Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 5

= May 5 =

Law of Consanguinity in the Royal Families of Medieval Europe
It seems like throughout the Middle Ages it was a sin to marry any cousins even 6th cousins at times, so European had to go out in every direction of Europe to find a sutiable non-related bride ie. Anna of Kiev and Henry I of France. But then it seems like in later times it became okay as long as you get the Popes permission. How royalties of Europe transact from that anti-incest/inbreeding to marrying first cousins by the 19th century? Also this was the case in Western Catholic Europe but was it the same in the Byzantine East because their seem to be some intermarriages there also?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your source for it being illegal to marry 6th cousins? Your common ancestor with a 6th cousin would typically be someone that died about 100 years before you were born - you are very unlikely to have any idea they are your 6th cousin. --Tango (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is completely wrong; read about Spanish kings. Shii (tock) 01:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In canon law consanguinity was prohibited up to the fourth degree - but only after the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 (long after Anna and Henry I). Before 1215, it varied a lot, from one degree to seven degrees. Our Affinity (canon law) article has some info about this. Generally four degrees was the limit even before 1215, though. But in reality it was all political. If you thought you could get away with it, you could marry your first cousin, with special permission from the church. The church, of course, could at any time annul the marriage as incestuous, if you got on their bad side. And there was always a political reason to marry far outside your family, like Anna and Henry. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay maybe it wasn't sixth cousin I read it somewhere. This is too truth because I'm talking about Europe before the 1400s or 1300s, so the Habsburgs wouldn't apply. And I never got these political marriages between countries that are so seperate like the Grand Duchy of Kiev and the Kingdom of France.  Wouldn't political marriages be more beneficial for it was between neighboring countries? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. There can be many good reasons, such a facilitating trade, why such a marriage would be organized.  After all, if French merchants get a monopoly on certain trade goods coming out of Kiev, and visa-versa, it could be a very useful treaty.  -- Jayron  32  03:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Also, in this particular case, Henry already had a couple of dead wives, and was hardly a king at all, he controlled only the Ile-de-France. Who would want to marry him? He's lucky he got Anna, really. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a wife within the prohibited degrees, was also a convenient way to later get rid of her if she failed to provide children, or he desired to marry somebody else.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Henry VIII tried to use her marriage to his brother to get rid of Catherine of Aragon, but the Pope wouldn't go for it, mainly because her nephew was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, otherwise the Pope would have granted the annulment. In point of fact, Henry VIII was related to all his wives, through their mutaul descent from King Edward I of England. Historian Antonia Fraser outlines this in The Wives of Henry VIII.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes in human morphology
I recently took a college course on Herpetology and found the notion of amphibians being able to change their phenotype in order to become cannibals very interesting. This usually results from a aquatic environment low in resources. I'm not much of a writer, but this gave me the idea for a story in which humans somehow take on a similar form during times of starvation and forced cannibalism (like the legend of the Donner Party for example). Like cannibalistic amphibians, the humans' jaw structures would enlarge and their teeth would elongate to allow for eating larger prey. This could be used as an alternative explanation for vampirism, lycanthropy, and zombiefication. No demons, just science.

Now, I know that mammals lack the ability to change their phenotype of their own volition. My question is whether there has ever been studies on short term changes in human morphology, particularly the face? I know there has been studies in the past on why couples look like each other, but what about large populations of mixed races? For instance, I've noticed that Black Europeans have a distinct look to them that is unlike Black Americans. I realize there is probably a fair amount of intermingling, but that can't account for all the Black Europeans that I have seen. I have even seen this in the features of 2nd generation Chinese. Some of my friends have softened features compared to their parents and relatives living in China. Is there something that causes a person to take on the features of the surrounding group in order to facilitate better social integration?

If there has been such a study, I would like to explain that the change in cannibalistic humans is an extreme version of this. Sort of like a defensive survival strategy that is locked in our DNA. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The big difference between second generation imigrants and first generation imigrants is that the second generation grew up in the environment. Thus, as you note, the second generation Chinese Americans will have grown up in America, and thus had a very different diet, especially during their developmental years, than their parents did, growing up in china.  Do not discount what 20-30 years of eating different foods will do to your appearance.  -- Jayron  32  03:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)All our knowledge in genetics and studies on facial features shows that there isn't anything that causes the social environment to change the facial features, your bones don't "try to look like your friends' ". I guess what you are observing in your friends compared to their parents is maybe a better balanced diet during childhood, and a better medical attention, which could help people having better skin. Or maybe they are just younger! --Lgriot (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Appearance is partly a matter of perception. Clothing, haircut, manicure have bearing on appearance. Behavior also would contribute to the perceptions others have of you. I agree that diet would also have bearing on appearance. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I never really thought of diet. I guess that would account for my Black European example as well. The brief article I read about couples looking the same stated it was caused from them sharing similar experiences. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghost -- I think you might be oversimplifying evolutionary theory. Adaptations based on mutations are only selectively passed onto subsequent generations if they are helpful and aid those who possess them to live longer/mate more.  If humans were faced with a choice of cannibalism or death, and they chose cannibalism, beneficial mutations allowing said humans to better adapt for such a situation would not occur if humans maintained all of their other social graces, such as eating with flatware, saying "please," "thank you" and "pass the ribs" and altogether desisted from sabotage of each others' lives and meals.  If everything were the same but we began to eat human-burgers instead of beefburgers, there'd be no real benefit (and therefor, need) to pass on larger jaws or longer teeth.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have taken a history of life on earth evolution course prior to my Herp class, so I know all about mutation, genetic drift, and how evolution takes place over long periods of time. This is just a fictional story, so I'm bending the rules of science a little. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding fictional stories which feature human evolution, see Galápagos (novel). And read it; its pretty good stuff.  -- Jayron  32  03:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just read the synopsis, very interesting. I'll have to look that up. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a morphological change, but Poul Anderson's "The Sharing of Flesh" (1968) deals with evolutionary changes relating to cannibalism. Essentially, during a time period when an isolated human colony's small population was forced to practice cannibalism to survive, a genetic malady arose that prevented young males from starting puberty unless they got a certain dose of hormones only available by eating human flesh.  Under normal circumstances, natural selection would have prevented this condition from being perpetuated but, because of the cannibalism and the small population size, it persisted even as the planet's population and resources stabilized so that cannibalism became a cultural norm for those living on the planet. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  06:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What the H-E-double-toothpicks was that all about? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect it is an attempt to avoid giving away plot spoilers? It would make more sense if the poster said so (e.g. "Spoilers (highlight with your mouse if you want to see it)." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to your perceived anthropological differences between "Black Europeans" and "Black Americans" I believe the answer is this: Most African Americans are descendants of slaves originally (mostly) from Western Africa in the 15th through 19th centuries. "Black Europeans", on the other hand, are much more likely to be either first, second or third generation immigrants from areas of Africa that were poverty-, starvation-, war-, or drought-stricken during the 20th century, for example Somalia (though this will of course vary widely from one European country to the next). There is much more human genetic variation in Sub-Saharan Africa than anywhere else in the world, so where in Africa one's medieval ancestors lived will have a fairly significant impact on one's biological anthropology. Gabbe (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that what you are seeing is the likely different in immigration patterns. I would also note that the ancestors of African-Americans are from West and Central Africa, and that many are, at some point or another, mixed with either European and/or Native American "stock". The result is that many (perhaps most) African-Americans will look quite different than, say, someone from Somalia or Ethiopia or even South Africa. Africa is a continent of tremendous human diversity (from the towering Maasai to the diminutive Efé), but the over-representation of a few regions in the Americas, as a result of the Atlantic slave trade, often leads to an assumption of homogeneity. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One well-known change in bodily function in response to environment is that how much you can sweat partly depends on how hot it was when you were a young child... AnonMoos (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the mechanism of that? Is sweating as an adult partially a function of settings the body made to itself when the person was a child? Just curious. Sorry for going off-topic. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably, but I don't know much about it in detail. The body is adjusting itself to the climate experienced as a young child, but I don't know the exact mechanism(or whether anybody knows the exact mechanism). AnonMoos (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not majoring in any science-based degree in school, so I do not always make the most astute observations. Although, I am extremely interested in the subject of evolution.


 * I guess I could always just come up with a scenario in which a scientist conducts experiments that go bad. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if Greece defaulted on their debt payments?
What would happen if Greece defaulted on their debt payments? --33rogers (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The (unhedged) holders of those assets would incur a loss if they bought them when the market believed there would be no deafult. Also, Greece would not be able to borrow at reasonable rates which is especially bad for a country whose government has been used to spending more than its tax revenues. Is there something more specific you want to know? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all it isn't Greece, it's the Greek government. Cases worth of study are Argentine economic crisis (1999–2002) and the 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis. Please note that all previous experiences have been with countries which issued their own currency. IMHO no one is really sure. If the Greek government defaults in its debt payments no one is going to lend it more money (would you lend me money if you knew that I was not going to pay you back?). If no one lends the Greek government money it won't be able to pay its public servants. This could lead to a cold stop of most public service. A better comparison could be the ongoing 2008–10 California budget crisis. Flamarande (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See also our article on national bankruptcy (in serious need of improvement, sadly). Warofdreams talk 10:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Governments rarely absolutely default on their debt. Instead, they typically reach an agreement with their creditors involving debt restructuring. The creditors, facing the alternative of a total loss, will typically agree to accept a later maturity date and/or a partial loss (a reduction in the principal and/or interest rate on the debt), in return for the government's promise to make good on the restructured debt.  In the case of Greece, some commentators, such as this one, have argued that Greece cannot possibly repay its present debt on the promised terms because the austerity plan needed to keep the debt from expanding will cause the economy to contract such that the debt, compounded by interest, will grow relative to the economy such that even the recent financial pledges by other European countries will not cover the country's debt service or other obligations.  If Greece does restructure, many banks and individuals, mainly in Europe, will face losses amounting potentially to hundreds of billions of euros.


 * A partial Greek default by itself would bankrupt few banks or individuals outside of Greece. The danger is that a Greek default or restructuring would further undermine investor confidence in the government debt of other countries perceived as potentially insolvent, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, or even the United Kingdom.  The debt of Spain alone is so large that other European governments might not be able to bail it out without putting their own solvency in question.  The debt of Italy is considerably larger than that of Spain.  A partial default or restructuring by either of these large southern European countries would probably be large enough to cause many European banks to fail, including banks in France and Germany. This would be a serious financial crisis that could potentially lead to a breakup of the euro zone.  Marco polo (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

--33rogers (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Codification of interpolations in Bhagvad-Gita
There is no information/discussion about the codification of interpolations in Bhagvad Gita, which would go a long way in removing many a misconception about some of the contentious verses there in. I have identified 110 interpolations and codified the same in my article 'Mundane distortions in the divine discourse of Bhagvad-Gita' which if published in your site is likely to change the way the world would approach this ancient work. Hope you would like to have it. Regards, BS Murthy.

P.s. The article is submitted here for your appreciation of the same.

Mundane distortions in the Divine discourse of Bhagvad-Gita

William von Humboldt who wrote seven-hundred verses in praise of the Bhagvad-Gita averred that it is the most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical song existing in any known tongue. All the same, the boon of an oral tradition that kept the divine discourse of yore alive for millennia became the bane of the Gita going by the seemingly mundane distortions it had to endure. Strangely it was Sir Edwin Arnold the Englishman who sought to separate the divine wheat from the mundane chaff by branding s23-s27 of ch8 as the ranting of some vedanti in his century old ‘Song Celestial’. While interpreting the Gita in English verse an attempt was made by the author to identify the interpolations in it and codify the same for the benefit of the modern reader. One way to scent the nature of these, if not zero in on every one of them, is to subject the text to the twin tests of sequential conformity and structural economy. Sequential conformity is all about uniformity of purpose sans digression and structural economy but represents the absence of repetitiveness.

The pundits and the plebeians alike aver that the philosophy of the Gita is the practice of disinterested action. In this context it may be noted that while postulating nishkaama karma, the theory of disinterested action, Krishna was critical of the ritualistic aspects of and the mundane expectations from the Vedic ceremonies (s42 - 46 and s53 of ch.2.). Given that the pristine philosophy of the Gita is to tend man on the path of duty without attachment, the about turn in s9-s16 of ch.3 that formulate the procedural aspects of the rituals and the divine backing they enjoy cannot stand to either reason or logic. Such contradictory averments attributed to Krishna wherever occur can be taken as interpolations and the same are delved into in this article.

Next on the agenda is the aspect of structural economy and one finds the similitude of a given content in many a sloka in the same or in a different context throughout the text. Obviously, some of them are interpolations but which were the originals and which are the imitations could be impossible to find out for they smugly fit into the overall structure. Whatever, save lengthening the discourse, they do not belittle the same and fortunately not even tire the reader, thanks to the exemplary charm of Sanskrit, which for the 18th Century British intellectual Sir William Jones ‘is of wonderful structure, more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin and more exquisitely refined than either.’ Identified here are 110 slokas of deviant character or digressive nature that can be taken as interpolations with reasonable certainty. Readers may like to mark these verses in their Gita and then read it afresh by passing over them for a refreshing experience.

Besides the interpolations s9-s16 of ch.3, s17, s18 and s24 of the same are clear digressions. Such others in the rest of the chapters wherever they crop up are dealt as follows:

Chapter - 4: It should not be lost on one that s11’s return of favour by the Lord is juxtaposing to the stated detachment of His as espoused in s14 of the same chapter. On the other hand, s12 that is akin to s20, ch.7, itself an interpolation, and s13 the contentious chaatur varnyam mayaa srustam - do not jell with the spirit of the philosophy. Why hasn't Krishna declared in s 29 ch.9, ‘None I favour, slight I none / Devout Mine but gain Me true’. Slokas 24 to s32 that are of religious/ritualistic nature seem clearly out of context and character. Prior to this seemingly interpolated body of eleven slokas, the nature of the Supreme Spirit and the conduct of those who realize it are dealt with. Thus, the discontinuity in the text brought about by the body of these interpolative slokas would be self-evident. And s34 that advises Arjuna to seek wise counsel is irrelevant in the context of the discourse fashioned to set his doubts at rest in the battlefield itself.

Chapter-5: S18 avers the Omnipresence of the Supreme in Brahmans, cows, elephants, dogs and dog eaters. This tasteless description could be but an interpolation as it ill behoves Krishna’s eloquence and sophistication of expression seen throughout. Incidentally, the succeeding s19 makes it clear that whoever recognizes Him in all beings attains the Supreme State in life itself. S27-s28 that deal with yogic practices and s29, which asserts the Supreme as the beneficiary of sacrificial rituals, are but interpolation for reasons that bear no repetition.

Chapter - 6: S10-s17 deal with aspects of ascetic practices which are but square pegs in the round philosophical hole the discourse is and so are interpolations, even going by what is stated in the very opening verse, ‘Forego none if forsake chores / Eye not gain ’n thou be freed’. S41 and s42 are clearly interpolations not only for affecting the continuity of the text but also for what they contain. S41 would have us that those who perform the asvamedha (ritualistic horse sacrifice) would reach heaven to be born again rich. Likewise, s 42 would have us that, ‘or such would be born in learned homes’.

Chapter-7: S20-s23 besides affecting the continuity in character of the discourse, would advocate worship of gods for boon seeking that Krishna chastises is s42-s44, ch.2 and that renders them interpolations.

Chapter – 8: It can be seen that s5 places the cart before the horse. Besides, s9-s14 too are interpolations going by their content that’s out of context. It is worth noting that s1-s4, s6-s8 and s15-s22, if read together would bear an unmistakable continuity of argument that the interpolations deprive. And s22 is a seemingly concluding statement of the Lord that only through un-swerved devotion the Supreme could be reached from which there is no return (s21). Then appear s23 to s27 which if literally taken would imply that if one dies when the moon is on the ascent he would go to heaven and, to hell if it’s other way round. Needless to say, these slokas spelling superstition in an otherwise thought-elevating treatise are but interpolations which Sir Edwin Arnold dismissed as the work of some vedanti and thought it fit, justifiably at that, not to include them in his ‘Song Celestial’. In this connection it may be noted that the relationship between the state in which a person dies and his imminent rebirth is covered in s14 - s15 of c14, which seem to be authentic.

Chapter -9: S7, that contravenes s15-s16 of ch.8, and which echoes interpolative s18-s19 of the current chapter, is an interpolation. Also s15 of is but a digression to facilitate the interpolations in s16-s21 and s23-s25. What is more, there could be some omissions from the original, given the seemingly incomplete exposition of the promised dharma in s2. Further, in s 30 and s 31, it is said that even a reformed sinner is dear and valuable to Him. Then in s 32 it is stated that women, Vaisyas and Sudras could win His favour through devotion, sounding as if they are all in an inferior league. Leave aside the Lord's averment in many a context in this text that the Supreme Spirit lies in all beings, it is specifically stated in s34 of ch.10 that He symbolizes all that is glorious in woman. Given this, and the background of the interpolations, s32 surely is a case of trespass. S33 of this chapter is but a jointing medium of the said obnoxious verse and in itself is patronizing in nature towards the virtuous Brahmans and thus is an interpolation.

Chapter – 11: Owing to the improbability of their being, s9-s14, make an amusing reading. S3 states that Krishna grants Arjuna the divine sight required to espy His Universal Form. Of course, the ESP that Vyasa granted Sanjaya (s75 ch.18) might have enabled him to monitor the goings on at the battleground in order to appraise the blind king Dhrutarashtra about the same. Thus, only from Arjuna’s averments could have Sanjaya gathered what he was divining of the Universal Form, which obviously was beyond his (Sanjaya) own comprehension. But s10-s14 would have him describe the Universal Form as though he himself was witnessing the same, even before Arjuna utters a word about it. In this context it is worth noting that the Lord made it clear in s52, ‘Ever craved gods ’n angels too / Just to behold what thee beheld’. Thus, the Universal Form that was seen by Arjuna surely was beyond the scope of Sanjaya's ESP and hence, s9-s14 that picture beforehand what Arjuna would witness later on are clear interpolations. Contrast this with the parallel situation in s50-s51, when the Lord reassumes His human form, but handled differently by Sanjaya. The s29 which seeks to emphasize what was already pictured in s28, albeit with not so appropriate a simile, could be but an interpolation.

Chapter -13: One might notice that s10, advocating asceticism to which Krishna is opposed, doesn't jell with the rest, either contextually or philosophically, and thus should be seen as an interpolation. S22, which states that the Supreme Soul lay in beings as a sustainer, consenter, enjoyer and overseer, contravenes its very nature expostulated in s16-s18, ch.15. Besides, as can be seen, it affects the continuity between s21 and s23 of this chapter. S30, akin to s15 is an irrelevant interpolation.

Chapter- 14: In this chapter that details the three human proclivities - virtue, passion and delusion- s3, s4 and s19 that deal with the Nature and the Spirit are digressive interpolations.

Chapter – 15: S9, s12, s13, s14 and s15 being digressions are clearly interpolations.

Chapter – 16: S19 which implies that the Supreme Spirit condemns to hell those who hate Him is an obvious interpolation that contravenes Krishna’s affirmative statement in s29 ch.9 and other such averred in many a context in this text.

Chapter-17: S11-s13 that deal with the virtuous, the passionate and the deluded in ritualistic sense and s 23 -28 concerning Om, Tat, Sat and Asat of the Vedic hymns are clear interpolations for reasons the reader is familiar with. However, s7-s10 that deal with the food habits of the virtuous, the passionate and the deluded would pose a problem in determining whether or not they are interpolations. Can eating habits be linked to the innate nature of man in an infallible manner? Perhaps, some future research and analysis might resolve the universality or otherwise of this averment, and till then, it is appropriate to reserve the judgment on these.

Chapter -18: One can note that s12 breaks the continuity between s11 and s13 with hyperbolic averments and s56 combines what is stated in the preceding and the succeeding slokas, and thus both are seemingly interpolations. S41- s48 that describe the allotted duties of man on the basis of his caste are clearly interpolations. In essence, the discourse till s40 is about the human nature and how it affects man. As can be seen, the duties on caste lines detailed in the said interpolations have no continuity of argument. As in earlier chapters, the text acquires continuity if only these verses are bypassed. S61 avers that the Supreme dwells in humans and deludes them all by his maya. This is contrary to what is stated in s14, c5, ‘It’s his nature but not Spirit / Makes man act by wants induced’. Thus, s61 clearly is an interpolation as it contravenes the neutrality of the Supreme Spirit in the affairs of man affirmed throughout by Lord Krishna.

For those who may like to see how the Gita reads if the above cited 110 slokas are bypassed, the same are summarized as under.

Ch. 3: s9 –s18, s24 and s35 (12 slokas); Ch.4: s11 - s 13, s24- s32 and s34 (13 slokas); Ch.5: s18 and s27 -29 (4 slokas) ; Ch. 6: s10-s17 and s41 -s42 (10 slokas) ; ch.7: s20 –s23 (4 slokas) ; ch.8:  s5, s9- s14 and s23-s28 ( 13 slokas) ; ch.9: s7,s15-s21, s23-s25, and  s32-s34 (14 slokas) ; ch.11: s9- s14 and s29 (7 slokas) ; ch.13:  s10, s22 and s30 (3 slokas) ;ch.14: s3 -s4 and s19(3 slokas) ; ch.15: s9 and s12- s15 (5 slokas );ch.16: s19 (1 sloka) ;ch.17:  s11- s14 and  s23- 28 (10 slokas)  and ch.18:  s12, s41-48, s56 and s61(11 slokas ).

One may like to read my ‘Bhagvad-Gita: treatise of self-help’ in verse sans the above at Vedanta Spiritual Library or hear the audio rendition of the same at gatewayforindia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.49.161 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your query. This really isn't the place to submit articles in full, so I've collapsed your text into a box to make navigation of the page a little easier.  Unfortunately, having looked at it, the article appears to be composed entirely of your own ideas and theories; that is, it is original research, which Wikipedia specifically does not publish.  Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, and everything here must be verifiable in a reliable source where it has already been published.  If a document is described as something that will change the way the world views a subject, it is by definition unsuitable for Wikipedia.  You can find more guidance at Your first article.  Ka renjc 11:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

If my article does not qualify to be published, you may consider providing a link to 'Bhagvad-Gita: treatise of self-help' at Vedanta Spiritual Library and gatewayforindia.com. I do see Wikipedia providing many a link to Bhagvad-Gita of various authors and you may note that my work too is backed by the said sites specializing in works on the Indian philosophy. Regards, BS Murthy


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If the reference you suggest supports an existing assertion or assertions in any of our articles, and can be used as a reliable citation, you are welcome to add it yourself: see Citing sources for information on how to do this.  But Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and links to external sites should be added for a valid purpose. If you have knowledge of any particular subject, do remember that your input in improving existing articles will be welcome. Perhaps you would enjoy contributing at WP:WikiProject Hinduism, WP:WikiProject Religious texts, WP:WikiProject India or WP:Wikiproject Philosophy?  Ka renjc 15:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

B type blood and its arrival in Europe
I am curious as to how and when B type blood reached Europe? The article on blood groups showed that the B type allele reaches its highest frequency (41%) amongst the Kalmyks of central Asia. It's also high in Northern India and amongst gypsies. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably a very long time ago. As you note, if its in Romani people, they've been in Europe since the 11th centure, according to that article.  Furthermore, there has been contact between central Asian peoples and European peoples for a very long time before that, Turko-Mongolic people have coming to Europe since well before the birth of Christ; the Kalmyks, being a turko-mongolic people, probably share a common genetic ancestry with groups like the  Eurasian Avars and Bulgars and Tartars and the like.  -- Jayron  32  15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how I managed to get it?! My dad had it as well (so obviously I got it from him), but his parents were from western Ireland, so how could it have possibly ended up there? I see that it's fairly common in eastern European people, yet drops in nations like France and Spain; however, it raises slightly in Ireland (10%) and Scotland (12%). Do you think the Vikings could have something to do with it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Before they were in Ireland, the Celts ranged all over Europe. One could imagine that the Hallstatt or Urnfield people, both proto-Celtic peoples, had some contact with some of the central asian people I noted above, or others.  There have even been more recent Irish peoples who arrived from other parts of the world.  Heck, if a half-Cuban like Eamon de Valera can be a prominent Irishman, one can imagine other people emigrating to Ireland at various times, from just about anywhere.  There are the so-called Black Irish, the article on them discusses some of the genetic evidence for their origins.  -- Jayron  32  15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that one of the English queen consorts, Philippa of Hainault was descended on the maternal side from the Kipchaks. Now they were definitely central Asian. It's highly unlikely that my dad had recent non-Irish ancestry unless it was English, Welsh or Scots, considering the relative isolation of the west of Ireland at the time of his parents birth. A possible central Asian origin for the Celts is intriguing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not really necessary that the Celts ever lived in central asia. Its just required that Celts (or their ancestors) had sex with Central Asian peoples.  Any time large groups of people are in contact for extended periods of time, there will be sex between them, and hence an exchange of genes.  So we don't necessarily need Celts in central asia; instead we just need some of the Celts from central Europe to have had sex with, say, Avars, who also were nearby.  Then, when the Celts are driven to the periphery of Europe by the Latin and Germanic peoples, they carry those central-asian-origin genes with them.  -- Jayron  32  16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This article has some fascinating maps of blood group distribution. The map of the B blood type strongly suggests an origin for the blood type in Central Asia and/or northern India and its gradual spread in every direction from there.  What is interesting to me, in relation to your question, is the distribution of the B blood type in Africa.  The blood type is more common in most parts of Africa than it is in western Europe.  That might suggest that its spread to Africa occurred longer ago than its spread to western Europe.  There have been no large movements of people from Eurasia to sub-Saharan Africa in historic times.  Since such a movement would almost have had to pass through Egypt (and since the other possible route, through Ethiopia, seems unlikely given the low frequency of B bloodtypes in southern Arabia and the Horn of Africa), the movement surely took place more than 5,000 years ago when writing developed in Egypt.  Within western Europe, the area with the lowest concentration of the blood type (discounting thinly populated areas in northern Sweden) is centered on the Pyrenees.  This, of course, is the area inhabited in ancient times by the related Aquitani and the ancestors of the Basques.  This strongly suggests that the B blood type arrived in Europe with the speakers of the early Indo-European languages, since the Aquitani-Basque region was the main region not reached in ancient times by this migration.  The date of arrival of Indo-European speakers in eastern Europe west of the Dnieper is controversial.  I find arguments for a date around 3000 BCE convincing, but others have argued for a date 3000 years earlier than that.  Indo-European speakers would have spread gradually to western Europe (except Aquitania-Vasconia) over the next 1000 years or so, intermarrying with existing populations and thereby diluting their gene pool.  Marco polo (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is odd is how all of my kids have it. My mother was A, which fits in with her English and French ancestry, yet my brother is AB. Now, that group is the latest to arrive in Europe. Marco, would you concur with the theory that B type blood originated in the Himalayas?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Himalayas are certainly near the center of the area with the highest concentration of the B blood type. On the other hand, the Himalayas have never been densely populated, for obvious reasons.  Looking at the map, it looks to me as if the Hindu Kush is even closer to the center of the area with the highest concentration of the B blood type.  The thing is, the area around the Hindu Kush has been a crossroads for thousands of years and probably was in prehistoric times.  Central Asia, to its north, has seen even larger migrations sweep across it.  So much so that if Central Asia was the region where the blood type originated, we might expect its frequency to have decreased there as a result of the many migrations since that very ancient time.  So I would say that the place of origin could have been anywhere between northern India and Central Asia, including both of those two regions.  The origin very likely occurred 10,000 or more years ago, so we cannot pinpoint it with any kind of accuracy.  Marco polo (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Identifying a mislabelled sound file on Wikipedia, probably by Handel
I uploaded the above file to Wikipedia a couple of years ago under the filename "Handel - Organ Concerto - Op. 7 No. 1 - HWV 306 - 3. Largo e piano.ogg". However it has recently come to my attention that the file is not part of the official score for that particular concerto. Camn someone here identify the piece, or point me somewhere on the Internet that can help me out? I tried emailing the organ soloist, David Schrader, but I didn't get a response after a week. I know that the file is in G minor because I have absolute pitch. It ends on the dominant chord of D major, so if it's not an improvisation (which is entirely possible), it must be part of a larger work.

Thanks for any assistance in this matter. Feel free to fix the formatting of the sound file if needed. Graham 87 14:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've linked to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and Talk:George Frideric Handel. Graham 87 15:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See How to Identify Songs Using Melody - wikiHow. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that site has some interesting links! None of them have helped me find the melody so far, however. Graham 87 01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It may well be an improvisation since Handel would have improvised during his solo performances (common practice in the Baroque period) and David Schrader is probably trying to be "authentic" in his performance. OTOH, the piece is familiar so he might be using another of Handel's tricks (also common in the Baroque, in fact) of "recycling" material from elsewhere.  It might only be "familiar", however, because Schrader is simply using Baroque techniques and well-worn-phrases in his improvisation.  That said, if it is a recycled piece from elsewhere, I'll probably kick my self when I find out the name of it... --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Evil
Who was the most evil person in recorded history? --J4\/4 &lt;talk&gt; 16:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Evil is impossible to quantify. This question has come up before.  Search the archives.  -- Jayron  32  16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there anyone who was responsible for more deaths than Hitler was? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also say it was Adolf Hitler considering his genocide of six million people, plus the millions more who died as a result of the devastating war he launched in Europe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And how does that particular case of genocide and war become more evil than any other genocide/war in history? Why isn't Attila the Hun evil?  He waged war throughout most of the known world at the time, killing countless people and took on extremely genocidal tactics.  Deciding who is "most evil" tends to come down to "who did it most recently" - which is a rather silly metric for measuring how evil someone was. --  k a i n a w &trade; 17:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A Google search for "list of evil people" or similar will net lots of results. As a random example, Cliff Pickover rates Tomas de Torquemada at number one evil man of all time. Buddy432 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Torquemada ordered the extermination of six million people, besides there are many people who have never heard of Torquemada, whereas most people over the age of 10 know who Hitler was.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I heard once that Hitler killed 6 million Jews, and Stalin killed 6 million of all races and creeds. But that could have been literary license. However, Hitler makes a good poster child for "Evil", in that there is so much footage of him or of his regime that he's relatively "accessible" as demagogues go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There were also, in addition to the 6 million murdered Jews, the millions of combatants and civilians who died in World War Two, which he was personally responsible for causing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. China and Japan were already at war before Germany and Russia started the war in Europe, and the conditions for tension between France and Germany due to the Versailles Treaty would still have existed without Hitler, and likewise between Japan and the English-speaking countries.  Certainly Hitler was responsible for the war taking the particular course it did, but if he'd died in a traffic accident in 1930 there very well might still have been some sort of second world war.  --Anonymous, 18:27 UTC, 2010-05-05.
 * Hitler comes to mind as the most evil because he is both a notable 20th century player and is regarded as evil. If it is death tolls that we use to quantify evil, then this list mentions Mao Zedong's regime as killing 40 million people (this number includes those dying from the Great Leap Forward), Stalin's regime killing 20 million, and Congo Free State (headed by Leopold II of Belgium) killing about 8 million.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  18:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's extremely frustrating to see RD regulars use the figure "six million" as short-hand for the camps. I absolutely agree that we must "never forget" the six million Jews -- but at least THIRTEEN million people died in the camps (the Jews plus seven million more).  It amazes me that people who pride themselves on their general knowledge continue to be ignorant of this fact. 63.17.78.36 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The debate above, which will never end, illustrates that the question is not answerable because the term "evil" is subjective. Our article Evil, for example, discusses several acts now considered evil which were not considered evil in earlier times; mentions that "evil", to some, means simply "disobeying God"; and contains some criticism of the use of the word itself as counterproductive.  Sorry.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To the question by Bugs about anyone to have been responsible for more deaths than Hitler was: the article Mao Zedong states that "Mao's policies and political purges from 1949 to 1976 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 50 to 70 million people." --Магьосник (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * holy crap! 160.39.221.164 (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. The Holocaust numbers are usually cited as 6 million jews + 6 million non-jews. In either case, the numbers are so large that the degree of disgust is irrelevant. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * thumb Is whoever is responsible for this evil? (Nick Ut /AP)
 * The actual number of dead are somewhat irrelevant for the question at hand, because they do not only depend on (evil) intent, but also on the means of the candidate. Who knows how many Attila would have killed with modern technology? Or, for another question, how "evil" would those people be that initiated the second strike in a full-scale nuclear war? It would be pure, useless revenge, killing untold millions of innocents. But if the act is evil, what about the preparation for it? Is a sadistic murderer who slowly kills 3 victims for his own satisfaction more evil than a national leader who fights a war in which hundreds of children are burned to death with Napalm? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that we know Hitler killed at least 13 million people makes him the person we all automatically think of when evil is mentioned. Of course, there have been others. Excluding the 20th century, we have Attila, Vlad Tepes, Elizabeth Bathory, the glorious revolutionaries Marat and Robespierre, Ivan the Terrible, Caligula and other Roman emporers; then let us not forget the various Byzantine despots. And that wonderful model family of the turn of the 16th century-the Borgias! Any of these could be labelled evil by both contemporary and modern standards.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If one is religious? God is the most evil thing. Think of all the people it killed or let die. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That was unnecessary. The person who posed the question was specifically asking about the "most evil person" not the "most evil deity."  Theologically speaking, there are people who believe in the vengeful God, and there are people who believe in a loving God.  You cannot make generalizations about God being evil, when God is present in the theologies of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, each having multiple ways of describing God.  Many people who believe in God also believe that God provides for an eternal life in love and peace, which is not my idea of evil. Falconus p  t   c 15:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Post military-model
Many textbooks decry the military model of management, and from my experience I agree with that. But after the military model is removed, what do you call what should replace it? 78.146.23.126 (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you define as the military model?
 * ALR (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably command and control, which is the name for the standard management model used by most militaries. There are, of course, many non-heirarchical management models, W. L. Gore and Associates uses a notable one which works quite well for them.  Our article gives a basic overview.  There are lots of others.  -- Jayron  32  00:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be my assumption, but since military organisations, in common with the rest of the real world, don't reflect the textbooks it's difficult to judge. In practice there is a blend of different styles of management and leadership depending on context and situation.
 * I would say that in my experience the Command and Control model is nowadays rarely used in the military environment, it's much more about what I'd call Mission Command or management by objectives
 * ALR (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Joel Spolsky has a series of articles  on this subject, as it applies to software management. Paul (Stansifer) 02:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What I call it is "chaos". Multiple reporting lines make things very confusing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Where and why did you get the idea that the alternative is multiple reporting lines? 89.243.159.221 (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bugs is presenting a false dilemma: you either run things like the military, or you don't run anything at all. Obviously there are more alternatives than that and references have already been given to some of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A style of Matrix management, with multiple reporting lines, is quite common in the military environment. It's an unrealistic example.
 * ALR (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Re-reading my question above, I see it could be read to be about the management style in the military. What I meant was, the military model for management of business or other non-military organisations. To answer ALR above, the military model is where people try to run a business to be like their idea of running an army. 78.149.246.255 (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, thanks. So what people that don't understand how the military works, think it does ;)
 * See my thoughts above. The Command and Control model is what people imagine the military is like, management by objectives is what it's really like :)
 * These are the terms that I'd generally use if I'm delivering leadership training, rather than military model because it means different things to different people. Consultative and collaborative styles are used as well, but more usually in specialist units.
 * ALR (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS
1. Is HIV/AIDS on a decline throughout the world? 2. Which region of Earth has the highest HIV/AIDS cases? B-Machine (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In absolute numbers or as a proportion of population? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Both. B-Machine (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is still on the rise. This page has a graph.  Also see our AIDS article, which includes the graphic to the right illustrating HIV prevalence among the population.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From the map, it is fairly obvious that the highest levels of infection are found in Sub-Saharan Africa region, though I would have expected Thailand to have a higher rate then it shows. Googlemeister (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also important to note (though you didn't ask for it) that infection is not necessarily evenly distributed. In Sub-Saharan Africa, being poor correlates strongly with HIV infection. In Thailand, it would correlate with sex workers and their clients. In Western countries it tends to correlate with (but is by no means limited to) drug users, people with many sexual partners, people who have unprotected sex and (unfortunately) men who have homosexual sex. Steewi (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's phrased a little oddly. Poor people, homosexuals, drug users, prostitutes, and folks who have a lot of sex are at high risk, but it's only gay guys that rate an "unfortunate"? WTF? Matt Deres (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * HIV/AIDS killing poor people, gays and drug users is rather Darwinian in that it seems to punish certain behaviors, that are less conducive to procreation. Of course, the other 2 categories are the exact opposite.  Googlemeister (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you want to talk 'Darwinian'... Humans are social creatures and generally spend significant resources raising the young. Someone who humps everything that moves may procreate more, but it doesn't mean that it's evolutionary advantageous behaviour. And there are a number of theories on why certain people being gay may not be the completely evolutionary dead end it seems to be. Evolution is about more then just having as many babies as you can. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)