Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 28

= April 28 =

After 6000 years
There are some who will unwaveringly assert that the world was created from nothing nearly 6000 years ago, while others will assert unwaveringly that it was most certainly not. Anyway, that's not the main point. In 6000 years from now, what sort of historical events would be discussed, let's say, in a classroom of history students? Certainly we have but a pittance of events that have occurred over the past however many thousands of years that are of such seemingly eternal consequence that we teach them in the classroom today. But in the year 8000, what events would be important enough, considering that so many more things would have transpired? Will the Cold War, the Great Depression and people like Babe Ruth really matter in the scope of things? Or will it be that the average man will have heard of George Washington and George Bush but won't know the difference them any more than they do between, say, Socrates and Plato?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Its hard to say. You can't compare backwards to forwards because of the explosive growth in storage media.  6000 years ago, the only way that knowledge got preserved was via oral tradition, for the most part.  Today, almost everything is preserved in a permanent or semi-permanent state all over the world.  Information about me, an average nobody, is readily availible in public records, the few times I have appeared on TV or in a newspaper article, etc. etc.  We have actual information of literally nobody from anything older than about 4500 years ago, and anything older than about 3500 years ago is basically things like lists of kings inscribed inside of temple ruins and things like that.  There's probably more hard, preservable documentation of any random person alive today than there was of kings from the third millenium BC.  -- Jayron  32  04:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See http://multilingualbible.com/1_peter/1-25.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Egyptians and the Mayans had their hieroglyphs; the Sumerian had cuneiform; the Chinese had bone oracle. Yet millenia later many aspects of their culture and history still remain in mystery. Perhaps several millenia later our decendants will be left to ponder over the ruins of the Eiffel Tower or Burj Dubai wondering if they had been religious monuments, or devices to communicate with aliens. This of course is in the realm of science fiction and the Planet of the Apes series presented us such a scenario. George Washington or Julius Caesar will probably become the sort of (semi-) mythical figures like we think of Adam, Moses or Zeus. --Kvasir (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If in 6000 years, our descendants have a copy of Wikipedia, then we can be sure that the names of every professional wrestler and Pokemon of our era will be known to even the most innocent of babes.  caknuck °  needs to be running more often  05:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that information preservation is at an all-time high so it's unlikely that denizens of the 9th millenium would be confused about anything about our culture or history. More to the OP's question is what events would people of the year 6000 consider to be important.  I'd say some imporant firsts have occurred in our time, including the beginnings of space travel, of weapons of mass destruction, and concern of environmental impacts.  Of course, FTL travel, planet destroying weapons, and terraformation technology would probably mean that our "firsts" are hardly such.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  05:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, that's assuming no mass destruction had sent human civilisation back to the Stone Age leaving the survivors to reinvent the wheel, let alone how to access Wikipedia from corrupted servers buried under miles of radioactive dust. Consider this well-known quote:
 * "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein (1947)
 * --Kvasir (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the truth lies somewhere in the knowledge each of us has about our great great grandparents. Names, dates, where they lived, what they did - but not much more. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see A Canticle for Leibowitz. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very informative -- thank you all! (Caknuck gets prize for most entertaining response, though!)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 11:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See http://multilingualbible.com/isaiah/40-8.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if people have access to all the information of today, very little of it will make it to an ancient history 101 course. I think the key events from the last couple hundred years that will still be relevant to people in 6000 years are the end of colonialism, industrialization, globalization, the study of quantum physics, and the beginnings of user-generated content in mass media. I think the people who we remember will be those who personify those events, so maybe George Washington for colonialism, Henry Ford for industrialization, and Albert Einstein for quantum physics (or maybe the Large Hadron Collider and Hubble Space Telescope. As for globalization and user-generated content, I can't think of any one person for that, so maybe we will be remembered in general for that (go us?).  People may also remember Adolf Hitler as a personification of evil, just like we think of Socrates as a personification of wisdom and Julius Caesar as a personification of power, although the details of the 20th century wars will be forgotten by all except for academics.  I'm not sure what art people will still care about.  They may remember that music started to become cooler in the early to mid 20th century and that movies were first invented around then, but I don't know which specific examples they'll have heard of. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention civil rights, especially the enfranchisement of women. That will still be notable in 6000 years, though I don't think any women was famous enough during that fight to be specifically remembered by the general population.  --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm certain the assassination of John F. Kennedy will be relevant in the future, just as we know about the assassination of Julius Caesar today. I also think the 1960s will be analysed for the amount of change generated over a short period of time (civil rights, feminism, gay rights, sexual freedom, the generation gap, anti-war protests, use of drugs, the fashions in dress, hair and music).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's somewhat Euro and US-centric. How many of us can recall the details of the death of Genghis Khan, whose empire was more extensive than Caesar's? And Khan was some 1200 years closer to us in history. How much does an average person today know about the 1560s? And that's only less than 500 years ago, never mind what we'll know or care to know in the year 8000. I think our knowledge will be categorised in centuries if not millenia. --Kvasir (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, events of 16th century Europe are pretty well documented. We know a lot about the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the French Wars of Religion, Battle of Lepanto, defeat of the Spanish Armada, Cortes and the fall of the Aztec Empire, the first English settlement in the New World, the Sack of Rome, Henry VIII his, six wives and his break with Rome, etc., etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I read the initial question as being about what the general public will remember, not what we have records of. Everyone remembers Julius Cesar, but the only people who know about 1560s fashion are people who have studied it.  I highly doubt the general public will remember JFK.  Julius Cesar founded the Roman Empire, his actions have ripples even through today.  JFK's actions were much more limited in scope.  Speaking as a non-American, I don't think I learned anything about him during my school years other than the fact that he was assassinated and that he had something to do with a standoff in Cuba.  Had there been nuclear war, he might have been remembered for his failure, but as things turned out, I think today's youngest generation is already forgetting him outside of places in the US that are named after him.  As for civil rights, I forgot to mention them, and they stand a good chance of being remembered.  However, in 6000 years, I don't think that the 1960s will be singled out; we'll remember everything from the beginnings of the fight for women's suffrage in the 1890s through the legalization of gay marriage around the world as one cultural shift.  I think that the shift in things like fashion in the 1960s will only be known by people who study that sort of thing, not by the population as a whole.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The interest in history, and particularly the interest in accurate, empirical history, is somewhat culturally specific. Not every culture has valued this kind of history.  Many have preferred more mythological accounts or accounts that glorify the order of the day.  So I don't think we can assume that people 6,000 years from now will even be interested in or aware of the events and people of our time.  Certainly, a lot of information is stored these days, but how do we know that these records will be maintained into the distant future?  Assuming people in the future are interested, we might ask ourselves what we know about the people of 6,000 years ago.  Of course, writing did not really exist then, so our knowledge is limited.  But what the average educated person knows about that time is not much more than the broad brush strokes:  Agriculture was spreading in many parts of the world.  The first urban societies were forming in the Middle East.  People were beginning to ride horses on the Eurasian steppe.  Beyond this, archaeologists can identify specific named cultures from that time, but that is specialized knowledge.  So, 6,000 years from now, assuming anyone cares about our time, they may remember that a global civilization existed that was based on industrial production and the consumption of petroleum, that world population had reached an unprecedented (and perhaps unsustainable) level, that the threat of nuclear annihilation loomed, that people had traveled to the moon, and, perhaps, though this might be the concern of specialists, that East Asia had begun to challenge Europe and North America for global dominance.  Details below this level of generalization would be the concern of specialists, if they exist.  Marco polo (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In 6,000 years, man might already have invented the means to travel to different dimensions in time and space.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and human babies would be born with an entire repertoire of human knowledge pre-loaded into their brains and ready to go. --Kvasir (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This thread reminds me of that popular 1969 song In the Year 2525.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your one-sentence summary, Marco polo, that about sums it up. I was being a bit generous assuming that a typical person would remember any people from today. However, I would add to your comment that if people then have a democratic system of government they may remember the 20th Century as the beginning of universal suffrage and the welfare state, and if they have motion pictures as entertainment there might be a 20th Century film clip that everyone has seen and thinks of as an early example of the medium. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's hope it is not Southpark or something. Googlemeister (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More seriously, even if we have all this wonderful information, who is to say that anyone in 8k years can read it? English did not exist 8k years ago, and I would be a bit surprised if people would still be able to read it.  How many modern Italians can read Latin, or even Medieval Italian?  Googlemeister (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As I pointed out earlier about hieroglyphs; cuneiform; or bone oracle, deciphering these ancient languages is now reserved to the realm of academia. --Kvasir (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be easier for people in 6000 years studying our languages, though, since we live in such a global society that there are large numbers of things written in multiple languages to serve the role of the Rosetta Stone. It is very likely that at least some of them will survive. --Tango (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They will remember World War II even if they forget WWI. It's the only time in our history that someone who could actually be labelled as evil tried to take over the world and almost succeeded. I mean sure Ghengis Khan might kill most of the people in your village but once you were conquered you were part of the empire and you were absorbed into the mongols. With Hitler you were slowly killed over a number of years.--92.251.243.109 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think "someone who could actually be labelled as evil tried to take over the world and almost succeeded" would be considered an accurate assessment of WWII by most historians. Germany wanted to take over Großdeutschland, yes, but this was not Hitler's vision alone; it was a reclaiming of lands which had formerly been part of the Prussian and German Empires, and which had been lost - very unfairly, in the minds of many Germans - under the Treaty of Versailles.  WWI will certainly be remembered by future historians, because to historians both European wars are two phases of the same conflict.  The war in the East too has tentacles reaching back into the 19th century and beyond. FiggyBee (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is all speculation, obviously, but I doubt we'll be remembered at all. Maybe Chernobyl. 6000 is an extraordinary long time. Even if we store everything we know remember this: We don't understand Etruscan, and that's only 2500-ish years old, so it's a bit much to expect future to figure out data out. Aaronite (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Modern languages have published way, way, way more than the Etruscans did, and having many publications makes it more likely that they'll be able to figure out our language. In the year 8000, in some arctic desert, people will find a multilingual copy of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and will use it as a Rosetta Stone.  --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any 8000 year-old paper now? I know that there is plenty now, but will any books last that long?  With computers, the same applies.  Aaronite (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A single copy doesn't have to last 8000 years. All that is required is for someone to make a new copy every now and then.  Tax records and infomercials probably won't last 8000 years because somewhere along the line someone will decide that they're not worth copying, but the great works of literature (which may or may not include Harry Potter) will be backed up and copied for all eternity, apocalyptic events aside. FiggyBee (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that for the past century or so we've been able to record voices. That alone is/will be responsible for the lack of severe changes in language over the next few thousand years.  Not only are vocal patterns essentially set in stone (we need a new saying - stored in flash?) but it's a lot harder for a given population to be by itself, develop a language without interaction from others, and then conquer some people and spread their speech. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that recording technology (phonograms, radios, television, cinema, etc) and their dissemination has any impact on language and, from what I understand, some evidence that it has no impact. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  21:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

World Series winners...88.96.226.6 (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Expect the future history of 6,000 AP to be full of global warming stories. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Germans in colonial Louisiana
Why is it that historians, teachers and authors rarely mention the numerous Germans who settled on the German Coast in 18th-century Louisiana? The majority of people with French ancestry also have German ancestors, especially on the maternal line as many Frenchmen took German wives. In fact, Gen. PGT Beauregard is one notable example; he's descended from the Wurtz family. They always mention the French and Spanish, but omit the Germans. Does anyone know why this is the case?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It might have something to do with perceptions of all things German during both World Wars. See Getting to Gemütlichkeit: German History and Culture in Southeast Louisiana by Laura Westbrook, e.g. The articles on German Coast and Roberts Cove, Louisiana specifically mention Act 114, passed by the Louisiana state legislature during World War I, "which made all expressions of German culture and heritage, especially the printed or spoken use of the German language, illegal. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I was referring to the 18th and 19th centuries. Germans were compelled to Gallicise their names with surnames such as Boftz becoming Poffe, Gabel was Cable etc. It was as if the culture became totally lost and submerged by the dominant French. In fact, on old census records, German farmers were listed automatically as hog-raisers. By the way, the ancestress of Beauregard was Wiltz not Wurtz, sorry for my error. The Wiltz family was one of the prominent familes on the German Coast.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is not accurate as intermarriage between Germans and French took place decades before the arrival of the Cajuns (c.1755). General Beauregard was not a Cajun, neither was his first wife who also had German ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

how to read the koran
I'm embarking on reading the Koran over the next couple days/week (the copy I have is less than 500 pages including the index)and was wondering what order to read it in. Unlike other "scripture" I've read in the past from what I'm aware of, the Koran was put together mostly in order from longest to shortest stories - as opposed to the "chronological" order of the bible and the book of mormon. I'm not necessarily looking for the chronological order of the stories/books so much as a solid order to read them in. I've started reading at The Creator (around page 300 in my version) but if someone could offer a better method than random chance (which is how I ended up where I did) that would be super awesome. Thanks! flagitious 09:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagitious (talk • contribs)
 * Note that the "Letters of Paul" in the New Testament are not even not all by Paul, but are also organized by lengths, not chronologically. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only one that used to be ascribed to Paul and which is now accepted to not be ascribed to Paul is Letter to the Hebrews; most christians accept that its author is unknown. The other Pauline letters are pretty certainly written by him, because they usually start off something to the effect of "Hey, this is Paul here with my buddy Timothy.  We're writing to y'all to tell you...." or something like that.  He also often gives clues as to where he was when he was writing, and this info can be corroborated from external sources as to his travels.  The "letters" portion of the Bible isn't ordered strictly by length, but rather by subject matter.  The first batch of letters are Paul's letters to specific churches (the Church at Rome, the Church at Ephesus, the Church at Corinth, etc.) which except for Romans are usually written to instruct the church on how to deal with a specific problem they were having.  Then are Paul's personal letters to church leaders, the so-called Pastoral epistles, and finally there are the letters from other church leaders, such as James and Peter and John.  Hebrews doesn't really fit into any of that, even when the bible was organized, there was some question as to whether or not it was actually Paul that wrote it, which is why it was kinda tacked on in between the Pauline letters and the other letters; you could sort of group it either way.  This is all discussed in the New Testament article.  -- Jayron  32  20:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not mainstream opinion. We have Authorship of the Pauline epistles, which is not bad. Fitting all the claimed travels of the letters (and the acts) together makes for a very implausible travel schedule. And of course "Hey I'm Paul" is no evidence at all - if you want that, I can provide you with letters by Einstein, Gandhi, and Elvis on how to live a good life. Not all of letters is sorted by length, but the "Pauline" section is (if you go by the Greek originals, of course (blandfaced bluff) ). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is no one right method - you know what will work for you! But here is some interesting reading for someone just starting to look at the book:
 * *Wikiislam gives the chronological order, should you wish to follow that.
 * *This blog post discusses how you may get a different impression of the text when reading in chronological order versus traditional order. (Plus recommends a good translation for those new to the book, although I know you already have one.)
 * *The Guardian's Qur'an blog series offers context and pointers for first-time readers.
 * Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It would probably be revealing to read the Mecca chapters before the Medina chapters, even if you don't try to read it in strict chronological order (something which I'm not sure is exactly known anyway). AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Right to left? Or is that just Hebrew? Edison (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is very little value in reading the Quran cover-to-cover. About as little as, say, reading all the Hebrew prophets cover-to-cover. You will just walk away with a sense of repetitive incoherent weirdness. It is much better to focus on a small portion and then read up on the background literature (commentaries, theological discussions, philology) on that, so you won't have read all and understand nothing but instead you will have read a little and understood a little.

Of course the cover-to-cover approach can be used either as a foundation for later study, or else as a shock therapy to cure any interest in religious scripture.

These comments apply to reading the Bible just as much as to reading the Quran. Just reading the text, especially when reading a translation (whose?) or reading the original without sufficient familiarity with the language will either produce morons (bible-thumpers, fundamentalists) or anti-theists, but it will not contribute to an understanding of religion or theology. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer is from right-to-left.


 * The best authority on the authorship of the letter to the Hebrews does not agree with the previous contributant. We always knew it was unsigned, and we do know the reason.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Original source of "I prefer rogues to imbeciles, as rogues sometimes rest" (Dumas)
There's a favourite quote of mine: "I prefer rogues to imbeciles, as rogues sometimes rest." - Alexandre Dumas (fils). I'm trying to track down the original work it comes from.

There are many web pages of author quotes. I've seen the French rendered as:


 * "J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent." (seems to be the most common rendering)
 * "Je préfère le méchant à l'imbécile, parce que l'imbécile ne se repose jamais." ("because the imbecile never rests")
 * "Si je devais faire un choix, entre les méchants et les imbéciles, ce serait les méchants, parce qu'ils se reposent."

None of these indicate the source work, and some credit it to Dumas p&egrave;re rather than Dumas fils. Argh ...

(I also found a Yahoo! Answers page that suggests it was Dumas' response to Victor Hugo saying "The wicked envy and hate, it is their form of admiration.")

Any clues as to the source work? - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now been told that he didn't write it, it was something he said that was reported by others (and I was given the reference Léo Claretie: Histoire de la littérature française (900-1900): Le dix-neuvième siècle, so now all I need is a copy of that ...). So I can translate it fairly freely :-D - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) Here's one possible lead. I tried your key words (méchants l'imbécile dumas) in google books: (sorry something weird with spaces in URLS is preventing me linking to the search result directly) and the result text for the second hit, La revue des deux mondes‎ - Page 561 says: "Comme on parlait de la méchanceté humaine, Dumas dit : « Je préfère le méchant à l'imbécile, parce que l'imbécile ne se repose jamais". As it's Snippet view only, however, that's all I've got. If you can pinpoint any more details about the journal, someone at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request might be able to pull the issue and confirm... P.S. after EC - the resource request could probably also find the book you really need. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A somewhat similar thought has also been expressed by C.S. Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." God in the Dock (1948). Matt Deres (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

United church of christ
What does the unitedd church of christ belive about god? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parts918 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The church takes the position that God exists. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * lol :-)  --HighKing (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is United Church of Christ any help? Ka renjc 15:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, OP, that very general questions often get very general answers. It's hard to know what you're specifically looking for if you don't specifically ask.  Dismas |(talk) 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It believes that God is spelled with a capital G and that making him (a) cross is ungood. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I attended one of their services recently. The minister spoke on the subject of "sin". He was against it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice to meet you, Calvin. Or maybe not.  :)  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep cool. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Marsh land in Southern Iraq
What is the current status of the marsh land in Southern Iraq and the Marsh Arabs and why was the marsh land drained in the first place, i.e., did the Marsh Arabs represent some kind of threat? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article Marsh Arabs answers your questions. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not current, but the Garden of Eden would have been in Iraq. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe, maybe not. As was pointed out recently on a ref desk where someone was asking where the Garden of Eden was, the alleged worldwide flood (Noah's Ark, etc.) would likely have erased all traces of it, and there's no guarantee that the Tigris and Euphrates were the same before and after. Besides which, it's likely "Eden", metaphorically, was Africa. That's another story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Eden was probably in Iraq, and its not unlikely that the Deluge was just a massive flood of the Tigris-Euprhates watershed. Most of Genesis comes from Mesopotamia, and lots of Genesis characters appear in mythologies outside of the Bible, for example the Abraham story appears in lots of traditions in the Middle East, not all of them Judeo-Christian in nature.  The Kabba predates Islam, for example, and it was supposedly built by Abraham; that tradition goes back a long time.  The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh has many parallels to Genesis, for example.  The Gilgamesh flood myth also shares parallels to not just Genesis, but other Mesopotamian epics.  It is quite more likely that Mesopotamia is the setting for nearly all of the first part of Genesis, including the Garden of Eden stories; there would have been no connection to Africa and thus no reason to place Eden there.  -- Jayron  32  03:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted in that other discussion, there are actually 4 riverbeds flowing into the Gulf, but only two of them now have water, although that accounts for the 4 rivers mentioned in Genesis. "Eden", as Africa, would be nostalgia for the hunting and gathering days ("living off God's bounty"), which in distant memory may have seemed like "paradise" compared to the drudgery of agriculture. The stories are centered on Mesopotamia, but that's where the people were anyway, and since the stories were filtered through hundreds of years of oral tradition, there's no telling what the original stories were. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me with a sonnet?
by help i mean do one for me in the next ten minutes if possible. PLEASE, its a life or death situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special agent 500000 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw... missing your homework deadline isn't the end of the world. --Kvasir (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall I compare thee to a summer rose By any other name Wouldst thou be less beautiful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thomas Wyatt wrote lovely sonnets.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Writing a haiku
 * Is easier than a sonnet
 * Whatever the season. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoso list to hunt? I know where is an hind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think this one's resolved. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  secretariat  ─╢ 16:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why was the question archived? Wouldn't it have been better to just tell the OP that the ref desk doesn't answer homework questions, than lock the thread? For the benefit of the OP if they ever come back here, the standard response that should have been posted; "Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know." 82.43.89.71 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "He" was effectively told that, and the "thread" was "locked" – what's your problem? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Captain-Regent  ─╢ 19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My "problem" is with the unprofessional way the it was handled. I don't see where he was told that the Reference Desk doesn't answer homework questions. The only comment relating to homework was mocking the OP; "Aw... missing your homework deadline isn't the end of the world". And I also don't understand why it was archived in this way. Threads here on the reference desk are never archived like this. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. You suggest "locking" the thread: how would you suggest doing that? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Speaker  ─╢ 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I'm not suggesting the thread should be locked, I'm disagreeing with the fact that you locked it with the archive templates. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me; I misread your "than lock it" as "then lock it" – that bit was my fault. However, as for cutting off this really stupid thread (the RefDesk says "no homework" at the top, which the OP should have read) – it was the appropriate thing to do, and I will not be engaging in further discussion about it.
 * If you wish to take this issue further, the ball is in your court. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  most serene  ─╢ 20:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not your place to decide which threads are "stupid" and which aren't. You are not the sold arbitrator of quality on the Reference Desk. I've unarchived the thread since your reasoning isn't just, and I'm collapsing this discussion. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've unarchived the thread since your reasoning isn't just. Oh, are you the "sold [sic] arbitrator of quality on the Reference Desk" then? :) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  co-prince  ─╢ 20:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a twisted argument. And about collapsing this meta discussion; it's standard practice here to collapse long discussions that are unhelpful to the OPs question, so that it doesn't detract from the original question. Anyway, I posted about this situation here if you would like to comment there. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that was my sarcastic way of pointing out that it's a homework question. --Kvasir (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see that, but it doesn't explain to the OP that the Reference Desk generally doesn't answer homework questions. And I still don't understand why the question was boxed in an archive template. If you feel the question should be removed for some reason, then post why on the talk page, otherwise leave it be. Locking threads like this just opens the door for anyone to start closing threads they have some issue with. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh me neither about locking it. But I just can't resist the humour seeing how desperate he/she was. I'm sure sooner or later our fellow ref. desk users will offer genuine help, whether or not within the 10-minute deadline. --Kvasir (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fight! Fight! Fight! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Google could have saved the OP's life... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on the Sonnet which is a poem of fourteen lines that follows a strict rhyme scheme and specific structure. That is as far as we can help the OP. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the best way to handle it (the OP's question), would have been to attempt to write some sonnets. Some editors did take this approach. It was not established that it was the OP's homework assignment, though it probably was. I would have liked to see some feedback from the OP. But a little sonnet-writing exercise would not have been a bad thing, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this question to a friend who wrote this in less than 10 minutes, unfortunately long after the original post (I neglected to mention it was a bit old):

a sonnet we'll compose for you tonight it seems you need one for your homework's "A" we may not get the rhymes completely right it sounds, though, like you need the thing today. and so, in haste, we type these lines for you (our best we do, than that we can no more) we'll give you lines that are completely new and hope they fit what we intend them for of couplets we still lack another set (when counting couplets, two lines count as one) a couple rhyming lines remain as yet and then th'assignment will be good as done ten minutes we were given to assist; forgive us if there's anything we've missed.

He tried to save a life, at least! Pfly (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexander the Great
Macedonia has been trying to join the EU, but has been blocked mostly by Greece who feel that Macedonia should be part of Greece. With the current headache that Greece is giving the EU, would this increase the chances of Macedonia becoming part of the EU, or how has it affected MAcedonia, if at all. Also why is MAcedonia rarely mentioned as a potentail member when it is so completely part of Europe while Turkey, is often bandied about as soon to become part. Turkey is Asia, and Islamic, which are not in line with European culture, nothing against Asians and Islamicism, bust that it is Asian rather than European. Or am I completely wrong in my views of Turkey Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Geographically speaking Turkey is one of these countries straddles over Europe and Asia. The Bosphorus is the traditional boundary between Europe and Asia, on which Istanbul sits right on top. Historically speaking, Istanbul used to be known as Constantinople, the seat of the Christian Church before the Great Schism. --Kvasir (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the Byzantine Empire was an important component of European power and civilisation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Greece don't want the Republic of Macedonia to be part of Greece, they just want it to have a different name than Macedonia, because that is a Greek region. See the article Macedonia naming dispute for more about this issue. Regarding Turkey or Macedonia being closer to joining the EU: Remember that there isn't a queue. The negotiations with each candidate country go at different speeds and talks have been going on with Turkey since 1987, before the break up of Yugoslavia. Just because they have been talking for a longer time, it does not mean that they will join the EU before Macedonia, or ever. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The source of the problem is that the area of the ancient country of Macedon covered areas that are today in both the Greek state of Macedonia and the country of Macedonia. The ancient kingdom was undoubtedly Greek, and became the most powerful Greek empire ever under Alexander the Great.  However, the modern nation of Macedonia is a Slavic nation, with no cultural connection to the Greeks.  The Greeks, who were basically denied their own country for 500 years, and particularly touchy about their culture, and take umbridge at a non-Greek people taking the name of an ancient Greek kingdom as the name of their country.  The Greeks do not begrudge the Macedonians their own nation, or membership in international organizations, or anything like that.  They just want them to call themselves something different.  -- Jayron  32  20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the name Macadamia, they are delicious. --Kvasir (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Greeks have pretty much failed. At the UN it's still FYROM, but everywhere else it's the Republic of Macedonia, or simply, 'Macedonia' in popular usage.  Someone who's talking about their upcoming European holiday and says they'll be visiting Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania and Hungary would not be understood as visiting any part of Greece, but the Republic of Macedonia.  Not even a Greek interlocutor would interpret them as visiting Greece. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

GK question
I am looking for the structure

1. which is arguably the most famous religious facility on the planet (other than Vatican) 2. many view it as "sacred ground" 3. The early mission of this place was to provide shelter for Catholic missionaries and their converts

I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.90.88 (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you going to share the prize money with us when we give you the winning answer? Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say the Kaaba is the best fit for the first two, but it has nothing to do with Catholic missionaries. --Tango (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the "Geography question" section directly above?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can scroll up the page, or click . -- Wavelength (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on #3, I would say that its the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which, outside of the Vatican or Constatinople or Moscow or any of the other major patriarchates, is the single most important church in Christendom. It sits on what is supposedly Cavalry or Golgotha, that is the site of Jesus's crucifixion, and also purports to sit over the cave where Jesus was buried and rose from the dead.  It was the focus of pilgramages by Christians for hundreds of years; when Muslims began to harass christian pilgrims and deny them access to the Church, it provided the impetus for the Holy Crusades.  Since you only asked #1 the last time, you got a long list.  Putting #1, #2, and #3 together, its most likely the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  -- Jayron  32  20:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer was the Alamo. There you go. :) FiggyBee (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The ALAMO!!! Fuck that! Arguably the most famous religious structure on the planet?  I doubt many people outside of the U.S. have even heard of it, or even know much why it was famous.  Whoever wrote that quiz has his head up his ass.  Sorry, that is seriously the worst trivia question ever asked.  I mean, its a famous structure, but seriously!  It claims 5 million visitors a year.  That's a lot, but it can't compare to other religious sites, even christian ones.  That's just terrible.  -- Jayron  32  01:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Easy pal - clearly the quiz author was from Texas XD 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then not the same people who put together a trivia night I went to about 3 years ago. The quizmaster, a school teacher, asked a question about which body part Alfred Hitchcock was missing.  Not a single person in the room of about 80 people knew the answer.  We were then let into the secret: one of his ears.  Somewhat incredulously, I and some other people politely queried him where that information came from.  His answer, delivered with a totally straight face as if the source made it unimpeachable and beyond all questioning, was "The Internet".  I later googled it and found zero hits for Alfred Hitchcock missing an ear, and I also checked on his talk page here, to no avail.  I'm still wondering where this nurturer of school children's minds got this "information" from, and what other choice gems of "knowledge" he's "teaching" his young charges.  (Jack of Oz =) --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the key word in this question was "arguably". In fact, everything can be arguably anything. — Kpalion(talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then there's an infinite number of correct answers. That's not a very useful approach to this, or any, question, Kpalion.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The quiz question began "aside from the Vatican". That's kinda like saying, "aside from the Yankees, who has won the most World Series?" The quiz that was linked had some propaganda about the defenders of the Alamo "fighting for freedom", apparently unaware that the martyrs of the Alamo were essentially defending slavery. The Hitchcock thing is inexcusable, as there are plenty of photos of him to verify, although it's kind of a good metaphor for why verification is required in wikipedia. That guy probably also thinks there is still no Betty Rubble in Flintstone Vitamins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ear, ear! May be the master confused Hitch Cock with Van Cock? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

February 1974 Queen's Speech
Harold Wilson led a short-lived minority government following the United Kingdom general election, February 1974. As I understand it, a minority government needs to, at a minimum, get majority support for its Queen's Speech if it is going to even get started. Who did he get to vote in support of it and how? I can't find that information anywhere... --Tango (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Tories abstained" says which I think would explain it...? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well found. Yes, I think that explains it. I guess they felt a short Labour government was better than another election straight away. Thanks. --Tango (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anthony Wells, an experienced pollster, says "In 1974 the opinion of the Palace was that they would have been very hard pressed to refuse Wilson [a dissolution of Parliament] had he requested one." I take that to mean Wilson didn't request one; I imagine he believed the people would vote against him for the furore of two rapid elections. [Depending on what "they" you meant.] - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "They" meant the Tories. The Tories could have forced an election by voting down the Queen's Speech, but didn't. That must be because they didn't like the idea of another election. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In effect Wilson's Government dared the Conservatives to vote against him on the Queen's Speech. Knowing that he would blame them for the constitutional deadlock (or immediate general election), and that he had succeeded in ending the 'three day week', the Conservatives decided that discretion was the better part of valour and did not vote on the motion. However this decision was arrived at very late, and the Conservatives had been prepared to vote and potentially bring the Government down: Tony Benn, who was then a senior Minister, wrote in his diary (19 March 1974) that it was Michael Foot's speech in the debate on 18 March which was decisive.
 * The Hansard for the debate is here. Note that the Opposition amendment is not directly a no confidence motion, but that it is so directly critical of Government economic policy that it would be difficult for the Government to accept defeat. The actual vote at the end was passed by 294 to 7: the 296 members to support (including tellers) were 294 Labour, and 2 Independent Labour (Eddie Milne and Dick Taverne; the 9 to oppose (including tellers) were 7 Scottish National Party and 2 Plaid Cymru. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In a million years time
If humans last a million more years (I see no reason why we shouldn't but you never know, a million years is a ridiculously long time), will there still be different "races" or will everyone be similar?--92.251.243.109 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider how far we came over the last million years (if you believe in the theory of human evolution), I don't see why our planet won't be dominated by a species different than us, or that human has evolved to the point we would consider a different species today. --Kvasir (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which bit of, "The reference desk does not answer requests for predictions about future events," did you find confusing? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  assemblyman  ─╢ 18:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, as you can plainly see. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) In a million years, we might not even be classified as "human" anymore; our last common ancestor with chimpanzees lived only three millions years ago. So if we aren't even talking about the same species, I think talking about race is a moot point. As for whether our species is homogeneous, I guess that depends on whether we keep increasing the amount of global immigration or become isolated again. And TreasuryTag, you're no fun :P. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But he has a very valid point. If we engage in this sort of speculation, how could we refuse to speculate on who's going to win the UK general election, or the Australian general election, or who's going to win the 2019 SuperBowl, or where the Olympics in 2064 will be held, or when JImmy Carter is going to die?  There are no references for these sorts of questions, and we are a reference desk.  We have to apply our rules consistently.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because those things can only be guessed. The question I am asking can be answered through logical argument, unlike election results etc. For example we can be almost certain that humans will leave this solar system if they last long enough, because they'll have to. That's an eternity away. Yet Icouldn't tell you how I'd do in an exam or w/e.--92.251.243.109 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But it can't be answered through logical argument. Your question started out "If humans last a million more years (I see no reason why we shouldn't but you never know ...".  So, you're accepting the possibility that, for some reason, the human race may have ceased to exist within 1 million years.  In that case, there will be no humans.  Nobody can possibly predict that (a) there will be no World War III, or there will be no pandemic that wipes us all out, or there will be no alien invasion, or the Earth won't implode, and (b) some will have left the Solar System (god knows where that idea came from) but those who remain will have merged into a single "race".  Since science already tells us there is only one human race, the whole question comes down to whether there'll ever come a time when we'll all "look the same", i.e. no separation between "caucasian-looking" people and "Asian-looking" people and "negroid-looking" people and whatever else; and whether that time will be before or after a million years from now.  I don't think there's any possible way of knowing that. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with providing sources or pointers as to what are some of the speculations. Like you say, we should give references, even if they are ABOUT speculations. Many credible sources/author/scientists give speculations frequently. Back to the OP, The 10,000 Year Explosion is a book that theorises human evolution has actually accelerated in "recent" years. --Kvasir (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I have to say again, which bit of, "The reference desk does not answer requests for predictions about future events," is ambiguous? If you disagree with that rule, then propose that it is repealed, but it is very clear as it stands. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Woolsack  ─╢ 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are you then in this discussion? Or do you have a personal vendetta against me? ;) Note to OP, that's a related question similar to yours. --Kvasir (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just have so little claim to being a scientist that I can't bear to keep the Science RefDesk watchlisted ;) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  cabinet  ─╢ 21:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which part of Ignore all rules do you not understand? The spirit of the rule that for forbids predictions is to prevent soap-boxing. If legitimate sources can be given for speculative questions, WP:IAG should be applied because the questions don't violate the spirit of the reference desk rules. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to cite the same source I did in the 250 million year question: . It predicts that skin colour will be essentially uniform in 1000 years time. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't believe what you read in the Daily Mail. It's reputation for sensationalism, hyperbole and sometimes outright lies, don't make it a good source for this kind of speculation.  Astronaut (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While such a question as posed by the OP can't be truly answered, it is possible to scrape together some information that should be relevant to beginning to think about the question. For instance the point (made by one editor) that our common ancestor with chimpanzees was found about 3 million years ago, is an interesting way of putting perspective on the question. Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail were just reporting the work of an academic. It was all over the mass media at the time, the Daily Mail just happened to be the first hit Google found. --Tango (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe there would. Different races are a product of different landscapes, and the Sahara desert, for example, isn't going anywhere in a million years. Vranak (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not 100% clear that racial difference is entirely due to physical environmental constraints. And the increased human mobility in even the last 500 years would point towards the old model being inapplicable to some degree. (People in North America are not going to start looking like the Native Americans did.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken. But the sun will still be shining brightly in Rio while Churchhill, Manitoba residents won't have quite so much use for melanin. Vranak (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "the Sahara desert, for example, isn't going anywhere in a million years" isn't at all true. The Sahara oscillates with global climate, and has been very different, and entirely un-desert-like, relatively recently. This article describes the Sahara area 10,000 years ago, at the earlier part of the Holocene interglacial. Savannah in the north, and in the wetter south "lush vegetation, hearty trees, and permanent freshwater lakes persisted over millennia" with "well established human settlements, including ... domesticated livestock". From a human geography perspective, that's entirely unlike the current desert, and poses no barrier to population movement or mingling. The same is true for many geographical barriers - consider the English Channel before, during, and after the Pleistocene glaciation (maps). Shallow hydrological features like the Sahara are created and destroyed over a much shorter period of time than a million years. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that is true, but the point I am getting at is that the Earth will always have a great assortment of different climates and landscapes, and as a result, yes, there will be 'racial differences' that parallel said landscapes. Vranak (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that such landscapes, as we move forward into the future, are becoming less and less of a barrier to movement. -- Jayron  32  03:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. But do you think that total homogenization is likely? Seems too bad to be true, to me. Vranak (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Scientists sometimes speculate on this kind of thing, but it's pretty much impossible to know. The answer will depend entirely on conditions that we can't predict. Do the people of the future lose their ability to quickly travel all over the globe? Does travel increase to such a degree that reproduction between existing "races" becomes exceptionally common? Does consumer genetic technology allow the rich the tailor-make their own gene pool and institute class divisions on a biological level? All of these things would give you probably different scenarios. The problem can't be answered scientifically to any degree, because a million years is a long time for a species. We just can't extrapolate that far. We can maybe come up with a few different models for the next 100 years given certain assumptions. But a million years? The possible models will have such large margins of error that they are basically worthless. We can't even predict what will happen with nuclear waste repositories in a million years with much accuracy, and those can be basically assumed to "just sit there". We have a hard time modeling human gene flow right now, and trying to model it into the far future is just speculation, not science. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll find a way to change skin and hair colour and even shape as easily as we get tattoos now and people will start to look extremely different,in some cases not even human.88.96.226.6 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's possible that the human genome will be altered by that time. See Toba bottleneck theory, for example. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Identity of Roman statues
How can people be so sure that Roman busts are named correctly? For example those of Cicero or Cleopatra? At some point they were presumably dug out of the earth. Who is to say who they are? They could be anybody. 78.149.181.41 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised. Many of the urban centers in Italy have been populated continuously since the Roman Empire. Rome, Ravenna, Milan, and Naples have all been major urban centers for 2000 years.  Statues of Cicero or Julius Caesar would have always had thousands of people who could tell you "That's Cicero" as locals passed such knowledge down through the generations.  Many of these have not been dug out of the earth, but have instead simply been in place and known for thousands of years.  In cases where an unknown statue is dug out of the earth, we can often identify by comparison to existing statues.  And then there's the fact that, like modern artists, some of the ancient sculptors put big labels on their busts or statues that said things like CICERO or IULIUS CAESAR which would make it rather easy to identify them.  For the emperors, at least, we also have coinage that bears their likeness, which can sometimes be used for identification purposes. -- Jayron  32  19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are also aesthetic conventions. For instance, Augustus was very often shown with eight strands of hair on the fronthead, four right and four left. So when a statue with that kind of hairdo is found, it's probably one of Augustus. To the Roman sculptor, these distinctive features were probably what Hitler's mustache was to WW2 caricaturists. --Alþykkr (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eight? Is this a reference to his other name: Octavian? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For examples where identification has been less than secure, see Pseudo-Seneca and Arles portrait bust.--Wetman (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A famous misidentification, by the way, involves the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, which during the Middle Ages was believed to portray Constantine - even though Rome had been populated continuously since the Roman Empire... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A statue of Constantine (the great Christian emperor) was safe from mediaeval Christian fanatics who from time to time wanted to melt down and/or destroy most pagan symbols. I wouldn't be surprised that those educated few who knew better were simply telling a white lie: "Yes, this is the statue of Constatine, the Christian." to the mad mobs. However this is only my personal theory. Flamarande (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Some other ways of identifying an imperial statue could be: some statues have an inscription, some statues may be recognisable from the image on a coin, some statues are part of a datable structure, and some statues are mentioned in contempory writing. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to be confused with Imperial statutes, which are laws passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom (as opposed to the parliament of a colony or former colony of the UK). (Which reminds me: I was recently asked to sign a "Statuary [sic] Declaration", but when I drew the spelling error to the attention of the person concerned, they couldn't see that there was any need to change it or make any issue of it.  They could hardly even understand that there was a difference between 'statutory' and 'statuary', or if there was, it was too trivial to worry about - I guess I was talking to the wrong person.) --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't always know. It takes a lot of historical work to establish what something from the past is, and how well we know that. Careers are sometimes made and unmade on the basis of identifications of this sort. It's hard work and requires looking at a huge amount of material. To an outsider it looks arbitrary, but that's because nobody generally wants to have a dissertation pinned to every statue. The designations are not always correct, but they are never arbitrary. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)