Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 22

= November 22 =

European anti-hate laws
Are European anti-hate laws such that you can get in trouble if you say that fewer than 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust (for instance 5.4 million)? 71.203.138.231 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no single European law on this: see here. The exact number of victims of the Holocaust will probably always be unknown, and it should be remembered that Jews were not the only victims. Most prosecutions for Holocaust denial have related to just that: denial that the events occurred at all, or at least an attempt to systematically minimise the number of victims. I doubt anyone would be prosecuted for an academic argument over numbers: it probably comes down to intent.
 * Incidentally, Wikipedia should not be used as a source for legal advice, though I'd assume that this wasn't the reason you asked the question! AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, just general interest, not legal advice. 71.203.138.231 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are Nazi groups who like to lower the number though, to say "only" a few hundred thousand people were killed, as if that's somehow better. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Obviously if only a tenth as many people had been killed it would have been "somehow better"! 84.153.242.138 (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The real danger (in my opinion) is not from blatantly neo-Nazi groups, but from revisionist "historians" who write plausible sounding, semi-scholarly books on the subject. It's easy to dismiss a claim that the Nazis were handing out ponies and candy.  It's not so easy to dismiss a claim that, maybe most deaths in concentration camps were due to tuberculosis, and that the Nazis, while disregarding the well being of detained undesirables, weren't actually trying to kill them.  I mean, it was disease and malnutrition that did in a lot of the people at concentration camps, so such a claim is harder to refute.  Or maybe you say that while there were certainly incidents of violence against Jews and other unwanted people, there was no centralized plan to exterminate them, that any violence was just due to overzealous guards rather than Nazi authorities.  These type of guys can look a lot like legitimate academics, and indeed, sometimes the line is blurred.  How do you classify someone like David Irving?  Yes, he's obviously somewhat of a Nazi sympathizer, and has at times written things that are pretty blatantly holocaust denial.  However, he's also written a lot of World War II books that are pretty well received, and does actually do research into the events he writes about.  He was  successfully prosecuted in Austria for holocaust denial. Buddy431 (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, most prosecutions under such laws have been of people who went out of their way to attract the attention of the authorities, seeking 'martyrdom'. Perhaps the most appropriate punishment for their crimes might be to ignore them, rather than giving them an excuse to make themselves out as victims. Still, as I've noted, these are national laws, and have to be seen in their own particular contexts. I tend to think that neo-Nazis and the like present ample opportunities to be charged for their actions, so prosecuting them for their historical delusions is unnecessary. Typically, they have little ability to argue about history in a logical manner anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd actually disagree with a lot of that. A number of the people charged under such laws that they had no intention of breaking, and in places that they had no intention of being.  The most famous is probably Gerald Fredrick Töben, who was issued a German arrest warrant for a website that he ran, from Austria.  He was arrested in the UK because of the arrest warrant, a nation with no such holocaust denial laws.  That a man could be arrested in one country because he did something in his home country that's illegal in a third country is really pretty scary.  He did nothing specific to attract the attention of the German authorities, and indeed, probably had no intention of breaking German law.  The case really highlights the legal problems that the internet creates.  If my website can be accessed in  Country A that has less permissive freedom of speech laws than my home Country B, can a warrant for my arrest be issued in Country A?  Evidentially yes.  Can that arrest warrant be carried out in a third country that I've never been in before, Country C, whether or not what I did is illegal there?  Apparently, at least in some cases.  It's easy to blow off a case like this, given Toben's nutty views, but there are places in the world that go a lot further than outlawing holocaust denial, and it's really scary to think that I might have to worry about those countries laws even when I'm not in them. Buddy431 (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As opposed to the situation where you can be imprisoned (or worse - much worse), by the police in country A because they have surrendered to country B who blames all its problems on people it insists are conspiring on behalf of imaginary country C? If you are that worried about being arrested for asserting your rights to 'freedom of speech' by talking crap, then don't do it. Bogus martyrdom doesn't justify stupidity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're trivializing a very serious issue. The point is not Töben.  The point is laws that criminalize dissenting views.  Such laws should never be permitted, as they represent an officialization of truth.  One of truth's worst enemies, historically, has been its codification into official status.  --Trovatore (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Being American, reading about these sorts of laws just makes me facepalm. What's the purpose of fighting for freedom if you turn around and make laws like that?  I'm no Nazi sympathizer myself, but it does seem rather ironic that European countries would have such laws. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 08:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In some cases German laws are ridiculous, someone with an anti-Nazi swastika with a strike-through was arrested. This was reversed on appeal but even so it shows that it is not only blatant extremists who are targeted. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While some of the laws are problematic, we should still be careful about how we discuss them. In the case referenced, nobody was arrested. Someone was fined, and the fine was overturned on appeal. So the law is not to blame in this case - the court was. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We do have an article, Laws against Holocaust denial, which also specifies which countries has these sort of laws. As can be seen not all European countries have them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Time line of Robert Graves life
In my english class i have a report I am doing on the poet Robert Graves. For the report I am thinking about explaining and showing how different key events in his life reflect and show up in his poems but I need some help. I have found some very large things such as when he was in the wars but that is too vague. I was wondering if anyone knows of a website i could find more specific key events that altered his poems. Thank you verry much its greatly appretiated. --99.89.176.228 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia. Entering 'Robert Graves' in the search facility might help. If that is too difficult, click on this: Robert Graves. Actually, I'd suggest that the way to understand Graves is to study his poetry, and the history of the time he lived in. If you can't see the connection then either he was a lousy poet, or (more likely) you need to study something else.


 * If you are really stuck, you might ask yourself how you'd expect a poet to react to being stuck in a trench, surrounded by the stench of cordite and decaying corpses. It isn't that difficult to see that this would affect him. Now read his poems, and figure out how.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that was rather grumpy. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I grump, therefore I am. Seriously, you can't do homework on a poet without actually reading poetry, and thinking about the poet. Most likely, our anonymous IP student has given up and found something on the web to plagiarise, but I had to at least make the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but we were lazy students once too, weren't we? Well I was anyway. So here is a brief timeline of Graves' life, to help get started: http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=t&p=l&ID=35. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I under stand what you are saying but I have done reserch (including wikipedias page) and have found some connections but i was hoping to find more specific events in his life for instance when he started dating a new person or a family member died or even when he was fired from a job. I want events besides the obvious events that he went to war, those are the easy ones because theyre so big. Thanks for the help.--69.58.36.2 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)--69.58.36.2 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been given quite a difficult task. If you search on Google Books for "Robert Graves biography" you will find some books telling his life. They would be really helpful to you. But I think they will probably not be in your school or local library. Ask the librarians if it is possible to obtain such a book. For now you are left with the Internet. Our article on this poet is not brilliant, but it's probably still one of the best things you can find on the Web. Break down the information we do have into decades. 1920s for example. What was happening in his life, what books did he write? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Graves' autobiographical Good-bye to All That appeared in 1929; it's available in paperback. Why not relate passages in poems to that, rather than to some hint in a Wikipedia article?--Wetman (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Stronger economy = stronger army?
Does a stronger economy mean a given country will have a stronger army? Have there been studies that show the faster an economy grows the more of a threat its army becomes? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was digging around for info and found this document. Hopefully it will hold some good info. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Economy of Japan, Constitution of Japan and Defense budget of Japan suggest that a strong military is not a necessary outcome of a strong economy. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you define a strong economy? Which indicators would you look at? (Likewise for defining a "strong" army). Smallman12q (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not always. See Vatican City.  Lots of wealth (strong economy), minimal military (and they are all mercenaries).  Googlemeister (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The book you are looking for is "The economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison" by Werner Abelshauser et al. This is now a more widely accepted theory: that GDP directly influences military strength and success.  I recall several articles that analyzed the collapse of the Soviet Union that followed these same theories.  They most likely cite the authors of this book.  NATO countries outpaced GDP growth during the Cold War.  The criticism of this theory is the example of the war in Vietnam.  There are several theories of why that one didn't succeed and those would have to be synthesized for a good paper on the topic. Gx872op (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't North Korea have the highest % of its state budget going to the military? --Soman (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the equation is correct. South Korea has a much stronger economy than North Korea, but North Korea probably has the stronger military.  Britain's economy is not stronger than Germany's but Britain clearly has the stronger military.  Maybe you could make a case that, given a similar political economic commitment to military might, the country with the stronger economy will have the stronger military.  However, there is a point of diminishing returns.  That is, when a country exceeds a given percentage of GDP in military spending, that military spending begins to erode economic strength.  This happened in Britain in the early 20th century, in the Soviet Union by the 1970s, and arguably is happening in the United States today.  Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * However, North Korea has more military than it can really afford, as pointed out by Soman. If the Songun policy means that N.Korea is continually dependent on international food-aid handouts to keep its population above the starvation level, then that's a signal that it's devoting too many economic resources to the military, according to any rational criteria -- especially since the current size and strength of the military is only necessary for North Korea to pose a credible offensive aggressive threat (a much smaller military would be sufficient for purposes of self-defense only). AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt any serious student of North-South Krean military affairs would agree that North Korea has a stronger armed force than South Korea, except in the very narrow nuclear weapons arena. In fact, the general assumption I've come across is that North Korea's mechanized and armored forces would struggle to reach Seoul, simply for lack of fuel. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

something humanity related
when i was at school i was looking at this girls ass then she saw me and smiled and give me a wink what does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.213.194 (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * She were fockin' with ye. L ANTZY T ALK 06:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It means that she is comfortable with her body image. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And it means you got extremely lucky; many girls I know wouldn't react so kindly, to put it mildly. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The smile and wink probably means that you are good-looking. Most girls are flattered when hunks notice them, whereas they act offended when geeks or ugly guys leer at them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good gravy! No, that's the sort of victim-blaming stuff that contributes to rape culture: there is no reason to assume that girls who 'act offended' are not actually offended and deeply uncomfortable with people staring at their body parts when they're just living their lives. That other girls are comfortable and confident enough to react in a different way doesn't make the uncomfortable girls hypocritical or wrong. Girls might be flattered to receive interested looks from guys they are interested in, because people like flirting with people they want to flirt with, but then again they might not. For most women, this won't be a perfect correlation with some strange 'hunk' -> 'geek' continuum (does anyone view the world like that anymore?). 86.166.40.2 (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rape is an an of violence that has nothing to do with a woman's attractiveness or whether or not she welcomes male appreciation of her body.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree. Did you follow the link? 212.183.128.70 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and it fails to mention that women historically have always been at physical risk from men whether it be rape, beatings or murder. Society and religion have usually turned a blind eye to it as did the law up until a couple of decades ago in some countries.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes? Rape culture isn't a new thing, but it's certainly depressing seeing it continue into the 21st century. And I cannot believe that Adam, below, goes straight into the slut shaming. Jesus Christ! Is life not hard enough? Is there a need to make things worse for teenage girls, force them into the slut/frigid pigeon holes? 86.164.164.239 (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe she's a slut. Why are we answering this? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the OP it a troll. Ditto. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't know, you'll have to ask the girl. I see no cause to speculate about the girl's moral character from the information given, Adam... Wiki Dao &#9775;  (talk)  15:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We do have an article on the Wink, though, which covers some of its more common meanings (one of which is flirtation). Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  16:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It means she likes you. (It took a long time to get to that simple conclusion, which reinforces the stereotype of girlfriendless internet nerds.) 92.15.6.86 (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The OP was giving her the eye and she smiled back and he wonders what this means??? No wonder the birth rate is on the decline. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Most popular U.S. president worldwide
(Moved from the Language desk) -- the Great   Gavini  08:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is the most popular president outside the United States? I mean of all time. My guess would be Lincoln, but what do I know? I suppose opinion would differ from one country to another. I suppose certain presidents would be particularly unpopular, for example I'd imagine that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush fils would be particularly unpopular in South America. Who is most popular there? Who is most popular in Europe? Who is most popular in Africa? Who is most popular in Japan? Etc. L ANTZY T ALK 07:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Outside Serbia and Russia, Bill Clinton is highly regarded in Europe. The Russians would most likely consider Ronald Reagan to have been the USA's best president. I would say it definitely varies from country to country. I need to point out having lived in Europe for over half my life, that Nixon is not demonised in the Old Continent as he is/was by Americans. Jimmy Carter, I recall, was quite popular in the UK when he was incumbent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the attitude towards the USA in many places, have you considered the alternative category of Least Unpopular President? HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There could also be an alternative category of Most forgettable US Presidents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly JFK, he was certainly respected in the UK and continental Europe. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and his assassination received worldwide coverage and an outpouring of international sympathy (with the glaring exception of China).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JFK is the only American to have a statue in Parliament Square. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your guess about Lincoln is not very good, I think. Here's the thing: the US only became seriously powerful and (most of all, important for your question) influential worldwide political and military actor after WWII, so most people outside the US don't care much about presidents before that. Of the preWWII presidents, the British may hold a grudge against the guys who turned the Colonies into the US (although I doubt it), but beyond that... So you really are looking at a very small number of potential candidates here IMO. JFK, Clinton, Obama (and possibly Carter) are the few that even come into question here, would be my guess. And this is because while they may have carried (carry) the same big stick as the rest of the US presidents, at least they spoke (speak) softly. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I only mentioned Lincoln because I recalled once reading that Lenin, in his boyhood, played a "cowboys-and-indians" game in which the protagonists were the Union and the Confederacy. I thought that perhaps Lincoln enjoyed some sort of mythical status around the world on account of the philosophical/moral/political significance which was imputed to him at home. L ANTZY T ALK 09:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for early "anti-colonial" presidents, my intuitive impression is that most Britons were ambivalent or sympathetic. Consider the satirical words of Flanders and Swann: "The War of American Independence was enjoyable by and large / Watching England's free descendants busy defeating German George". Despite a few decades of political antipathy, I doubt if the peoples of the U.S. and the U.K. ever harbored heartfelt hatred for one another. Historians, am I wrong? L ANTZY T ALK 09:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about wrong, but while burning down DC might win support from some of the more radical Americans today, it probably was not a popular move in 1814. Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, I'd say JFK, too. Clinton is not as popular as one might suspect - he gets plenty of sympathy points for having sex, but his main accomplishments were fixing the US economy, something that is visible in Europe only very indirectly. So while he is well-liked, he is not that well-known. Carter is well-regarded, too. From before WWI, at a guess I'd say most Europeans only know Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. Of those, Jefferson is probably the most popular, for the Declaration of Independence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You say Carter is well-regarded? Would you say this good will is based on his presidency or his post-presidency? L ANTZY T ALK 10:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Both, I'd say. As a president, he is popular for arms reduction talks, his opposition to the death penalty (which is widely regarded as barbaric in Europe), Camp David, and an unamerican degree of concern for the planet and the environment. He also had a very bad deal, through little fault of his own, with the Iranian embassy hostage crisis. His humanitarian work after the presidency has, of course, further strengthened this image. I think he is widely regarded as a very moral person who did the best he could in fairly bad situations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. In other words, he is admired in Europe for the very reasons he is disdained in the United States! L ANTZY T ALK 10:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A non-American vote for Kennedy here. Tho other nominees would have been Clinton, Carter and Obama. The latter still has time on his side. Sad about the Republicans. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And a vote for FDR who saved (at least some of) Britain's bacon from 1940 onwards with the Destroyers for Bases Agreement and Lend Lease. His horse-trading at the Yalta Conference with Stalin at our expense took some of the shine off, but he was a dying man then. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lantzy, what exactly do you mean by "popular"? Well liked (and if so, is it his achievements or him personally that's the focus)? Well respected? Well known? Much talked about? Much admired? These are definitely not the same things. The popularity of a president cannot be measured in the same way as the popularity of a singer, e.g. in terms of records sold. And even that can be misleading; according to sales figures, Celine Dion must be one of the most popular singers in the world, yet she seems to be almost universally reviled and despised. Nobody's ever explained why, to my satisfaction, but I get that there's a gravy train effect happening, whereby it's fashionable to say you hate her even if you actually love her. Mathematically, there has to be a large number of people who buy her records and enjoy them in private but are in the closet about it publicly. So, is she popular or not? I have no idea how to interpret these conflicting pieces of evidence. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a lot of people like her, and a lot of people dislike her, with relatively few in the middle - she polarises opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In China, I would say the most "popular" ones might be Washington (a revolutionary leader, and with surrounding mythology that has been transmitted in China for generations), Lincoln (a leader in a war against secession, something that traditional nationalistic values identify strongly with, plus freeing slaves squares with socialist / Communist values), and more recently, Roosevelt (for defeating Japan in World War II) and Nixon (for switching recognition to China from Taiwan). Amongst the most recent presidents, the younger Bush is almost universally reviled. Clinton is generally held in fairly high regard but the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (1999) is a national humiliation that is still fairly fresh in memory. Obama was wildly popular early on but becoming less so with US policies increasingly setting up China as its notional enemy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice I am the only one who brought up Reagan and it was his collaboration with Gorbachev that brought about the collapse of the Berlin Wall, surely a remarkable achievement which benefitted Germany, Europe and ultimately the rest of the world!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because most of the world doesn't buy into the "Reagan singlehandedly defeated Communism" propaganda. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said he singlehandedly deafeated Communism. I said he collaborated with Gorbachev, who is generally credited with ending Communism in the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satellites.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was Gorbachev who had the common sense and guts to facilitate a reasonably painless dissolution of the ailing and failing Soviet empire. Reagan just hitched a ride with him and stole some of his thunder five minutes before midnight. Reagan saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" no more made Reagan instrumental in the fall of the wall than Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" magically got Kennedy an apartment, permanent address in Berlin and a German citizenship. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reagan didn't collaborate very efficiently and he was always back-and-forth over it. There were a few nice photo ops, but Reagan would immediately go home and claim how tough he is on Communism and how it was still an Evil Empire and all of that jazz. He was totally distrustful of Gorbachev until Thatcher convinced him that Gorby was actually not the same as Brezhnev. Reagan's stubborn interest in his Star Wars plan allowed him to miss multiple opportunities for gigantic, if not complete, reductions in nuclear arms. It's a very mixed legacy if you actually look at the history of it. Saying Reagan collaborated with Gorbachev is in my opinion significant revisionism. Reagan's diary reveals a guy who never really thought Gorbachev would amount to anything. Recommended reading on this is Hoffman's The Dead Hand. In my view, Gorbachev would have done what Gorbachev did whether Reagan had been there or not. It might have even been easier for Gorbachev if there had been someone less outwardly hawkish in the White House, constantly looking to score domestic political points by being tough on the USSR and not working with them. It's easy to imagine an end of the Cold War without Reagan; it's hard to imagine it without Gorbachev. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * JFK may be popular in some areas but in others he's sometimes seen as the guy who nearly caused a nuclear war. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Compared to what Mao, Castro, Herman Kahn, and certain U.S. generals were advocating in 1962, Kennedy was a model of nuclear restraint... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw a documentary on TV here in Italy which praised Kennedy's diplomacy during the crisis and opined that Nixon would not have been able to prevent a catastrophe had he been in the driver's seat back in '62.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on various Historical rankings of United States Presidents.

Abe Lincoln seems to consistently get the popular vote for "Greatest US President". Wiki Dao &#9775;  (talk)  15:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but those are US rankings, the OP was asking about rankings outside of the US. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all of the polls were restricted to American respondents. The Rasmussen poll seems just to have used "random" internet users.  The Scholar survey results section would seem to include non-American views, too.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here in Italy, the most popular Presidents are the ones with flair, charisma, and drama. JFK, Reagan, and Clinton usually receive positive press; while George Bush and George W. Bush are openly disliked and criticised. Nixon is middle-of-the-road, whereas Eisenhower, Johnson, Ford, and Carter never existed as far as the Italian media is concerned. Obama is still popular although less so than his first year in office.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In Manchester, UK, there's a Lincoln Square with a statue of the man put up by his admirers among the city's mill workers - despite the fact that they suffered very badly from the blockade on Southern cotton. Admittedly it's not a very big square, but it's the thought that counts. I think in the UK we think quite well of Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama, while people of a certain age recall Eisenhower in his military role, and we're not dead set against Nixon who, after all, did manage to open up China (OK, he was a crook, but he wasn't all bad!). In the former Czechoslovakia they're quite keen on Wilson, for obvious reasons - the main railway station in Prague was "Wilson station" throughout the First Republic, and again from 1945 until some years after the Communists took over. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It might also be worth mentioning Monrovia, the only non-American capital city named after a U.S. President. One who is now quite obscure, actually. Not sure what the average Liberian thinks of him now though. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Monroe doctine is still well-remembered. As for European places named after U.S. presidents, there's Franklin D. Roosevelt (Paris Métro)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are streets in Prague named after Washington and Wilson. The train station used to be named after Wilson, too. There's a Lincoln Street in Tel-Aviv. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My guesses would be FDR and Obama. FDR, of course, was president during World War II, and most of the world was either part of the Allies, occupied by the Axis or part of an Axis country hoping to lose to the Americans and not the Russian. Obama is tremendously popular outside of the U.S. one, because people love the story of an African-American president and two, because Europeans and Canadians think every Democratic presidential candidate is going to win over the big meanies in American and turn the U.S. into a pacifist nation on the forefront of efforts against climate change. In June, a poll found 87% of French respondents and 84% of Brits though Obama "will do the right thing in foreign affairs," compared to 65% of Americans. A third-place candidate might be Woodrow Wilson, whose idealism made him very popular in Europe outside of the WWI losing countries. Even the Armenians hoped Wilson would rescue them from the Turks. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since he didn't is Wilson highly unpopular in Armenia? Googlemeister (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I'm guessing Wilson is not on people's minds a lot 90 years later. I asked a group of Czechs around 18 years of age not too long ago if they knew why there was a Wilson Street in Prague and what it had to do with the Independence Day holiday they were getting a day off for. None of them knew. I said, "Come on, Woodrow Wilson, World War I, the Fourteen Points -- don't they teach you any of this stuff in school?" One of them said, "Yeah, they teach it to us, and we all forget." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In Sweden I think the ranking is probably JFK, Obama, FDR, Clinton. While Nixon and Bush Jr. are the most disliked. Reagan probably places somewhere in the middle, popular among some liberal, but disliked by the socialists. P. S. Burton  (talk)  00:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Liberal" in the above comment meaning the opposite of what it means in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: Liberalism in the United States and Liberalism worldwide. P. S. Burton  (talk)  14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Measures in lieu of criminal prosecutions
I have learnt that certain countries have "measures in lieu of criminal prosecutions" (I don't know what they are exactly called) by which the offenders would not be prosecuted if the public prosecutors find that they have committed the offences by negligence or committed the petty offences and the injured parties can be compensated or the agreements of compromise can be adopted, etc.

So, is there any Wikipedia article in connection with the said concept? And would you please recommending the laws (Acts, etc) of any country (because "I don't know what they are exactly called")?

Thank you so much, :)

182.52.99.142 (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this sort of thing goes on frequently. In the UK filing a false tax return is an offence, but if done through negligence then the tax office will frequently accept payment of tax owing plus interest. Is this the sort of thing you mean? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also in the UK England and Wales, police (rather than the public prosecutor) can give a "caution" instead of prosecution.


 * "A 'simple caution' is used to deal quickly and simply with those who commit less serious crimes. It aims to divert offenders away from court, and to reduce the likelihood that they will offend again. If you are given a simple caution you will be officially warned about the unacceptability of your behaviour, and the likely consequences of committing further crimes will be explained to you." Alansplodge (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also Restorative justice although it's not really in lieu of criminal prosecutions and doesn't require the offences be by negligence (but they do have to take responsility). It's used in NZ, particularly with youth offenders although this isn't explained very well in our article. But see  Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and I just remembered of course there's also Diversion program which more fits what the OP is describing since you usually avoid a criminal conviction as the police withdraw the charge if you successfuly undergo one although again negligence is not required (the offence has to be minor though).  This old  discussion may also be of interest. Note that even if it comes to court and you please guilty, you can sometimes be discharged without conviction    Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Teen courts exist in some US states. Their trials aren't exactly criminal prosecutions, and are, like many of the other things mentioned here, aimed at discouraging repeat offenses through leniency toward young offenders. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Travelling from France to England in 14th century
If someone were to have embarked on a journey from Picardy, France to the English court in April/May 1366 roughly how many weeks would it have normally taken? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know which bit of Picardy? I wouldn't say many weeks, just a few days. The traveller would have come up through Picardy to a port such as Boulogne or Calais, then crossed the Channel, either sailing into London, or disembarking at Dover and coming up on horseback or by carriage. Assuming that the English court was sitting at Westminster. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The castle of Coucy. OK, now I'm going to be difficult. Is it likely a mother having recently given birth would have undertaken the journey? The reason I ask is that while going through Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror it mentioned the date of Isabella de Coucy's marriage as ahving occurred on 27 July 1365. Their firstborn child was born the following April. Well, it then has the couple and their baby at a ceremony at Windsor Castle on 11 May 1366. I am trying to figure out whether Isabella might have been pregnant when she married Enguerrand VII, Lord of Coucy, seeing as she had pressured her father, Edward III to let them marry. I don't believe carriages were in use then, women often travelled by wagon, litter or on horseback (the side-saddle had not yet been introduced to England).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I always feel obliged to mention that Tuchman is not an historian and sometimes has a very active imagination. *grumble grumble* Adam Bishop (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Her book was based on primary sources which all give the exact dates I have mentioned. Besides, Tuchman never once suggested that Isabella had a shotgun wedding, I am the person intimating that, having had four children myself and annot see how a medieval woman could have braved a Channel crossing and journeys over muddy, rutted roads two weeks after childbirth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, she may have used primary sources but it is normally very difficult to figure that out. I don't see any notes for Isabella's birth or marriage, or any notes at all for dozens of pages before or after. How do you know where she got that info? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, blargh, it's all in the "endnotes", with no notes actually pointing to them. So in this case, everything Tuchman knows about Isabella comes from Mary Anne Everett Green, "Lives of the Princesses of England", and B.C. Hardy, "Philippa of Hainault and her Times" (1910). I don't know those books, but those are the ones based on primary sources, not Tuchman (and certainly there must be better and more recent secondary sources than 1851 and 1910). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about it, but our article currently says, "Tuchman relies much on Froissart's Chronicles." Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  15:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yeah, sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the difference between carriage and wagon. To get to Windsor it would have been more convenient to come up the river, transferring from ship to barge probably at Gravesend. She could have travelled part of the route by river on the French side too. Getting to the Somme at St Quentin looks the most likely. As for how soon after a birth a woman would travel, a pure guess, but wouldn't a noblewoman have been "confined" for about four weeks, between the birth and her churching? It would be worth confirming both dates with other sources. You do find serious mistakes made in dates for that period because Victorian historians sometimes tried to correct for the Gregorian calendar. The year started not on 1st Jan but on Lady Day, as you probably know, and that gives rise to mistakes too. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen the April 1366 DOB for Isabella's daughter and the 27 July 1365 marriage date for Isabella and Enguerrand in every book on English royals and peerages I have ever come across; and we are talking about well nigh 40 years as I have been a history fanatic since grammar school! Therefore seeing as she would have been confined since April sometime and then churched before stepping aboard the caravel that took her home to England to be on time for the ceremony at Windsor on 11 May 1366 (which made her husband Earl of Bedford), I feel that it's likely she and Enguerrand anticipated their bedding ceremony by about a month or so. This would place their child's birth at the very beginning of April. I do realise that none of this can go into Isabella's article, however, it is interesting. She was 33 when she married, so I guess she needed a wee bit of a push to get him to the altar. Whew! Sorry I have been so verbose.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it is reported everywhere, Froissart could well be the sole source for the dates, and also for where people were at particular times. And a baby could be born prematurely - 1st April is 35 weeks by my calculation, so not all that premature. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a noblewoman with a baby would absolutely have traveled mainly by water, and otherwise probably mainly by litter, though it's possible that for the land portions of the journey, the noblewoman would have traveled on horseback while handmaidens on foot carried the baby. I think that it probably would have taken two days by litter (or on a horse moving at a walk) from Coucy to St. Quentin on the Somme, then something like 4 days by riverboat from St. Quentin to Port-le-Grand, the medieval port at the mouth of the Somme.  There would likely have been a wait of a couple of days at the port (or just upstream at Abbeville, while agents rode back and forth to the port) for favorable winds and tide (and to make arrangements for the passage), then the passage across the Channel.  With favorable winds, it would have been possible to make Dover in one day, but probably not all the way around Kent and up the Thames to a transfer point.  In fact, given the prevailing westerly winds, it could well have taken another two days (three days total) to reach Gravesend.  From Gravesend, it would have been about three days' travel up the Thames by riverboat to Windsor.  So, I think that this would amount to close to a two-week journey.  The journey could have been made much faster by horseback with a change of mounts every 10 miles or so (which a king or powerful noble could arrange), but that mode of travel would have been much too strenuous for a woman with an infant.  Marco polo (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answers. Isabella was already pregnant by November as extant letters from King Edward to Isabella confirm this. Two weeks for the journey sounds right. The baby was likely born well before 27 April! Isabella was Edward's favourite child and de Coucy was a good match for her. I think it can be safely assumed (for my own personal interest not Wikipedia's) that the couple did have sex prior to their wedding. What had they to lose? De Coucy was Edward's honoured prisoner of war, Isabella well past 30. It wouldn't be the only time in English history a pregnant woman approached the altar expecting a child-look at Anne Boleyn!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it sounds counterintuitive and incongruous, but a child is only illegitimate if they are born out of wedlock, not if they are conceived out of wedlock. Even if the marriage is only a few weeks before the birth, the child would still be considered legitimate issue.  -- Jayron  32  07:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I never implied that Isabella's child had been illegitimate (just as Anne Boleyn's daughter wasn't either). If there had been any hint of illegitimacy in regards to the elder daughter, the vast Coucy estates would have passed to the second daughter, wife of the Earl of Oxford, Richard II's favourite. Winston Churchill was actually born 7 months after his parents' marriage!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about modern times, but in the Middle Ages it was fairly simple to legitimize illegitimate children, especially noble children, even if they were born long before the marriage. Unless the religious authorities didn't like you; then it would be very difficult. It's all politics. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in Italy it was very common as in the case of Bianca Maria Visconti, who succeeded her father to the Duchy of Milan; and there were also the Borgias. However, in England or France I cannot think off-hand of an illegitimate child who bypassed the legitimate heirs (William the Conqueror notwithstanding).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, suffering from TLDR, so someone may have covered this already, but how much money you had available to you, weather and luck would all be major factors that could add massive delay to such a journey. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Money would not have been a problem for Isabella, as she had plenty of that, however, unfavourable winds or poor weather could very well have delayed a cross-Channel sailing, not to mention muddy roads in England. Spring can be very unpredictable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * At that time of year, one has the warm winds coming up from the south brining the April Showers. A common boat like a Cog might do 3½ to 8 knots per hour for as long as the wind blows and in March and April when does it not blow 24 hours a day? So this type of boat could have gone as far up the Thames as London Bridge without stopping. Also, they would not have had to sail around Margate. Instead they would have nipped through the shallow channel which was still open between the  Isle of Thanet and the rest of Kent. Being able to travel 24 hours a day would have probably made the sea route faster than landing at Brighton or Worthing -as well as being cheaper.  Most long distant trade in England at that time was via the coastal waters. Black fossil coal for that reason was referred to as 'Sea Coal' in London, to differentiate it from wood charcoal, because it  arrived by ship.--Aspro (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Helping yourself
I'd read that the phrase "God helps those who help themselves", typically spouted as gospel by those looking for justifications for not helping the disadvantaged, isn't actually scripture. What's its actual origin? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 19:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Its origin is probably lost in the mists of history, but according to our article on Erasmus's Adagia, Mr. E recorded the proverb in that work in the sixteenth century. Deor (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also something very like it in Aeschylus Fragments 395, "God likes to assist the man who toils", but it turns up in so many languages that I wouldn't despair of finding it in a Sumerian cuneiform tablet. Lost, as you say, in the mists of history. Antiquary (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never thought of this saying as an excuse not to help others but rather as a word of advice for people to take command of their lives and have a good work ethic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've often seen it cited to Poor Richard's Almanack by Benjamin Franklin, but Deor's link predates that. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That quote and a few earlier variants are listed at Algernon Sydney. The earliest listed there is "Heaven ne’er helps the men who will not act" from Sophocles. Staecker (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * “Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls).” (The Qur’an 13:11). . Many years after the bible of course, but at least this proves it does exist in some holy book. Zunaid 11:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I'll have to remember that the next time someone prefaces the phrase with "as The Bible says:..." GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of huge discounts on big-ticket items?
Today I see two deals on TVs: a 26-inch for $198, shipping included, and a 32-inch for $250. What is the point of such promotions besides raising brand awareness? People won't tend to buy more than one and not again for many years. Imagine Reason (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See bait and switch. Especially in the U.S. on Black Friday, stores will advertise DEEP discounts on a tiny number of items.  So, they'll sell you a TV for like 90% off, but the store has like 5 of these in stock, and the sale is only good on stock in store, no rainchecks or anything.  So the first 5 people get a TV super cheap, and the next 1000 people who show up expecting to get the TV end up buying something much more expensive cuz, well, they fought traffic and they might as well get something if they went through all the trouble to get to the store, etc. etc.  This happens ALL the time -- Jayron  32  21:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Over here, stores have to have a "reasonable" amount of merchandise they advertise on stock. I don't know the exact definition of "reasonable", but I have seen stores who ran out handing out rebate notes for a later time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Black Friday items often aren't as good a deal as you might think. I once was the lucky "winner" of a laptop from one of these deals with 63 megs of memory.  No, no, that's NOT a typo, *63* megs of memory.  Usable for most (but not all) things you can do with 32 megs.  The stuff may be cheap, but you're getting rejects and returns, things that didn't make the grade for the other 364.25 days of the year. Wnt (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The deals I'm seeing are online ones, available today, and won't end for a couple of days at least. Imagine Reason (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheist rules
What rules do atheists have to protect one's soul from danger and destruction? 96.252.208.240 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do many atheists believe they have a soul? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you believe to be a "soul" and what danger and destruction do you believe it needs protection from? If it is in some way connected to the notion of a personal God, it is likely that what you mean by "soul" is not something that atheists believe they have.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  22:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Atheists follow actual real principles of ethics, as opposed to what we see as imaginary and delusional metaphysical speculation. Many, if not most atheists are humanists, which is to say that we place our faith in humanity to do the right thing without any need for what theists call "God's plan." Humans are perfectly capable to figure out right and wrong without a hierarchical organization telling us what to do. Whether or not atheists believe in a "soul" is not universally agreed upon, however the vast majority reject any dualism of mind and body in favor of a monist materialism (also called physicalism or scientific materialism.) No dualism means no soul, no spirits, demons etcetera. Another consequence of all this is that there is nothing from which to be saved, therefore no need for salvation. There is no hell, devil, or afterlife; much less any eternal punishment. Many, if not most atheists find the idea of hell to be quite an immature reason to behave ethically. Atheists do the right thing, not because they will be punished like children if they do not. We do the right thing for its own sake, because it is right in principle. This is a more intellectual ethical system.Greg Bard (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So then do atheists view laws and prisons as immature? They serve much the same purpose.  Googlemeister (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No they do not. Prisons and laws are necessary for safety of the public. Belief in hell is not. They are totally different. However, a theist might not see it that way. Some theists cannot imagine behaving in a decent manner without the specter of hell looming, or the reward of heaven awaiting. Atheists have no problem with the more intellectual position, taking good-in-itself and right-itself seriously. Very often a theist will say to an atheist "Well you just believe in nothing." or "If you don't believe in God, you just don't believe in right and wrong." Only a theist sees it that way. They just can't imagine doing the right thing without some reward or punishment looming. That is a consequentialist view, and there are other valid moral theories out there. I think for many theists, if they realized at some point that there is no god that they would have a hard time continuing to be decent people. That isn't the fault of the universe having no god. That will be their own fault for not being more morally reflective and intellectual. I, for one, do not constantly think about avoiding prison in my daily life as a means of behaving civilly. Anyone who does this is probably not operating on a mature and responsible level. Greg Bard (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A well-stated summary of the position. :) Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  01:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Or at the very least one does the "right thing" because there are, say, laws and other very non-soulful consequences to doing the "wrong thing." You'll note that absolutely zero human societies, even those which are known for high levels of religiosity and piousness, leave all of their desires for social order up to the demands of scripture or the idea that people will in a self-interested way always care about their eternal soul. Every society that I know of has laws that are enforced by a secular (e.g. non-supernatural, even if they claim religion as their justification) order. When we all agree something is the "wrong thing" (e.g. murder, stealing), we make a law that prohibits it (and back up the prohibition with force). Why people think that the fear of sin alone would have any powerful social effect is kind of mysterious to me — it's pretty clear that "your eternal soul will burn in hell" is not a deterrent against people committing crimes, as everybody finds a way to justify what they are doing morally or believes that their religion has a "loophole" that gets them out of the bind. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Any atheist can answer this question easily : None at all. There's no such thing as a soul.   APL (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be a theist to believe in souls. You might for example take the existence of qualia &mdash; the hard problem of consciousness which has no materialist solution that satisfies everyone &mdash; to be evidence of souls.  That would not necessarily imply that you believe in God. --Trovatore (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Notably Jainism has a concept of a soul but God in Jainism says it's "Thus, Jainism is polytheist, monotheist, nontheist and atheist all at the same time". Similarly some those following Buddhism may sometimes considered be atheist (see God in Buddhism) but also have a concept that may or may not be considered a soul depending on how you understand the concept (see Soul). Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with T's point about consciousness. And if I squint my eyes and turn my head just right, I can even see something like Spirit (capital S) "moving through" evolution, history, what-have-you (without necessarily the need to ascribe anything like "personality" to it;)).  There are many Conceptions of God, some of which (including those mentioned by Nil) tend to be undreamt of by the "hyper-religious" adherents of any religion.  The notion of the Absolute, as another example, is worth considering (depending on one's interests and time...).  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  14:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheist rules - followup
What rules do atheists have to protect themselves from evil? 96.252.208.240 (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First, 96, all your posts so far have been questions about what atheists do about this or that. Starting a new thread isn't helpful.  You'd be better off, if you're looking for information rather than trolling, reading the many articles we have concerning atheism, or Googling around for other information.
 * Second, you seem to be assuming unanimity among atheists about many matters. Atheists are less organized than, for example, the Roman Catholic Church.  Ask two atheists any philosophical question, and you'll probably get three different answers. PhGustaf (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When I visit the library reference desk I would normally include the preface, "Where can I find an answer to the following question..." and the reference librarian would normally lead me to the section where I might find the answer. If she is knowledgeable of the topic, she might ask me specifics or to explain exactly what I want to know. Here if I use the word atheist that is all that is heard and even though I have read the article and many of the articles it links too instead of suggesting additional references which will answer my question I get personal opinions instead of references to the location of specific information. Consequently I always get the impression that the reference desk is not manned by any reference librarian but by work study students who could care less except for finding the opportunity to be snerd. You fit this image perfectly so I will in fact withhold my financial donation and look somewhere else for the information I am seeking which is unavailable here. My regrets to Jimmy Wales. 96.252.208.240 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct in thinking that this reference desk isn't manned by actual reference librarians. Like the rest of Wikipedia, it can be and is edited by anyone who comes along with something to contribute.  Anyone, including you, is welcome to start answering questions, though relevant and referenced answers (no matter who they're from) are of course strongly preferred. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What is evil, and what rules do non-atheists have to protect themselves from evil? HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK 92.... Take your bat and ball and steam off in a huff. But really, what do you expect? Your question only makes sense inside the context of your obvious narrow Christian discussion cohort. You probably would be best off and more comfortable discussing those nasty atheists there. Evil is a pretty meaningless word outside your narrow world. It gets flung around by politicians hoping to impress folks like you. But it has no concrete meaning to someone who has no belief in your God and/or some metaphysical opponent like the devil. An atheist doesn't believe in such things so there is NO ANSWER. The ignorance and tunnel vision you show in even asking the question is what leads to the snerdness that concerns you. (BTW, thanks for that new word. I'll use it often.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it is necessarily fair to berate the OP. One just needs to explain, calmly and succinctly that athiets do not necessarily believe in concepts such as souls or evil (some athiests might, but many do not).  Athiests can still obey a moral code, but they do not necessarily derive that code from the influence of a supernatural being; there are lots of sources of morality, one common source cited by some athiests is natural law.  Athiests can still recognize that certain actions, like murder and theft and adultery are ultimately harmful to society and to humanity, and thus formulate a moral code based on not killing, stealing, or cheating on your spouse, without necessarily refering to any God, nor the concept of evil, nor to a spirit or a soul.  -- Jayron  32  07:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all fair and right, Jay, but if you read the discussion so far you'll see that that's exactly what's been done, more than once. 92 didn't come here so much to ask questions as to hear answers that will confirm what he already believes, and is now irritable because that's not what he got. Incidentally, the "I have no intention of reading the atheism article" and "I'll take my donation money elsewhere" statements have a strong stench of trolling to me. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it's possible that 92 was a totally naive and innocent, brainwashed Christian from a very narrow sect of that faith, but to be a Wikipedia user and not have a broader outlook than that shown here today is hard to accept. I'll back trolling. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We're discussing 96, who moans about atheists. 92 is the one who moans about more Daily Mail issues. 86.164.164.239 (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great word ("snerd"), 96, thanks! :) Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  15:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, ethics and morality basically. Not to mention the rule of law.  There is a fiction among Christians that ethics and morality must be derived from scripture. That's simply not true.  They can be worked out pragmatically, and passed down from generation to generation with no problem.
 * Your mother doesn't have to believe in God to tell you not to steal, and you don't have to believe in God to take her advice to heart.
 * On top of all that, like most social animals human beings have an instinctive sense of empathy, which helps us understand right and wrong.
 * Good reading here is Secular ethics and Morality without religion. APL (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the question can be answered. Soul translates into terms that are applicable to the atheist. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't imply that they have no compunction about committing murder for instance. So the answer to the question would involve those "rules" that atheists use to prevent themselves from (to use my example) committing murder. They would use anger management techniques. They would get adequate rest. They would cultivate good relationships. They would pursue meaningful interests. Those would be the "rules" atheists use to "protect themselves from evil". Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps of interest to some is that there is, in fact, even from a Christian perspective, scriptural support for what APL is saying above. In Hebrews 10:15-17, Paul (citing Jeremiah 31:33) writes:
 * 10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord:
 * "I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.
 * "I will be their God, and they will be my people.
 * 11 "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
 * because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
 * 12 "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
 * 13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
 * God is, in other words, giving his people a measure of autonomy and freedom – much as parents will let their children live their own lives and make up their own minds once they have grown up and become adults themselves. Perhaps some, like the OP, still need some degree of "divine guidance" (or believe they do), but there is no need (says the Lord) for them to "teach their neighbor" about what they believe that guidance to be, or to insist that "atheists" need such guidance when in fact they do not.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The devout have often told me that moral laws (such as those listed in the Ten Commandments) derive from God. I retort that those laws derived from the need of groups of people to cooperate within the group, in order for their particular group to survive - an attempt to impose order upon chaos, and to punish those who disobey and hence threaten that order. Ascribing it to God (with the implication of eternal punishment for disobedience) just kicks that idea up a few notches. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

facebook
Hi I feel this question is realevent and effects everyone...

0101010001000100            End Transmission    0000010010101010 The_₦ΛֻఋḒ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.149.210 (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * does faceboook employees know all there friends pesonally or do there rules only apply to members as I am currently banned from certain features and think it say's a lot about the true nature and intentions of faceboook its purpose and of course implys much more but will leave that to other people to use there own minds and thoughts on that one. This question descibe's many realevant to the cause and effect off today superseeding universal topics thatI believe should be addressed**


 * Perhaps you are looking for a blog or an Internet forum rather than a reference desk?   D b f i r s   08:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there an optimum theoretical level of income inequality?
Class warfare has led to a polarization between communists and capitalists, between complete sharing of wealth and complete concentration of wealth. But if all assets in society are held by one corporation, it is no different than if all assets are held by one central government. One would suppose that to provide incentive for people to work harder or take risks, that some pattern of limited economic inequality would be optimal, providing people enough resources to be capable and to try and to risk failure, but not eliminating the reward. But other factors also enter in - most notably, the cold-blooded immorality of establishing starvation or other inhumane penalties for failing to play the economic game correctly.

Question: has anyone tried to work out such factors and establish an optimal curve of income distribution, and presumably redistribution (whether by taxes, royalties, inalienable rights or any other means), to which current social inequalities could be compared quantitatively?

I'm looking for an answer based on a single philosophy, rather than a purely parliamentary compromise between two different belief systems. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See Kaldor–Hicks efficiency and Pareto efficiency. 68.198.183.69 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those aren't measures of income equality. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is going to depend largely on your philosophical and political beliefs. Most economic theory is really dependent on a lot of political assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.81.183 (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If your goal is to maximize per-capita GDP, then the optimal income inequality seems to be around a Gini-coefficient of 30 (you can see this by graphing gini against per-capita GDP for a cross-section of countries). It makes sense that the optimal would be neither perfect equality (there is no disincentive to laziness) nor perfect inequality (there is no incentive to work). Wikiant (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the figure 30 from? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "you can see this by graphing gini against per-capita GDP for a cross-section of countries" woah there cowboy! Correlation is not causation!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.81.183 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's a distinction between the idea that people only work for income, and the idea that people expect income when they work. For example, from the Soviet Union, a person expects that when he plants a tomato in his garden, he'll be the one to eat it.  There's an aspect of civil liberties to it.  In this regard Wikipedia work isn't really given for free; actually, by editing an article or a Reference Desk question, people expect to get back their own research as a permanent reference work, hopefully with interest.  It's hard to measure intangible profit from intangible work, but the sense of it can be gotten when deletionists crash the party and start destroying what you've built up; it tends to make a person furious.  But it's easier and of more immediate practical importance to measure the distribution of payments that come in dollars and cents.
 * The graph of the Gini coefficient (x100) in the article is interesting, but unfortunately it's over 10 years out of date... Wnt (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are so many implicit assumptions in this question that it is unanswerable. You will note for a start that it assumes that people only 'work' for 'income', which is demonstrably false - you are looking at a counterexample right now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This question is perfectly answerable - in fact, I'd say it's an excellent example of how to phrase this sort of query in an answerable way. The asker makes it clear that he's not looking for some definite answer, but for notable attempts that have been made to address this question, of which multiple examples have already been provided. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Intrinsic motivation is vulnerable to the overjustification effect. Money isn't everything, despite what those with huge bonuses say. 86.164.164.239 (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)