Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 11

= September 11 =

One- and two-movement works for solo piano
What "classical" names are there for one- and two-movement works for solo piano? I've seen the word prelude being used so much, I almost wonder if it's a cliché, or if it's been diluted of any definition now? On the other hand, suite seems to me like a collection of movements, usually on the larger end, like four or five movements. Are there any other words that could replace either of these two examples? –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  20:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PS - Humanities seemed a more appropriate area for this question than Entertainment... I would consider classical music to be more in the realm of literature and art than pop culture. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  20:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sonatas are normally three or four movements, but there are some examples of two-movement sonatas. Many sonatinas are only one or two movements.  Prelude and fugue has been a popular combination, as has toccata and fugue.  Single movement works can have many names, including: toccata, scherzo, impromptu, ballade, nocturne, fantasia, waltz, mazurka, polonaise, bourrée, courante, allemande, gigue, barcarole, rhapsody, rondo, study (or étude if you want to be pretentious, or etude if you want to be ignorantly pretentious), berceuse, passacaglia, chaconne, and all the names in Category:Dance forms in classical music and Category:Western classical music styles that I haven't mentioned here. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is wonderful!! Thank you so much, Papyrus! –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Herman. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   07:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

singapore dollar notes
why isnt the president smiling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.217.220 (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should he?. I doubt you'll find any smiling portraits on currency; presidents and monarchs they like to show they're being serious. I often add the smile myself.--Shantavira|feed me 08:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But on modern English bank notes (the Scots have different ones), the Queen is definitely smiling. On the Jersey notes, she manages a proper grin. "We are amused" perhaps. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On United States money nobody looks all that happy. (Although Hamilton has a goofy look on his face. Could be a smirk.) APL (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Blonde stag film
Does anyone have idea when this was shot? Was it in the early 20th century? Was porn legal at that time? --Galactic Traveller (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is a silent film does not mean it has to be from the silent film era (i.e. before 1930) because amateurs kept filming without sound for a long time after that. Judging by the woman's hairstyle, I'd guess it is from the 50s or early 60s. Whether it was legal or not depends on what country it is from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the 1960s to me, probably USA. It is more modern than the similar films of Bettie Page. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you'd assume USA. I see no reason to justify that assumption. It could easily be European, even Latin American. The USA has no monopoly on blondes or fashionable haircuts. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * America produces most of the pornography in the world. It's laughable to suggest otherwise. "Pornography generates billions of dollars in sales in the United States......An estimated 211 new pornographic films are made every week in the United States." from Pornography by region. I suppose the US dosnt have much of a film industry either, or much of a military. Apart from that, my impresion is that in Europe porn was more illegal, more shameful, and hence difficult to distribute than it was in the US at that time. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The volume produced by a nation has no effect on the likelihood of any given specimen being produced in that particular nation. There is no reason to assume this particular one is American, and appealing to national rates or (assumed) local prejudices doesn't affect that. In any case, in the USA in the 1950s and so, it was very common for stag films to be made in Mexico, for example, where the enforcement of obscenity laws was far less rigorous than in the individual states, for example. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning, Hollywood is just a little cottage industry. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be dense. What I'm saying is that if you found a random frame of a feature film lying around (not even knowing what time period it was), you couldn't assume it was probably "from Hollywood" just on the basis that many films were made in Hollywood. Similarly if you see a person with dark skin you wouldn't assume that they lived in Africa just because many people with dark skin live in Africa. You're just falling under the common logical fallacy of assuming that bulk statistics of a set tells you about the state of any specific item within the set. This is a common error in reasoning. You cannot infer about the individual only by looking at population statistics. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can, in general, make such assumptions. It's called Conditional probability, and there a lot of statisticians who make big money doing things like that.  No, you can't say that a film is for sure from America on the basis that America makes a lot of films, but you can (truthfully) say that it's likely from America.  If you had more information about how many movies different nations produce, and how much of it is porn, you could put a specific probability on this movie being American.  See also Bayes theorem. Buddy431 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But your error bars based on a small sample are going to be huge. If you were talking about a collection of items, sure — if we had a random bunch of pornography, we could perhaps generalize based on bulk rates. But on a single item? What does something "90% likely" or "40% likely" even mean, in a real sense, on a single item? Sorry, I think this is still a pretty basic error. Statistics of this sort works great if you are talking about lots of samples, but using that kind of information to talk about individuals within the sample is highly misleading. It's the classic quantum mechanics issue — you can know the half-life of a bulk radioactive substance but you'll never, ever, ever, be able to know when any specific, individual atom within that substance is going to decay. Any attempts to generalize from the bulk behavior to the individual in such a case is always going to be fallacious. Obviously one can generate numbers, but whether those numbers have any real meaning is a completely different story. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to you, if you have a bag filled with 90 blue beads and 10 red ones, then you cannot say what the colour of a bead drawn from the bag is probably going to be. Should I laugh or cry? 92.15.25.239 (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're drawing the bead out at random, sure, you can say a lot about what the pull of beads would be over a series of pulls. That's what statistics lets you do. But if I have that bag, and I tell you to tell me about the single one I have in mind, you can't assume that I've picked it randomly, and saying that there is a '"90% chance of it being blue" is meaningless, as it is a statement about the likelihood over the course of repeat pullings anyway. Perhaps you are not seeing what I am trying to say here (though I suspect you are just being dense on purpose), but my argument is that we have no reason to assume this individual film sample is "pulled at random" from the total sample of films in the world, and the 90% blueness of the beads in the bag doesn't have much to say about the one red one I have in my hand. Statistics gives certain types of information that can only be made sensible when interpreted correctly; using numbers without sense is purposeless. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be better just to admit you were wrong rather than continuing with this twaddle? Whether the balls in the bag or in your hand makes no difference. 92.15.30.158 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It takes two to twaddle, my friend. My reasoning is right, in any case. The film didn't become American because of the percentages. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, non-safe for work warning for anyone in a restricted viewing situation. Secondly, oorn has never been illegal (although arguably it should be) but the distribution of porn is what is illegal sometimes. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't overgeneralize. The laws relating to pornography vary by region and time. In some places its creation and possession have been illegal. In the United States, there were state laws against the mere possession of pornography until 1969 (see Stanley v. Georgia). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mr.98 that there's no apparent reason to think that the film is American. The woman looks European to me, but your mileage may vary. From a technical standpoint, the most striking thing about the film is of course the use of a zoom lens. I'm no expert by any means, but I think that zoom lenses were not widely available for amateur 16mm use until the early 1960s. Without further information, I'd guess that the film dates from that time. —Kevin Myers 14:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The clip is from the Prelinger Archives (archives.org gives no date or location ), so I guess it's probably American. The scribblings in the beginning might be of help. I don't know what they're called. Not cue marks, but stuff written on the film itself, see the first thumbnail here. Maybe some forensic film buff can figure it out? ---Sluzzelin  talk  15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe it says, "Carol Barker-HD." No way to know if that's the actual name of the person, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems very 50s-60s, but something just doesn't quite sit right. The film quality seems extremely good - very smooth and detailed; typically when you see 16mm home movies from that period, the quality is nothing like that. Kevin Myers has already mentioned the use of zoom lens. Then there's the woman. I'm not an expert on hairstyles, but it seems cropped very short at the back. How long has that style been around? Hell, it's probably a semi-pro stag from the 60s, but the suspicious part of me thinks this movie is not very old at all and has just been made to look like an old stag film. Matt Deres (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In Google search, I found this reference which says the film was made c. 1955 and the girl is Honey Harlow. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You win today's Google award. Good job! —Kevin Myers 06:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What would the Milesians of Irish mythology have worn at the time of their invasion?
I've gathered that they were apparently Spanish soldiers, telling from your own articles about the subject. From what I've been able to find on a time period, however, it would seem it was likely to have occured sometime around 50 to 100 A.D., which implies that at the time Spain was still under Roman rule.

However, I feel it is doubtful that the attire ascribed to Roman soldiers and civilians was entirely universal, as most of the internet would like you to believe. My basis for this line of conjecture is the distinct difference in attire between what is traditionally produced as Roman attire, and what is found when you search for British attire during the Roman rule. My source for the British Roman attire is as follows: http://www.fashion-era.com/ancient_costume/roman-costume-history-toga.htm

Also in the aforementioned source are good examples of what many view as typical roman attire. I would at least like a good illustration of what may be different between the 'traditional' Roman garb, and what a Spanish-Roman explorer (as in the Irish mythology would suggest the Milesians may have been, aside from soldiers) would have possibly been dressed in during this period. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an article on the Milesians, for a start - but you might be trying to make Irish mythology too logical. I don't think they were meant to be Romans. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's references that make it possible that the Milesians did actually exist, it's just that as a result of transliteration between the native language and latin, it resulted in the name Milesian, which I already gathered from the page for Míl Espáine, which is linked on the Milesians page. I've already sifted through the articles here, and I'm actually looking more for a possible idea of what someone of Roman-Controlled Spain might have wore, as opposed to what the Romans generally wore. The reason for this being that as the Wikipedia article explains, it could very well be a linguistic perversion of the latin phrase "Miles Hispaniae", or soldier of Spain, which again, I'm pretty sure for the majority of the time period that the Milesian invasion on Ireland appears to take place (sometime at least 150 to 200 years before 450 A.D.), Spain was Roman territory. Basically I've been making connections based off of everything I've been finding. My main reason for actually looking all of this up was mainly to find the origin of where the Milesians likely came from (figured that out) and from there, find out what people of that region at that time period actually wore. and again, looking at the differences between Romanized English garb and that of the traditional Roman attire, I'd find it highly unlikely for the traditional Roman attire to be universal throughout all of Roman Europe, save for Roman Britain.--66.189.24.40 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Romano-British is the usual term; the English arrived a bit later. Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Update, seems I had my dates wrong, it seems more likely that the Milesians were in Ireland as early as 1300 B.C.. I revise my request, and ask for a good example of Bronze-Age Spanish attire. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal
Is "normal" whatever the majority does? If the majority put baked beans on their head, would it be normal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Growcress45 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sociologists don't define "normal" (or "norms") as just majority behavior, but as a series of social expectations within a given community. So what is "normal" for one group can vary for what is "normal" for another, and, importantly, just because something is done by the majority doesn't necessarily make it "normal". (So what is "normal" for graduate students to wear, read, and watch is different than what is "normal" for blue collar workers to wear, read, and watch. But on the other hand, just because everybody in a given community has children, there might not be an expectation that everybody has children — that is, it might not be "abnormal" to not do what the majority does.) But yes, social norms can be very arbitrary. I hardly see the firm distinction between wearing baked beans on one's head and spraying odorous Beaver sacs under one's arms or painting one's eyelids black, or any of the other multitudes of odd customs we take for granted. To quote George Bernard Shaw, "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Normal can mean any of the following:
 * sociological/anthropological norms (as above): expected/allowed behavior/attitudes in a given societal context
 * moral expectations: behavior/attitudes that are expected of a good person (differs from the above because moral expectations are supposed to be non-contextual, though a lot of people will argue there's no practical difference)
 * psychosocial integrity: behavior/attitudes that are not physically or mentally destructive (usually expressed in terms of abnormal behavior).
 * take your pick. -- Ludwigs 2  16:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * An additional interpretation of the moral/social might be that moral expectations are cooked up in order to reinforce social norms. (Hence most moral expectations that are taken seriously don't fall too far outside of given norms, and the people who do actually take them seriously usually fall very far outside of most social norms, and become self-segregating religious communities, for example.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A character in Larry Niven's Ringworld says "the majority is always sane". More seriously, some of the criticisms levelled against modern psychiatric practice (as expressed, for example, in DSM-V) is it that is claimed to medicalise hitherto normal human variation (this Harvard discussion is relevant). In the terms of your question, it doesn't change what is normal (it's still abnormal to have beans on your head) but it narrows the range around that which is considered healthy (that is, it reduces the number of beans you can have on your head and still be considered an eccentric rather than someone suffering from a mental condition that requires treatment). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, what some people consider normal and what others consider normal can differ wildly. Take the odious and grotesque practice (you can already tell which side of the fence I'm on) of wearing clothes that have had holes deliberately ripped in them. Who in their right mind would ever do that? That's just as weird as walking around with baked beans on your head. But people do it; well, some people do it. They've created their own peer-regulated normality. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Likewise, look at Tattoos. Perhaps as soon as 20-25 years ago, tattoos were quite rare; people who had tattoos were usually in motorcycle gangs or something like that.  Now, everyone and their grandmother seems to have some sort of tattoo.  What was originally a fringe sort of fashion has become very mainstream.  Normal changes over time.  -- Jayron  32  04:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We even have an article on creeping normalcy. Not too much there, but there are interesting links to camels, frogs, and fishery. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is actually part of a venerable tradition - it was part of Elizabethan fashion, or perhaps started earlier; decorative slits in clothes (admittedly not rips) represented, it's thought, that a man had been in a sword-fight (an unusually methodical one) and was therefore a bit tough and daring. 81.131.24.172 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe they were fighting with an Elizabethan Zorro. He always made his slits into a very readable Z.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It has traditionally been asserted by writers on heraldry (he weaselled) that the ornate appearance of the mantling - the cloth that covers the top of and hangs down behind the helm of an armoured knight - originated in its becoming tattered while in combat or by the general rigours of crusading, or was deliberately made to appear so. Recently, however, I have encountered the alternative theory that it stemmed from the same fashion that gave rise to dagged hems and fringes on garment bottoms, sleeves etc. - see 1400–1500 in fashion, which also traces the slashing described by 81.131 to an event in 1476. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Whatever the majority does" isn't really a good definition. Depending on how narrowly you define them, there are many things that are "normal" for anyone to do, but few people do them. For example, most people would say that stamp collecting is a perfectly "normal" thing to do. It's a bit dull even, but only a minority of people have that exact hobby.
 * You might argue that stamp collecting is a "hobby", and a majority of people have some sort of "hobby" and therefore all hobbies are normal. But that doesn't work either, because if you're really into pouring baked beans on your head, If you really enjoy studying the nuances of putting baked beans on your head, you could call that a hobby, but it's still clearly not "normal". APL (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

KIDNAPPING BUSINESS
WHY SHOULD NIGERIA BE SINGING ABOUT KIDNAPPING AS A CRIME WHILE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD APPLY THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WOULD FISH ATHEM OUT AND OVERTHROW THEIR ABODES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwokolopc (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All the words of your question are spelled correctly but put together in that order, they don't make much sense. Can you better explain what you are asking?  Dismas |(talk) 15:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like something's going on over there, anyway. Wiki Dao   (talk)  16:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

pre-1974 Coat of arms of Burma
Can anyone find an image of the pre-1974 Coat of arms of Burma, with the three chinthe? I had one when I was a little nerdlet in Kindergarden, from the 1970 World Book encyclopedia, but that was 35 years, 6000 miles and 17 garage sales ago. In addition, I am fairly sure there was one prior to the 1962 coup that was different. Yes, I have Google image searched, king-size bag o' nothin'. --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this any good? Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, That seems to be India!! Try again... Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think some of what you want is right here on Wikipedia, but under "seal" rather than "coat of arms". See State seal of Burma.



I'm almost certain I have sharper versions in some of my old heraldry and flag books from the 1960's, but unfortunately I have no scanner or digital camera. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Godfather part I's language
What non-English language do they speak? Is it modern standard Italian language or Sicilian language? --Belchman (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it was just Italian as spoken by Americans who don't really speak Italian. If it was really Sicilian it would sound so different from regular Italian that you would definitely be able to tell. The guy who played Michael's father-in-law (Saro Urzi) was Sicilian, but the girl who played Michael's wife (Simonetta Stefanelli) is from Rome, so I don't know if that means anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was wondering this because there are parts that are undoubtedly Italian since I can understand the language to some degree, but there are others that just 'sound' Italian but I simply can't understand a single word. --Belchman (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's better than me! This site has a transcription of the whole movie, but the guy apparently doesn't know much Italian. But it does seem from the dialogue that Vitelli recognizes them as American from their accent, so that could be a clue. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To add even more confusion, this claims "SOLLOZZO now begins in rapid Sicilian. MICHAEL listening carefully and nodding every so often. Then MICHAEL answers in Sicilian, and SOLLOZZO goes on. The WAITER occasionally brings food; and they hesitate while he is there; then go on. Then MICHAEL, having difficulty expressing himself in Italian, accidentally lapses into English."... Wow, what a mess :) --Belchman (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Anthony Burgess always maintained that there was no such thing as the Italian language, just a mass of dialects. DuncanHill (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Burgess is correct, historically; see Italian language. More to the point are our articles on Dialect continuum (how Italian in one part of the country sounds similar to that in the next door province) and Code-switching (using more than one language in a single interaction). BrainyBabe (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys don't really know what I'm talking about, but it's okay. Thank you anyway. --Belchman (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Italian/Sicilian one of those situations where people claim they are different "languages" but they are written the same? A Sicilian acquaintance born in the 1920's told me that Sicilian was written the same as Italian but had different pronunciation. I know that names ending in "-one" are pronounced with a long "E" at the end in some parts of Italy/Sicily, but a silent "E" in others (Like Al Capone.  Probably the same language, but different accents or dialects. Edison (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, its not that simple. Remember that prior to the 1860's, there was no "Italy".  See Italian unification.  These things are hard to quantify, but the differences between Italian and Sicilian are probably greater than that between Parisian French and Langue d'oc and at least as varied as say, the difference between Castillian Spanish and the Catalan language.  The article on Sicilian language shows the evolution of the language and the differences between Sicilian and Italian are great.  Of course, there's the long-held addage that "A language is a dialect with an Army and a Navy".  But, it isn't a simple as a few pronounciation differences.  -- Jayron  32  04:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or pronunciation differences, as we say in Texas.  Textorus (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Precolumbian Civilisations
Was there any communication between the Middle American and Andean civilisations prior to the European conquests? The picture that's usually painted is of two separate centres of culture, the Incas and the Aztecs (and the Maya), in the middle of not much else. Rojomoke (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America discusses the development of metallurgy in Peru and its spread to Mesoamerica by 800 AD. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It would seem unlikely that there were significant sustained direct contacts (instead of mediated indirectly by a whole series of intervening tribes). And of course, the Inca empire only expanded into the area of the northern Peru coast and Ecuador in the decades immediately preceding 1492... AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some pretty daunting natural obstacles for direct, land-based contact between North/Meso-America and South America, even in modern times. See Darién Gap.  It is possible that sea-based contact may have occured, I have not known that either culture had a strong sea-faring tradition.  There may have been indirect contact of the type AnonMoos notes, for example there is significant evidence that, in precolumbian times, Polynesian peoples contacted such varied areas as coastal Peru and coastal North America.  See Polynesian_navigation and Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact for some of this.  -- Jayron  32  05:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Guns, Germs and Steel postulates that one of the reasons for Old World technological superiority over the New World was due to the New World's inability to communicate effectively across distances because of geographic barriers. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of creation
Many religious beliefs have a creation myth. I was under the impression, however, that Judaism (and by extension Christianity/Islam) was one of the few that set even a rough date on creation (e.g. 5770 or so years back by the Hebrew calendar; 6014 or so years back, if you follow Ussher chronology.) Is that impression correct, or are there other religions that put a specific date, or even an approximate one, to creation? (But let's exclude the linguistic trick of using a specific large number to refer to some unspecified large number.) Specifically, both Greco-Roman mythology and Norse mythology have creation myths, but were these placed at a specific time in the past, or just a vauge "a long, long time ago"? -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The List of creation myths article gives a list of links to creation myths. But I haven't gone through them to see which of them has dates -- they're going to have to be the ones from cultures that also have a dating system, of course, so see also List of calendars.  Wiki Dao   (talk)  20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hindus are sort of known for having extremely long timescales associated with their stories (billions of years, which is actually comparable to the age of the universe). It's not specifically "creation" because they have a cyclic worldview, but I think that you can put a date on the last time Shiva destroyed the world, or whatever (I'm not that familiar with either the religion nor the time reckoning, so I'm sure someone else can come along and elaborate).  You can try to wade through Hindu units of measurement, specifically for "day of Brahma".  Here's another site about Hindu time measurements: .  According to this site, we're currently about 2 billion years into the current day of Brahma. Buddy431 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 174.21.233.249 -- The creation dates in Christianity and Judaism have been arrived at by painfully adding numbers together in the Bible which were not really intended for the purpose of strictly consecutive chronology (the whole Book of Judges, for example), and often different numbers are found in the Masoretic Hebrew text as opposed to the Greek Septuagint text. That's why the date of creation has been set anywhere from 3760 B.C. (Jewish Calendar) to 4004 B.C. (Archbishop Ussher) to 5509 B.C. (Anno Mundi)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But realise that Christianity as a whole, and most of the individual sects do NOT adhere to any chronology at all (some obscure small ones might). --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A deeper meditation on Bible Truths reveals that that date is the instant where Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. The time between the creation event, which was six "days," and The Original Sin is never at all specified. schyler (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See the article "Chronology of the Bible". -- Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Further to Buddy431 above: the Hindu cosmology has cycles of "creation" called "Kalpas" each of which consists of four periods of time called yugas. We are apparently about 5112 years into the fourth, or "Kali", yuga of this Kalpa. Adding that to the duration of the preceding three yugas gives 5112 + 864,000 + 1,296,000 + 1,728,000 = 3,893,112 years since the last creation-event, according to this system. 68.55.212.251 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * schyler - No, the dating is based on that provided in Genesis, which applies to the period of time that Adam "had lived." Presumably he began living at his creation; that would be the normal meaning, and there's nothing in the Bible to suggest otherwise.  John M Baker (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See The Challenge of Creation for a nearly comprehensive review of Judaism's non-literal approach to biblical interpretation, supported by such great Medieval minds as Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Nachmonides.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 12:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill Gates / Warren Buffet visit to China
Dear Wikipedians:

I read in a Chinese newspaper article that rich people in the States are avid to set up private charitable foundations to accomplish five-fold purposes:

  To legally evade inheritance tax, which is 55% of everything over $600000.  To build good reputations for themselves.  To make sure that their offsprings will continue to get regular handouts from the private foundations they have set up after their passing away. Hence providing for their offsprings for the rest of their (offsprings') natural lives.  To prevent their offsprings from squadering away the fortune they have accumulated after they have passed away by putting leveraging controls in the hands of foundations' boards.  To let members of foundations' boards continue to impart values, advice and mentoring to their offsprings to make sure that their offsprings remain upper-class and stay in the elite sectors of American society. 

The conclusion of the article is that the motives of rich people in the States setting up private charitable Foundations are not as pure as people would think. And that since Chinese rich people give away money to, for example, earthquake relief and such, without any expectation of remaining in control of that money, once it has given away, the Chinese rich people are more noble in intent than their American counterparts.

Is there any truth to this claim? Especially with respect to points 3, 4 and 5?

Thanks.

174.88.33.116 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to suggest that any of the above (let's make it harder - all) do not apply to these 'Chinese rich people' you speak about? And do you have any evidence to suggest that rich people in the USA - without exception - do not give money towards disaster relief and such forth? If your answer to both of the above is 'yes', then your question is answered and need not even be discussed here. If 'no', then your question is answered and need not be discussed here. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  23:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In answer to the question "is there any truth to the claim [that]... Chinese rich people are more noble in intent than their American counterparts:" You must first define what "noble" really means. Is noble in this sense a synonym of virtue? In that case I can use what I think I know. Virtue was the theme of The Western Philosophical Dialogue Meno. Being noble (virtuous) is considered "good," yes? Man, according to Western viewpoint, will always pursue what is perceived to be "good." That is, good for that particular man (or woman). To be noble, vituous, and good, is, therefore, to pursue what is in that person's opinion is "right" (Nota Bene: Greek for 'right opinion' is [orthe doxa], where we get the English word "Orthodox"). Therefore, American rich men are no less noble than Chinese rich men. schyler (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are surely many cultural factors here. I expect that one of the reasons wealthy Chinese give away money is to gain face, which is not so much a factor for Americans.  But in any case it would be nice to have some actual data on the amounts given away by Americans and Chinese, for comparison. Looie496 (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An interesting thing is this study which came out recently which compares countries by the number of people who have given money to a charity, or time or helped a stranger. Of course it's difficult to compare people in diffirent circumstances. It's likely to be more difficult for someone who is struggling to survive to donate money to charity then someone who lives a resonably comfortable life. It's likely to be more difficult for someone who works 60-80 hours a week to give time to charity then someone who works around ~40 hours a week. This also doesn't attempt to compare amounts, which may not seem entirely fair but also raises issues of itself (do you compare by GDP? average income? etc). It also worked by surveys I believe which as we've discussed before raises issues of itself. So of course even the authors don't claims it's some sort of end all comparison . But still an interesting read IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 174.88.33.116 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was not being very clear in my original post. What I meant was that often in China one would hear Chinese social critics comment on the largesse of rich people in Western societies and accuse the Chinese rich people of being selfish in only wanting to pass on their riches to their offspring. But if the five points I have raised in my original post, especially points 3, 4, 5, are true, then it shows that rich people in Western societies are not really that much above Chinese rich people and are setting up private charitable foundations only to pass on their wealth to their offspring in a less direct, more covert, way in order to avoid the hefty inheritance tax, but are passing their wealth onto their children in nearly its entirety nonetheless. 174.88.33.116 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My first reaction to this is, why are you taking Chinese propaganda seriously? (Especially since it just happens to point out how great the Chinese are, what a coincidence!) Of course we are guilty of the same kind of thing; what do we ever hear about China, except how unsafe its industries are, or how polluted the air is, or how much lead paint they put into the toys they export to America? Clearly America is industrially superior. Or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't both things potentially Chinese propaganda? Is there any reason why it's okay for the OP to take one more seriously then the other? Is Chinese propaganda which says the Chinese are bad okay but Chinese propaganda which says the Chinese are good is not? In fact to be blunt it seems to me the OP actually doesn't want to take either propaganda seriously. They've heard both pieces of propaganda and don't know how much truth there is to either one so have come here (whether it's the best place or not) to find out Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Nil got it right with the "In fact to be blunt it seems to me the OP actually doesn't want to take either propaganda seriously." I come from a natural science and engineering background, where there is only one right answer and the absolute truth. So I feel very uncomfortable with social science, where it often comes down to an "us vs them", it's either the Taliban's viewpoints or the NATO's viewpoints, it's either the East's viewpoints or the West's viewpoints. I am always looking for a neutral, third party perspective that reflect the absolute truth on a social or world issue, but alas, that does not seem to exist in the social sciences, in stark contrast to the natural sciences. 174.88.33.116 (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or is it the case that there ARE NO aboslute truths in social sciences? And that all I'm going to get is one perspective versus another? But I still don't see how anyone could possibly see things like female genital mutilation as a positive thing, or could even THAT thought of mine be a product of the years of education that I have received in the West? So that our typical African people can somehow reason FGM out to be a positive thing? (Horror/shudder at the thought) 174.88.33.116 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You will find people in the social sciences who are absolutists (female genital mutilation is always, unequivocally bad), and relativists (female circumcision is performed for reasons which seem perfectly normal and reasonable to those who practise it). And there are endless debates about whether relativism or absolutism is correct, so there is no neutral perspective, even about the debate about perspective. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is incredibly simple...sometimes. Some rich American's are giving their money away for the reasons described, some will not. Some will be giving their money away out of virtue and care for others (perhaps even a sense of duty due to their upbringing). Similarly rich people in China giving money will be sometimes the same and sometimes not (though their tax law may differ and so that reasoning might be mute). There is countless evidence of American's giving money to disaster relief funds (e.g. Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake) where they'll not get any money 'back' or can't necessarily 'control' how that money is spent - doubtless there is the same for Chinese donors too. ny156uk (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Some rich American's....what"? Forgive me, just doing the rounds of idiotic pedantry. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  16:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That rich American must be the Bill Gate's referred to below. :) --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To specifically address the people mentioned in the title, it's true that Bill Gate's has put a lot of money into his own charitable foundation (and one can speculate as much as one likes about his motivations), but Warren Buffett has pledge most of his fortune to the Gate's foundation where his family would presumably have no control over it. I'm also pretty sure it's illegal for people to siphon money out of a charitable foundation, even if they run the foundation, even if the money was once theirs. That's not to say that no one ever does anything like that, but people also go to jail for it. In the US, if you want to ensure your kids get your money when you die, the most effective way is to just give it to them. There's a pretty significant estate tax but 45% of $50 billion is still a lot of money. Rckrone (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks every one for your $0.02. I feel more enlightened now. 174.88.33.116 (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether part of the confusion here is that the writers of article you mention don't understand the difference betweeen a trust and a charitable trust. Many people do set up trusts for a reasons relating to tax avoidance, protecting their assets, ensuring their heirs can't just squander the money away, etc. This is definitely the case in NZ (in NZ particularly with the relationship law as it is and also because it's a useful way to avoid asset testing which can come in to play with some forms of government support) and I'm pretty sure in the US.

These trusts aren't charitable trusts and no one claims they are. They are mostly limited by what the trust documents say and are usually set up with the inherent intention of providing for the beneficieries (which are likely to be their heirs of the person who set them up or the people themselves). See also Trust (law).

In many countries, you may also set up some sort of charity e.g. a charitable trusts which may get special income tax exemptions. But these are a different beast and there are usually laws which regulate what they can and can't do (at least if they want to keep their tax exemptions). While I'm not saying the people who set them up are all doing it out of the generosity of their hearts, and they probably can to some extent be used to provide a comfortable lifestyle for the person who set them up and perhaps their heirs, you can't usually AFAIK just set up a charity which would provide for your heirs, and only your heirs. See Charitable organization for example of the regulations governing them in a few countries.

Of course laws do vary from country to country. IKEA is an example often noted as it's owned (well it's a little complicated, read the articles) by a non profit foundation, the Stichting INGKA Foundation which was/is? sometimes considered the largest non profit in the world, something that emerged due to debates of the size of the Bill & Melinda Foundation. It has been claimed the Stichting INGKA Foundation was primary set up for tax avoidance and anti-takeover protection.

As an interesting aside BG III's father, who wasn't a poor person before his son, was/is supporter of some form of estate tax.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)