Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 2

= May 2 =

negative eugenic practices in the united states
Is it true that Protestant church leaders were in support of Involuntary sterilization and other negative eugenic practices in the United States? I've heard this claim but can't find anything substantial in support or against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to read Involuntary_sterilization. -- Jayron  32  01:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some religious groups embraced eugenics, many opposed it. Eugenics was broadly popular amongst what we could consider to be both conservatives and liberals in its heyday. It doesn't easily fall along simple ideological or religious lines. Catholics were officially opposed to sterilization of any kind and the only really significant religious opposition that I know of. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article on involunatary sterilization has a fairly brief section on the united states which doesn't really touch upon the full breadth of the act. Especially considering that it covers a period from 1917-1981 which resulted in over 65,000 people being sterilized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is just a very brief summary, but there are many manuscripts about the history of American eugenics that one can find either through your local library or Amazon. I think the book that would probably help you out the most is Christine Rosen, Preaching eugenics: Religious leaders and the American eugenics movement (Oxford University Press, 2004). The abstract states that:
 * Preaching Eugenics tells how Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish leaders confronted and, in many cases, enthusiastically embraced eugenics—a movement that embodied progressive attitudes about modern science at the time. Christine Rosen argues that religious leaders pursued eugenics precisely when they moved away from traditional religious tenets. The liberals and modernists—those who challenged their churches to embrace modernity—became the eugenics movement's most enthusiastic supporters. Their participation played an important part in the success of the American eugenics movement.
 * Which is interesting. It looks like a well-researched and scholarly book. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether any church bodies ever officially endorsed it, but during the 1920s a form of eugenics-lite was very mainstream in the United States, so it's not at all surprising that some individual religious leaders would follow along with such opinions. Of all the decades of United States history, the 1920s was the decade when it was most "scientifically" respectable to be racist etc. -- the Kallikak thing was very well-known, as were the results of the U.S. Army WW1 intelligence tests, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

mourinho's unbeaten home record
I have moved this question to the entertainment desk, the proper place for sport-related questions. --Richardrj talkemail 08:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The EU and Greece
The possibility of EU to collapase now seem realistic by many in Europe and outside. Even so, it still seem to be very far from happning. My question is, however, what will happen with European countries debts if the EU countries, or part of them, will return to use their original coins? What could be the political and social implications for Eastern European countries like Poland and Hungary, which are now part of the EU? --Gilisa (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the EU and the Euro are different things. Not all EU countries have the Euro, and some non-EU countries use the Euro (some with official agreements, some without). There is little to no chance for the Euro to be dropped. But if countries leave the Eurozone, their debt will be pegged to certain currencies (most likely Euro, but possibly Dollars or even other currencies), and will have to be served in that currency or the equivalent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The possibility of an UE collapse is extremely far-fetched and it is mostly used by the media to sell their newspaper/gain the attention of the viewer to sell some TV commercials. Flamarande (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering what will happen if this radical scnario come true. What will happen with the $ ? Will it rise? Or maybethe opposite? What role will China play? What will happen with countries which export to the EU under the EU trade agreements? --Gilisa (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the Ref Desk is not the place for speculation. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm truely surprised by what you are telling now. Anyway, many times the Ref Desk did deal with such issues.--Gilisa (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First Iceland, then Greece. Who's next? If the EU does collapse, the US will be there to do a "told ya so dance" on its grave. (While China takes notes for future reference.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The EU isn't going to collapse. The Eurozone isn't even going to collapse. Greece is a fairly small part of the Eurozone - as long as France and Germany are ok (which they are), the Eurozone, as a whole, should be fine. Whether Greece can stay in it or not is still to be decided (it seems likely that they will). --Tango (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And Iceland is not even a part of the EU or the Eurozone. Flamarande (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the following answers your question, but if a country enters into an agreement to make payments in euros and subsequently changes its home currency, it must still honour the terms of the agreement it entered into. Does that help? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

On devaluing the Greek currency
I have a related question that I've been wondering about, so I'll ask it here. It has been said (by many people) that one way for Greece to get out of its current problems would be the leave the Eurozone (which would probably mean leaving the EU too) and then devalue its new currency. How would that work? If people knew the new currency was going to be devalued, why would they convert their money to it? They could just transfer all their savings to a bank in another Eurozone country that was keeping the Euro. The currency would be nominally devalued, but it wouldn't actually achieve anything because nobody would be holding the new currency at the time. --Tango (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But in order to buy anything in now-non-Euro-using Greece, where they live, they would have to keep converting those Euros back into the new currency which would be the only legal tender there. The additional inconvenience and costs of all those extra bank transactions would likely outweigh any one-time cost of converting to it in one go at the outset. In theory, devaluation isn't supposed to have much effect on internal prices, hence Harold Wilson's famous 1967 assurance that "the pound in your pocket" had not been devalued (yes, I know that's a slightly inaccurate paraphrase of what he actually said): in practice, depending on the country's import/export balance and doubtless other very complicated stuff, it probably does somewhat. This and related questions really need answers from qualified economists. Hello? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To leave the Eurozone and replace the Euro with a new currency would be economic, financial, and political suicide. The only country that could pull it of would be Germany (and perhaps France). Flamarande (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Legal tender is largely irrelevant. Legal tender is something which you have to accept in payment of debts. You are allowed to accept other things and you are allowed to refuse legal tender if there isn't a debt (eg. when you buy something in a shop - the exchange of goods for money is instantaneous, so there is no debt involved). If the Greek people want to carry on using the Euro and the shops only accept Euros, they would be allowed to unless some new laws are passed. The bank transfer is a one-time thing anyway - after the devaluation, you can transfer it back. Only money you hold denominated in the new Greek currency at the time of the devaluation would be devalued. --Tango (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the first thing about the mechanics of a currency change but I guess there would be some kind of exchange ratio applied to the values of Greek denominated assets. So a share in a Greek company would go from 10 euros to 10X Greek dollars. A bank deposit in a Greek bank would also be a Greek asset as will non-financial assets like land. I don't think the holders of these assets will have any choice in the matter. Then the exchange ratio should be set so that capital markets don't go haywire after the change. As time passes, euro notes and coins in circulation will slowly decrease. As mentioned above, this is a very unlikely scenario. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is roughly how it is done. You do have a choice about whether to keep your money in a Greek bank, though, which is my point. The idea isn't just to change back to a Greek currency, but to devalue that currency, which comes after everything you describe. It is best not to have your assets denominated in a currency you know is about to be devalued and it is really easy to move your assets out of Greece while it is in the Eurozone, so why would anyone keep any significant assets denominated in the new Greek currency until after the devaluation? --Tango (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like people have been taking their money out of Greek banks but I don't know if they're worried about the currency changing or if they just don't have faith in the banking system there. As for non-cash assets, it would be hard to sell them at a fair price right now. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't devalue non-cash assets, so they don't matter - devalue the currency and the price just increases to compensate. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We're talking about Greece hypothetically leaving the Eurozone - this would increase uncertainty which would affect all Greek assets. Also, as the currency weakens there would be more uncertainty around inflation, sovereign credit strength and growth - these will cause risk premiums to increase which will affect all assets. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tango, would you consider a bond, or a bank account to be a non-cash asset? If so, they are easily devalued by simply changing (reducing) the value when the instrument is converted to cash. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm probably abusing terminology, but I'm thinking of "non-cash assets" as being assets that don't have a predefined cash value, eg. land, shares, houses, etc.. Things like bonds and bank accounts have predefined cash values that you can decree have a certain value in the new currency and then devalue that currency. --Tango (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the terms you’re looking for are fixed asset or tangible asset. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court case on copyright
I remember reading that there was a US Supreme Court case in which one party argued (for whatever reason) that copyright is an intrinsic right like freedom of speech, and the court said no, copyright is an artificial construct created for the benefit of society. Any cites? (If we do find a cite, we can use it to source the following citation needed in the philosophy of copyright article: "Consequentialism or instrumentalism is the legal foundation of copyright law in the United States.") « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 09:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the US constitution makes it clear in Article 1, Section 8 that it's not a natural right (at least according to the constitution), but that congress may make laws to protect it. I'd say its much more natural that I'm allowed to repeat what is in my head, and that's the way society worked until very recently... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but I'm looking for a reliable source that explicitly spells it out rather than implying it from a unstated negative. Yeah, I know I'm nitpicking given that it's in the freaking Constitution, but still, it would probably be considered OR here on Wikipedia to derive this from that sentence without another source to back it up. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 09:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I googled ["supreme court" copyright "natural right"] and it found this: Common law copyright. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Google-foiled again! (Seriously, it's not like I didn't search.) Wheaton v. Peters was probably the case I was thinking of. Thanks! « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 09:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are asking about the case Wheaton v. Peters though it looks like the article about it is pretty thin. You should read Lessig's book Free Culture which you can download under a Creative Commons license if you don't want to buy a printed copy.  It discusses the case at some length and is suitable for secondary sourcing on the issue (of course there are other secondary sources that disagree with Lessig and should also be represented). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

First israeli Ambassador to the UK
Who was the first israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom? --89.12.138.13 (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Diplomatic niceties meant that the first diplomatic representative of Israel in the United Kingdom was not formally termed an 'Ambassador'. Dr Mordecai Eliash was appointed in April 1949 as 'representative of Israel'. On 13 May 1949 he was raised to the status of 'Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary'; he was not formally an Ambassador. Dr Eliash was born in Ukraine but educated in Britain; he died in post on 12 March 1950. His successor, Eliyahu Eilat, was named to the same post and on 20 October 1952 was raised to the status of Ambassador. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Women's magazines
I've been flicking through a couple of women's magazines, and there are lots and lots of photos of people, but almost all of them are of women, less than 3% or 4% are of men. Why is that? 89.242.97.110 (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since they contain articles about women, and ads tailored to them, it would makes sense, wouldn't it ? Showing women's clothes on men would look a bit odd, as would a man giving a testimonial on how "Playtex has products for my light days and my heavy days". StuRat (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, women's magazines concentrate on things that interest women, while men's magazines concentrate on things that interest men. Of course there are exceptions :-)  Astronaut (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ...ummm. It would seem quite reasonable then by Sicilian standards that there should be more men in woman's magazines than women since men are supposed to interest women better. even in these modern times of homosexuality... or would that be womosexuality?71.100.1.71 (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There the diff is that men mainly get turned on by visual imagery, while verbal imagery does it for women. Hence the scarcity of porn made for women and romance novels written for men. StuRat (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this isnt just trotting out stereotypes? 89.242.97.110 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because all women are secretly bisexual ;) 82.43.89.71 (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a woman let me answer this. The ads in women's magazines which feature beautiful girls and women are selling products; the subliminal message being, buy these products and you will become like the women you see in the pictures. It's the same with billboards and tv commercials.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Video illustrating the different approaches to advertising. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to see blatantly sexist ads come to Italy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember, when I was in Verona, there was a giant intimissimi billboard, blindingly illuminated at night, right where the road made an unexpected turn and a major side road merged. I always suspected it was sponsored by a body shop ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, it probably was! Actually you probably noticed that there are just as many ads for cars in Italy as lingerie. The car is as revered in modern Italy as the cat in ancient Egypt.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A better comparison is Sports Illustrated, which has relatively few articles and photos about women, with one minor exception in February. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are different values at play. A man does not necessarly say he wants to be beautiful, or want anything to enhance his beauty.  In the clothes trade; approx. five times more womens' clothes are sold than mens'.  Maybe men live on a different planet?  MacOfJesus (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The lure of beauty in advertising works for men as well. Haven't you seen handsome men advertising cologne or aftershave? There are quite a few male models now; at least in Europe where in some of the countries (Italy, France for example) men pay as much for their clothes as women and are twice as vain about their appearance. I happen to reside in the former nation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience men's clothes are very much more expensive than women's clothes, which may account for women spending more as they get better value for money. For example the cheapest man's made to measure suit that I could find a few years ago cost £500, with £1000 being a more likely price, while a woman could buy a LBD for £10. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the £10 little black dress is available in mass-market chains like Primark, while the equivalent to the made-to-measure suit could be many hundreds of pounds. Astronaut (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Women do not need made to measure, at least for most dresses. The typical dress does not require fitting for leg- or sleeve-length, nor jacket-length. I do not like having to wear suits, I do not like having to pay for them, I'd wear a £10 LBD instead if I could avoid getting arrested. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Even so, you're not comparing like with like. Primark also sells cheap men's suits for a lot less than £100, though, just like the £10 dress, it might be ill fitting and be poorly made of inferior material.  On the other hand, if you shop at Armani, men's suits and women's little black dresses both cost hundreds of pounds, but are better fitting and are made of superior materials.  You get what you pay for.  Astronaut (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Real men go for comfort, not looks. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to.......?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Marks&Spencers' Stores have so much more womens' clothes than mens'. This is a good "yard-stick" as it is a "middle-of-the-road" store.  Yes there are a few men models. But the gap between the man and the woman is perhaps very large in the modern world.  MacOfJesus (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a medical friend of mine likes to regularly remind me, there's a vas deferens between men and women. :)  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oui! oui! MacOfJesus (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What I was thinking of is: If you ever studied ancient languages you find that there is not the difference given to male and female as the modern languages do.  MacOfJesus (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

monarchy power
What monarchs throughout the world can still say "Off with their heads!" and have their henchmen to that very thing and not be charged with murder? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Very few true monarchies exist in the world. Only a few Pacific nations, as well as Swaziland in Africa, are still officially ruled by a king. There are also similar sultunates and sheikhdoms in the Middle East. Beheading powers? Unlikely to be that way, but I suppose they have control over any major executions.  2D Backfire Master  Serious? Nope. 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Saudi Arabia comes to mind. It's an absolute monarchy (see: Politics of Saudi Arabia) and is one of few countries that still carry out executions by beheading (see: Capital punishment in Saudi Arabia). Sentences are given by sharia courts, but the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques (i.e., the king) has the right to grant pardon – or not. — Kpalion(talk) 12:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Granting pardons isn't the same as condemning to death. Pretty much all the countries with capital punishment allow a single person to grant pardons, sometimes a President, and sometimes a king or queen.  I'm not aware of any nations where this person still condemns someone to death. StuRat (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not the same thing, sure, but I can image the Saudi king being asked, "Do you want to pardon this convicted adulterer/sorcerer/human rights activist?" and answering, "No way. Off with his head!" — Kpalion(talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you may be drifting into the realms of fantasy here... ╟─TreasuryTag► stannator ─╢ 15:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 2D Backfire Master: Not sure what you mean by "Very few true monarchies exist in the world". Maybe your concept of a monarchy is the medieval, Hollywood-enhanced, absolute monarchy, where the king's word was law.  The modern-day monarchies such as those of the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain et al are not remotely like that, but they are still undoubtedly "true monarchies".  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   13:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the US President authorises assassinations by the CIA. ╟─TreasuryTag► Tellers' wands ─╢ 13:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse executions with acts of war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have said that that CIA assassination was an act of war, for two reasons: 1)What's the war? 2)It was targeted, and specifically done because of the individual person—Obama didn't just say, "Go kill terrorists." ╟─TreasuryTag► duumvirate ─╢ 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The War on Terror". Or "World War III", as some call it. Assuming the Guardian story is true (and I don't know if that source is reliable), this would go along with American traditions of trying to gun down enemy leaders (Yamamoto [sp?], Castro, Diem [sp?], Saddam, etc.) As we all know, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered what this "[sp?]" thing stands for. "Can't be bothered to look it up", perhaps? — Kpalion(talk) 16:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with Bugs)I think 71.100's asking for cases where a leader can unilaterally decide to have someone killed, not that beheading is the specific way it's done. Under this criterion I don't think Saudi Arabia would apply: if King Abdullah decided to have someone publically killed just because, I don't think people would just let it happen.  I would imagine that North Korea would fit this definition, though in practice it's hard to know what goes on in there.  In fact, most dictatorships probably fit the bill.  Would Muammar al-Gaddafi get away with it?  I suspect that he would.  Perhaps Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, though in his case he's got the International Criminal Court out to get him.  If we count assassinations, then the list surely includes almost every world leader, though that's a case where the people try to keep the connection secret, that is, they probably would be arrested for it if people knew about it. Buddy431 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what I am asking is about overt rather than covert acts of a monarchy. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Look at this list: List_of_monarchies. Those which are listed as current absolute monarchies are: Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, and The Vatican.  So, presumably they could order executions.  There are also numerous subnational monarchies listed, some of which may have the right to hold executions.  That list doesn't include North Korea, which is an absolute monarchy in all but name.  There are many other totalitarian governments, too, such as Burma/Myanmar.  There may be a fine distinction to be made about whether executions ordered by leaders of those nations are "legal", but I don't distinguish based on that. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also note that there are areas beyond the control of the central government, like the Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where the local leader, whatever he calls himself, may very well order executions. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Overt assassinations by the Vatican? Even in the 16th century popes tried to keep their murders secret. — Kpalion(talk) 16:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Too much Dan Brown me thinketh.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you're an English layer living in a country with a history of any soldier walking the street being able to run a blade through your gut for most any reason and so you have no problem with Monarchys being able to say "Off with their heads!". I can dig that but wouldn't it be more lucrative for you if they were required to hire you to represent the condemned first? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean English lawyer?! Which modern country allows their soldiery such unlimited power and yet has English lawyers as residents? I cannot think of such a place offhand, so pray enlighten me as you've sparked my curiosity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I mean an English person trained somewhere as a lawyer possibly either England or Italy who is living in Italy now and who has become accustomed to the idea that death at the hands of anyone above a slave with any political standing whatsoever is perfectly acceptable owing to the history of the region. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion has completely disintegrated into the realms of the absurd. IMO, it's pointless and a waste of our time to respond further on this thread.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, wow. Roughly how long ago is your imaginary English person living? The short answer to your original question is that there is nowhere in the world whose government is defined as a monarchy AND whose head of state could reasonably get away with ordering a summary execution. Those of us who live in monarchical nations do not think of monarchy as being defined in terms of power over individuals, and generally speaking, have not done so for some centuries. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Caliphate of Córdoba
Who captured it and how long did it remain a Muslim state? What important Kings ruled this Caliphate? Goat999 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read Caliphate of Córdoba? Gabbe (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

censorship in China
I few years back a little known seller of electric bicycles employed an online forum to help buyers help each other. Today the site has thousands of users and the company has distributors in Canada and Brazil and dealers in the US. However, while the forum hosting service is located in Detroit the web site deletes any topic if a comment or question about quality or warranty support in reference to Communist China is made or raised. Just how extensive is censorship in China and what is really happening behind the scenes? Is China preparing to overthrow the world and is it just trying to keep it a secret for now? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read Censorship in the People's Republic of China? Gabbe (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) How do you know topics are being deleted do to "censorship in China" and are not instead being deleted for simply being off-topic? It would be helpful if you told us which seller or manufacturer you were talking about.  As for China secretly plotting to overthrow the world ... I would say that is an extremely unlikely scenario.  Astronaut (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not hard to find electric bike forums or manufactures and due some original research of your own if that is what you have in mind. Not overthrowing the world was the common assumption due to historical "trinity" of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism behind Chinese Philosophy. But then the Chinese were force to endure opium and now Communism, which has lead to the point of America being shocked at the creation of atomic weapons, extensive underground works started back in the '50s, the more recent shooting down of Satellites and now prevailing and extensive censorship, western Philosophy does not and cannot tolerate. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * China's internet censorship has nothing to do with whether or not "preparing the overthrow the world." The odds are that the site deletes discussions that are of this nature because failing to do so would get their site blocked in China which would hurt their business. Much of China's censorship is, ultimately, self-censorship: it's the site owner or ISP censoring, not because the government has gone to them in that instance and said "censor," but because they are afraid that if they push the line, then the government might get involved. The effect is that ISPs and site owners are often pretty conservative—maybe even more conservative than the law requires—because they don't want to attract negative attention. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So the people of China live in fear of their government and saying so will get your comment deleted. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The ISPs are afraid of being fined, yes. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * News flash #1: China is not a democracy. News flash #2: China is an important business partner of the US. Economics trumps all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So Americans live in fear of business and if they say so business will delete their comments? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Try living with no income and let us know how it works out for you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It worked fine so long as I had enough quartz to make fire to roast palmetto bugs and other tasty treats for lunch. In fact I've found a way to increase my standard of living by inviting the Marsh Arabs to forsake Iraq and Iran and to join me here as soon as they dare. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 71.100, you have to give us links, and not ask us to just google electric bike manufacturers to see what you are talking about. Otherwise we have to speak in grossly inadequate generalities, as Bugs has had to do above.  A counterpoint, by the way, to Bugs's generality (which on the whole I would certainly agree with) is Google's recent withdrawal from China as a result of their decision to no longer censor searches as requested by the government.  This is a story about an interesting Google story listing how many requests Google receives per country for handing over user data or removing content &mdash; China is off the chart, and not listed because such requests are considered state secrets.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you go asking questions about 'communist China' I'm frankly not surprised your comments are deleted. If I ran a forum I'd probably do it myself outside perhaps a soapbox board and not because I give a damn about what the Chinese authorities want. If you politely ask legitimate questions about warranty support, while I wouldn't consider condone deleting such comments, some companies do, again nothing to do with the Chinese government (some of them have little or no connection to China). Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When was the women of Korea unveiled?
I have been told that women in old Korea, especially upper-class women, lived confided to their homes and was forced to cover themselwes with a veil if they left the house during the day. When did this end? And how? I have the impression that this was still the case in 1905, but not in 1945, is this correct? When could Korean upper-class women show themselwes on the streets of Seul without a veil? I have read a poem by a Korean woman, who describes how she is allowed out of the home for the first time: this was from 1920. I hope someone can answer, I would be grateful. --Aciram (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is spelled Seoul in English. Before the late 19th century is was uncommon for Korean women to be economic actors.  A small minority of women played an active role in society and even wielded political influence. These people included female shamans (mudang), who were called upon to cure illnesses, tell fortunes, or in other ways enlist the help of spirits in realizing the wishes of their clients. Despite its sponsorship of neo-Confucianism, the Choson Dynasty had an office of shamanism, and female shamans often were quite influential in the royal palace. The female physicians who treated female patients (because male physicians were forbidden to examine them) constituted another important group of women. Sometimes they acted as spies or policewomen because they could get into the female quarters of a house. Still another group of women were the kisaeng. Some kisaeng, or entertainers, were merely prostitutes; but others, like their Japanese counterparts the geisha, were talented musicians, dancers, painters, and poets and interacted on nearly equal terms with their male patrons. The kisaeng tradition perpetuated one of the more dubious legacies of the Confucian past: an extreme double standard concerning the sexual behavior of married men and women that still persists.


 * Women were primarily raised to become mothers, their education prepared them to take care of their families and homes. As the country began to open its boarders women were given more opportunities to receive fomal education and generally given more rights then were previously afforded them.  As for the use of a veil, I'm unclear to what you are refering to.  It is possible you mean the Ssukae Ch'ima, whch is a type of cloak that women commonly wore in public for warmth.  The hanbok, a traditional dress, serves as the outer layer of a outfit which consists of several different items of clothing.  Tradtional dress is still worn today, though usually reserved for special occassions as it is both bulky and quite expensive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is an image of the veil, I do not know what it was called: http://ieas.berkeley.edu/images/cks/kang11_women_hood.jpg. As far as I have understood the matter, upper-class women was not allowed to show themselwes in public, and if they did so, they must cover themselwes in a similar manner to Islamic women. This was done for moral reasons, I have been told.

They were also to have been confined to their homes, and did not participate in a gender-mixed social life, but were only allowed to show themselwes to other women, and to men they were related or married to. I have read, that in 19th-century Korea, women rarely show temselwes on the streets of Seol at all during day time: at eight o'clock, a bell rang, signaling that the streets was reserved for women; and at twelve o'clock, it rang again, signaling that the women should return home. When did this custom stop? In 1905/1910?

Here is a link about this : http://ieas.berkeley.edu/cks/k12/kang1_paper.pdf. It is very interesting, but it does not say when these customs was abolished. Here is a chronology : http://ieas.berkeley.edu/cks/k12/kang2_laws.pdf. , but it stops at the 19th-century, and gives no answer as to when in the 20th-century the customs described there was abolished.

When did upper-class Korean women start to mix with men in social life, and when were they allowed to show temselwes in public, on the streets of Seol, without covering up with a veil? I have the impression, that all this changed somwhere in the 1920s? The poem from 1920 describes how a woman lived isolated in her home untill "times changed" and the changing new customs of society allowed her to leave the house. How did this come about, and when did it become common for women merely to show themselwes in public? In the 1920s?

I understand that the question can be complicated, and you are very helpfull. I am ignorant in this, and I find it very interesting, so I am very gratefull for all information.--Aciram (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The net mention a sort of feminism called Sin Yosong "The New Woman" of the 1920s : http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1468-0424.00110 --85.226.46.138 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal women of old Korea
As upper-class women of old Korea was expected to live in seclusion, how was the role of women at court? Was the queens, the royal women and their lady-in-waitings excepted from seclusion, or were they also prevented from having any contanct with men? --Aciram (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you asked the previous question? There really is no short answer for your question and "old Korea" dosen't help to explain what time period you are asking about.  The Korean medieval kingdom was founded in 2333 BC.  The country has a long and rich history and gender roles as well as the position of women has changed throughout the centuries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.66.195 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this question is about the women of the royal court in particular, not about Korean women in general, as my previous question above. But, of course, you are fully correct: I should have specified my question more. My question here concerns the period of 1392-1905. Was the queens, the women of the royal family and their lady-in-waitings excluded from a gender-mixed social life? Did they have contant with men at court, or were they only allowed contant with men they were related or married to, and otherwise limited to female company? I have came to understand that upper-class Korean women was generally not allowed contanct with men outside the family, was this so? But perhaps the customs at the royal court was different? Was royal women limited to only female company, or did they show themselwes in a gender-mixed company at court? --Aciram (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at "A New History of Korea" by Ki-baik Lee but there was almost nothing relevant there... AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

One so-called legal name at a time in USA?
There is a myth among US notaries public, which can be found frequently repeated on notary discussion boards such as http://www.notaryrotary.com/ (use the Notary Talk tab). The concept is that a person may only have one legal name at a time. As a consequence, a person who changes his/her name (such as a woman who gets married) can no longer sign anything using the old name (for example the woman might have owned property under the old name, but now can't sell it because she can't sign the deed). Does anyone know of a definitive source that indicates if there is any truth to this myth?

I used the phrase "so-called legal name" because I'm not convinced such a thing really exists, despite the careless manner in which certain executive branch officials act as if it did (especially motor vehicle officials). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We do have an article on Legal name, though it's rather thin. It does point out that the US follows the common law process of name change by non-fraudulent use. The latter article references legal decisions Lindon v. First National Bank and In re McUlta. The last is probably relevant, with this quote from the decision: "A name is used merely to designate a person or thing. It is the mark or indica to distinguish him from other persons, and that is as far as the law looks." In the name change article, it is noted that for some states "Some jurisdictions require that the new name be used exclusively ..., while others have no such requirement ..." (Ellipses are references to court cases and laws). This indicates that some confusion may be jurisdictional in nature. Notaries public are usually certified for a particular state, so making broad generalizations for the US in general based on an individual's experience may be troublesome. -- 174.21.225.115 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comparative chart and article
Does the Wikipedia have a comparative chart for religions similar to the one at Big Religious Chart? 71.100.1.71 (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is an information chart not a comparative chart, concentrating on "the facts", and in alphabetical order. I think that if Wikipedia attempted this it would be edited and deleted to non-existence!  MacOfJesus (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * At Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 7, I said "Someone might start the Wikipedia article Table of beliefs and religions", and someone said "That would be very hard!"--Wavelength (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Festival - Feast of the Dead
Requesting information about the Roman Catholic Festival, the Feast of the Dead.75.132.5.103 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See Day of the Dead and the associated articles: All Saints and All Souls' Day. Astronaut (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) See All Souls' Day and related articles: All Saints, Day of the Dead, Zaduszki, and Samhain. — Kpalion(talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be known as All Souls Day (November 2), in the English speaking world, in the Catholic Church. Three special Masses are outlined in the Liturgy.  MacOfJesus (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Young David in I Samuel
Did David kill the lion and bear before or after he was anointed by the prophet Samuel? I have searced many sites and reference books to no avail. 66.56.22.96 (talk)
 * The text (I Sam 17:34-37) is not clear on this point, given that David continued to shepherd for his father after he was anointed. See for a reasonable translation. --Dweller (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obeying the Talmudic commandment, "Thou shalt not giveth up thy Day Job." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah witnesses
what do jehovah witnesses believe about jesus christ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parts918 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you can find the answer to your question in the article Jehovah's Witnesses. Please read the articles before coming here with very general questions.  If there is some part of the article you do not understand, or need clarification on, please feel free to ask.  -- Jayron  32  23:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, their official website (http://www.watchtower.org/) has articles in 399 languages and its own search function for articles in English.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * [The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of it at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/. Today the official website is http://www.jw.org.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)]

double standards
Why is it, that if I saw someone being attacked and robbed/raped on the street and managed to fight off their assailant, I'd be hailed as a hero.

Yet if some country's government threatened sanctions and even war on an extremely oppresive and totalitarian regime unless they gave up power, they'd be laughed out of the house, and labelled crazy warmongers (and not even by their own citizens either, by various foreign ministers of other countries)?--92.251.185.162 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an extremely leading question, and not necessarily a true premise. Got any specific examples in mind? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that such countries exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.185.162 (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Name one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From the legal perspective: there is a general assumption that a government has a monopoly on violence within their country (in fact, it can be used as part of the definition of statehood). The laws of most countries include a right to defend yourself and others, but that is by the choice of the government and doesn't usually apply to violence sanctioned by the government. International law does not include a right for one country to defend the citizens of another country from their own government. --Tango (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But then the Q is why international law seems more concerned with the rights of governments than the rights of citizens. I suspect it's because international law was largely written by the brutal dictators, not by their oppressed citizens. StuRat (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * An exception to Tango's last sentence is when the crime of genocide is being committed by that government, at which point the UN's mandate includes sending in troops to stop it; but our Rwandan Genocide article illustrates an example of all other countries minding their own business despite this mandate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the UN basically makes international law, so it can make exceptions to it (although I think you only need the Security Council to authorise such an invasion, you need the General Assembly to make new laws). Countries can't unilaterally intervene to stop genocide within another country. --Tango (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, sure they can. Who, exactly, would have sent in their military to stop an invasion of Rwanda to stop the genocide, on the general stance of upholding the sovereignty of Rwanda, or on the general stance of upholding "international law"?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Another example involves NATO's involvement in the Balkans during the '90s. There, a group of countries (NATO members) decided to conduct bombing campaigns without the permission of the United Nations in order to stop internal (sort of... the soveriegnty situation was/is complicated in the Balkans) violence.  We can also reference Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, who was slapped with an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur.  Countries obviously don't have carte blanche to do absolutely anything at home, but looking at these incidents, it's clear that it takes a lot of sh*t to get others to intervene.  In the case of al-Bashir, I think it's safe to say that the warrant is little more than symbolic, indicating how hard it is to nab leaders for what they do to their own people. Buddy431 (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're being honest, countries can and will do whatever is in their interests and that they can get away with. NATO, working together, can get away with pretty much anything (the only way anyone can stop NATO militarily is with nukes, which they won't use until mutual destruction is the best option, which would be a very extreme situation). Economics can play a part (even though China's military is no match for NATO's, they could do a lot of harm by refusing to trade with the West), but that usually does a similar amount of harm to both sides unless there is a big size difference, and nobody is bigger than NATO. The only thing that stops NATO from invading everybody is that they don't feel the gain would be worth the cost (and I suppose a few of the politicians might have some morals; stranger things have happened... occasionally). --Tango (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the only way anyone can stop NATO militarily is with nukes - tell that to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan (twice), or, for comparable asymmetric situations, the Viet Cong, or, for a classical reference, Go tell the Spartans! In other words, while few or none can stand up to NATO in a stand-up fight, there is little evidence that that matters nowadays. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * NATO was involved in Vietnam and Afghanistan??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Schulz is just referencing other instances where the side with the stronger military didn't win. But yes, NATO is involved in Afghanistan: International Security Assistance Force.  Whether they "win" or not remains to be seen. Buddy432 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for the difficulties in Afghanistan and Vietnam is that the opponent wasn't the country but rather a certain group of people within the country. If NATO/the US/whoever had been willing to cause massive civilian casualties, they would have had no difficulty winning. As I said, it is a matter of cost-benefit analysis. The cost of victory (ie. lots of dead civilians and the terrible reputation that would result) was deemed too great, but it was far from impossible to achieve. --Tango (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea that the US was unwilling to cause massive civilian casualties in the Vietnam war is remarkable. I think most would say the death tolls described in Vietnam War casualties (which omit the casualties in Cambodia and Laos) are indeed massive. The US persevered until much of its military refused to fight & very many pilots refused to fly bombing missions.  It refrained from using nuclear weapons. That's about it.John Z (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)