Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 25

= April 25 =

Are laws banning same sex marriage sexist rather than homophobic?
So, just an idle thought, but it occurs to me that laws against same sex marriage are essentially discriminatory on the grounds of gender. In a more general sense, of course, all homophobia has its root in sexism, but these laws are actually pretty explicit in their motivation being gender based discrimination. They say that, for example, it is illegal for a man to be the spouse of certain people purely on the grounds that they are male, rather than any other characteristic.

In the most literal reading, the laws actually do not discriminate on the grounds of orientation at all. If they did they would allow two heterosexual males or two heterosexual females to get married, and conversely ban gay people from entering into any marriages at all regardless of the gender of their spouse.

Is there some kind of flaw in this reasoning? Has this argument ever occurred to people lobbying against these laws, so they could use existing anti-sexism legislation to overturn them?

I know this is rather silly, but I'm curious as to why this argument isn't more commonly heard : ) --Laryaghat (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Because trying to make the argument that two heterosexual people of the same gender want to marry each other is enough to make any anyone laugh their ass off. If the same-sex marriage law worked that way, it be would ridiculous and confusing to say the least. Now they would have to be on the lookout for gay couples passing as straight, and that would be a riot in of itself. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument doesn't go anywhere more than arguing about discrimination based on sexual orientation. Genders are not equal. They never have been and, without a lot of help from science, never will. A man can sue for the right to conceive a child and give birth, but it doesn't mean it will happen. Is that an argument about biology or sexual discrimination against men? The main issue is that proponents of same-sex marriage assume that everyone against same-sex marriage is homophobic. That is a wildly false assumption. Trying to change it to an assumption that everyone against same-sex marriage is sexist is just as false. -- k a i n a w &trade; 00:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The main issue is that proponents of same-sex marriage assume that everyone against same-sex marriage is homophobic. That is a wildly false assumption. It is a question not of assumption but of definition. If, as I and many others do, one regards same-sex marriage as a matter of equal rights, then it is not at all unreasonable to label as "homophobic" a person who opposes same-sex marriage, since such a person opposes the extension of equal rights to people because they're gay. It might be unflattering and impolitic to describe these people as homophobic, but it isn't a "wildly false assumption". It isn't as though "homophobic" means "evil". People may be homophobic to varying extents, and for various reasons. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, that makes that assumption that the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage is based on sexual orientation. You are regarding it as a case of equal rights.  Someone else may regard it as a matter of insurance status or tax status.  You are imposing your view of the issue on everyone else and forcing their view to warp into your view.  Then, you stereotype all those who have a differing view into one group. --  k a i n a w &trade; 01:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that we're discussing two separate issues: the question of the validity of marriage, and the question of the equality of homosexual and heterosexual relationships. A person whose objection to same-sex marriage is part of a general objection to marriage is not necessarily homophobic. Many people, gay and straight, object to marriage in principle. But if a person objects to same-sex marriage while supporting heterosexual marriage, s/he must believe that there is some essential, hierarchical difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, and that the latter is worthier than the former. This, in my view, is homophobic. In what sense is this "stereotyping"? I am simply defining my terms and attempting to apply them consistently. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, how do you successfully out what you believe to be a closeted gay person seeking to marry a person of the opposite sex? Would every couple that wants to get married have to undergo some kind of periodical surveillance to prove that they're completely straight? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused? This was exactly my point, these laws are obviously not about orientation at all, otherwise those problems would naturally arise - but I am certainly not advocating that laws that do discriminate on the grounds of orientation replace the current sexist laws!

Just to reiterate after the above irrelevant attempts at trolling and confused comments, the thing I'm wondering about most is an answer to the second question: Has this argument ever occurred to people lobbying against these laws, so they could use existing anti-sexism legislation to overturn them?

And, if not: why not?!

thanks : ) --Laryaghat (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, you're breaking my brain here. No, these arguments have never been used in the US as far as I know, and I really can't imagine how. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make sense to view these laws through the lens of sexism. They are perfectly symmetric among the two genders.  Any person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex whether they are a man or a woman.  There is no double standard based on gender.
 * It also does make sense to view these laws through the lens of gay rights. Even though there's not explicit exclusion of people on the basis of their sexual orientation (e.g. "gay people can't get married") it's pretty obvious that the law forbids gays from marrying the people they would want to marry while allowing straight people to.  The intent and practical implications of laws matter, not just the way they're worded. Rckrone (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying that these laws don't actually target homosexuals is like arguing that post-civil war poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, residency/record-keeping requirements, and Grandfather clauses weren't designed to disenfranchise African Americans because nothing in their legal wording.
 * Similar discrimination occurs in adoption agencies where one has to be married to adopt (thus barring homosexuals). I recently heard of a Muslim woman who was denied in her attempt to adopt because she didn't allow the consumption of bacon in her house.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  08:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%, and I should have made clear I know the real intent of laws against same sex marriages is one of discrimination against gay people. I was just curious if the fact that (in the most pedantic sense) the laws are sexist (make distinctions based on gender) has been used by anyone to attempt to remove them from law. --Laryaghat (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Stefan Lindskog, then chairman of the Swedish Bar Association, wrote an op-ed in Dagens Nyheter on 18 June 2005. In it, he argued that it would be wrong to change Swedish marriage legislation from "one man, one woman" to "two adults". His reason was that it would still leave "marriage" as an institution between two people in an intimate relationship. In his view, marriage is simultaneously two things: A religious arrangement and a legal contract. While the former can obviously be narrowed to "one man, one woman", he saw no reason why the latter should be limited to two people in a sexual relationship. That is, he saw no reason why the law should ban four people from getting married, or two brothers, or just two people who didn't have any intention of having sex with each other. Instead, he argued for marriage legislation which was not only neutral with regards to the sexes of the people involved, but also the number of them and the kind of sexual relationship (if any) they had between them. He noted that calling this "marriage" (äktenskap) would seem to outlandish for many people, so he suggested the term samlevnad (roughly "co-habitation") for this new legal institution to replace legislation regarding marriage. A number of political groups (such as Feminist Initiative and Young Greens) in Sweden have since began arguing in favour of this. Gabbe (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I get what OP is saying; the anti-gay marriage laws are about gender rather than orientation because it's impossible to prove orientation. And even if two heterosexual women or men wanted to get married for some reason, they couldn't because the law discriminates against gender, regardless of orientation. As for the main point of OPs question; I'm almost certain this has occurred to the people lobbying against these laws, but as you can see from this thread people are likely to get confused easily (or deliberately if it suites their agenda). Personally marriage should have nothing to do with gender at all; it's just two people who want to be together. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Marriage is not needed just for "being together". You can already do that, in any combination. And "spiritual" same-sex marriage (or polygamy, for that matter) is nothing new for liberal-minded ministers. It's "legal" marriage (and more to the point, the attendant legal benefits) that are at issue. In the broadest sense, it's got to do with traditional thinking vs. non-traditional thinking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Laryaghat is absolutely correct to imagine that such an argument could be made, at least under the US Constitution. However, same-sex marriage advocates have tended to argue in terms of state constitutions and Federal Due Process, rather than attempt a Federal "Equal Protection" argument ... and they have been successful. Gender is considered an "intermediate" or "heightened" scrutiny issue in Equal Protection cases, while preference/orientation is a "rational basis" issue; conceivably, one could argue that allowing women to marry men but not allowing men to marry men, and allowing men to marry women but not allowing women to marry women, amounts to gender discrimination and therefore deserves heightened or "inermediate" scrutiny analysis. 63.17.40.87 (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Evolution
What percent of Christian people in the world believe in, or at least accept the possibility of, evolution? &mdash;C Teng(talk) 01:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any statistics for the whole world, but the article theistic evolution has statistics for various Christian denominations in the United States. In addition Catholic Church and evolution points out the Catholic church teaches that evolution is not in conflict with the religion - if we assume that all or most Catholics accept their church's teaching, then this indicates a great number of the world's Christians accepting the fact of evolution. --Laryaghat (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The same article points out other Christian denominations that are fine with evolution. Most mainline Protestant groups are.  I know several Christian scientists — scientists who are Christian, not followers of Mary Baker Eddy — whose daily work would be useless without an old earth and evolution.  They see the Bible stories as precious myth rather than truth.  PhGustaf (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In actually numbers, since there are 1.15 billion Catholics that as mentioned above in theory support evolution, and that Catholics are roughly half of all Christians, the percentage could be at least 50%, and possibly higher. Aaronite (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You could read Level of support for evolution, which is fairly thorough. In short, the answer depends on what you mean by "Christians" and what you mean by "believe in (or accept the possibility of) evolution". In Europe or Latin America, evolution is not so widely politicised as it is in the US. Gabbe (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the UK I imagine that about 99% of christians believe in evolution, and probably similar figures for other religions. 78.151.140.244 (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, is it probable that the USA is the only country where evolution is a political issue? Astronaut (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly not, because not everyone who has a problem with biological evolution is Christian. Many are Muslim, for example, and Islamic creationism suggests that the teaching of evolution in Muslim majority countries can have very political overtones. Buddy431 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Hindu views on evolution, which are also very interesting, and can be political like everything else. I like the idea that the scientific age of the earth is far too young! Adam Bishop (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the US, Turkey, and a few Eastern European countries evolution is a political issue to the degree that large percentages of the population expressly oppose it. (In Turkey is an Islamic thing, in East Europe I imagine it is an anti-Communist Catholic thing.) There is a study in Science that looks at this fairly closely, cited in the article linked above on the "Level of support." The study however does leave out some fairly large regions of the world (most of Asia; Africa; the Middle East). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, what Eastern European countries do you have in mind? And what Catholic countries are there in Eastern Europe anyway? — Kpalion(talk) 14:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kpalion: Before the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the then-Communist nations of Central Europe were often referred to as being in Eastern Europe, since the Iron Curtain made the East-West dichotomy more useful than the east-central-west-south-north mishmash that we've all gotten used to in the era of the Euro. So, the Catholic countries in "Eastern Europe" would refer to Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Croatia. --M @ r ē ino 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And in which ones of these are there large percentages of the population that oppose the teaching of evolution? — Kpalion(talk) 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the article I mentioned. Poland, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Croatia in particular have pretty high rates of Creationism+significant doubt of evolution. Again, I don't know what's the full explanation, but my suspicion is that it is a backlash to when materialist philosophy in general (which includes but is not exclusive to evolution) was associated with repressive Communist governments. But it is just a suspicion. (And I see in checking more closely that they are not all Catholic—many are Eastern Orthodox, which is a somewhat different thing. In fact Eastern Orthodoxy might be the more compelling argument given the other countries on the list, like Greece. Maybe it is not an anti-Communist thing. Anyway... this is an answerable question, to be sure!) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't find it the first time I looked there, because these countries are not mentioned in the text of the article, only in a graph. I'm quite surprised, shocked really, that there are so many creationists in Poland. I wasn't aware of it even though I've been living here all my life. Perhaps this is because it's not much of a political issue, so people just don't talk about it. It also makes it unlikely that it's a backlash against Communism; maybe it's just a matter of inadequate education.
 * I cross-checked the statistics and found a 2006 report by TNS OBOP (one of the leading survey research organizations in Poland, so a reliable source). Let me quote some of the data (hopefully, it may be useful to C Teng too). Note that the data is broken down by the level of religiosity and attendance, but not by denomination (the assumed denomination is Roman Catholic). They conducted a poll on this topic only once, so we can't tell if it's changing. Sample size: 1005; margin of error: ±3.1%. — Kpalion(talk) 11:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is St george the patron saint of Tamworth ?
Having read your article relating to st george i have found out that st george is the patron saint of Tamworth, i would like to know why he is the patron saint of tamworth and any related information ie when did st george become patron of tamworth etc.I hope you can help me.

Saint George is the patron saint of Aragon, Catalonia, England, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Lithuania, Palestine, Portugal, and Russia, as well as the cities of Amersfoort, Beirut, Fakiha, Bteghrine, Cáceres (Spain), Ferrara, Freiburg, Ljubljana, Pomorie, Preston, Salford, Qormi, Rio de Janeiro, Lod, Barcelona, Moscow, Tamworth and the Maltese island of Gozo, as well as a wide range of professions, organizations, and disease sufferers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.116.87 (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tamworth is part of the Catholic Diocese of Armidale. This link has contact details. They don't mention the patronage of St George, but they could likely find the information if you follow the contact details. Steewi (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about Tamworth, Tamworth, New Hampshire, Tamworth, New South Wales, Tamworth, Ontario or Tamworth, Virginia? Alansplodge (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see where in the St George WP it says that he's patron of Tamworth, but I'll take your word for it. The ancient parish church of Tamworth in Staffordshire, England, is dedicated to the Anglo-Saxon St Editha who was married off to a hairy one-eyed Viking there. The church was an important religious "college" before the Reformation - not quite the same as a college today. A Chantry was established in the church dedicated to St George, and it was supported by a "guild of St George"George. We don't seem to have a page about medieval religious guilds but I suppose they would have been similar to a modern Confraternity. The chantries were abolished at the Dissolution, but in 1882, a chapel was restored in St Editha's church dedicated to St George. The main inn in the town is called The George, but seems to be named after King George IV of the United Kingdom. A branch of the Royal Society of St George is active in the town and the local council strongly promotes St George's Day celebrations. St George seems to be held in high regard in Tamworth, but sorry, I can't find any reference to him being their Patron. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Forecasts of interest rates
Is there a webpage anywhere that provides up to date forecasts of interest rates in the UK? Yield curves imply future interest rates - I'm not saying that the forecast will be accurate. I could do the calculations myself, possibly including adjusting by various theories about yield curves, but I'd rather just look at a webpage.

If there is no such page, is there anywhere I could download, for free and reliably and without copyright issues, up to date data about UK yield curves so that I could provide such a webpage myself? Thanks 78.151.140.244 (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here ya go: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Yep, that's an interest rate forecast custom made for people who aren't concerned with accuracy. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey OpenData
Query here that may qualify as geography; please respond there! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  hemicycle  ─╢ 10:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Genealogy of Nawab Family of Baroda
(moved from Help desk) Does anyone knows anything about the Genealogy of Nawab family of Baroda. I want to know what happened to the family? They have left no mark or trail after India's independence? In 1500 A.D. descendents of Hazrat Imam Hussain, the grandson of the Holy Prophet, migrated from Arabia to Herat. The first descendent who arrived in India from Herat was Syed Abdullah. The fifth in descent from Syed Abdullah was founder of th Nawab family of Baroda, Quazi Syed Nuruddin Hussain Khan. He was employed in the court of Delhi, and was honoured with the title of Nawab Bahadur , and made KHAN ( The Chief), as well as Quazi by the Emperor of Delhi. Like his ancestors he too was a literary genioud, and his persian MSS are still preserved in the British Museum and elsewhere.

In 1780 A.D. Quazi Syed Nuruddin Hussain Khan was on his way proceedng for pilgrimage to Mecca the British employed him at Surat. In 1789 he was deputed along with an English officer as Native Agent in th Peshwa's court at Pona. His services were also appreciated by tAnand Rao Gaikwad, the Maharaja of Baroda who made his sons the NAWABS OF BARODA.

P 48 " Representative mn Of the Bombay Presidency" by John Houstou, Pub by C.B. Burrows; by Hist Pub Co 1897, Philadelphia Pa U.S.A.

I have read somewhere that during Anand Rao Gaekwads regime in Gujarat,the courts of Poona and Baroda were in eminent danger of breaking out into open wars, the Nawab Saheb Mir Nurudin Husen Khan Bahadur's tact and prudence averted the catastrophe. A faithful promise to " protect his family forever" was made by Britishers and Gaekwads. He was also gifted villages of Haldra and Perub in the viscinity of Surat, Gujarat.

There are so many questions unanswered about whatever happened to the family. I am so eager to know:

1. Where are all the properties gifted to them by erstwhile families of Gaekwads and Britishers?

2. Where are all the descendants of this family?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferozebakshi (talk • contribs) 11:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect this book might be helpful. Genealogy of Nawab family of Baroda, 1800-1943 A.D. inclusive was published in 1943. I can’t find anything definitive for the period before 1800 or after 1943. Bielle  (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

any way to develop rapidfire speech?
so for whatever reason I need to read something out loud much faster than my mouth physically moves. I feel it is absolutely a physical, muscular thing. I mean I speak fine, I'm talking about RAPIDFIRE speech, as far from normal (say 60 wpm) typing as 120 words per minute is (which I can do). Are there any exercises that could develop that? here is an idea of what I mean: 84.153.190.165 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No idea but adding "Tachylalia" and/or John Moschitta, Jr. to your searches might help. Moschitta held the Guinness world record for fast talking until the category was eliminated (according to our article).  Dismas |(talk) 12:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. Actually this is a good example in that all of it is VERY clear.  I would like to be able to sometimes blurt out something close to that fast (to keep up with a realtime source when I'm lagging behind).  If I don't get it out fast enough I would miss the next thing that the realtime source says, since I will be saying the last thing.  I want to emphasize that we're talking about about saying one sentence with that speed.  (Imagine the last sentence: I-want-to-emphasize-that-we're-talking-about-saying-one-sentence-with-that-speed.  I just tried to say that, but couldn't, as my mouth muscles don't move fast enough.  It feels like slurred speech when you're too drunk to enunciate: your muscles just don't obey your brain to speak faster).  Any ideas? 84.153.190.165 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could drop the vowels in your script and just read out the constanents; or record it, speed it up, and digitally lower the frequency so that you do not sound like Pinky and Perky. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, electronic time-compressed speech is frequently used in advertising, to get more info out in a short period (and maybe to not give you enough time to consider the offer logically). It's also sometimes used in songs.  I suspect that the opening theme to Jane and the Dragon uses this technique...just try to sing along sometime. StuRat (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See Category:Auctioneering. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help guys but this isn't for a recording. I would like to sputter something out fast in a live, real situation. It doesn't have to be very long, just enough to make up for lagging behind a speaker. I was hoping there would be specific muscle exercises, I vaguely recall policy debaters putting a pencil in their mouth while talking to practice speaking faster, unfortunately I don't know the specifics or any more. Oh well. 84.153.201.183 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In case you're wanting to become the guy who speaks the rapid-fire disclaimers at the end of some types of TV ads (no longer limited to political broadcasts) - forget it. Those are pointless exercises in human speech, and human activity for that matter, as they're totally lost on most people.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy debate in the U.S. practices this style of speech. It's probably the most useful link for what you're trying to do. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to know how to actually do that, the first and best method is to put a pen in your mouth (hold it between your teeth) and wrap your lips around it... then read as fast as you can. You'll spit a lot. It will strengthen the muscles around your lips. That's the primary practice method. Time yourself. The problem that you'll have is that very few people will be able to understand you, unless you have access to a quality debate squad at a nearby college. It's easy to get sloppy, you need someone to tell you when you are. I debated in college [if that wasn't already obvious]. That was the method everone used. It worked. The interesting thing was that the fastest among us actually quite comprehensible, even to those that weren't accustomed to it. The fastest policy debaters blow away auctioneers. It's truly something amazing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you know your government is in trouble when this is a requirement. Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing on tv that there was some bill in the US Congress supported by the majority party and opposed by the minority. So in order to slow down passage, the minority demanded a rule that is usually waived, requiring the whole bill (several hundred pages) to be read in Congress out loud.  They thought it would take several days, but the majority party brought in a speed-talking guys and calculated he could do it in one day.  The guy got started and after an hour or two they saw he was actually going through with it, so they gave up, stopped him, and had a vote. 06:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.170.24 (talk)
 * I guess the skill could be useful for simultaneous translators, sportscasters, etc. too. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent lack of credit card balance transfer offers, UK
As someone who is stoozing some of my mortgage debt, I have noticed the lack of offers coming through my letterbox to transfer balances at 0% interest this year. Is this just me, or have other people found the same thing?

Perhaps the credit card companies have begun exchanging data on the fact that I've never used any credit card for years, except for transferring balances. I have four or five unused credit cards at a nil balance, and I'd also appreciate if anyone has any tips about persuading these unused cards to make me an offer of a zero percent balance transfer rate when I ring them up. I do not want to get any new credit cards as it may affect my credit rating for a new mortgage I'm hoping to need. Thanks 89.243.216.99 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See credit crunch. Cheap credit isn't a readily available now as it was before the crunch. While you hear about it more in reference to mortgages and business loans, it applies to credit cards too. --Tango (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The files kept by credit reference agencies do include information about the level of use of any credit cards you have. Having unused credit will adversely affect your ability to obtain further credit. Why? Because there is no evidence of you using the creit available to you, and it is evidence of responsible use that is being looked for. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, having maxed out (or nearly maxed out) your available credit will also harm your credit rating. --Tango (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maxing out your credit card doesn't necessarily hit your credit rating. If you max it out then pay it off reasonably quickly you will be OK. People might do this for a holiday or car purchase. The negative patterns they look for are creeping up to a maximum, particularly on day to day purchases then staying around there. -- 213.38.213.226 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In particular late payments and defaults (not making a payment at all) will impair your ability to get more creedit. The basic credit report will have a list of types and amounts of credit, followed by a string of numbers. For example: "NatMidLloyds Credit Card £5,000. 0 0 0 1 0 0 X". This means that you have a credit card with NatMidLLoyds Bank, with a maximum credit of £5,000. In the first three months you made payments on time. You then paid late, paid on time for a coupple more months, then defaulted. (n.b. It's a while since I was doing these, I daresay formats have altered or been misrembered, but the essentials are there). DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Billy conrad
Did William 'Billy' Conrad rape his mother as in the Immortal Technique song? Google dont cut it when u ask it that question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Immortal Technique's best known song, "Bin Laden", supposedly includes the line "Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms". Is it possible "Billy Conrad" is a mondegreen for "if they shot at you"?  Or are you talking about a different song? FiggyBee (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I attempted to remove this as a potential blp violation, since there is no context as to who this person is or is not, but I was reverted. I always thought WP:BLP was policy, but apparently not.  Woogee (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * BLP is policy. The question is a question about a song lyric, not a statement about an identifiable living person (the only William Conrad we have an article about is not living; if my theory about the lyric is correct then the original poster's "Billy Conrad" doesn't exist at all).  Perhaps if you want to discuss this further we should take it to the talk page? FiggyBee (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Gold Olive Branch on the Moon sculptor
So I am creating a page about Art on the Moon (find it here, but be warned it is very rough), but after doing a bunch of research I still can not find out who actually sculpted the gold olive branch that Neil Armstrong left on the moon. Any help would be great.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never heard about this before. Where can I read more about it please? 89.243.201.152 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The items Armstrong left are described in this book, which calls the olive branch item a "gold olive branch pin". Sorry that doesn't help Found5dollar, though. We have a page, List of man-made objects on the Moon, but it specifically excludes the commemorative and personal objects. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Found5dollar, you might try the NASA History Division website. If you can't find the info, they have a phone number and email. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Didn't find those two before... i'll keep on investigating there...--Found5dollar (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So it was just an unofficial thing, and something very small as well? 78.151.102.119 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No It was official, and it is small becasue weight is a big concern in Spaceflight. If you are intrested about other artworks check out Apollo 11 goodwill messages and Fallen Astronaut... or you can just wait untill i finish my article!--Found5dollar (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Are authoritarians such because they have discontinuous minds?
This article by Richard Dawkins http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/dawkins01.htm describes discontinuous minds: people who see things as being one thing or another rather than being on a graduated scale.

1) Could this explain how authoritarians think? They think people are either the same or completely different, rather than being a diverse range.

My own speculation is that authoritarians are on average less intelligent, and they have to put things into categories rather than on scales because their minds/brains only have a limited bandwidth. 2) Any evidence for that view? Thanks 89.243.216.99 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dispute your assertion that "authoritarians are on average less intelligent". Stalin, Hitler, and Lenin, to name a few, were quite intelligent. 76.230.148.6 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They may have run authoritarian systems, without being authoritarians themselves, since they had no-one to obey. Stalin used to be a bank robber, and bank-robbing is not what authoritarians do. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably the reverse - that authoritarians are smart enough to realize that "the masses" only see things in black and white, and they get popular support by appealing to whichever half of the masses has the majority view and/or the most guns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The people you are describing do not seem to be authoritarians, as authoritarians follow orders and do not question or initiate things themselves. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. If you find someone to be acting in an untoward fashion, then it's only your mind that is 'discontinuous'; i.e. it can't handle the reality of other peoples' MO. Vranak (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate what you mean. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... let's take the prototypical dictator, Adolf Hitler. From the tone of your question it seems like he's a 'discontinuous' character, am I correct? Not quite thinking in terms of everybody's best interest? That's the sense I get anyway. Vranak (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I think you have misunderstood the question. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the premise in the question is wrong-headed, that's all. Vranak (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What I was thinking of was right-wingers like racists and bigots, Theory X people. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be seeing people as being authoritarians or "normal people", rather than a diverse range. :) FWIW, Richard Dawkins is certainly an authoritarian and a bigot, but that doesn't make him all bad, and it certainly doesn't make him unintelligent. FiggyBee (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a very glib thing to say. Its like saying that (choosing someone at random) President Obama is (chosing something at random) undountedly a fully paid-up member of the Doncaster Train Spotter's Association, and has a phobia about dormice. 89.243.216.99 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How so? Professor Dawkins is well known for thinking his own world view is the unequivocally correct one (which makes him a bigot), and should be imposed on everyone else (which makes him an authoritarian), although admittedly not to the same degree as many other so-called "militant atheists". FiggyBee (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Figgybee, please keep your ignorance to yourself. To think your worldview is the correct one is to have an opinion, not to be a bigot; or are you saying that everyone in history who had strong opinions was a bigot?  Billy Graham?  Margaret Thatcher?  Abraham Lincoln?  Jesus (who said no one comes to father but by him)?  And there is no example anywhere of Dawkins "thinking his own world view ... should be imposed on everyone else," unless you believe that everyone with an opinion about what should and should not be taught in schools is an "authoritatian."  Should schools teach that jumping off a building and flapping your arms will enable you to fly?  If you say "no," I guess you're an "authoritarian."  Dawkins is neither a bigot nor an authoritarian, by any definitions of those words:  Can someone else, with more energy, please address this?  What is WRONG with anti-athiests that they project their own intolerance on anyone who disagrees with them? 63.17.40.87 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an "anti-atheist"; I have no problems with people being atheists, Christians, Hindus, or for that matter with people being white supremacists, libertarians, communists or Islamicists. On the other hand, Richard Dawkins does have a problem with other people having beliefs different from his (he has suggested, for example, that religious education is child abuse, and that tolerance for religion begets terrorism), and - in so far as he is an influential person in our society - that bothers me.  But this is getting a little off-topic, don't you think? FiggyBee (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible to be an atheist and to think that Dawkins is insufferable. Pretty much anyone who makes a big deal about being an atheist turns out to be an insufferable jerk. It's as annoying as any religious militancy. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of relevance may be Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics. There are a number of people who have posited that authoritarians (and those who support them strongly) are accustomed to seeing the world in black and white. I am not sure it holds in all cases; it seems a little too simple to be true. In the 1940s and 1950s though there were a lot of studies into what made people susceptible to fascism, and I believe conceptual rigidity (which is fairly similar to what you are saying Dawkins is describing) is one of the "classic" traits. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a pity that the links to the essay from the article no longer work. 78.151.144.28 (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the "discontinuity" concept you're describing is usually called ambiguity intolerance. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

More about North Korea
Assuming North Korea presents itself as a "democratic people's republic", following the socialist ideology, but really is a totalitarian dictatorship with an ironclad political hierarchy, ruled by a small, stagnant elite, then how well does the country admit this internally to its own citizens? Suppose a common worker in North Korea seeks a post in local government, something that I've come to understand he/she doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell in ever achieving. Does he/she get told "Well, all that grandiosity about following the socialist ideology is just a show we put on for the foreigners. If you're not related to Kim Jong-Il, forget about ever coming here." or "Sorry, your qualifications seem all OK, but you're just not the person we're looking for"? J I P | Talk 17:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt if there's even a mechanism by which they could apply for the job. Such jobs are likely filled by appointment, without any formal application ever having been filed.  (One thug just asks another thug friend for the job.) StuRat (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In a more general sense, is it the case that North Korea being a totalitarian dictatorship instead of an idealistic socialist society is well known and openly admitted inside North Korea, but attempted to keep secret from foreigners? Or does the political elite try its best to harbour an illusion among its own people that they would ever stand a chance in becoming involved in local politics? J I P  | Talk 19:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They probably do claim to be a democracy within the country, too, but the residents know better than to actually press for such things. Basically, the government isn't fooling anyone any more, inside or outside the nation, but that doesn't mean they drop the pretense.  This does pose an interesting question:  Why bother keeping up the pretense when it has become so transparent ?  Force of habit, I guess. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * North Korea no longer claims to be "socialist" per se -- the national ideology is Juche, which was invited by the Kim family to justify their rule. IIRC, North Koreans need special permission to read anything by Marx. I know this doesn't directly answer your question, but it's probably not useful to think of N. Korea as the USSR in miniature. I don't know the Ref Desk rules/guidelines for outside links, but here is an article from "Foreign Policy" that is about North Korean state ideology: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/north_koreas_race_problem 24.106.180.134 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Juche wasn't solely the creation of the Kim family. Hwang Jang-yop had a bit to do with it, too. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nepal - what kind of republic?
It's now a republic, but of what kind? Presidential? Semi-presidential? Parliamentary? I ask because we need to update, which still shows Nepal as a monarchy. 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.184.114 (talk)
 * The interim constitution seems to establish a parliamentary republic with a nonexecutive president. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also but Nepal in orange in the map. However, the role of the president is a bit in limbo. The initial intent was a rather ceremonial position, but once the presidency was created, the president himself extended his office and began to act against the prime minister. --Soman (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)