Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 23

= March 23 =

mining industry in Canada
what are the present situation: facts and figures, the economic strengths or successes, problems faced, main issues and controversies, policies adopted and implemented by the government and the extent of success and failures of these policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.19 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your assigned subject of research can not be reduced to a question that the Reference Desk can answer.--Wetman (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Natural Resources Canada and its website are probably a good place to start. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You could also search the archives of the Hill Times . They specialize in reporting on issues and controversies in key Canadian economic sectors. --Xuxl (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Housewife
How many percent of teenage girls in Western countries want to be housewives rather than pursuing their own career? Am I correct in my observation that this number is much lower than the percentage of women who are currently stay-at-home moms? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is going to depend on whether you mean being a housewife for life, or just while their children are growing up. The latter will give a much larger number. --Tango (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Either for life or while their children are growing up. It takes 12 years to raise a child to adolescence, which is too long for a woman who's serious about having a career.  --206.130.23.67 (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I take exception to that one, as you'd expect: so far in my life I've had three careers: a secretary, a lecturer and a therapist. Plenty of time for me to have had children as well in a working life of 30 years and counting! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the dispute is over the definition of "career". Is it really a career if you only spend a few years doing it? I would tend to agree that taking 12 or so years off work to have children (and assuming you work part-time while they are at school during the period) doesn't preclude having a career, though. (I'm not sure why the OP has chosen the beginning of adolescence as the cutoff point, though. Puberty doesn't seem relevant to me.) --Tango (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well under some definitions someone who has passed puberty is no longer a child. Not that common under most modern definitions which usually refers to an age of majority which is usually way past puberty. But if you use such a definition then past puberty the person is no longer a child so I guess you're no longer a child. However I agree it's an odd suggestion, many mothers may start to work again once their children are at school or something of that sort. Some of course may wait until they consider their children can look after themselves while they are at work (i.e. don't need child care or a babysitter), which may be around the time of puberty but isn't going to be specifically associated with it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also a big difference between "want to..." and "forced to by circumstances". I think many women would prefer to pursue a career, but a lack of affordable child care causes many to give up work until their children are able to look after themselves.  Astronaut (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, some women would like to stay at home, but are thwarted by the fact that it's very difficult for a family in the United States to lead a middle-class lifestyle without two incomes these days. AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea of a "stay at home mom" (SAHM) is practically unknown in some countries, for example Denmark. There a SAHM is very lonely, and so are the children, since there are no other SAHM's or children in the neighborhood to socialize with or play with, like in the "olden days". Once the rather long maternity leave (which applies to both parents) is over, they are back to work: "Altogether parents are entitled to 52 weeks paid maternity leave." It's a rather interesting fact that few men use it. This is likely because, even though job security is very good there, leaving work for too long can have a very negative effect on a career, depending on what profession one is in. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do I detect that you imagine that all "western" countries are just like America, but with different languages or a funny accent? That seems to be a common idea among Americans from what I've read here. The percentage will vary from country to country. In Britain, for example, it would be rare for a woman to be a "housewife", although she could be at home because she could not get a job or temporarily while looking after young children. The percent of teenage British girls who want to be "housewives" must be near zero I expect. "Housewife" is an antiquated and rather derogatory word here. 92.29.120.231 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no idea how much variation there is. I live in Canada; can you give an idea of how Canada compares to America, Britain, and other European countries?  As for "housewife" being derogatory, I didn't know that, but if it's simply due to political correctness I couldn't care less.  --206.130.23.67 (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really derogatory: it's not the word that is looked down on, it's the people. Housewives are not particularly respected. There is perception of laziness, since housework is far from a full-time job in these days of refrigerators and washing machines - a housewife is presumed to be a "lady of leisure" (an exception is made for those with young children, but they wouldn't usually use the term "housewife", although there isn't a particularly accepted neutral term - most women that stay at home with their children would say just that, rather than try to put a name to it). There is also a feminist viewpoint that housewives are letting women down. --Tango (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tango, you obviously do not know any housewives who have children. It is more than a full-time job.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I explicitly said it's different if you have young children. --Tango (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We should create a new job title for them. Perhaps call it, a Victorian Traditionalist or something.  Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Homemaker", for example. The term "housewife", my Webster's defines as, "a married woman in charge of a household". That doesn't sound so demeaning, does it? But it was made so, by elements such as those described by Tango. A little history: In the old days, nearly everyone worked, particularly among the poor (hence the early-1900s comic song, "Everybody Works But Father"). Women only stopped working long enough to bear children. And they were still expected to manage the home. As with the old saying that my Mom used to bring up, "Man works from sun to sun, but woman's work is never done." And it was grueling, due to the lack of modern conveniences. For example, Monday was typically "Washday", which was an all-day activity. Not that being a man was a picnic either. But a woman not having to work for a living and/or being able to hire maids and the like, and truly manage the house as opposed to doing all the work, was a sign of status, of being well-off. Following WWII, when prosperity finally came after a couple of decades of Depression and War, and with the development and growth of labor-saving devices, a lot more women could become "just" housewives because they no longer "had to" work for a living as such. That's largely true about suburbia. But the reality is that women in poor families still have to work and manage the home, just as they always did, since feeding the family is top priority. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All of this is very interesting, but it doesn't get me closer to an answer. Is anybody looking for a numerical answer to the original question?  --99.237.234.104 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK, close to zero. 78.149.167.173 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was reluctant to say this since it wasn't really answering the question but since there's been no further discussion... I think the issue which the OP dismissed as polical correctness is important. If you were to ask a group of girls how many of them want to be housewifes when they grow up, the answer will be quite different from if you ask them if they want to play a role which you describe to them which is similar to what you imagine when you say 'do you want to be a housewife'. The fact you don't care doesn't change the fact many of the girls will care so are going to say they don't want to be a housewife even if they may imagine themselves in a role you would call a housewife. In addition to the points above, "want to" and "rather then a career" is a rather tricky issue for another reason. Many people growing up don't necessarily have one and only one goal in their lives. For example, if you were to ask a group of girls whether they'd be happy if they could marry a rich, good looking guy who would treat them well and take care of them for the rest of their lives and they'd live a live of luxury and never have to work I would expect a fair few would say yes, but it doesn't mean it's their goal in life, their main goal may still be to have a career. Note also that I said 'they'd never have to work' rather then 'they'd be expected not work' (the answer is likely to vary even though some of those who are in that variance wouldn't actually be planning to work). BTW, I would add that I'm sure some boys will be similarly happy with a similar scenario (i.e. marrying a rich, young sexy gal and.....) even though probably fewer and they're going to know it's even a less realistic scenario then for the girls. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Health Care Bill
I read that the Health Care Bill will extend cover to 95% of Americans. Who are the 5% who are included out? - Kittybrewster &#9742;  11:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to The Guardian, the 5% are illegal immigrants, people eligible for Medicaid who don't use it, and poor people exempted from having to buy insurance. But The Guardian says "Exact figures on who will make up this grouping are hard to find." Maybe we'll soon have a better idea since, as Ms Pelosi so aptly put it: "[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it...." —Kevin Myers 12:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mostly undocumented migrant workers from Mexico, who are undergoing a tuberculosis epidemic. Could the Canadians have been on to something when they did that universal thing? 99.56.137.254 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also maybe the British, French, Germans, Australians, New Zealanders... DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Illegal immigrants in Canada receive a health card? Our article Health care in Canada doesn't address the issue. —Kevin Myers 14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently so. LOL 99.56.136.197 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Amusing, but the question remains. —Kevin Myers 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article Providing health care to medically uninsured immigrants and refugees from the CMAJ doesn't directly address "illegal immigrants", "illegal aliens", or "undocumented workers". However, it becomes clear in reading that people who do not posses the correct status / documentation are ineligible for Canada's "Universal Health Care System." –RHolton ≡ – 02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations to the US of A in finally catching up with Britain (well, 95% of the way) sixty-two years later. 92.29.120.231 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to free-at-the-point-of-use (non-emergency) health care in the UK, either. However, even with the recent bill, American healthcare will be nothing like the NHS. For example, there are no deductibles here. As I understand it, for those in the US with the cheapest health insurance, health care can still be very expensive. The recent bill doesn't change that, as far as I know. --Tango (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really. This is nowhere near British health care.  Woogee (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is our article on the new law. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OFEX stock market, UK
Ofex re-directs to Plus. When did the change of name happen? Why did it happen? Is Plus exactly the same as Ofex except for a change in name? Thanks 92.29.120.231 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to this corporate history page Ofex Holdings plc was renamed as PLUS Markets Group plc in November 2004. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

what qualifications can you get overnight
if you wake up tomorrow with all the mental skills (including memories of their experience) anyone possesses, to include world famous surgeons scientists mathematicians, anyone and anything that is "mental" in nature, then what paper quealifications could you get within the next few days assuming you have the money. 82.113.121.34 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing worth having. You could gain membership to a high IQ society, but proper academic qualifications, medical licenses, etc., all require far more than a few days to acquire.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the easier ones may be passing the local bar exam to qualify to practice law; there is no requirement to have a law degree to take the bar exam (in the US and many other countries, at least). (If I'm reading our article correctly, though, the bar exam is generally given only twice a year throughout the US.)  Medical degrees are probably out; the Doctor of Medicine ("MD") has training requirements that will take a long time; though your hypothetical savant would ace them quickly, it's not quick enough for your needs.  You have to write a book, basically, to get a Ph.D, so that's out.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is conceivable to me that a person of immense brilliance could write a Ph.D. dissertation in mathematics or theoretical physics in a few days&mdash;they aren't necessarily very long. There may be other degree requirements, such as classes, that would take longer if the requirements aren't waived.  Convening a committee for the thesis defense can also take quite a while.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Immense brilliance and luck. If you are unlucky then, however brilliant you are, you could easily waste days (or longer) on a dead-end approach to a proof. The dissertations are only short because they miss out all the work that didn't go anywhere. --Tango (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My condolences, Tango. Just remember: you fail 100% of the shots you don't take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.38 (talk)
 * I think that's where getting everyone's experience (as stated in the question) helps. Probably somewhere in there is a brilliant, nearly-complete idea that someone just hasn't written up yet.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems you do need a law degree to be admitted to the bar in the US. There are some exceptions, but none that can be qualified for in a few days. --Tango (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected! Thank you, Tango; I struck my "easiest" claim above. This link lists some famous non-law-degree lawyers, like Abraham Lincoln, but as the article states, only 7 states in the US currently allow "reading" into the bar with the exam and no law degree; and all of those require some time apprenticing or the like.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * aren't there certificates you can basically just sit for? 82.113.121.38 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Plenty of technology training companies offer week-long courses with exams at the end. They probably won't turn you away from the final exam just because you didn't show up for the course, provided you paid.
 * In Ontario you can get a license to operate a powered watercraft by just sitting the exam. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming you have the money, you could get any qualification or degree you wanted in a few days. See Bribery.  Googlemeister (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's assuming you could find someone willing to be bought. --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even just finding that corrupt official could require several days' effort. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They would not need to be an official. The poor schlub who prints the certificates would suffice.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You need someone to put your name in the database in case someone phones they to verify the qualification. --Tango (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want a fairly meaningful qualification, you may well need to find several corrupt people. There are often moderation systems in place to make sure one people isn't solely responsible for giving out certificates. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That might change the size of the bribe, but not the end result. If a bribe will not do, there are other illegal means of persuasion that can be bought.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

these answers bite. i was thinking that maybe it is possible you guys are all thinking of bachelors, masters and so forth. obviously you can't get one of those. but there are a lot of other paper qualifications, and I'd like to hear some of them. an example would be getting a certificate like the DELF (French) saying you speak a certain foreign language. any other ones ? 82.113.121.37 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're so rubbish, why are you asking us for help? Answer the question yourself if you're so brilliant. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently he (or is it "they") thinks we're being paid for this. :) And I have to wonder about the example he gave. How could you immediately get a certificate saying you know French? Maybe by taking a standardized French test? Yes, that by itself might be quickly done. But unless you speak French fluently as a second language and/or have been trained in how to speak French, it's not an "overnight" process. (Leaving out the bribery hypothesis.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And as far as "finding someone to bribe", well, consider the recent George Ryan case. While he was Secretary of State of Illinois, his office took bribes from guys who wanted to get special trucking licenses without having to go through the work needed to qualify. The smoking gun for that kind of thing eventually comes, though, and in this case it was a fatal accident involving a driver with an illegally bought license. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

first of all I am sorry about my tone of frustration, I have striken it, though not from the record. As for baseball bugs' last statement above, it seems to show that I communicated very unclearly, as BB says "unless you speak French fluently as a second language". If I had phrased my original quesiton more coherently, speaking French obviously falls into the category of a mental activity, including all of one's experience and memories. I don't know how I can phrase myself more clearly, I will think about it and come back and try again. 82.113.121.34 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we also assume you are assuming "by honest means", as opposed to bribery as some have semi-facetiously suggested here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just don't know how I can be more clear. If you read these accreditation associations for example, and then extrapolate to every other similar organization anywhere in the world, which ones will grant you a paper accreditation you can just sit for or answer orally or by computer, or pass by means of a demonstration, and so on? Thank you. If you need further clarification of what I'm asking, please ask me and I will explain. Thank you for your contributions. 82.113.121.34 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I can't believe no one has answered the question yet (except the Ontario boating one, that was real). Here are a couple personal to me:


 * Canadian Securities Course: Requires only two sittings that can be scheduled, I think, as little as two weeks apart. You need to pay for the books even if you're not going to use them.
 * General Securities Representative Exam (Used to be called the "Series 7"): The US version, similar to above, requires only one sitting, limited only by scheduling.
 * CompTIA's A+ certification: Requires only two sittings and I don't think there are any time requirements except what you can schedule with your local provider. You DON'T need to buy any books.  Just ~ $150 for the exam.  (CompTIA has several other IT certs that can also be completed in a single exam)
 * Level one of the Chartered Financial Analyst program: Needs to be signed up for by Sept 15 for a mid December sitting (only 3 months; not bad). Levels two and three take another year each unfortunately.  You need to buy the books even if you're not going to use them.  NByz (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is an interesting question, and I'm surprised with how few examples we've been able to come up with. It seems almost everything requires you to actually do some study. In retrospect, though, maybe we should be less surprised. I think most people have realized that any kind of exam system can be gamed, if not cheated on, and awarding a significant qualification to someone who simply shows up and answers questions cheapens the qualification. In the internet age the opportunities for cheating are even higher. Maybe that's why even in the 1600s universities and law colleges had some sort of residency requirement as well as exams. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can sit many high-school-level exams in England without study (A levels], [[GCSE, BTech, etc), but you typically have to apply 2-4 months in advance.  I suspect most exams will have some requirement to register in advance, if only so they know how big a hall to book and how many invigilators to employ. Most exams are only held infrequently e.g. once or a few times a year.  Another possibility is civil service exams, found from New York to India; but again there may be preliminary exams or a requirement to show existing qualifications, and these may only be held once a year. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you possessed all knowledge and skills, like "Braniac from the 31st century" it should be easy to hack into computerized databases and make them show you had graduated in a degree program in anything of interest, and that you had passed the relevant exams. There have been many scandals in which amateur hackers have altered grades or added courses to high school or college files. A large degree program would be best rather than one in which the professors know each student quite well. Or a defunct college might be useful for the purpose, with a state database showing that once upon a time you had submitted proof of graduation and had then passed an exam. With all that knowledge and those skills, Photoshopping diplomas or certificates should be straightforward. If paper documents are needed, your extreme knowledge and skill base would allow you to hack any security system, pick locks to physically enter the place, and add any counterfeit paperwork needed into locked filing cabinets. Edison (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the question could be be restated: "What interesting certifications, accreditations or credentials can be acquired purely by demonstrating knowledge over an extremely short period of time (say, a single sitting)?" NByz (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that no one has mentioned diploma mills. Wave enough money at the appropriate institution, & one can be "Dr. So-&-so, MA, MFA, BFD". -- llywrch (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

is there a psychological condition where people hear themselves being narrated?
is there a psychological condition where people hear themselves being narrated (or at least fragments) so that if they start doing something but change their mind they hear the fragment "...but thought better of it..." and so on. I know this has been the premise of movies, I can't remember just which one at the moment, it involves a watch and a chainsmoking writer, but my question is whether hearing oneself narrated is an actual existing psyhcological condition/disorder? Thank you. 82.113.121.38 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hearing voices is a type of auditory hallucination. The voices some people hear vary enormously in how they sound and what they say; suggestions, orders, threats, personal comments on the hearer and others, compliments, irrelevant nonsense, and general chit-chat may all be experienced.  A running commentary on what the hearer is doing is an experience that is quite regularly reported, whether fragmentary as you suggest or more coherent and long-lasting.  I haven't found any evidence that the narrative type of auditory hallucination is regarded as a particular disorder, separate from other experiences of hearing voices.  Our article about the support movement for those who hear voices, Hearing Voices Movement, is well referenced and you may find more information via its links and citations.  Ka renjc 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Stranger than Fiction is the movie you're thinking of. On a side note, isn't auditory hallucination also a side effect of schizophrenia? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hearing voices may be a symptom of schizophrenia (the term side effect generally refers to unintended effects of medicines). It is probably a dissociative disorder; it sounds vaguely like depersonalization, but there may be multiple causes of hearing oneself narrate one's own life, not all necessarily a mental disorder.  Intelligent  sium  21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, hearing voices can be one symptom of diagnosable psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, although the definition of such disorders has changed over time and continues to do so. However, some people who hear voices do not exhibit any other symptoms of a mental health disorder, and there is now some recognition that such people may be able to manage their voices and lead an otherwise normal life without medical intervention, which is the premise of the Hearing Voices Movement.  See Anti-psychiatry.  It is a controversial area.   Ka renjc 21:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Scrubs :) 76.229.239.145 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)John

Name the fallacy
Which logical fallacy is inherent in the following argument(putting aside the question of whether either statement is true): "Darwin recanted on his deathbed; therefore the theory of evolution must be false"? 137.151.174.176 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a homework question. Logic 101 at Cal State? :) You're looking for a term. Maybe another Logic 101 student can come up with it. In this case, Darwin deciding he was wrong would not prove that he was wrong, except in his own mind; unless he would do more than just "recant"; he would also have to supply evidence sufficient to contradict his previous theory. Whether he would have time to do all that, while on his deathbed, would depend on what he was dying from. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Logically enough, the Fallacy article gives a similar example and labels it an Irrelevant conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not a homework question. This argument was brought up in Philosophy 333: Evolution and Creation and I just wondered which fallacy it was. 137.151.174.128 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're going to school, it was a homework question. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It could also be the genetic fallacy, meaning that a man's otherwise decent theory is considered inherently specious, based on it's origin. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very good. :) The OP said it was hypothetical, so another way to put it would be, "What is the truth value of the following statement: 'IF Darwin renounced his theory of evolution on his deathbed, THEN the theory of evolution is false.'" And the answer is that the truth value is PROBABLY FALSE, because given only the information we have (i.e. no elaboration on whether Darwin produced counterevidence), it would be an irrelevant conclusion. And I think the bold part is the answer to the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * doesn't the law of excluded middle (tertia non datur or whatever) say your another way to put it would be, "What is the truth value of the following statement: 'IF Darwin renounced his theory of evolution on his deathbed, THEN the theory of evolution is false.'" And the answer is that the truth value is PROBABLY FALSE is an impossible logical option? 82.113.121.34 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I say "probably false" because we don't have enough information to definitively say it's false. We have to make certain assumptions, i.e. that he was dying quickly, and therefore he didn't have time to construct a devastating counterargument. Maybe if he was dying from a long-term case of ringworm, he would have had time. It's been a long time since Logic 101, but typically with true/false questions, if it's not definitively true, then it's false. So if forced to choose one or the other, then it's FALSE. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would class this as an appeal to emotion. The suggestion being that fearing God and the afterlife, Darwin forswore his heathen teachings. Well, fear is an emotion. It is also the mind-killer. Vranak (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That could explain why Darwin (or anyone) would hypothetically renounce something they had said earlier. But his renouncing it does not logically lead to the conclusion that his theory is false, unless he provides counterevidence that demolishes his theory. However, I could see where a religionist might jump to that false conclusion. Perhaps that's what you're getting at? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not appeal to emotion; that's quite different ("Believe this, if you are a true patriot!" and the like). I think genetic fallacy is probably the best answer yet given. It's equivalent to saying, "if Darwin didn't believe his theory, it must not be true." The fallacy lies in asserting the theory's truth status has solely to do with whether Charles Darwin specifically believed in it. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (Incidentally, in case anyone was curious, Darwin did not recant. See Elizabeth Hope for more information on the facts behind this.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd class it as argument from authority. Despite the fact that Darwin was the credited as the discoverer, he does not enjoy any special privilege in arbitrating the truth/falsity of the theory. (e.g. even if Darwin had wanted to forswear the theory of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace would have likely been willing to take up the role as its champion.) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To put this in some perspective, consider this assertion, parallel to the OP's question, except it's based on a true fact, albeit leaving some other key facts out: "Galileo recanted; therefore the theory of the heliocentric planetary system must be false." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the United States
How many indigenous Amerindians are left in the U.S.? I would imagine it's below 1% due to what happened to them. B-Machine (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to define native American. There are probably very few, if any, people whose ancestors are all from America all the way back to the initial colonisation of the continent thousands of years ago. So, how may native American blood do you require someone to have to count as native American? If you count anyone with any native American blood then there are probably more now than ever before just because the total population of the continent has increased so much. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Our Demographics of the United States give a number of 2.4 million, or 0.8%. Googlemeister (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Googlemeister. References on the Reference Desk please, rather than guessing.  This page from the 2000 U.S. Census says that 0.87% of the US population stated they were "American Indian" or "Alaska Native" alone.  The number rose to 1.53 if you could "alone or in combination", meaning people who stated they were one of those and also reported belonging to 2 or more "races".  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This number is within the rather large range of natives living in the current US in the Pre-Colmbian times of 1-18 million. I guess it is hard to count people living in unexplored territory. Googlemeister (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like the Native American population dropped off sharply, by maybe 80%, after first contact, mainly due to European diseases: See Native_Americans_in_the_United_States. Since then, the population has grown, although not as fast as other portions of the US population, since, unlike other ethnicities, there's very little immigration to the US of Native Americans. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not? There were a lot of natives in current day Canada and Mexico as well.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If they come from outside the US, then, by definition, they aren't "indigenous people of the United States", they are "indigenous people of Canada and Mexico". StuRat (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You said Native Americans, which includes those from Canada and Mexico. ScienceApe (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The OP asked about only Amerindians in the US. What I want to know is that do they have "Status Indian" type of classification in US census like in Canada. Note, Métis and Inuits are counted separately in Canadian census. --Kvasir (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The US census has the category "American Indian and Alaska Native". No one will ask for proof if you call yourself an American Indian in the census; the US government does not keep a list like Canada's "Status Indian" registry. In the US, it's up to the officially recognized tribes to determine who is a member of their tribe. As a result, the number of people who identify themselves as Native is much larger than the number of people enrolled in officially recognized tribes. —Kevin Myers 04:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting the recent growth in Native Canadaians - and probably Native Americans in general - turn out to be due to neither birth rate nor (obviusly) immigration. It's simply due to people who previously didn't call themselves Native deciding to call themselves Native. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, same in the US. The Native count in the census really increased when respondents were allowed to identify themselves as belonging to more than one race. —Kevin Myers 04:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Related information can be found in Mixed-blood, Métis people (USA), Half-caste, Interracial marriage, Métis, Mestizo, and so on. As stated above, self-identification is a different matter than appearing on any official list. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what the original questioner means by "below 1%"? Some responses apparently take it to mean that he was asking about the percentage of the US population that is Native American. But that number doesn't really get to the issue he's raising. I think he may have been asking about how the current indigenous population compares to the pre-European contact population.

Keeping in mind all of the caveats mentioned above regarding the difficulty in defining who is and is not an indigenous American, the answer may be that the current Native American population is anywhere from 20% to 150% of what is was in 1492. In 1996, Russell Thornton, an oft-cited Cherokee demographer, wrote that recent estimates for the number of people in what is now the continental US and Canada in 1492 ranged from 3.79 million to 7 million people. Earlier estimates ranged from 1 to 18 million. The estimates vary so widely because there's very little hard data. Everyone now thinks the old 1 million estimate is much too low, so we'll ignore that.

Per Demographics of Canada and the 2000 US Census, the current population of indigenous people in the US and Canada is about 3.7 million to 5.4 million, depending on how you count multiracial people. So depending on which numbers you use, the current population is roughly 20% to 150% of what it was in 1492. If we use Thornton's estimate of 7 million, which is about in the middle of scholarly guesstimates, then the current population is about 50–75% of what it was in 1492. This is a significant increase from the much lower populations of 100 years ago.

If this seems like a surprisingly high percentage, you may have been influenced by what scholars call the "Vanishing Indian" or vanishing race" myth -- the 19th century idea that Native Americans had all but disappeared, and belonged to the past and not the present. It was a way of romanticizing storybook Indians while ignoring (at best) the real, living ones, who now number in the millions. —Kevin Myers 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Longevity of political systems or forms of government
Fascism for example seems to have only existed for about twenty years, which is not long in the history of mankind. Communism was about seventy years in Russia but still continues in one or two countries. Socialism is, I guess, about a hundred years so far. How long have other systems lasted? 78.149.133.100 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

just being picky but fascism started in Italy in 1919 and dragged on in Spain until 20th November 1975. 56 years in total. Alansplodge (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The United States is generally described as a Constitutional republic, more specifically, as the longest continuous constitutional republic. We have had our current constitution since 1788, so 222 years and counting.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Or 18 years, if we consider that each amendment results in a fundamentally different constitution. You can't really say the US has had its "current" constitution for 222 years, as that would deny the 27 amendments that have occurred since then. --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Longevity of particular forms of government is difficult to measure, because governments shift form. for instance, the US has technically made one major shift in governance (from pre-civil war confederalism to post-civil war federalism), and some other smaller but significant changes (addition of Judicial review, changes in suffrage, commercialization of the military, the introduction and vastly increased influence of lobbyists and corporate influence).  I sincerely doubt that Washington, Jefferson, of Franklin would approve of - or even fully recognize - the thing we credit them with creating.  Kingdoms tend to last a long time, but mostly under different dynasties, as one family line is murdered off and replaced (there's a loose 3-4 generation rule for most familial dynasties).  Empires have shorter life spans than kingdoms, mostly because they lack the internal cohesion of kingdoms - outlying regions tend to spin off, go into revolt, or get picked off by surrounding opponents.  revolutionary republics tend to be short-lived because one of the inevitable first steps in a revolution is the destruction of the governmental structures that would otherwise hold the nation together (police, judiciary, civil service...).  Fascism would likely have lasted a lot longer except that it connected itself with rabid expansionism. "Communism" in Russia actually constituted at least three different systems (pre-WWII, stalinism, cold-war period), none of which (except perhaps the first) could really be referred to as communist.


 * rankly, it's a badly framed question. are you asking about nations or systems?  finding the life-span of nations is easy, finding the life-span of systems is next to impossible, because the system of governance of a nation is mutable and not easy to define.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The British monarchy hasn't had the crown transfer through direct killing since 1485 (Henry VII killed Richard III). It's jumped around a bit due to people dying without issue, and the name of the ruling house has changed when we've had queens, but it's been fairly peaceful (not entirely peaceful, of course!). --Tango (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The UK has been a constitutional monarchy since 1688 - that's 322 years and counting! (touche!) --TammyMoet (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where can I see a copy of the "British Constitution?" Edison (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Magna Carta. 78.149.167.173 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And the royal line of succession was established in 1066, which is a pretty good run also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs -- the current root of genealogical legitimacy was established in 1066, but the principle that the crown could pass through a female line of descent wasn't established until the Stephen-Matilda wars, and the principle that the crown could pass to a woman wasn't really established until Mary I in 1553, and the current principles of succession are laid down in an act of Parliament passed in 1701, so it's hard to say how the "line of succession" was established in 1066. AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Far as I know, every King or Queen of the UK and its predecessors, since 1066, has been descended from William I. That doesn't mean he intended it that way, or that the rules were the same. It's a little like saying that the National League was established in 1876, even though it looks rather different now than it did then. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The line of Emperors of Japan claims to be formed in 660 BC. Even if you shave off 50 years since it has become a Constitutional monarchy after World War II, it's still some 2600 years. The Icelandic Althing is one of the oldest parliamentary traditions. --Kvasir (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Egypt was ruled by pharaohs for three millennia. See History of Egypt. —D. Monack talk 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pharoahs of many dynasties, though. AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Same with the England/UK then. Having different dynasties do not necessary mean different political systems, relating to the OP. --Kvasir (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * European and British feudalism lasted many centuries, maybe more than a millenium--I guess the Norman conquest just switched England from one line of feudal rulers to another, but the system itself arguably started centuries before William the Conqueror and persisted til the 1700's or so. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The general trend in recent historical studies has been to very narrowly and precisely define the word "feudalism", so that the period of classic feudalism defined in that way doesn't last all that long... AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Several newspapers noted that feudalism survived in Sark until a couple of years ago (though, of course, this depends on what you mean by "feudalism" and "survived"), see Sark general election, 2008.
 * Maybe another way to view the question is to see the beginning and end of a "political system" as those moments of significant change; this could be a peaceful move to independence (e.g. India); the formation of a broader national coalition (e.g. Senegambia); or it could come through violent coups d'états, rebellions, invasions, etc. We could then see the OP's question as asking which sorts of political ideology make for the longest gaps between such moments of change.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  04:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that a number of uncontacted tribes (or, until recently uncontacted) will have had the same kind of chieftain/clan rule for several millennia. Gabbe (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So just how long have humans lived on the North Sentinel Island? 50,000 years? -- llywrch (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The parliament of Iceland goes back to AD 930, see Althing. It was not meeting in the first half of the 1800s, but have otherwise been fairly continous. Iceland was not independent between 1263 and 1944, but you could still make a case for "longest continous government". (This is, however, possibly not what the original poster asked for.) Jørgen (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Althing is already mentioned above (by Kvasir), but Tynwald and the Løgting are not. Gabbe (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Australian aboriginals probably lived in essentially the same way for 40,000-70,000 years (Prehistory of Australia) until the arrival of Europeans. But other hunter-gatherer groups probably lived in similar ways for much longer.  Here's an article saying a fairly modern society with division of labour existed with homo erectus 750,000 years ago..
 * Incidentally where does the figure for fascism lasting 20 years come from? Francisco Franco was in power from 1936-1975, and there were others before and after him.  --Normansmithy (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Imperial China lasted over 2000 years, ruled by a Confucian system from 202 BCE to 1911 CE. --Normansmithy (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but with many different dynasties, some radically different. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia went on for 800 years until the overthrow of Haile Selassie in 1974 I think that's the longest reign of any one dynasty in history. The True Wiki (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked about political systems, not royal lines of descent. 78.149.167.173 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well based on most contributors' answers, it seems monarchism (constitutional or absolute) has the most longevity (measured in centuries to millenia). The question is which country's and how you'd define it (whether different dynasties are regarded the same form of government). --Kvasir (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

just as an aside, I believe there's a debate in congress about officially changing the description of the US from a 'constitutional republic' to a 'destitutional republic'. It's still in committee though... -- Ludwigs 2 22:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Marahasta
"... Nagar-Aveli was given to the Portuguese as a compensation for the sinking of a Portuguese ship by the Maratha navy."

- Dadra_and_Nagar_Haveli

What this one of the requirements of the treaty? What is the name for "the requirement of a treaty"? What is this treaty? What was this war?174.3.113.245 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What treaty? The Maratha navy sank two ships, according to this source, and Portugal threatened war; the Maratha Empire offered the territory to avoid war. --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Violin Sheet music for "hey soul sister" by Train
is there any way i can find Violin sheet music for this? I've looked everywhere but they have it just for piano and vocals and guitar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you a particular reason to think that somebody has arranged it for fiddle? It's quite possible that nobody has. --ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you tried reading the upper line of the piano music? That generally corresponds to the melody and is likely in the violin's range. -- Deborahjay (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)