Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 24

= April 24 =

Blue porn
Why Indian people call porn films "blue film"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic The Xtreme (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed duplicate question --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For the same reason as English speakers elsewhere call them "blue films" or "blue movies": because one of the meanings of "blue" is "indecent; obscene" (OED). The earliest example quoted is from a dictionary of slang from 1864. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the etymology ? StuRat (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to references at the article Blue law, the term "blue" to refer to "immoral" may have been invented out of whole cloth by Samuel Peters, who first used the term "Blue law" in 1781. He claims the term had existed since Puritan Colonial times, however later historians and etymologists have found no evidence of this, instead falling back on the conclusion that he invented the usage himself.  -- Jayron  32  05:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We've had this exact same question before. I still think my answer was best! --Shantavira|feed me 08:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When you underexposed the (pre-digital) film involved, because the budget was as small as possible and hence did not include using movie lighting, it would get a blue tint. Hence blue movies. 78.148.48.230 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt this statement. I have developed a lot of film, and I hev never seen underexposed film look blue. Do you have a reference for underexposed film looking blue? Edison (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It refers to early colour film not made anymore, not the modern stock. It probably includes forcing up the ISO in the lab, not just standard processing. 78.151.140.244 (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither Shantavira nor this IP have provided sources for their answers, and it's citationless conjecture like this that leads to those "everyone knows" facts that everyone gets wrong. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

EO has some theories: The one about "blue books" meaning "books of questionable character" might well be the joke W.C. Fields was making in Poppy: "Perhaps you've read my book on the evils of wagering?" (Mayor) "No." (Fields) "It has a blue cover. Perhaps that will recall it to your mind!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. In Chinese, or HK at least. Pornography is associated with the colour yellow (黃). --Kvasir (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Try http://ask.yahoo.com/20031003.html 89.243.213.182 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A fit of swearing is said to "turn the air blue".--Wetman (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Germanic Rome (Modern Rome) versus Ancient Rome
In most legal jurisdiction in the US which have many laws starting with concepts and notions based on ancient Egyptian and Roman law, most of these concepts and notions have been updated with revisions from Germanic Rome following the Germanic "Migration" and now in the US have been updated to fully reflect modern thinking. An example would be laws prohibiting culpable negligence versus laws which support codes of silence. On occasion, however a judge not trained sufficiently in the law will revert to the old (ancient) thinking or standards and make decisions which do not support modern thinking or updates but which instead reflect ancient law. (My solution BTW is to publish the law in the form of a polychotomous key so that such occasions can be quickly corrected or prevented from occurring at all.) What Wikipedia articles cover this topic of judges appearing to be in complete compliance and support of the law by only supporting and being in compliance with ancient thinking and laws? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In America and the UK, the relevent concept is Common law, which holds that judges and courts may act on legal prescedent and tradition. The opposite concept is that of codified law, for example Code Napoleon, which is the French legal system established in France by Napoleon, and adapted throughout much of Europe.  The two systems often work together by varying degrees, for example there are no purely "common law" legal systems in the world, and insofar as judges and juries are required to interpret legal codes, there will be some common law elements in codified systems.  But as ends of the legal system continuum, those two systems would be a good place to start thinking about these things.  If you want historical legal systems, you could start with the Code of Hammurabi, and also look into the article Early Germanic law which lists many such Germanic law codes, as well as Roman law, which never fully disappeared, but was instead adapted locally after the fall of the Roman Empire.  -- Jayron  32  05:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, these articles will help reveal why this problem exists but I am also looking for articles which already recognize the existence of this problem and discuss prior solutions which have been tried to dissuade revolution and terrorism beyond incorporating a political system which entrusts elected officials to adapt the law to change. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, I really don't know what you mean by "ancient Egyptian law" having had a significant influence on modern legal systems in the English-speaking world. Roman law has had a certain influence, but its influence is generally considered to be much less on the development of Common Law systems than it was on various forms of continental European law.  In the 19th century, people such as Frederic William Maitland (as I seem to remember) had romantic theories about how the Common law preserved the spirit of early Germanic tribal quasi-democracy (as opposed to Roman despotism), but I'm not sure how that's held up in modern scholarship... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jayron's reference above to the Code of Hammurabi is what I meant by "ancient Egyptian law". 71.100.1.71 (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 71.100.1.71 -- Hammurabi was Mesopotamian, not Egyptian, and no one knew about his law-code for probably at least 3,000 years before 1901 A.D., so obviously it did not have a direct influence on the development of English Common Law. The Code of Hammurabi has some interesting parallels with provisions of the so-called "Laws of Moses" found in the first five books of the Bible, but I strongly doubt whether it exerts any significant influence on the decisions of judges today... AnonMoos (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it is s wasted distinction for the purpose of the question. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't care much about fact, then this whole discussion would appear to be fairly pointless... AnonMoos (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that water is a compound made from two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen but not relevant to this discussion. You can measure the coastline of England in miles or inches depending on how precise you want to be. If you do not need to be more precise that miles then you have wasted valuable time on measuring it in inches. If the discussion is about the difference in modern and ancient only and you are trying to disrupt it by pealing off about the difference between Egypt and Mesopotamia then move your comments to the discussion page and anyone interested can follow them there. In short... Grow up. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you, you seem to be somewhat impervious to disconfirming evidence in your idée fixe determination to find support for your pet little theory that the dead hand of ancient laws from thousands of years ago is the most determining factor in 21st-century Common Law legal systems (something which would appear to be false). If you don't want to listen to any answers which don't perfectly agree with what you already thought, then some might wonder why you asked the question in the first place. AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand your question. US judges are bound to follow the law and the Constitution.  Can you cite an example of what you mean by a US judge using "ancient thinking" as the basis for a ruling, rather than the law?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I cited an example in the question. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your "example" was totally vague. Could you point to a single actual court case as an example?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Intended to be totally vague since the reference desk does not give legal advice. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It happens all the time - that ancient thinking is part of the law. When there isn't a statute to cover a particular situation the courts will rely on common law, which is usually very old (not always ancient, per se, but often at least based on ancient principles). --Tango (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In English law, (if I recall a rather cursory module of a course many years since), judges are allowed to fall back on the principle of Natural justice. However this can only be used if there no statute, precedent or common law principle which bears on the case. Alansplodge (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with allowing this to be done in America is that we have immigrant judges from Italy, France, Germany, Poland, the Middle East and Asia all of which would have the right to fall back on completely different foundations. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please supply a concrete example of an actual court case so we aren't all just waving our hands discussing vague possibilities. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kioa v West is the (Australian) case cited in the WP article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The "polychotomous key" (aka decision tree) is 1.71 (aka User:Pce3@ij.net)'s solution to the endemic corruption of the legal system (as well as being the basis for a religion and philosophy ). However, the reason we have human lawyers to argue cases and judges to decide them is because there's no way the written law can take every possible circumstance into account; you could spend 50 years compiling a billion-page decision tree of common and statute law, but it'd only be out a week before a case comes along which doesn't fit it (or someone comes along who disputes the meanings of words in one of the steps).  On the other hand, judgements in our current system are bound by precedent and subject to appeals, which keeps the whole system fairly consistent and fair. FiggyBee (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not go so far as to call A Method for Simulating the Process of Logical Human Thought a religion or philosophy. Instead it is a demonstration of how logical human thought can be replaced by computerized multiple state equation reduction and the background for doing that and the resulting implications for those who put their faith in money or logic versus putting their faith in God.
 * What you are saying is that ignorance of the law (the impossibility of knowing the law versus intentionally avoiding its knowledge) by those charged with obeying it is a legitimate reason versus an illegitimate excuse. Thank you. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, could you provide an example of a US court case that highlights the issue you are trying to ask about? (We don't give legal advice, but it's fine to give legal information.)  Without an actual US court case to look at (since you are discussing the US), I still don't know what you're writing about.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The best I can do is to tell you that the judge did not know statutory or case law. Statutory law requires a person who knows of a potentially dangerous circumstance not keep it to themselves but to inform those who may have a vested interest in seeing to it that any potential danger is eliminated which they can not do unless they are so informed. An example is a person who leaves vicious dogs unattended next to a sidewalk that children use with only a short fence to separate them from the dogs. In the event of a child being mauled a neighbor knowing about this and failing to inform the parents might be guilty of culpable negligence. Even a passerby might be charged with culpable negligence if he did not ask the children where they lived and then informed the parents. An errant judge on the other hand who did not know the law might hold that ratting on the dogs owner in absence of the fact which the law allowed was an act of slander. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Homeless people in UK
In a forum someone said
 * A large percentage of those in the UK are ex forces people. People who joined up at 16 and have spent their whole lives with a solution to every problem. In return they have put life and limb on the line.Society stopped caring about them the day they stopped taking the queens shilling.

Why are those people so stupid that they delibrately stop taking the Queen's shilling and become homeless people on the streets of UK. Isn't the army suppose to train you to be a good person instead of a vagabond? 122.107.207.98 (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read our article on homelessness. Your premise is flawed. Don't believe everything you read in a forum. It's a long time since I saw any homeless people in the UK who might have been ex-servicemen. Also the army doesn't train people so much to be good, as to obey superiors, to survive in a hostile situation, and to kill.--Shantavira|feed me 08:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Uncritical slavishness and willingness to kill are plainly antithetical to 'being a good person'. Vranak (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a high proportion of ex service personnel in both the homeless segment and in prisons, but that simplistic point conceals a high degree of complexity. Some of those ostensibly ex-servicemen will have served for short periods a long time ago, some will have come into the service with a number of societal and cultural issues that may contribute to their situation.  Some will have been dismissed for crimes whilst in the service.
 * Once one starts to look into the detail it's clear that very few will have completed a full career, essentially 22 years. The transitional arrangements at that level of experience are pretty good and you'd tend to find people going into reasonable jobs.
 * I would agree that society per se doesn't really care about those that serve them, whether military or civilian. There is an expectation that in volunteering people give up any rights to reasonable treatment, but that's more of an indication of a wider malaise than specific to the military.
 * Essentially very few would choose to be homeless, but circumstances can conspire to lead them there.
 * All that said some long time servicemen do struggle with the transition to civilian life and that can lead to problems. Civilians don't understand the humour, approach, demand for high standards etc and that can be challenging.  For some it means job losses.
 * One cultural issue that does tend to reinforce this is that one has been trained to be self reliant, and it's common for ex servicemen in trouble to refrain from seeking support and assistance. There are a number of mechanisms in place, both formal and charitable, but frequently they're not known about or the individual prioritises himself, or herself, out on the basis that they''d consume resource that someone else would benefit from.
 * ALR (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This page has the details. "The percentage of veterans in London's current non-statutory (single) homeless population had reduced from 22% in 1997 to 6% by 2007".


 * Perhaps it makes more sense to look at the proportion of veterans which are homeless, rather than the proportion of homeless who are veterans. Otherwise, you're sure to see a rise whenever a large number of veterans are released from service, like after a war ends. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's London, not national. Although I would agree that the Legion has done a lot of good work in addressing the issue, but more to do.
 * ALR (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Other aspects of your question have been answered above, but I want to address one incorrect assumption of yours that hasn't been explicitly answered. In peacetime, people usually sign up for the UK's Armed Forces on various fixed-length terms of engagement, ranging in the Army, for example, from 3 to 22 years. At the end of a term they may or may not be offered the option of signing on for one or more of a range of further terms, depending upon the Forces' then current and projected future personnel requirements: many are therefore compelled to leave even if they would prefer to stay in. My own father completed a 22-year term and would have preferred to remain in the Army until the normal retirement age, but was only offered the option of a series of (I think) 3-year terms with no guarantee of renewals: he therefore chose to leave in order to start a second long-term civilian career.
 * My father was ultimately successful but some, as already mentioned, find the transition to civilian life and employment too difficult to cope with, especially if they develop some mental disturbance (that might stem from their military experiences). I myself knew a former Warrant Officer from my father's own Corps who became a local street person (and who was perfectly unobjectionable and innocuous).
 * I also find your assumption that homeless people are necessarily not 'good' highly questionable. Many people become homeless from some combination of bad luck, family breakdown and personal problems, but that doesn't make them 'bad'. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And in the UK a homeless person includes those living in hostels and possibly b&b, and only a minority, I think, are rough sleepers. 78.149.153.174 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the US, as a basis for comparison, state employment, social and veterans service offices usually bend over backwards to help appreciative ex-service personnel that they like to find solutions. Some, however, come out of the service with a chip on their shoulder and those are the ones who end up without help and living on the street. Those are the ones who usually end up in prison.

The Lord of the rings
In the fellowship of the ring movie, there is a scene where the Ring utters a harsh chant. Gandalf suddenly stands up and also begins the chant in Black Speech. Thunder crackles as the sky darkens. The Council stare around them in fear and confusion. Is this taken from the book or does it appear in the movie only?
 * It's in book 2, chapter 2, The Council of Elrond. &mdash; Lomn 14:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I went through that (long) chapter twice and I can't find that scene...
 * I've answered over on the Entertainment desk, where the question was unnecessarily cross-posted. Deor (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Economy questions - Greece
Please help with 2 questions about the current financial situation with Greece and the Euro: 1) Is it possible to eject Greece out of the Euro currency union? 2) Did the Greek crisis really originate in governmental corruption, in which case is it possible to prosecute responsibles? Thanks for info, --AlexSuricata (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't know if it's formally possible by EU rules, but all the other members could always withdraw and form an "EU2", which excludes Greece. Of course, to do so would impress all the other members that they will also be abandoned if they ever get into trouble, so would weaken the union in the long run. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Several newspaper articles have said that according to the current existing rules, it would be almost impossible to force Greece off the Euro unless it also withdraws from the European Union. If Greece still had a separate currency, it could devalue the drachma with respect to other currencies and undergo a short sharp economic shock which would probably leave it in a relatively good position for long-term recovery.  As it is, no one seems to know how to put Greece on a sound economic footing without either a huge external bailout, or forcing Greece to go through a prolonged period of such austerity that it would be more like a depression than a recession... AnonMoos (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For #2, see 2010 European sovereign debt crisis. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Party support for UK identity cards
I do not like having identity cards for British people. I understand the LibDems will scrap them. What will the other two mainstream parties do with them? Thanks 89.243.213.182 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Conservatives are against them - "ID Cards - Labour's Bad IDea". Labour says "The new biometric ID scheme which already covers foreign nationals will be offered to an increasing number of British citizens, but will not be compulsory for them." They go on to claim that the scheme will be self-financing. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your link says the Cons will scrap them too. 78.149.153.174 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of the things I have never understood about the British. I mean, this is a country where every village has more CCTV cameras than China and North Korea put together, but somebody mentions ID cards (which actually would have useful effects, like eliminating identity theft and not having to hunt for a gas and phone bill everytime you hire a car) and everybody's afraid of Big Brother.213.160.108.26 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Identity cards are one step closer to Big Brother as are cameras posted everywhere. It means the government knows who you are. In Italy, identity cards have been required for ages. Once a person turns 15, they are required to have one-or at least have a document on their person saying who they are, with a photo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because we already have an overbearing and intrusive state, doesn't mean that we should just bend over and standby every time some politician comes up with another cunning plan to waste taxpayers equity. Opposition to both is a defining feature of the libertarian agenda.
 * In any case, opposition is partly to do with the state imposing yet another requirement on the citizen but largely related to the underlying infrastructure that will use the ID card record to tie together a wide range of information about the individual.
 * ALR (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, how exactly would ID cards eliminate identity theft, since most identity theft takes place on-line without any theft of physical documents or cards ? What additional identity theft protection would I get from an ID card that I already get by having a passport and a National Insurance number ? I have always been curious about that claim. I know it was one of Gordon Brown's pro-ID cards arguments, but it makes about as much sense to me as saying "introducing ID cards will save the whale and reverse global warming". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We British watch far too many war films. When the plucky Brits escape from their POW camp, there's always a scene where the Gestapo, dressed in their long leather coats, get on the train and call out "Papieren!". We really don't want all that malarky. You don't even have to carry your driving licence here - if a police officer wants you to prove that you have one, he gives you a little form called "a producer" that you can take along to your local police station with your documents at any time within 7 days. Very civilised. Some historical perspective here:. Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the Nazis has won WW2, the first thing they'd do would be to introduce their own identity cards (or "Nazi cards" to coin a phrase). Think how many people gave their lives to stop the Nazis taking over. But now sixty years later we are welcoming them. On a side note, I think saving Europe from itself (with help from other nations) ought to have earnt us British some privelidges, including not having identity cards. 78.151.102.119 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's symptomatic of how the political rhetoric obfuscates the reality of the proposal. The identity card is only a token that allows access to an information repository that should, in principle, contain a single picture of the truth about an individual.  In this way using the card should reduce the ability of people to steal an identity using the various items of ephemera that substitute for evidence now.  The ID card on its own proves nothing unless it can be validated against the repository.
 * There are so many claims about what these things could do that it's ridiculous.
 * Most of the ongoing and informed No2ID debate is around the aggregation of data about the individual, and the ease with which the proposed legislation allows a number of state representatives and quasi-officialdom can demand access to tat record.  That level of exposure of ones information essentially undermines the privacy and security argument as we lose control of our data.
 * ALR (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I bet that various terrorist-supporting governments could fake an ID card, so once they start handing them out to terrorists, they will be worse than useless for preventing terrorism. 78.151.102.119 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However, the point is not the card, but the system that it's a part of.
 * ALR (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

constableville,ny
trying to find any history from the early 1700's to previous and the surrounding cemeteries..who was the founder? are there any ghost stories?


 * Google is your friend! It's perfect for this kind of thing. Don't give up if you can't find anything straight away, try looking through the next pages or change your search keywords to make it more specific. Try the Wikipedia article too, if you haven't already. It dosen't give a massive amount of information though. There are also many sites documenting ghost stories too, try looking there. Hope this helps. Sorry I can't give you a straight answer, I am not aware of the place. Chevymontecarlo . 10:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

can someone explain "everybody draw Mohammed day"?
can someone explain this movement to me? Thanks. 84.153.190.165 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's a reaction to extremist Muslims who threaten to kill anyone who depicts Muhammad (there's a Muslim ban on drawing him). Obviously, they can't kill everyone, though. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To be a little more precise, there is a belief by some Muslims that Muslims should not depict Muhammad. Similarly, there are some Christians who believe that Christians should not adorn the church with pictures/statues of Jesus.  The extremists take this view to an absurd level and believe that everyone is actually Muslim (even if you don't know it yet) and therefore everyone falls under Muslim law.  So, anyone who depicts Muhammad is breaking Muslim law and must be killed.  The idea of an "everybody draw Muhammad day" is just to tell the young nutjobs who are behind this idiocy that we don't care what they say.  They need to find another means of working out their sexual frustrations. --  k a i n a w &trade; 22:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or looked at another way, some people think it's big and clever to deliberately set out to belittle the religious beliefs of others, and also that offending people is the best way to engage them in productive dialogue. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Consider the brouhaha some Christians made over an artistic show some years back that had a crucifix in urine or some such. Oh, wow, that was different! That was offensive! Total lack of perspective. Meanwhile, as a practical matter, if one is going to endorse "Draw Muhammad Day", maybe one should also wear a T-shirt with the Target logo on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Way to go, Bugs! Two sentences that have nothing to do with the original question, followed by an islamophobic joke! Staecker (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Direct your complaint to Duncan, since he broached the subject of the inherent hypocrisy of this "draw Muhammad" thing. It's quite alright to ridicule other people's religions, but when your own gets ridiculed, that's somehow different? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It can be hilareous to bellittle them. Just look at the Simpsons, south park or borat, all of which are hilareous.-_92.251.163.187 (talk)
 * Apparently I wasn't clear enough... The excuse that some idiots use to justify their juvenile violence is not a religious view. It is not a Muslim view that everyone is Muslim and everyone who violates some rarely-observed Muslim law should be killed.  This is merely an excuse for violence by people who want to be violent for any reason.  It is no different than someone claiming to be a follower of Aztec religion and then justifying violence by claiming others are violating Aztec law. --  k a i n a w &trade; 00:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See Banned Books Week for a similar idea, a bit more mainstream, and not specifically targeted at a single group. Staecker (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Matt Stone and Trey Parker are well-versed in this idea. Duncan, I totally understand what you're saying, but extremists are not people you can reason with. We've tried that with them in the past, and they still throw up a shitstorm. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to be patient with it. I'm talking decades here. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dan Savage created "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" as a reaction to the threats against -- and Comedy Central's censorship of -- the most recent South Park episode which included a depiction of Mohammed in its uncensored form. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day will be observed on May 20. See http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/22/everybody-draw-mohammed-day . —D. Monack talk 00:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy just a few years ago. --Kvasir (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Savage did not create it. He helped popularize it. The LA Times covered this. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Put in perspective, it's an effort by one group of idiots to piss off another group of idiots by being overtly obnoxious. Nobody knows what Mohammed looked like and nobody is interested in the historical/philosophical issue - it's all just an adolescent ploy to see who can make who whom feel worse.  They might as well get down to brass tacks and start taunting each other with 'neener neener neener'.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

all white canadian place
is there a place in Canada where the population is all white?


 * I'm sure there are many, mainly towns with tiny populations, do you want us to list them all ? StuRat (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This might sound nit-picky, but define place. Do you mean town, neighbourhood, province, region? My parents house is all white.  The Canadian census results can help. Statscan results for % visible minority 24.83.112.118 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

black and white people together
Is there a place in US where the population is only black and white?


 * Perhaps you could explain what you're getting at, rather than asking little questions bit-by-bit? You might get a more useful answer. FiggyBee (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. There are many small towns which have populations that are all the same - black, white, chinese, hispanic... whatever. What is the real question? -- k a i n a w &trade; 22:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or does the questioner mean, "Is there a place where every person is either black or white, as opposed to a member of some third category, like Asian or Native American? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sundown town might be helpful, unless you mean Black-and-white. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 08:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want a community with only whites, check out Monowi, Nebraska or several of the villages of Darke County, Ohio. If you want a community with both whites and blacks but no mixed-race and no individuals of any other race, check out Palestine, Ohio.  Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A weirdly specific question regarding the Byzantine empire...
I know Justin I was Justinians uncle, but was he his maternal uncle or paternal uncle? 83.250.239.198 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to our article on Justinian, "His mother was Vigilantia, the sister of Justin" - so maternal. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given Roman tendencies to adoption, divorce, and remarriage, he may well be his maternal uncle, paternal uncle, father, brother, and cousin twice removed ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, thanks! I don't know how I missed that! 83.250.239.198 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Were Roman families typically this way outside of the nobility? After all, both men came from a poor family of commoners.  Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Eastern" and "western" religions
Why is one variety of Abrahamic monotheism considered "western" whilst another is "eastern"? Aren't they both Asiatic imports? How can either be considered "western"? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All the three Abrahamic religions are Eastern mystery cults. Neither wants to admit it. More seriously, Christianity today has little to do its origins 2000 years ago, and much of the evolution of current mainstream variants did happen in the west. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is how it seems to me. Indeed, Christianity (particularly the Roman Catholic variety) seems ironically to be the least "western" of the bunch, given its flirtation with polytheism (in the form of the trinity and the intercession of saints) and its peculiar, almost Vedic attitude to sexual purity. In comparison with Catholicism, Islam is downright bourgeois. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Stephen was getting at above, but all three Abrahamic religions are considered "Western" - but this is usually only used in contrast to "Eastern" religions and semi-religions such as Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc. When compared to other religions, such as those of the Native Americans or sub-Saharan Africans, I think it's more usual to either specify the religion by name or to refer to it as "Abrahamic". See western religion, eastern religion, and East–West dichotomy for more. Other pursuits, such as philosophy, are also typically separated into west and east versions for ease of discourse. Matt Deres (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very common to hear Muslim culture contrasted with "the west", especially in the context of political Islam. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one have always found this rather confusing. Although I suppose not so long ago Eastern Europe was also contrasted with "the west", which is even more unusual to someone like me, born in the late 80s. --Laryaghat (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Better terms for "Western" and "Eastern" religions might be "Middle-Eastern" and "Oriental". StuRat (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Oriental"? Not so sure about that one, sounds rather archaic. I think ultimately the fact is that regardless of naming, the "east" vs "west" dichotomy is and will always be false. Abrahamic religions, Indian/Dharmic religions, Confucianism and Taoism are ultimately all Asian in origin. The real "western" religions, leaving aside a few modern Romantic attempts at revival, died out centuries ago. --Laryaghat (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and that's not even mentioning the category problems that grouping Indian and Chinese religions together creates. The only cross pollination between these two very different traditions was through Buddhism, and even then that was very limited, and was only one way (Indian to Chinese). --Laryaghat (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pondering the irony of Eastern Orthodox being a Western religion. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And here in Detroit, I'm both in the Mid-West and in the Eastern Time Zone. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? I'd say you're not in Kansas anymore! DOR (HK) (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Christianity always had an eastern wing and a western wing. The Roman Empire eventually split into an eastern half and a western half.  The Roman Empire became a Christian state.  Islam eventually became the predominant religion in much of the old "eastern" halves of Christianity and the Roman Empire (though not the further north-eastern).  It is entirely reasonable to maintain the original "eastern/western" distinction when broadly addressing Islam and Christianity.  No one considers it absolutely literal -- it's historical short-hand, like "Dark Ages" and "Middle Ages" and "Renaissance" and "Enlightenment" and so on.  Short-hand is useful to avoid quibbling when broadly addressing a subject; when the subject is analyzed more closely, such short-hand is often abandoned for more particular (and usually academic if not obscure) terms.63.17.40.87 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * the 'Eastern/Western' dichotomy is a code phrase for 'European/Asiatic' (or more precisely for for 'civilized/colonial'). 'Western' religions are those derived from the mainstay religions in Europe during the scientific and economic expansions of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries - they are infused with a lot of scientism, and generally take a pragmatic, Calvinistic approach (a strong division between the divine and temporal worlds).  'Eastern' religions are the major religions found in colonized regions that could not be easily displaced by 'Western' ideology - they tend to be more mystical, with little to no separation between spiritual and secular domains.  The Roman Catholic and Roman Orthodox faiths fall in between, mostly because they were already in existence in Europe for half a millennium before the colonial era started, and had to adapt themselves after the fact.  They have strong mystical roots (the divine is far more present in catholicism than in the various forms of protestantism, through miracles, saints, intercessions, and etc.), but have lost most of the beliefs in the direct apperception of the divine that you can find in middle eastern and asiatic faiths.  That has to do with the concentration of divine authority in the papacy, and the consequent political and economic machinations of the Church.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom General election, 2010
In the very unlikely even that the liberal democrats, tories and labour party all had exactly the same number of seats in the house of commons, how would any of the parties go about forming a government? or would another election be called --Thanks, Hadseys 23:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, two of them would likely try to form a coalition government. It's the prerogative of the queen to appoint a prime minister, but she will only do so for one who has a reasonable chance of getting a majority in the house of commons. See British Constitution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't take much for one of the three to gain enough support in the minor parties to establish a coalition to form a minority government. SNP and Plaid are the most likely, both of which would sell out very quickly.
 * More likely would be two of the major parties forming a coalition, although there are fairly significant longer term issues there as no major party is homogenous. LibDems could find a split between economic liberals and social liberals regardless of direction, similarly the Tories would probably implode, probably sacrificing Cameron on the way.  Analysis that I've read would suggest a three way split; ultra-right, economic liberals and eurosceptic.
 * ALR (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone's interested, that would require around a L:24/C:30/LD:37 share of the popular vote.- Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 08:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom general election, February 1974 was the last time there was a hung parliament (ie. one in which no party held a majority of seats in the House of Commons). That time, there was a new election within a year. Prior to that, the last general election with a hung parliament was the one in 1929. While coalitions are common in continental Europe, they are rare in Britain (at least in Westminster). As such, it's hard to give a definite answer as to what would happen if there was a hung parliament in the current election. Gabbe (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily the case that the parties would form a coalition. There could be a minority government by one or other of the parties, relying on gaining the support of sufficient other MPs from other parties to pass particular pieces of legislation.  They would only resign if they lost a vote of confidence.  The other point, in relation to the initial question, is that, if there were an equality of seats, Gordon Brown and Labour would stay in power as the incumbent unless or until a point was reached when it became clear that he could not command the support of a majority of the House of Commons to form a government - so, probably for a few days at least.  But, as others have said, it's all hypothetical at the moment.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - Much more information here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Something pretty outrageous would happen: The parties would have to talk to each other. For an exact three way split it would be most likely that two of the parties would try to negotiate a coalition (i.e. agree on a joint manifesto). A minority government is more likely if one party is just a few seats shy of an overall majority. Both cases have happened in the Scottish Parliament inthe last 10 years (arguably) without ill effects. The current minority government there is remarkably stable.213.160.108.26 (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In Canada, the convention is that in case of a tie involving the current governing party, that party gets the first chance to form a government. That does not necessarily mean they need to work out a coalition with one of the other parties. All that has to happen is for a majority of the new parliament not to agree to throw the governing party out right away. Currently, the Conservative Party forms the government of Canada even though it has less than half of the seats in the House of Commons. Shortly after the last election, it looked like the other three parties were going to agree to toss them out, but after the prime minister temporarily closed parliament to buy himself more time and the opposition Liberals changed leaders, the prime minister managed to get the Liberals to support his budget and thus remained in office. At any time parliament is in session, the opposition parties could force an election with a no-confidence vote, but to date they have not done so, apparently feeling they are not in the best position now for an election. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)