Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 17

= August 17 =

White paper on indians
What was the 1969 White Paper on Indians and what was effect on the Ottawa-First Nations relationships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.30 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting your homework questions here - we will not answer them. Suggest you start at 1969 White Paper. Exxolon (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys didn't mention how was the effect of the paper on Ottawa-First Nations relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.229 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably, the teacher who assigned this question discussed the matter in his or her lecture. Check your lecture notes and/or your class textbook.  If this is meant to be something you research on your own, then the article linked above containes external links to other works which DO directly discuss the impact on said relationships.  -- Jayron  32  06:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd canal layout near Holland River
At coordinates 44.165,-79.522, just near the confluence of the East and West Holland Rivers, Google Maps clearly shows a group of canals forming 3 interlinked triangles with 5 + signs at their intersections. But it does not identify what this place is, and neither does my best print map covering the area, nor does anything I can find in Wikipedia, nor do the maps on the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority web site.

My first thought was that it was a marina, but in that case where are the boats? Alternatively, it could be something functional like a sewage treatment plant, but if so, why build it in such an elaborate shape? What is this place?

--Anonymous, 03:27 UTC, corrected 03:30, August 17, 2010.


 * 44.165°N, -79.522°W, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How odd. I've looked at the topo map for the area, and it shows the thing, but gives no indication of what's going on other than being in Holland Marsh. I would guess it has something to do with Holland Marsh drainage, a major operation there. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WAG, maybe some sort of retention pond to protect the marsh from runoff from the nearby roads? -- Jayron  32  06:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Could it be anything to do with ice harvesting? Some of it looks eroded, suggesting age. The ice would I presume have been transported by boat, hence the need for the interconnecting canals. Or perhaps they were duck decoys, or peat extraction, or gravel extraction or open-cast mining that have flooded, or fish-farming, or reed harvesting, or attempts to grow rice, or seaplane runways. 92.15.7.239 (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They are so neatly made as plus signs. It is absolutely astonishing. The cross pieces intersect at what looks like near perfect 90 degree angles. And all of the plus signs are of near identical size. This leads me to think some piece of earth moving heavy equipment made the marks. The arms of the X marks, or plus signs, clearly feed into the narrower canals. Perhaps the plus marks are areas in which a ship can turn, in order to continue down one of the adjoining canals. The angle between the canals might be too acute to allow turning without the widening out provided by the plus signs. I think the waterways were constructed to provide navigable passage for some type of boat or barge. Perhaps the area within the triangles was a source of some natural resource. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From the shape my guess would be a water reclamation project of some sort (where urban waste water is processed before being reintroduced into the environment - they often use multiple pools like that, for different kinds of bacterial processing, and the whole thing has a GOV feel to it), but it doesn't seem to be particularly close to a major city. -- Ludwigs 2  19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the internet the Bradford Mattress Factory began harvesting "marsh grasses" to stuff mattresses with, so perhaps the "+"s where where they grew them. 92.28.255.31 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Anglicanism, John Calvin, the Bishop of Rome and George Fox
1) Why isn't this called Tudorism, Henricianism, Edwardism (Low Church), Marianism (High Church), Elizabethanism (Broad Church)? Ought it not be called Wycliffism, Cranmerism or Cromwellianism? Or, is the authoring of the Church owing to Henry II and the Plantagenets, sort of like Frenchmen being kings of England, fighting other Frenchmen for the French throne, as in the relation of Anglicanism to Catholicism? Does Anglicanism have a foreign origin after all, on par with the Puritans and the Catholics?

2) Is it correct to say that Anglicanism stems more from the Classical Celtic Church (i.e. pre-Roman Joseph of Arimathea and post-Roman Arthurianism), from the Mediaeval Anglo-Saxon Church, or the Lollards and University of Oxford? What measure of influence comes from the forfeiture of King John's crown to the Pope and Statute of Praemunire in forming the Anglican Church, along with Richard II's Bohemian (i.e. Hussite?) marriage? Does it have to do with the Avignon Papacy and as a response to Gallicanism, rather than Luther or Calvin, with the latter two being proverbial straws on the camel's back? Is it correct that the Lancastrians were Reformers, from John of Gaunt himself down to Lady Jane Grey's family, whereas the Yorkists were resolute Catholics down to Richard Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury? What kinds of effects did this have on the Tudor family's approach to religion?

3) Is it true that Anglicanism was already pretty much set in stone by the time James VI of Scots took over the Church of England, or was this still subject to fluctuation according to the Puritan movement? How much did the King's Scottish heritage influence the Calvinistic aggression of the 17th century? Does the present Puritan movement consider itself Anglican, even though it is Congregational rather than Episcopalian, or has the Separatist fusion overwhelmed this? Does the English heritage of Congregationalism and Scottish nature of Prebyterianism preclude their merger? Is it true that Puritanism is as much a creature of Cambridge as the former is of Oxford?

4) What kind of developments were specifically Georgian or Albertine and monarchical in nature? Did the government turn the Calvinists loose onto the Catholics instead of try to merge Scotland's religion with England and Ireland? Why? Has the monarch ever had executive or consulting powers in The Kirk? Is it true that Prince Philip wants to disestablish the CoE? What would be the ramifications throughout the Communion and Commonwealth; America? Is it true that America owes more to Congregational or Episcopal Anglicanism? Is it a correct analogy to say that America went the way of the Quakers, Ireland the way of the Catholics, with the Commonwealth resoundingly Episcopalian (Via Media) and Presbyterian (The Kirk)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't answer most of your questions but I have this for you. "Anglicanism" comes from the Latinisation of the phrase "Church of England", the latin name for England being "Anglia". Henry the Eighth established it when he broke away from the Church of Rome and dissolved the monasteries, and appropriated their wealth for himself. It's not Prince Philip but Prince Charles who wants to disestablish the Church of England: he is on record as saying he wants to be the "Defender of Faith" rather than the "Defender of The Faith". --TammyMoet (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, very little of such medieval stuff had significant specific influence on the development and doctrines of Protestantism in England, other than John Wycliffe and Lollardy... In any case, there's no organizationally distinct "present Puritan movement" (in the sense in which you used the phrase).  Traditionally, those who consider themselves to be especially Protestant within the Church of England form the "Low Church" wing.  Methodism started out as a Low Church movement, but has since become a separate denomination.  AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Was Methodism the outgrowth of the Puritan movement in the Church of England? 68.111.15.164 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. AIUI, the Puritans grew within and then split from the CofE in the 17th Century, leading to today's Baptists. The Methodist movement started in the CofE in the 18th Century. Whereas the Puritans disliked the formality of the Book of Common Prayer, it was central to Methodism. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I read that the Puritans were harsh Calvinists, whereas the Wesleyans were into more "inspired" religion than the CoE was offering in the dry and boring Georgian period. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not directly, no. AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was told that the Methodists were unimpressed with the haughty and formulaic nature of the CoE and wanted more authentic religion of and by the people, which seems to me to be like the descriptions for the Baptists and Quakers. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The original "Methodist" movement was within the Church of England, but John Wesley was influenced by the Moravian Church and by Arminian theology (though the C of E wasn't Calvinist at that time). Methodism in the UK became a separate church mainly because the C of E didn't like the enthusiasm and open-air preaching.


 * OK, the Calvinist and Arminian differences seem to be the key, but I read that the CoE was Arminian and why the Calvinists (Puritans) disliked them, so does this mean that present-day Congregationalists and Methodists don't see eye to eye, or is it that they see eye to eye against the CoE, which doesn't like either of them? By the way, was the CoE ever Calvinist? Calvinists don't like bishops, so I would assume that the CoE was Calvinist under Parliament and Cromwell, but I would assume that Edward's CoE was Lutheran, because Lutherans are not necessarily anti-episcopal. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Church of England now seems to be mainly "Calvinist" (though I'm sure there are still some clergy and members who subscribe to Arminian theology). These minor differences don't cause serious division between denominations (in fact John Wesley worked closely with George Whitfield, even though they disagreed on this exact point).  The denominations in England usually work together, but prefer not to give up their own organisations and style of worship.  Theological disagreements are surprisingly rare, but there is such a large diversity within each denomination that there is usually a vast overlap in belief.    D b f i r s   08:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How can the CoE be Calvinist if it has bishops? 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Edwardian Protestantism" & Oliver Cromwell
What was so much more Protestant about Edward's or Jane's reigns? Please define how they are not typically Tudor; were they proto-Cromwellian (not Thomas, but Oliver)? By the way, was anybody consciously aware that Oliver Cromwell was descended from Jasper Tudor, in the 17th century? Was Cromwell representing the views of his namesake, the Earl of Essex, or Lady Jane? Was Cromwell the fulfillment or intention of Dudley's conspiracy? I noticed how the Dudleys were involved in Holland against Spain, so was the invitation to William III based upon the same clique in Parliament? 68.111.15.164 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's hard to see how Lady Jane Grey's reign of 9 days can be seen as being anything much. As for the invitation to William III, see the Glorious Revolution. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Lady Jane was a figurehead for Northumberland's kin. If it may be difficult to see how Elizabethan religion and politics to do with Holland related to the Williamites a century later, then is it a stretch to find a common cause between the Fall of Calais under Mary and due to Philip's demands, with Bess's Anglo-Dutch, anti-French amd anti-Spanish treaty? 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Gosh, so many barely related questions in one go! If you ask one at a time you stand more chance of getting them answered. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just assumed that it was best to get all of my questions out while I still remembered them, so all of the intelligent people here could feast their eyes on them. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Under Henry VIII, the Church of England was fully separate and schismatic -- rejecting all claims of papal overlordship -- but it wasn't unambiguously doctrinally Protestant. It was only under Edward VI that it became a fully Protestant church.  As for the rest, you seem to have an idiosyncratic way of jumping centuries and seeking out conspiracies and/or noble families which you assume played a fixed and unchanging role over long periods -- and all this really doesn't result in any great historical insight, as far as I can see. AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how the Edwardian church was infrastructurally Protestant. Or, was it simply more like the Episcopal Lutherans, just not like the Presbyterian or Congregational Calvinists? I ask these kinds of questions because all of the religious motivations of the various 17th century movements seem to have an inspiration in the 16th century Crown itself. So what's the logical result of Edwardianism? The Puritans? Likewise, what was the same with regard to Marianism? The Jacobites? Then there is the Restoration Settlement, which seems most Elizabethan in practicality. If one wanted to push matters in terms of sequence, you could compare James I or Charles I with Henry VIII. I assume there have been studies linking Tudor and Stuart religion and politics -- there has to have been some continuity, not a clean break. I pointed this out by noting both the Stuarts and Cromwells were of Owen Tudor's blood, just two different branches and apparently two very different points of view on the same things. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)



Baptists & Quakers
What kind of comparison and contrast can be made between these two? Is it true that they more in common with one another than with the other American colonial (established) religions, the Episcopalians and Congregationalists, that these other two have more in common with one another, when distinguished from Baptists and Quakers? I am wondering about a social origin, because I noticed that they shared Rhode Island 50/50 and Carolina as well, but I'm not so certain about their relations in the Mid-Atlantic, or why they no longer dominate their home regions but have taken to the American interior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They may have certain commonalities of history, in many of their early adherents having similar social origins, in being oppressed in England during the second half of the 17th century, certain organizational similarities, and in stressing what the Baptists call the "priesthood of all believers". However, the overall history and development of the two groups, and their current doctrines and status, are very different... AnonMoos (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about American political differences relating to the Civil War? If so, is that it? What else, if any? Pacificism? 68.111.15.164 (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Both denominations, ruled by their congregations rather than by bishops or presbyteries, suffered discrimination and often persecution in Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican countries alike in the 16th and 17th centuries. They share some common history in 17th-century England and New England. Roger Williams, after being expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony (which also persecuted Quakers), founded Rhode Island (1636) and the First Baptist Church in America (1638). He obtained a Royal Charter for the Colony in 1662 that established the principle of religious tolerance. In 1657, according to the (now no-longer published) Rhode Island Almanac, "Rhode Island refused to exclude Quakers on request of Plymouth Colony" (1997 ed., p. 17). Quakers, such as Moses Brown, and Quaker institutions (such as Moses Brown School, founded 1784) have been a small but prominent part of Rhode Island's history since the 18th century. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the main differences is that there are about 100,000 Friends and about 33 million Baptists in America. Seriously.  The hugeness of the Baptist movement means that it's hard for the religion (especially its Southern Convention, at 17 million strong) to ever be too far away from the mainstream of the Christian right.  As a result of being so central to American life, it ends up picking up things like patriotism that were not necessarily part of its roots, and that Baptists' critics consider unrelated or even antithetical to Christianity.  They also have to devote a lot of energy to fighting off violent, hateful people who claim to be part of their movement while violating its basic precepts, which is not a problem that most small denominations face.  The Friends are tinier, and so they have stayed more distinct, holding on to things like the Peace Testimony and Testimony of Simplicity that most Friends consider to be very difficult but necessary teachings, but that other American denominations are not as fervent about.  --M @ r ē ino 19:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When I first heard that it was normal for mainstream American churches to have American flags in them, I thought it was a parody of the extreme patriotism/nationalism that feature in stereotypes of Americans. When I realised it wasn't, I was fully hand-on-mouth horrified. I imagine it's very hard for Christians less keen on that sort of thinking to resist, if that sort of thing is commonplace. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't they have them? The US flag is welcome at pretty much any gathering of Americans. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP says why right there in the post - because it strikes him as a parody. I think this is one of those things that are just different in Europe and the US and we will probably never come eye to eye on them - to many Europeans seeing a nation (any nation) as obsessed with waving its flag just brings up a cringe based in experiences with excessive nationalism from a not so distant history, namely the Third Reich. I'm not trying to diss the US here, I'm just saying to many Europeans excessive flag-waving seems a bit, let's put it this way, tasteless. Excessive being anything beyond official state ceremonies and sporting events. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That for one. After all, one of images they used in our history textbooks to impress us with how all-encompassing and oppressive Nazi Germany was, was the swastikas around the altar and pulpit in a church. It is difficult to view anything similar outside that framework: the mind always sees the parallel. Plus, while is certainly seems very American to mingle Church and State in this manner (which is why it would be a believable parody), it seems intensely unChristian. To put a national symbol in a house of worship, in the body of a church, to place it by the altar, by the pulpit. The often-quoted "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." continues "and unto God that which is God's." The very concept of bringing a national flag into a place of worship seems both blasphemous and frightening, the last of which feelings is almost certainly due to the parallels I can't not see. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So the differences are political and not infrastructural? I would assume that it is just as possible for Quakers to be fighters or politicians, like Nathanael Greene or Richard Nixon, or Baptists can be pacifist or politicians, like Roger Williams or Jimmy Carter. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Baptists are so diverse, being congregationally based and organized into several independent conferences (e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Churches USA) that one can't generalize too much, any more than one can for Anglicans, Calvinists or Jews. The New England Baptists descending from Roger Williams can be as liberal as the Southern Baptist Convention is conservative. The latter became much more centralized in the last couple of decades as politically, socially and theologically conservative forces gained ascendancy, moving several important but more moderate congregations to leave; (however, a recent election has halted the process from going further.)
 * Quaker services are rather different, centered around silent prayer and waiting to speak until moved by the Spirit at Quaker Meeting. The pacifistic element is still fairly strong, although there are Quaker warriors. Many conscientious objectors during "good wars" and bad, are Quakers. The American Friends Service Committee originated, I think, to allow Quakers to serve without killing, e.g. by running military ambulances. Although Herbert Hoover was a Quaker, Richard Nixon had drifted away by the time he became Vice President and President. Although I was a day student at a Quaker school for four years, I didn't learn many of the theological details, on which I wish I could be more helpful. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the problem is regional? Otherwise, there should be no visible schism in say, Rhode Island or Pennsylvania where they would come into contact and have their own bodies? I'm not sure about Pennsylvania Baptists even being a presence, but I know the Rhode Island experiment had both, without any controversy between them except in the beginning about where the capital of the colony was to be, in Baptist Providence or Quaker Newport. So, the issue for me to discover, is what the theology and spiritual understanding is between them, in common and dissimilar, rather than political issues. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with the first few statments of the Tractatus
1 The world is all that is the case.

1.1 The world of the totality of facts, not of things.

and

1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.

If the world is the totality of facts, and the totality of facts is what is and is not the case, doesn't that contradict the first statement which says that the world is that which is the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.146.70 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no philosopher, but if I read 1, 1.1 and 1.12, I understand "The world is everything that not only can be, but in fact is", "the world is every true statement, not every physical object", "because what 'is' means in the first sentence is determined by facts, not by objects" respectively. I don't see a contradiction.  The guy is saying that 1+1=2 is a part of our world, as opposed to your dog, which is just some object. 92.230.69.124 (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if that guy was ever bitten by a fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From the source, summarizing itself, "what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence," so the intent is clearly to work toward what one can, or can't, say as fact. P ЄTЄRS  J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite. The intent is to define what can be said at all, in a negative fashion. The Rhymesmith (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)Very crudely, Wittgenstein is defining the world in 1 and 1.1 - as the totality of facts (which I shall crudely gloss as propositions which correspond to states of affairs). The totality of facts is a description of all states of affairs that obtain in the world (which together constitute the world). All states of affairs which are logically possible but do not obtain in the world (the negations of atomic facts) are excluded. The above commentator is inaccurate in that he's using the word "world" in the ordinary fashion, whereas Wittgenstein is defining a logical term which has only a vague (family) resemblance to the conventional usage. I can go into more detail (and much more accuracy) if you'd like. The Rhymesmith (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that Wittgenstein basically wrote off the entire Tractatus as a mistake a bit later in life...


 * but to the point, what W is trying to get at here is the distinction between facts and things. i.e. there is a thing of which it is the case that we call it a dog.  The thing may be what bites us, but the fact is 'a dog bit us'.  facts are mental ways of organizing the things that present themselves in the world, and for the most part we deal with facts, not things.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

First-past-the-post system in Canada
Somebody told me that Canada's "first-past-the-post" electoral system fail to accurately represent the political choices of Canadian voters. I asked him how and he said i don't know and but all I know that it failed. How does it fail to represent the choices of Canadian voters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.229 (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See First-past-the-post. --Viennese Waltz talk 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Suppose that there are three major candidates, A, B, and Z. A and B are similar to each other (and therefore, many people like both), and Z is from the other side of the political spectrum.  One of these two things will probably happen:
 * A and B will split the vote of like-minded people, giving Z a huge advantage.
 * People who like both A and B but hate Z will vote for whichever of them is more "electable", rather than which one they like the best.
 * Paul (Stansifer) 15:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not really a "failure" any more than any other electoral system, but since we have ridings and an unusual population distribution, the results do not always represent the popular vote. For example, in the last election, the Bloc Quebecois won twice as many ridings as the NDP, but with half as many votes. How? Well, the Bloc only runs in Quebec, so there are less people available to vote for them, but more chances to win ridings. The NDP run candidates all over the country, but they usually end up second or third in individual ridings. It can also happen that one party can win a majority of ridings without a majority of the popular vote (as in the 2000 election when the Liberals won 59% of ridings with only 41% of the votes. First-past-the-post has some other general criticisms. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The winner of the election in terms of forming the government is the party that has won the most ridings; that is to say, the party that has more candidates elected in total for all electoral districts. The government is formed by the party with the most seats, but it does not have to be a majority. This means that, should voters split as the example A, B, Z above, Z could be the least popular party and still win government. Aaronite (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, and parties that have a smattering of support throughout the country, but no big showing in an individual riding anywhere, end up with no representation. For example, in the 2008 election the Green Party won 4.5% of the vote, but received no seats (note that 4.5% of the total seats is about 14).
 * Typically, the first past the post system tends to support a couple of major, entrenched parties, in Canada's case this has historically been the Liberals and the PCs (now Conservatives). New Zealand had similar two party dominance until they changed their sytem to proportional representation in 1996.  This has resulted in no majorities since - meaning the government has to rule by coalition, or at least cooperation, with other parties.  I think there are good argument for both sides of whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.  In general, I think the generally held notion that minority governments don't get anything done is a major reason many people support the first past the post system.  TastyCakes (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Except the last 3 first-past-the-post elections in Canada have resulted in minority governments... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but not nearly as fragmented as they would have been by a proportional system. Also, that's a bit of a historical anomaly, whereas in New Zealand there are doubts that there will ever be another majority government.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Canada doesn't need proportional representation to fix its electoral problems. Most of the problems come from vote-splitting, and instant-runoff voting would fix that while keeping the one-MP-per-riding system.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadian's don't seem to want proportional representation anyways, we had a referendum on it one or two elections ago and the proposal was voted down by a rather large margin if my memory serves me correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there has been a federal referendum about that. We had one in Ontario a few years ago, and there was one in BC in 2005, and in both cases, as you say, the voters were heavily in favour of keeping the first-past-the-post system. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it was confusing, not because it wasn't needed... see Single transferable vote Aaronite (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem with proportional representation is that, especially in a federal nation like Canada, local candidates are supposed to represent the local people that send them. In the U.S., for example, there are generally residency requirements for representing a congressional district (though these are rather easy to get around).  In a proportional system, the candidates are more beholden to their national party than to local voters.  Whether this is true in practice in a first-past-the-post system, it at least in theory should result in better local representation.  -- Jayron  32  05:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It was mentioned up-thread that FPTP elections tend to favour two entrenched and "opposed" parties, effectively making a two-party system regardless of how many parties are technically involved. (As in the US, where you may choose Democrat, Republican, or throw your ballot in the garbage). Canada is somewhat unique in that respect in that the strange geography and political history allow regionally based parties (such as the Bloc Quebecois of Quebec and, for a few years, the Reform Party of Canada in the western provinces) a chance to win significant numbers of seats. This was dramatically illustrated in the 1993 Federal election where the previously ruling party not only lost the election, but also failed to gain enough seats to qualify as a party any more. The analogous situation in the US would be for Obama to not only lose the next election, but for the Democrats to effectively cease to exist at the federal level - almost completely impossible. Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The fallacy that any vote not for a Democrat or a Republican is a thrown away vote is complete bullshit; if you follow that logic to its conclusion, any single vote in ANY election decided by more than one vote is thrown away. If the Democrat wins by 1000 votes in one district, and I voted for the Republican, why is my vote less thrown away than if I voted for the Libertarian or the Green.  You can't vote because you expect your guy to win, otherwise no one would vote... -- Jayron  32  01:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I favour the Single Transferable Vote myself, but Canada and Ireland show that First Past the Post doesn't always lead to stable two-party systems (for several decades, Canada had a 3 1/2 party system of Liberals, PC's, CCF/NDP and a Quebec-oriented party like the Bloc or Social Credit) and proportional representation doesn't always lead to fragmentation (Ireland's been divided politically, although not ideologically, between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael with the Irish Labour Party and more recently the Progressive Democrats providing a smaller makeweight or counterbalance). The UK, also First Past the Post, had a 2 1/2 to 3 party (Conservative, Labour, Liberal) system between the wars and again since the 1970's; Scotland and Wales have four-party politics with the addition of Nationalists. This contrasts with the sharply two-party FPTP system in the U.S. and the fragmentation of proportional systems in postwar Italy and Israel. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the argument is often made about FTTP, that even for the second person the vote if effectively thrown away. Even for the first person/person who won, any more then they need to win can be said to be the same, something particularly significant if there is more then one position to fill Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Stray cow "problem" in India
The discussion above was closed, prematurely in my view, and on a false understanding of the facts (i.e., on the assumption that the answer is "that's what they believe"). I'm not sure of the appropriate protocol, but it seemed better to start a new section than to re-open the closed discussion. In actuality, cows in India are held sacred and allowed to roam free for excellent reasons, which are validated but not created by religious beliefs, as shown by anthropologist Marvin Harris. Essentially, cows are sacred because they are extraordinarily useful, and because allowing them to be eaten would result in their slaughter during hard times, to the long-term detriment of Indians. They are allowed to roam free because they get most of their nutrition by scavenging. Harris writes convincingly in chapter 1 of his book, Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture, and a summary of his argument is in an online article, "India's Sacred Cow." John M Baker (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing that I can assure you is that compassion for animals, which propels the things like prevention of cruelty to animals in west, is last thing on Hindu mind. In India you will often see villagers guarding a cow just hit so badly by a vehicle or train, trembling with pain and sure to die. They are standing at guard, with lathis etc. around her, lest some westernized type vet come and put her to death ! The idea is it should not be killed no matter in what condition it is in ! Mahatma Gandhi writes to have witnessed a stunt in a Hindu holy festival, a cow with five legs ! On inspection it proved a fraud - the people (maybe brahmins themselves ) had grafted a limb they had amputated from a living calf. It was all done for money - what devoted Hindu would refuse a gift of few rupees to such a special cow ? At a separate incident, Gandhi had to fight fiercely to relieve an ailed calf that was sure to die anyway (guess western education had put some sense in him which later evaporated)   Jon Ascton    (talk)  18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Male circumcision has its benefits as well; however one may write of those benefits does not change the (Judaic) religious aspect of said circumcision or make the act, as a covenant, subservient to (being derived from) practical aspects. Religion and "what we know" are best kept apart except to the degree that one comments on the other. One person's superstition is another person's faith is another person's practicality. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Until the 1990s, cattle wandered freely through the suburban streets bordering Epping Forest in NE London - there is an ancient right to free grazing. We miss them now they're gone. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) As for the aspect of needing to control human consumption, one only need to point to the desertification of Africa where it is denuded for simple charcoal. The day will come that humanity consumes everything. If just the roaches are left, it will take a while for humanity to re-evolve. If there are any cows left, it might speed the process. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in getting into a religious discussion here, so perhaps I should say just that there are excellent practical reasons for cows to roam free in India. The original post (in the prior discussion) was "What could be reason for such stupid superstition?"  My point is, the belief in protecting cows is not stupid and has very good reasons.  John M Baker (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that you will agree that "protecting" cows and letting them roam free in streets are very different things. --Belchman (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's stupid, frankly. Annoying, maybe.  Why do we let cats roam free?  Cats are destructive, murderous animals that leaves horrible messes and annoy dogs, yet they need not be licensed and dogs do.  That's a stupid thing.  Think of a cow as a big stupid cat. Aaronite (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They help keep the mouse population down. And dogs are much messier and far more dangerous to humans. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Belchman: "Protected" in this sense really means just "protected from slaughter."  Harris explains how, in many ways, cows in India are not treated very well.  John M Baker (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have learned anything from Dwarf Fortress, it's that the greatest threat to society is cats. Well, that and poorly-built elaborate deathtraps.  Paul (Stansifer) 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The superstitious medievals tried to kill all the cats in Europe, which indirectly led to the Bubonic Plague, which seems like sweet revenge by Mother Nature. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course that's not how it happened; I think people must be vaguely aware that at some point in history there was a cat massacre, and are unable to comprehend anything but "the past", so they can't differentiate between the eighteenth century (when there was an actual cat massacre in France), and any other point in the past. The black plague had nothing to do with any of that. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs, don't add nonsense to the Reference desks. --Belchman (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got an editor maligning cats for their alleged dangerousness, vs. dogs, and you're telling me not to add nonsense??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say dogs aren't dangerous, I said cats are destructive. Property damage vs human attacks, sure, but still, the point I make holds true. Why are roaming cows bad and roaming cats not? Aaronite (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dogs are way much more destructive than cats. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will concede, however, that free-ranging cows are probably more destructive than free-ranging cats. I would expect free-ranging dogs would be far more destructive than the cows, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way, this writer largely agrees with me. You got a problem, go talk to him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I would, if it was signed; I imagine the author is about 15 and that is a high school essay. Whatever it is, it's terrible; it has four errors in the first sentence alone. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cats were thought to be evil, so they were killed off. The rat population grew, and the bugs that spread the Black Death expanded also. Poetic justice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe in a poem. That never actually happened. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, bulls are dangerous. Cows, too, occasionally kill people, such as H. H. Munro's mother. He was born in Burma, but his mother was killed by a cow in Devon. None of this is conclusive. 81.131.30.187 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, geez... people have held over beliefs for no good reason everywhere
 * Christians say 'Bless You' when you sneeze because they originally thought that sneezing provided an entry for demons into the soul
 * Jewish and Muslim cultures forbid all sorts of foods and food combinations without really knowing why
 * Canadian and British court dignitaries still wear wigs, even though the original rationale (it was common amongst the upper classes as a defense against head lice) no loner applies
 * Americans dress up their kids on halloween like ghosts and devils, not knowing that it's a pagan 'harvest moon' rite that goes back before the time of Christ. Unfortunately they haven't kept up the orgiastic rites that used to follow.
 * Rule number one about calling anyone silly is you'd better be sure you're not just as silly in your own way. -- Ludwigs 2  07:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right Ludwigs ! Good point. But there is a difference - these Christians saying 'Bless You', Jews and Muslims forbidding certain foods, wig-wearing judges and kiddies dressed-up as ghosts ARE NOT ASHAMED TO DISCUSS THEIR BELIEFS ON WIKIPEDIA  Jon Ascton    (talk)  20:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not just cows we let roam in our roads. Bulls, buffalos, goats, ponies and dogs all roam free here. Stray animals on roads are far down the priority list for people (except for two wheeler riders who end up in hospitals). The local civic administrations have bigger problems to tackle than rounding up cattle and fining people for letting them roam. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you let roam buffaloes, goats, ponies and dogs etc. but you don't kill muslims and get killed in turn over buffaloes, goats, ponies and dogs etc. I hope you get the point. That was what I was trying to say.  Jon Ascton    (talk)  23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone running for state senate office a notable person to write about?
Is someone who is running for state senate office for the first time a notable person to write about? She has also published one book, appeared on The View and is married to a retired NHL hockey player.KatyRominski (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The relevant Wikipedia policy is Notability (people), and reading it, it sounds like the answer is no. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From my reading of that policy, it would seem to depend on how well covered the race is. In most cases, they are not notable enough until they win, but in an especially well media covered race, they might be notable as a mere candidate.  Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As an inclusionist who isn't particularly keen on the notability rule to begin with, this shows one of its weaknesses. This would be especially unfair if the incumbent state senator had a Wikipedia entry (with link to his or her official or campaign site). On the other hand, there are already too many Wikipedia entries that look like campaign propaganda because most of the people interested in creating them are either supporters or bitter foes of the article's subject. I happen to be organizing a neighborhood meeting next week to hear (non-incumbent) primary candidates for our City Council and state legislature, and know how little information most voters can find. Properly supervised Neutral POV articles on the candidates, without such conflicts of interest, would be very helpful to those voters. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ¶ Here's the guideline (WP:POLITICIAN): Politicians
 * Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges.[9]
 * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."
 * In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.
 * I said above why I think including state legislators but not unelected candidates for their jobs might be unfair. The View might be considered a neutral third-party source not connected to the campaign, but if the candidate fails notability, perhaps an article about the campaign or the district might pass muster. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was involved in trying to formulate policies in this area years ago, and we came up with the idea that an article about a race ("New York 27th District Senate election, 2010," etc.) should be created before the articles on the individual candidates, and that the candidates' articles should only be created when there's enough independent and verifiable information out there to make one. What's important in all such cases like this is how much such info is available. Even a high school basketball player can have a Wikipedia article if there's been a lot of media coverage of him, but an "important" person like a major-party state Senate nominee shouldn't have an article without those kind of sources available. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Embassy Incident
I was just reading about the incident at the Turkish embassy in Israel and was wondering why Israel has countries put their embassies in Tel Aviv instead of the capital like most countries. Googlemeister (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Most countries don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital. See Positions on Jerusalem. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...particularly Positions on Jerusalem. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As well as United Nations Security Council Resolution 478. Buddy431 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)