court if they tried to argue the person should be sentenced to life imprisonment for violating some secret law they can't tell the jury or judge about but the person definitely violated and you have to trust them. They could hold the person without taking them to court or give some other punishment, e.g. allowing them to be shot in 'hunting accidents' but I believe the courts ruled against American citizens being indefinitely detained and I'm pretty sure people would notice if the executive branch is continually shooting people in hunting accidents. Even if you have something less extreme, e.g. requiring the person to pay a fine, they could simply ignore the request and when you tried to pursue them you will be laughed out of court in a similar manner to what I described. In other words, it's all very well the executive branch knows about it, but it's unlikely the judicial branch would be willing to enforce a secret law since amongst other things, I suspect it would violate the US constitution Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are still ignoring the secret executive orders, approved by secret Attorney General memos, under which armed men seized people, drugged them, and transported them across to world to secret prisons to be interrogated (sometimes until they died) and imprisoned indefinitely. Sure sounds like secret laws. Note that they did not drag the accused before a judge, nor did the accused have any right to an attorney, to know the charges,  to question witnesses, or even to see the evidence against them. The accused were said to be "unlawful combatants" and neither the Geneva Conventions nor the Constitution were said to grant them any rights. They could be compelled to sign confessions, by denial of medical treatment for gunshots (if captured in a war zone) or by threats of any kind, by sleep deprivation, by various forms of humiliation, by waterboarding, by being slammed repeatedly against walls. Those tasked with carrying out the program wanted a memo from the Justive Deartment saying it was legal so they would not later be prosecuted for "only following orders." This is what makes it "secret laws." Edison (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) As far as I know, the legality of holding US citizens indefinitely without charge was never struck down. José Padilla sued, but the lower courts ruled against him and the government filed actual charges to prevent the case from getting to the Supreme Court.  Therefore the US government still has legal authority to deny habeas corpus to US citizens, and could therefore legally enforce secret laws against them without judicial oversight. Rckrone (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are activities, not laws. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what the distinction is you're trying to make. If the US government says "If you rob a bank we'll send you to prison" that's a law.  If the government says "If we deem you to be an 'enemy combatant' we'll ship you to a black site prison to be tortured by the Egyptian government" that's a law. Rckrone (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction is that if the legislative branch does it, it's a law; if the executive branch does it, it's an executive order. - Nunh-huh 18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's an important distinction to make. "The Government" isn't a single entity, it's a group of organizations that sometimes compete on issues. Laws are enacted by Congress and enforced by the Executive branch. Executive Orders are enforcement decisions made by the Executive branch, but they are limited in scope. If the Executive tries to enforce Orders that they don't have the authority for, it'll usually be struck down by Congress or the Judiciary. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that it is an important distinction. But I'm not sure how salient it is in practice.  Executive orders often carry the force of law, so it's hard to argue they aren't law.  Executive orders do have limited scope, so that create some restrictions.  They can in theory be struck down by the judicial or legislative review, but that doesn't make them any less secret or any less law.  Plus that mechanism is pretty toothless.  If the executive branch successfully claims the information is state secrets then it's essentially exempt for judicial review.  Of course it's the courts that get to make the final call if something is a state secret, but that process can take years, and the decision whether it's a state secret has nothing to do with the legality of the policy, just whether it can be argued that publicizing the information would put Americans at risk.  In theory there's also supposed to be congressional review of the secret actions taken by the executive branch, but in practice the executive branch is only required to brief the Gang of Eight, who are sworn to secrecy, so it's kind of a joke. Rckrone (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the IP might be concerned about issues like Secret police, where people can be picked up for "transgressions" that have little to do with actual law. The USA doesn't have any secret police forces, though conspiracists like to think the CIA acts as such. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was specifically wondering if any law would be accompanied by a gag order on it, so that when you were shown it by a government official, who would let you discuss it with your lawyer if you wanted, then your lawyer would say: "Yeah, this one I haven't heard of before, because it's a secret one. You can't talk about it with anyone else than me or a judge you go before if you break it, but it's a vaild one, I can tell by the pixels." From the above, it seems there isn't anything like that "on the books" (though not public). Obviously in my naive conception of how it would have worked if there had been secret laws, your actions only become illegal AFTER you are shown the law, kind of like you "have" to treat police officers a certain way only AFTER they tell you they're police officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.204.99 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This NY Times article is about a secret addendum to airline security regulations. I think that's as close to a secret law as you can get. That is, a law that is public, but some of the specifics are kept secret.Sjö (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This article - remarks delivered at the Senate Judiciary Committee, Constitution Subcommittee hearing on “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government and this one by Senator Russ Feingold denounce the trend toward secret laws in the USA.John Z (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be very much like ex post facto legislation. It's a general principle that you can't be guilty of something that you couldn't be expected to know was a crime. (If you could be expected to, but didn't, that's very different; you can certainly be guilty then.) The situation you describe couldn't feasibly arise in any country with a reasonable degree of personal freedom. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're completely wrong that "you can't be guilty of something that you couldn't be expected to know was a crime". You most certainly can and will be convicted.  The most you can hope for is leniency from the judge or jury when it comes to the penalty phase.  (I'm talking about ignorance of the law, even ignorance that is reasonable; not secret laws.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The old adage is "ignorance of the law is no excuse." And that has nothing to with an ex post facto law. That's a law that tries to punish an act committed before it was illegal to do it. As a trivial example, on Tuesday the government passes a law against chewing gum in public. Someone finds evidence that you were chewing gum on Monday. The government can't touch you. If you're chewing gum on Wednesday, they can. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he's right - you can be and, more important, are expected to know all the laws of the any jurisdiction you do anything in because they are all publicly available. It's not a reasonable expectation since there are far too many to actually read, but that is how the law works. If a law wasn't publicly available then that legal fiction would fall apart and ignorance would be an excuse. --Tango (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. And I think this is what people are trying to make the distinction about. The question isn't, "can the government do things in secret?" —the answer is obviously, yes it can. The question is, "can the government make regulations or deem things to be criminal based on secret standards?" Generally speaking, no. The handling of "enemy combatants" was secret, but the designation of what one was and that the category itself existed was public and well-known. To put it bluntly, no judge would put up with the idea of a "secret law" in that sense, where you are being convicted of violating a law that was not available for the public to read. That's the essential bind, here, legally. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This could be the legal equivalent of "double secret probation". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Omertà is a secret law enforced in the US. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to not need the law to be one from the government, I am sure that there are several aspects of some of the laws of physics that we are not yet aware of (especially the quantum kind) and might be construed as secret. Googlemeister (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What kind of logical fallacy would this be ?
Person (A) uses demonization remiscient of Nazi propaganda in his filmmaking work, therefore Person (A) wants to put the group he targets in death camps. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reductio ad Hitlerum ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have cause and effect the wrong way round there. Usually you make propaganda in order to achieve what you want, you don't want something because you've made propaganda supporting it (unless you are called Winston). --Tango (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd call it the logical fallacy typical stupidity of not being able to separate thought (film) from action (killing). DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a strawman fallacy demonstrating Godwin's law. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's break that down. Facts: Unit A is inside Set Demonizer. Set Nazi is inside Set Demonizer. Set Nazi is also inside Set Deathcamper. Assertion: Unit A is inside Set Deathcamper. Wow. There's a lot of places to shoot holes in this logical chain. To me, though, it looks like there's an assumption that all members of Set Demonizer are in Set Nazi, when there is no supposition that comes close to supporting that. Or a strawman fallacy.  Either that, or there's no logical fallacy at all, because there's no logic, just a flinging of words known to get a reaction. --M @ r ē ino 15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now I'm pretty sure that it's the usual strawman. Not a fan Godwin's Law though, it has become a logical fallacy of its own after overuse. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a formal logical (as opposed to rhetorical) fallacy, it could be described as false conversion: "All genocides demonize their victims, therefore all demonizers are genocidal." Tevildo (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Examples of Apologies in History
Are there any archives or letters of one person apologizing to another? I am looking for something heartfelt. Also, looking for something that can be found in the history books. Reason is I want to apologze to someone I hurt and I want to cite that certain document. --Reticuli88 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My advice is make a heartfelt apology yourself. I would much rather someone look me in the eye and say "Hey, I'm really sorry... I feel really bad about what I said" than have them quote Shakespeare.  As someone who has had a history of putting both feet in his mouth at once, I have definitely found the direct apology approach to work best for me.  Hope this helps, Falconus p  t   c 04:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's better that it come more directly from your heart.--Wetman (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'm really, really, really sorry." "Sorry's just not good enough for this pope!" Also, it's not written, but the Walk to Canossa is a pretty good example. If the recipient would appreciate this as a sort of postmodern academic exercise, then using obscure quotes and references can be fun. Otherwise, doing it on your own is always best. Adam Bishop (talk)


 * Wetman is right, it should come from the apologizer's head, not someone else's. One thing that would help, if possible, would be to first try to re-establish contact and friendliness, and once that has been smoothed out a bit, then lay it on them, as they will likely be more receptive after you've made nice for a bit. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, some things are hard to apologize for. From Monty Python and the Holy Grail: Castle lord: "You've slaughtered all me guests!" Lancelot: "Um, oh yes. Sorry!" →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Patton's apology to the soldiers he struck. And there's the grudging, semi-secret apology of that congressional assclown who shouted 'You lie!' at Obama...Rhinoracer (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * John Henry Newman wrote Apologia Pro Vita Sua, which, although it may appear to be an apology for his entire life, is actually a defence of his philosophies. For actual apologies, there were the numerous ones made by Pope John Paul II to various minority groups that had been persecuted by the Church throughout history.  More recently was the Apology to the Stolen Generations made by the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd in February 2008, after his predecessor John Howard had consistently (and controversially) refused to do so for 11 years.  I appreciate that none of these match your question, which was asking about letters from one person to another, but maybe they're food for thought. --  JackofOz (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry seems to be the hardest word. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's that scene from Jerry Maguire. I'm fairly sure that wasn't real though. TastyCakes (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

just mention what you've done that has the effect that it can't happen in the future. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ipodreport/ The Future

Recognizing that some aspects of workplace auditing (such as health and safety) lie beyond our current expertise, we’ve engaged the services of Verité, an internationally recognized leader in workplace standards dedicated to ensuring that people around the world work under safe, fair and legal conditions. That's a positive step, the step means it shouldn't happen again. If you don't mention any steps that mean it won't happen again, it's not a very effective apology. "Yeah, sorry for the way my boyfriend acted with you..." (but, I'm stil with him). Not much of an apology. Sorry for the way my boyfriend acted with you - I've since dumped his ass. Much better - now you're friends again :) 92.230.70.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Side question
One can thank someone else by saying simply "thank you". One can agree by saying simply "I agree". And similar examples. But I've always felt that just saying "I apologise" is not a sufficient apology. Sometimes people are required to withdraw a statement and apologise for it, and all they have to do is say "I withdraw my remarks and apologise" (eg. in parliaments, or on WP debates). But in real life, just saying "I apologise" often doesn't seem anything like enough for having caused some offence. There's usually some extra work to be done in repairing the relationship. Does this extra work come under the heading of "apology", or is that part of whatever the next step is? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Politics
Based upon searches, it is most apparent that those "editing" wikipedia are more than a bit leftist. When searching extreme political groups, wikipedia refers to hard right wing or extreme right wing or militant right wing. Yet, when the same search on leftist does not even acknowledge that the leftist groups are hard left wing, extreme left wing or militant left wing? WHY??????????66.207.247.177 (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Most apparent? I think you could find examples of left-wing, right-wing, and all sorts of other biases in Wikipedia if you looked hard enough.  The ideal is for no bias at all, and that's what, collectively, we all strive for.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll have to give specific examples if we are to have any hope of answering your question. None of us have read all of Wikipedia.  --Sean 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except possibly Steve... --Tango (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, provide specific examples. Some of us will want to go correct articles with a slanted viewpoint, or to ask for citations for doubtful information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick search on Google shows that usage of these terms is pretty similar, whether the suffix is "left" or "right". Because of their potential vagueness and the fact that they are often used to denegrate, they are generally best avoided, unless very well referenced. Warofdreams talk 21:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Both kinds of extremity are unwanted.--Gilisa (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only are both types common, we strive to avoid either one. You may be interested in our article on Selective perception? --Saalstin (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't suppose wikipedia can fully rid itself of bias, a community tends to attract like minded people. Have you tried Conservapedia?, as you might guess from the name it has a more conservative bias. Dmcq (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This supposed bias has certainly been mentioned before. See Criticism of Wikipedia. Do there tend to be more liberals on Wikipedia than conservatives? I would say yes, just due to its nature and the nature of the people it generally appeals to. But the ideal editor is able to remove biases from their editing, and will remove other biases they see on Wikipedia even if they strongly agree with them. That is why I think most Wikipedia editors would be driven nuts trying to meaningfully contribute to Conservapedia or something similar. I agree on this particular issue as well, I cringe every time I read "left wing" or "right wing" in an article. Beyond the stigma each has acquired over the years, they are very vague descriptors that could mean a large range of things. TastyCakes (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it might be worth clarifying that there's a difference between a viewpoint and a bias. Bias isn't very well-defined, and there are probably large differences in its meaning from person to person.  But they are not (generally) the same.--Leon (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that it strives to have no bias. It is no more successful at that than any one person can be, but is remarkably closer to that than most of the internet (certainly more than sites like Conservapedia, which doesn't have a "more conservative bias," but is explicitly just a propaganda site). Wikipedia can be edited by anyone... even you! If you find a page that has what appears to be bias on it, you can put a NPOV tag at the top of it, go to the talk page, and say, "hey guys, what's up with this?" and someone will take a look at it. Will you always get your way? Will everyone always agree with you? No way! But that's how it goes. Unlike a lot of places around these here interwebs, though, you're encouraged to voice your concerns, and the community as a whole will try to figure out an acceptable solution. On the whole, based on the demographics of the web and the number of Europeans on Wikipedia, it is going to lean more leftwards in general than the standards of the "center" according to someone in the US. Whether this is a problem for you or not personally, I don't know, but it's a fairly common thing. I'm not sure the answer is to go off to fringe websites, though, that try as hard as possible to be as biased as possible. If you have a legitimate complaint, voice it, and over time, if you don't act too crazy, people will take it seriously. If you indulge in a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS and unverified accusations of bias, you won't be taken very seriously. Approach it calmly and without the attitude that there's a massive conspiracy against you, and you might get somewhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the vast right-wing conspiracy, of course. Rightists are, after all, evil. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia seems too liberal,Conservapedia is thataway, over at the far right. Edison (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, I was just talking about this elsewhere...are we sure that Conservapedia hasn't been taken over by people who are attempting to destroy it through comedy? This also seems to be what happened to PETA. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen sites on the Internet advocating a sort of stealth trolling of Conservapedia, i.e. creating articles that at first glance would seem legitimate to the Nomenklatura running CP but would actually be made to poke fun and seeing how long it takes for the folks over there to catch on. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm an old-time social democrat or democratic socialist. But I've also been a very small-time editor and reporter who's always asking "but how would it look to someone who doesn't agree with my views?" So when I'm editing something like the Fairness Doctrine, Michael Bloomberg, New York City mayoral election, 2009 or Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, I find myself editing out left-wing or pro-Democratic bias just about as often as I do bias from the right or Republicans. Once a conservative understands where I'm coming from, we usually work together quite constructively on finding the best or most-accurate sources or quotations to support both (or all) sides of the issue. And often some such cooperative consensus was reached (after some struggle) long before I first saw the article in question. As for particular groups, I think that their articles are often (but far from always) edited by those whose sympathies would tend to coincide broadly with the groups'. For example, conservatives seem to have edited most of Young Americans for Freedom, while Socialists, or socialist sympathizers, have done most of the editing of Socialist Party of America. There have to be limits, because no one wants Wikipedia to be merely a collection of uncritical promotions for editors' own causes (see WP:Conflict of interest), but it's natural that the most information (and knowledge of good Reliable Sources) would tend to be held by those who've worked with or alongside a particular group. While I haven't looked at the articles in question, I think that neither Operation Rescue nor Code Pink can be called a hate group, although some might legitimately consider them extreme; but that the Westboro Baptist Church could be considered one (although that's not necessarily a useful phrase for Wikipedia.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick check reveals that the OPs premise does not appear to be true. Socialist Workers Party (Britain) is described as 'far left', for example. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Based upon searches..." of what? Looks to me like this is a typical drive-by, firing shots at wikipedia. It would be best to ignore. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of Conservapedia. "Founded because Wikipedia was too biased". Apparently facts have a liberal bias.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.157.50.207 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering why nobody had quoted Colbert on this. His exact quote is, IIRC "As we all know, reality has a liberal bias." TomorrowTime (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the line seems to ring a little hollow when watching a Michael Moore movie ;) TastyCakes (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have  only  noted  bias in these questions and answers, which I admit to a bit of myself. Also, neither have I read all of Wikipedia. It may be that those on the Internet, because it is relatively new, is used by younger people or curious ones, who tend to be less conservative. By the way, not all rightists  or  leftists for that matter are evil, there are varying degrees in all types. What is biased is the media. Yes, that old Chestnut. Not all the time, but if you actually watch most TV and movies, there does seem to be an element of pro gayness, pro abortion, anti Republican sentiment, due to the fact that most Hollywood script writers and actors are liberals. They also carry out their own blacklist of conservatives when it suits them, forgetting the tyranny practised by that fascist McCarthy way back when. This is fine as long as conservatives can air a point of view. Again, not  all,  but it gets irritating to hear in the news of the " occupied West Bank "  when this is Israeli territory,  and the Arabs and Moslems have all that other land  and  people. And they begrudge little Israel even that which it has ? What is worse is when liberals who have nothing to do with it stick in their spokes -  especially  when  they  are Jewish liberals. My wish is to see all people treated right, and to be able to watch a movie or programme on TV  that whenever it bothers to show a Christian, doesn't always have to make them out to be an  overbearing cultic  type  person, butchering people because God told him  to. Get this, matey, God did not tell you to blow up that abortion clinic or murder those prostititutes, or whatever. Those who misinterpret Scripture are not acting according to God. Of course, a lot more bad things are done by those who have nothing to do with God. Biased enough for you ? Sorry, but it was only because others did it first. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a term that define apparent small edit wars with big meaning?
For instance, one reason that is commonly used to support the exclusion of ethnical origin from bio-articles is "Oh, well, it wasn't notable for X or Y work/life" (even when it was). So, this way, the argument in favor of inclusion may seem foolish, lame and petty. It's realy a very successful tactic (not that I claim that always it's tactic) in many edit wars on different subjects, but does it is acknowleged in Wikipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your question isn't clear to me. Could you post a specific example, with diffs?  PhGustaf (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they are talking about people who work really hard to argue that some historical figure was really of X nationality, even if he only spent five minutes there and got his citizenship somewhere else and didn't even know he was from that area. It comes up all the time with famous people of various European backgrounds (Einstein, for example). The argument is that Wikipedia should focus on the things that were relevant to their actual life, rather than arguments by (often quite nationalistic) editors wanting to include lots of details. I'm not endorsing the argument entirely, though I do note that the people who are most concerned with such things are often concerned for transparently nationalistic reasons (Tesla is Serb! No, he's a Croat! No, he's Austrian! HE'S OURS, DAMN IT!), generally at the expense of the article content itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Guerrilla warfare. Vranak (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What? --Mr.98 (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a metaphor. Vranak (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

¶ A celebrated quotation of the internationalist Albert Einstein [which the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations attributes to a 16 Feb. 1930 New York Times report of an address to the Sorbonne] is"'If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German, and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.'"—— Shakescene (talk)


 * Mr.98, actually I was not meaning to this line of disputes. I think that I made it clear in my original post. In Einstein's article an edit war was going for three years, I guess that now it's only a cease fire. Anyway, even his Jewishness played significant role in his life, many users refuse to include in his early life paragraph simple reference short that he was born into a Jewish family (something that undoubtedly change the course of his life and history in fact and was relevant for his deep involvement in Zionist movement). So instead we have an ethnic entry as a default -and as I said there are long lasting war edits about it ("Change to German without Jewish" "Change to both German and Jewish" "Not Jewish, Ashkenazi Jewish" and etc) with those who support omission of any refernce for his Jewishness usually argue that it have no meaning or that it's a lame edit war (but still deeply involve in it).--Gilisa (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We're having difficulty understanding exactly what your question is, Gilisa. You undoubtedly have better command of more languages than I do, so this isn't to criticise, but "... does it is acknowleged in Wikipedia?" isn't a grammatical or understandable English clause. If you have a problem, as many of us do at different times for different reasons, with the behaviour or attitude of other editors, the Humanities Reference Desk doesn't seem like the best place to discuss it. While I don't know all the back pages of the Project, perhaps WP:Village pump (policy), WP:Village pump (proposals) or Requests for comment/new users‎ would be more suitable. As for the lead to the Einstein article, I was surprised that it didn't mention, at least very briefly in passing, his progressive and internationalist views and activities. Many readers would be non-scientists looking for a brief summary who wouldn't understand most of that lead anyway.—— Shakescene (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right about my wording. Anyway, I was not aiming to a specific case and just brought Einstein's edit wars as an example for the priniciple itself. I rephrase "Is there a term that define this kind of edit wars?". I realy have no intention to complain on any of wikipedia boards, just posted the question here out of curiosity.--Gilisa (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Gilisa, I think the term that comes closest to it in my limited knowledge is Identity politics. Actually I see that that article has a ton of other related terms under the "See also" and the "Examples of identity politics" sections. Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't a lot of edit wars about nationality lame? That's the first thing that came to my mind when I read the question, which I have to admit I really don't understand fully. It seems awfully specific. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Outside Wikiworld and the battlefields of edit wars, there are phrases like "victimization sweepstakes", "selective outrage" and "competitive victimhood" to describe real-world fights over whether the Irish Famine was as bad an atrocity as the Middle Passage, or whether the Jewish Holocaust was worse than African slavery or the Armenian massacres. These can get nasty when affirmative action, reparations, grave sites, holidays, public school curricula or public memorials are being proposed or challenged. When nation-states are involved on both sides, the crimes of one's own country are minimized or explained away, while those of the other side magnified. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * BATTLEGROUND and perhaps WP:MMORPG is likely of some relevance. These sort of wars are often called nationalistic/nationalism/geopolitical/ethnic/cultural/religious edit wars or something of that sort and we have a Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars which deal with this sort of thing. While the Einstein one many not be a good example we do have a problem with editors (whether for positive or negative reasons) trying to add ethnicity or other such information with poor sourcing and where it's of little relevance to their lives Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Justices entering courtrooms from behind curtains
While touring the Oklahoma Supreme Court, we were told that the Justices stand behind velvet curtains and then step out when the court is called into session. Googol and Wikipedia searches have shown that this is a common practice in higher courts, but provide no other information.

When, where, and why did this custom originate? Did it begin in Roman courts? Is it simply to convey a moment of suspense and mystery, as when a statue is unveiled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decayjack (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Geez, Oklahoma is boring. Here the judges come out in clouds of smoke, à là Iron Chef. PhGustaf (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that boring. Every night, my honey-lamb and I sit alone and talk, and watch a hawk makin' lazy circles in the sky.
 * Come to think of it, it is that boring. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should have turned the other way at Albuquerque... Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even on shows like Judge Judy, everyone gathers and then the judge comes in. There's a pretty obvious "taking charge" symbolism there: Nothing of substances can happen until the judge makes his/her entrance. Standing behind curtains, though? It's possible they just don't happen to have any doors near the bench, but this is worth looking into. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I expect they just prefer a curtain to a door. The most senior person or people entering after everyone else is common outside of courtrooms - the high table at a formal meal (at a University, say) will usually enter after everyone else has found their seats (and waited ages for them to stop getting drunk in the SCR, if my experience is anything to go by). People usually stand respectfully while they walk in, too. --Tango (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/quotes We're not in Kansas! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.]Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In case your tour guide didn't clarify, it's not as if the Justices are just hiding in a corner. Usually, behind the curtain is the "robing room", and then behind that door are all of the chambers and offices.  In a sense, it's an ancient security feature: the general public can't just wander into the judge's half of the courthouse. --M @ r ē ino 15:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In Commonwealth countries you will probably find, after everyone is seated, a knock at the door (see tipstaff), everyone stands up, the judge comes in, and the court is declared to be in session. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)