Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 14

= October 14 =

Economics: Could venture capital boost the American green energy sector?
Hi. Venture capital is often awarded to new businesses, and green tech is often considered an emerging sector, but could it work in the current global marketplace? Thanks. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say. Per Wind power, wind power is currently growing so fast that it no longer seems to be utilizing subsidies, tax credit exchanges, or anything other than ordinary bank financing. And the developing world is growing much faster than the US. If you put those facts together, under ordinary financial conditions, any investor should be able to purchase a mutual fund or American depository receipts allowing taking advantage of such rapid growth rates. However, in the current investment climate, corporations try to produce derivatives which allow them to capture all the possible profits from an investment, precluding individual investors. Thank goodness they've learned how to outspend individuals during campaign season, or they might lose their advantage. Dualus (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Venture capital is not "awarded" but invested with expectation of return. Businessmen will invest in green in any technology if they think it will produce products which people will buy because they expect to benefit from it. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the interesting things about capital in our society is that it is legally treated as private property. Unless restricted by contracts or law, owners of capital can do with them as they wish.  Medeis notes one of the key limiting factors: the impression that a rate of return above market average is achievable when factoring risk in.  Despite the methodological beliefs of a number of economists, and the methodological assumptions of another bunch of economists who want to get on with their discipline, not all capitalists act so as to seek the maximum rate of return.  So yes, venture capital could choose to invest specifically in marketisable green energy; but choosing to do so when it isn't the most profitable sector seeking capital would be foolish if their aim is to maximise returns. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Christian denomination in Europe
So far, I know that France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal are dominantly Roman Catholic and Netherlands, U.K., Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland are dominantly Protestants. What about other nations in Europe? Which are Roman Catholic? Which are Protestants? and Which are Orthodox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.206 (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

See: File:Prevailing world religions map.png... this map should help. Blueboar (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For proper balance it's only fair to mention File:Irreligion map.png as well - many countries in Europe, particularly northern Europe, are now predominantly non-religious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Try Christianity in Europe. Flamarande (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That irreligion map contradicts the religion in china article. China is too dark on the map.  It should be 40 to 60%, not 93%.  The colors seem arbitrary and the whole thing needs a citation. Anyway, it's not relevant to the question as irreligion is not a "Christian denomination in Europe."  Turkey is predominantely Armenian Orthodox as far as Christianity goes as 60% of Christians in that country follow that faith.  They account for .08% of the population.  There are far many more Christians in Sweden than in Turkey, although according to the Religion in Sweden article, there appears to be a great deal of variation among what sociologists believe.  Why the authors of these maps pick the highest number even without a scholarly consensus to back it up is not clear. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans speakers in South Africa
Although I often find surprising information on WP, it's rare for me to find something that apparently reveals my ignorance quite as much as this map. I'm surprised at two things - the high proportions speaking Afrikaans in the west of the country, and the low proportions in the east, including rural areas that I had always thought of as having historically quite high proportions of white Afrikaans-speaking settlers. The map suggests that it shows proportions of the total population - not just the ethnically "white" population. Firstly, is the map accurate; and, if so, what has led to the very sharp division between east and west of which I was previously unaware? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not just the whites that speak Afrikaans at home, Afrikaans is also the mother tongue of the majority of the coloured population. Compare the map above with this map: File:South Africa 2001 Coloured population proportion map.svg. --Soman (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Afrikaans-speaking Coloured people form a majority only in western South Africa. This is so because this was the first part of the country settled by Europeans. Prior to European settlement, it was sparsely settled by non-agrarian Khoisan peoples, since the climate of the west, with its summer drought, would not support the crops on which the Bantu peoples of the east depended.  Over the first two centuries of European settlement, a Dutch-speaking land-owning elite came to depend on a much larger mixed-race working class, the ancestors of today's Coloured peoples.  This working class consisted of the descendants of the original Khoisan population mixed with other groups imported from Madagascar or Asia as laborers.  In addition, white masters often fathered children through (mutually consenting or forcible) sexual relations with female workers. These children became part of the Coloured community.  Over these centuries, the Dutch of the white masters evolved, partly by acquiring vocabulary from the original languages of the working class, into Afrikaans, which became the common language of the Western Cape.  It was only after the Great Trek of the mid-19th century that Afrikaans-speaking whites moved into what became eastern South Africa.  Coloured people largely did not take part in the Great Trek but remained the majority population of the Western Cape. What is now eastern South Africa was and is heavily populated by speakers of Bantu languages, who have always formed a majority in this region.  Therefore, the Afrikaans of the white population has never been a majority language in eastern South Africa except in the small and segregated enclaves where whites formed a majority.  Marco polo (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

1940 version of "Wake Up America"
I'm trying to find a copy of the 1940 version of "Wake Up America" by James Montgomery Flagg. In that one, Uncle Sam is urging viewers to become aware of war overseas. Where can I find a copy? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only image of it that I can find online is one of Flagg standing in front of a poster at [[User:The Mark of the Beast|The Mark of the Beast] (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that image, and it's powerful. But is there another image similar, but without Flagg standing in front of it?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Imperial Roman politics
So, this site is full of pages of detailed information of political offices in Rome during the empire, but what there is not much of is information on politics outside of the city. I asked some time ago regarding a book I have been writing, where one character has entered a political career in a town some way north of Rome itself (having had to go into hiding to escape dangerous criminals, hence why he cannot move back to the city just yet) and I recieved a few responses that were of some help. Since then, though, I have moved on a couple of chapters, and I think now he may well have not only moved up the cursus honorum in his town, but also be looking, perhaps unrealistically, even further up. I am wondering in particular whether there would have been any sort of regional government below the level of the provincial governors.

What I would like then is either a rough outline of the political system as it would have been out in this town, such that I can then conduct more detailed research on whichever points seem most relevant at the time, or to be directed to another website that has a more detailed description of such matters.

I feel I should say, this is only to be a minor point in the book, so I felt I did not need much in the way of in depth research, just for a couple of lines to drop in at one point, if anyone feels like telling me I should have studied the subject a lot more before writing the book.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What period of the Empire, and how far north of Rome? (Still in Italy, or somewhere else?) I guess for any random provincial city, there would be a local curia, and curiales and decurions, but there wasn't really a cursus honorum outside of Rome, because the cursus was for higher offices in Rome itself. There would be a provincial governor appointed from Rome, so it's not like a local person ever rose through the ranks to govern the province. But it's hard to say exactly, without knowing the place and time period. (Sorry, I can't seem to find your previous question.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The current chapter is set during 250, in the crisis of the third century, at a time when it seems to have calmed down a little, for a few months. I was thinking of a town quite close to Rome itself, perhaps only fifty or a hundred miles away. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, that's a little bit simpler, since Italy wasn't exactly a province like the others, it was under the direct control of the emperor. For a town that close to Rome, the emperor's chief deputy was the urban prefect of Rome itself (for anything further away, it was the pretorian prefect). Your town (a municipium) would also have a council (a curia, essentially a mini-Senate), probably run by the wealthiest local landowners, although sometimes every adult male was obliged to serve on the council whether they wanted to or not (members of the council were called decuriones). They could collect taxes and pass local legislation and deal with local legal questions and disputes, make sure wills were propertly executed, liberate slaves, build houses and roads, that sort of thing. Serious crimes, though, were punished by the prefect, and of course taxes went to Rome. The prefect was also responsible for distribution of food. It's not that much different from a modern British, Canadian, or American town, or maybe a medieval English town near London, for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Cities in the Roman Empire were generally administered by various Duumviri, each of which had different functions. The "duumviri iure dicundo" were in charge of legal administration (police, law, courts, etc.), while the duumviri aedile were in charge of infrastructure and finances.  Cities in the Empire were of two types; municipia, the lower class, were cities which had been absorbed by the Empire but not settled specifically by it; while Colonia, the higher class, had been founded and settled by the Empire specifically.  This subdivision was, AFAIK, mostly relevent in the outer Roman provinces, which were under control of Roman governors of various titles.  Within Italy itself, which was administerred directly by the Emperor, things may have worked a bit differently.  However, if you want to use an authentic-sounding roman title of a city administrator, "duumviri iure dicundo" or something like that may work for you.  -- Jayron  32  13:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, the singular form would be duumvir iure dicundo. Marco polo (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Shonuff. -- Jayron  32  14:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * But that's a very early title (you can even tell by the archaic spelling of "dicundo"). It no longer existed by the time period the OP is asking about. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor people
The productive contribution of an individual poor person towards economic progress of the world is far less than the contribution of an individual rich person. Then why poor people are considered equal to riches? --Jigjig555 (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Two thoughts. First, your underlying assumption is wrong. A poor person may make a very much greater contribution than a rich person. Clearly, they do not have the spending capacity of a rich person, but that's not the only measure of a contribution. Secondly, the economic contribution that is made by a person to the economy is not the only measure of that person; from all sorts of other perspectives, people are people and should be treated as equals. Given that income does not corrolate well with "contribution to society / economy", then using wealth as a measure of worth is facile. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Poor people are by definition unequal to the rich, that is what makes them poor. In the West, poor people are nominally considered equals under the law, but that has a tendency to not bear out in practice. -- Daniel  16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The general attitude is that all people are created equal, but do not necessarily remain equal. If equality was maintained, removing rights from one person and not another would not be acceptable. -- k a i n a w &trade; 18:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See http://www.coeinc.org/Articles/HousewifeWorth.pdf.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I question the premise. Wealth is ultimately created from labor and raw natural resources. Poor people generally do far more labor than rich people.  APL (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The question was not about labour, it was about "productive contribution ... towards economic progress" the men who created the Hall–Héroult process undoubtedly did contribute more than the labourer who actually create aluminum as these two men greatly increased the work efficiency for thousands of workers. I do however question how the OP basis the worth of a person on how much one makes. The idea that all humans are equal is more based on the though process of "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" Our lives are all equally important to ourselves. I do not see much contemporary support in the developed world for the idea that killing poor people is less of a crime than killing rich people, or any other idea which would come from the idea that the rich are more worthy than the poor. Public awareness (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Matthew 26:11. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Matthew 25:40. Dualus (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Genesis 25:30. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Proverbs 14:31. Dualus (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Fall of Eve, Genesis condensed. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 17 Tishrei 5772 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Genesis 3:22. Dualus (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Public awareness, the same logic can be applied in the case of animal rights. Animals do feel pain, they die, even they have emotion, should they have same right as humans? Some say yes, most say no. Poor people have the same biological feature as riches, but that doesn't entitle them to have same right as the riches. --Jigjig555 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And in the developed world animals do have rights, and these rights continue to grow. Rights are what society gives to all those within society. Mankind has moved forward, ending serfdom, than slavery, segregation, emancipated women, and ended anti-homosexuality laws. We give out rights equally because it is widely believed today that to do otherwise is unethical. Also, see the veil of ignorance and social equality. Public awareness (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We've ended anti-homosexuality laws? Perhaps you're not from the United States (neither am I), but see defense of marriage act, LGBT rights in the United States, and Proposition 8.
 * Anyhow, I'm not sure what sort of equality the OP had in mind, but it's not necessarily true that the rich contribute more to the economy than the poor. Case in point: Public awareness mentioned the Hall-Heroult process.  Hall was poor, and discovered the process in a wooden shed with minimal equipment.  Almost all scientists, both today and throughout history, were not rich, yet they've changed the world much more profoundly than any CEO.  Pierre and Marie Curie famously struggled with poverty.  I'm fairly sure that Maxwell, Einstein, Darwin, and Dirac were not at the very top of the social ladder, but don't quote on that.  --140.180.26.155 (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the OP is pushing for slavery. The fact that in order for slavery to work, you need slaves underlines the mistake in your original assumption. "Rich" people do not (or rarely) do the actual work (and by rich, I'm referring to the upper strata of businesses here). They direct work. If we remove the workforce (and remove the idea of a workforce), a "rich" person's economic contribution is only worth what he can actually make with his own hands. He wouldn't be rich then. Does telling people what to do entitle you to more rights than the person who's doing what you ask of them? --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   03:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All sorts of geniuses have failed to patent their inventions or otherwise turned out to be poor businessmen. So what? Actual human rights are negative--such as the right not to be murdered. Yes, the rich sometimes get off, but usually because of "poor" (i.e., uneducated) juries. In the Anglo-West, at least, people do indeed have equally protected legal human rights. The poor are actually better off if you pretend such things as welfare and free education are rights. As for homosexuals, once again, nowhere in the West are they subject to persecution for their acts. They are also free to have any minister they like perform any magical ritual they want. The fact that some jurisdictions refuse to force third parties to pretend that gay couples are the same as married parents is not a violation of any negative right. It is simply a refusal to use the law to pretend that loving and commited acts of buggery and fellatio are the same as parturition. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You should take a look at LGBT rights by country or territory. Gay couples in multiple US states and western countries are not allowed to adopt. In a few states only married couples are allowed to adopt children, and since gays cannot get married they cannot adopt children. Also, a marriage is not a "magical ritual", it is a legally binding union which ties finances together and entitles the couple to many financial benefits from tax reductions for families, to life insurance for a spouse. In most European nations gay men are still not allowed to donate blood, and in many nations gays cannot openly serve in military. Since the definition of persecution is "the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group" I don't see how you cannot consider any of this to be persecution.AerobicFox (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe we are talking about positive rights here too, right to vote, right to education, right to movement, right to health care, right to not be discriminated against based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, even right to Internet access. But this is off topic. The question was "why poor people are considered equal to riches", well from an economical standpoint they are not equal, from a law perspective they are equal for ethical reasons, from an individual's standpoint they may or not be equal, Sergei Polonsky has stated that "anyone without a billion dollars is a "loser" and "those who don't have a billion, can go to hell"." Public awareness (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy a bit of sodomy just as much as the next person, but that doesn't mean my rights are violated by not being able to adopt a child based on my being a sodomite. The issue involved is the child's best interests, not the desire of the homosexual couple for a pet or a trophy child. Gays are just as entitled as straights to do it the old fashioned way if they want children. Gays should also be enabled to adopt whomever they like as next of kin--just as was allowed in Roman times. Julius Caesar adopted Octavian when the latter was a grown man. That is all that the protection of an adult's right's require. Being able to seize children with the state's assent has nothing to do with same sex sex. So long as gays are not being deprived of their lives, freedom, or property, their rights are protected. The law cannot make them biological parents against the facts of nature. BTW, if a state allows single parents to adopt, it should not take into account their sexual orientation. I am not opposed to gays adopting. I am opposed to the state forcing third parties to treat loving sodomites as if they were the same thing as biological parents just because they are registered sodomites.μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Capitalism. → Σ  τ  c . 04:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Uhuh. Children up for adoption don't belong to their biological parents who abandoned them in the first place (which speaks volumes about the assertion that people who can make babies take better care of babies). What the heck is the difference between heterosexual adopters, single-parent adopters, and homosexual adopters? They are not biological parents. Adoption does not make you a biological parent. There will also always be 'trophy' adopted kids. Even straight people do that. Including that incident about one fundamentalist Christian couple who blathered on about how they love children so much they decided to adopt two orphans from Liberia on national television. Three years later they beat the 7 year old to death and hospitalized her older sister for mispronouncing a word. So yeah, what does sexual orientation have anything to do with your capacity to care for a child?


 * And just so you'll look at it the other way, it's the state forcing barriers on people based on arbitrary criteria. The state is actually saying all gay people are incapable of taking care of children against evidence otherwise just because the vocal ignorant majority says so. How would you like it if straight people of the opposite sexes were suddenly banned from being seen together alone? What about if certain genders were not allowed in certain professions? Oh wait... they already do that. It's the same thing. The "nature doesn't do that" argument is also a load of crap. Nature doesn't have organized religion either, they certainly don't kill each other over which imaginary friend is better, and you probably will find little evidence of kindness or altruism as well. In fact, relatively few animals adopt children. Heck lions kill the young of a competing male. If these are all unnatural things, what makes them exceptions of the "nature doesn't do that" argument?


 * The question is can they take care of the children whose own parents can not or will not? Will the children lead better lives away from orphanages? And the answer is yes. Leave the bullshit at the door. I'm sure you lurv "sodomy". Maybe you'd also like to try "gommorhea" sometime. *rolls eyes* --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   05:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It sounds like μηδείς is referring to the possibility of laws which prevent parent/s who are giving up their children for adoption from rejecting parents based on their sexual orientation. However as you pointed out, this isn't the issue most are concerned with here, the big issue is quite a few governments including unfortunately NZ preventing same sex couples from adopting or treating them the same as a single parent (which is questionable if you do have some recognition of an opposite-sex couple in adoptions). And this includes cases where the biological parents aren't involved at all. There is also the example of where third parties who are not the biological parents are involved, and whether they are allowed to reject people based on sexual orientation but again, this is another thing as well. I would note that if you start talking about the government disallowing a same sex couple to adopt because it's not in the 'child's best interests' (despite the lack of evidence for this claim), others may start to talk about whether you should allow parents who express the belief that being gay is wrong or that a woman's primary role in life should be as a caregiver and mother and other such views should be allowed to adopt for the same reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to continue a debate, since I think what I have said above is clear. Suggestions that I contract "gommorhea"  are bizarre, and suggest an emotional impediment to rational discussion.  But my point is that rights are negative.  That is, the entitle you not to be assaulted, killed, robbed or defrauded, or denied life, liberty or property without due process.  The only valid state reason for marriage as a legal institution is designation of next of kin and protection of a dependent mother and minor children.  Gay couples--any adults-- should have the right to designate their next of kin, and historically this has been called (adult) adoption--e.g.  Gay couples can also participate in whatever magic rituals and public announcements they like, and no civilized state prevents this.  But since gay couplings do not produce children, legally designating them marriages serves some other purpose than protecting the rights of dependent mothers and children.  The only reason for getting the state involved in calling gay cohabitation marriage is to force third parties, employers, landlords, insurers, religious entities--at gunpoint, since that is what the law is--to treat them as if they were the same as married couples.  If as a leftist you want the state to force people to provide benefits to homosexual couples involuntarily, then that's what you should say.  But to say that the government is currently violating the rights of homosexuals is an Orwellian use of language.  (I should say that states which don't offer or recognize some sort of civil union or adult adoption are not providing people with equal protection of the law.  I think Texas refuses to recognize civil unions from other states.  If, on that basis, a person were denied access to a hospital patient as next of kin, that would indeed be a gross violation of rights.)


 * Can't speak sarcasm, when it's not yours? You seem to delight in using "sodomy" and "sodomite" in sentences despite claiming to be irreligious. That's like talking about Hispanic people and obliviously and repeatedly calling them "spics", expecting everyone to take it all in a stride. Political correctness be damned, there's a fine line between being honest and being obnoxious.


 * From past discussions I got the impression that you were all for smaller government interference with personal matters that do no harm to anyone. You seem to have no problems with government interference with minorities though. Who's forcing who? And what do "third parties" have anything to do with what two people do? People don't marry just to spite their landlords, local parishes, employers, and insurers (wtf?). And do you really think most gay people want to be married in a church? LOL And for the record, I don't care what you call it, marriage, civil union, partnership, as long as it has the same legal definition as heterosexual marriages with or without children, biological or otherwise. And yes your arguments are circular. If you want to make it negative, think of it this way: People have a right not to have to live their lives according to how others want them to live it. Self-determination? Free will? That's a really basic right, isn't it?


 * It's called minding your own business. If you're not gay, then don't have gay sex. Ban them from entering your church/mosque/temple if you want, but seriously, reaching beyond that to affect legislation in a secular state is ridiculously obsessive attempts to control other people's lives. --   Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   00:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Continue the debate or not I'm going to reply to this post. Your positive and negative rights argument is circular, the negative right to liberty which is granted to us allows us to do whatever we like as long as it does not harm others, we therefore have the right to do anything that doesn't hurt other people regardless of positive rights. By your reasoning the government could ban gay people from making phone calls and then state "The right to make phone calls is a positive right which you are not entitled to". If a person wants to raise a child then it is their right to do that unless it harms the child or someone else, that is why we ban child molesters from adopting children. Banning a gay person from raising a child without a reason to believe that it will harm anybody is a direct violation of their right to do whatever they like if it harms nobody else. I can't believe that you just compared a gay person finding a homeless orphan, taking them into their home and feeding them to "force third parties, employers, landlords, insurers, religious entities--at gunpoint", the gay people have a right to be left alone just like everybody else, it is at your metaphorical gunpoint that they are being told that they cannot adopt an orphan like a straight person could. AerobicFox (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The claim of the reasons for marriage are in stark contrast to the modern realities of marriages. Plenty of people get married who cannot have children by themslves i.e. couples where one partner is clearly infertile (whether because of age or some other reason). Plenty of people get married with the explicit intention to never have kids (some may later change their minds but this doesn't change their original intention). Despite the Roman Catholic Church's disagreement with this concept (the RCC is at least somewhat consistent in this stance whereas a number of other religious figures don't seem to mind accepting marriages when there is no intention for children as long as the couple is of the opposite sex), it is one the modern realities of marriage. If you want to change the law to disallow marriages when children are not a possibiliy, you should do so, rather then denying certain couples the right to marry because they cannot have children whereas allowing other couples who cannot or do not wish to have children the right to marry because of their sex.
 * And as others have pointed out, you are still ignoring the fact were not primarily talking about forcing anyone 'to provide benefits to homosexual couples involuntarily' but about cases were the government denies same sex couples the right to adopt (at least as couples) whereas allowing opposite sex couples the right to adopt as couples, with only the government and no one else (not counting the couple or child of course) involved. I would note according to your logic, couples who find out they are infertile, should not be allowed to adopt as couples (even though there along with those who already knew it are probably the most common couples to adopt) but instead have their marriage automatically dissolved or turned in to a civil partnership/union because it no longer serves a purpose as a marriage. In fact, I wonder whether adoption agencies should require proof of fertility before they allowing a married couple to adopt. And should older children really be accepted as proof? It would seem not since fertility changes with age and from what I can tell you're suggesting only a currently fertile couple should adopt, although obviously the children mean the marriage still serves a purpose, that is until all the children die....
 * Similarly once a woman in a marriage reaches say the age of 60, if she has not yet conceived her marriage should be dissolved or turned into a civil partnership/union since it no longer serves a purpose as a marriage. The same if she did conceive, but only via a sperm donor (in fact the moment the sperm donor came in to consideration, the government probably should start to question the marriage), unless you're arguing same sex female couples should be allowed to marry but not same sex male couples.
 * Definitely anyone who provides anything to a married couple by merit of them being married is entitled to demand of anyone without biological children that they provide proof of fertility before treating them the same as a real married couple, since they clearly aren't really married if they are infertile. And if the proof is negative, they probably should be submitting it to the government to help them dissolve this fake marriage.
 * Of course all this seems unnecessarily complicated, perhaps the government should simply require fertility tests of both partners before the marriage can be approved and then require say biennially re-tests until say either partner reaches 30 then yearly re-tests thereafter, until a child is conceived, and of course starting up again if all the children die (not counting any adopted children). Of course, affirmation of a desire to have children would also be needed and if it's later found one party was lying, this fraud on the institute of marriage should be dealt with harshly. On that point, the fertility test thing may be somewhat wasting of government resources so probably marriages should not be allowed if the desire is not to have children yet, wait until they actually need the marriage.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am (by most accounts) relatively poor. I am also (by most accounts) quite a bit smarter than average. This is a choice more than anything else; money doesn't mean much to me. Would I somehow be a better person if I dedicated all of my substantial intelligence to making money? I'd be a richer person, certainly, but a better one?

the mistake the OP (who I'm pretty sure is just goofing around regardless) made is to assert that wealth is somehow meaningful. In fact, wealth has only accomplished two productive things in its entire history: Keep in mind that the Medici's (who were fabulously wealthy, even by modern standards) are only remembered because they sponsored some of the greatest artists of their period, and that your average spoiled wealthy person (the Kim Kardashians and Paris Hiltons of the world) will be forgotten in a generation or so, as millions of wealthy people have already been forgotten before them. It's nice to be wealthy - it makes life easy and fun - but at the end of the day wealth doesn't count for spit in a hurricane, unless you've used it to let someone else do something meaningful. -- Ludwigs 2 05:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It has paid the wages of laborers who would otherwise be doing more menial tasks (like agricultural production) and thus advanced industrial society.
 * it has given people who are actually creative the liberty of being creative, rather than wasting their time scrabbling after breadcrumbs.


 * Judging by the reactions here and there only being one reply by the author (as well as the question itself), I cannot help but to wonder, within the bounds of WP:AGF, whether the reactions of the other editors was what the OP was after; not saying they were, but it's a possibility. If that is the case, I think a fair number of editors here might have been trolled. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 17 Tishrei 5772 17:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And this surprises you? Ref desk editors (myself included) are surprisingly gullible sometimes, and most any question will manage to reach someone who's in a gullible mood.  It's not really avoidable; and it's fine so long as (in the long run) it stays within the bounds of common sense.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I did fall for the thing involving the dog and the peen, but no, not really. :p I always think it is better to have something bad happen to you while trying to do good than to be an asshole and tell the person to bugger off; so nothing wrong with being gullible sometimes. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 17 Tishrei 5772 19:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Eggzaggedly. A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man!  -- Ludwigs 2  21:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Irreligious society
Has there ever been a human society, that we know of, where the majority of the population was not religious at all? 114.75.60.48 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - large parts of the world now. See File:Irreligion map.png, and Irreligion by country.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Depends on how you define "not religious at all" (which, I suppose, depends on how you define "religious"). Do you mean the majority are outright atheists, or do you mean something else? Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * North Korea? The USSR?  Depends on if you consider certain political ideologies to be religious.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Gallup poll - on which the map I linked to is based - asked the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?". Majorities answered "no" in Sweden (88%), Denmark (82%), China (82%) and over 30 other countries, including (for example) the UK (76%), France (74%), Japan (72%), Australia (67%), Canada (61%), Russia (59%), Germany (59%) and Israel (54%).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why we need clearer definitions (and why polls can be misleading)... I certainly consider myself "religious", and yet I would have answered that poll with a "No" (My religion is not an important part of my daily life... I go for weeks without thinking about it). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That poll and map are absolute garbage. There is no way that religion is an important part of daily life to 67% of Australians. Weekly attendance at Christian churches is around 7%. Other religions have smaller market share. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Albania was officially 100% atheist for several decades... AnonMoos (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou. This is all very helpful. I suppose the definition of "religious" in this case would be that if somebody feels they're religious, they are. And if they feel they're not religious, they're not. 114.75.60.48 (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem with that is that you get different people answering the question differently, not because they differ in either their beliefs or how they see their beliefs, but just because they use the word differently. That's not very interesting.  For example, some people believe deeply in God but consider themselves non-religious, because they interpret the word "religious" as being about formal observance.  --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My favorite Bill Maher quote: "I believe in God!  Religion is the bureaucracy between God and Man. --Trovatore (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some more interesting maps, for comparison. This one was based strict atheism:  "I agree that there isn't any sort of God, spirit, or life force".  I can't tell if any countries are above 50%, but lots of European countries hover around it: .  For a less strict definition of religiousness that includes both atheists and agnostics, see .  There are definitely countries over 70% on this map. --140.180.26.155 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Guilt is the god, silence the sacrament, and political correctness the dominant intolerant religion of Western Europe. Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's as incomprehensible and open to multiple interpretations as any religious book. Congratulations! HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Methinks she doth protest too much. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * O, but she'll keep her word. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Debt in communism
Has personal debt existed at all in communist societies states like the GDR or USSR? Quest09 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Those socities still had money, and so people could still get into personal debt.  -- Jayron  32  14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, you don't even need money. In a barter society, you are in debt as long as you receive something and have not yet given whatever it is you promised in exchange. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did the USSR have a formal bankruptcy system? 207.108.46.201 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of those countries had Communist societies. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, they had communist states and not communist societies. Quest09 (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The first bankruptcy courts were not established in Russian until the 1990s. I'm not sure what other mechanisms (penalties, etc.) would have existed for someone with large debts in the USSR. I'm not even sure whether there were opportunities to take out significant (and legal) loans in the USSR. I've poked around in a few books on the Soviet economy but it's quite foreign in its structure (all discussion of loans are about loans taken out by the state, in the form of bonds, not about individuals). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there was a way for individuals to amass debts that could lead to bankruptcy. First of all, there were no credit cards.  I don't think that banks made unsecured personal loans. State banks apparently did make home-building loans per this source, but these were secured loans, and if the borrower failed to meet the repayment terms, the bank could simply repossess the building or materials. If individuals wanted to purchase expensive goods, such as automobiles or appliances, they had to save for them. Individuals might make informal loans to one another, but it's hard to imagine someone being able to amass a large debt to other private individuals.  If that somehow happened, and the debtor was unable to repay those loans, I would think that the debtor could be prosecuted for theft.  Marco polo (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In true communism there is no debt. → Σ  τ  c . 04:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A corollary to that is something Will Rogers once said: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax! But they ain't got no income!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Urgh Mr.98, why do you have to raise this. Soviet-style economies had internal debts between production units; these were both cost accounting debts and substantive money debts.  Production units in the Soviet-style economies operated in a kind of capitalism where a single share-holder synchronised their interests between firms, and where there was firm level resistance by individual managers.  The Party-State apparatus could, and did, void loans at will, and could, and did, attainder and execute management.  Stuff I've read on firm level politics indicates that attainder was advocated as a result of relatively low-level party battles during periods of extreme economic stress (1930s, war); but that in other periods management was relatively safe (1950s, 1960s).  See Milovan Djilas on The New Class for this.  Personal economic debt in the Soviet Union could occur in the black and grey economies, in these cases you would be killed over non-payment of debts.  This was primarily an phenomena of the capitals and major cities.  Finally, and obviously, the Soviet Union was not a society where economics was democratically organised by the principles "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" and deep in to the 1930s, private capitalist enterprises continued to operate; and, throughout the life of the Soviet Union, value maximisation processes, alienated wage labour, and monified firm level accounting through banks continued.  (Yugoslavia is even more confusing). Fifelfoo (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Were workers always paid in cash (weekly? monthly?) or into a bank account or savings account? If into an account, could they overdraw on that account? Also, was there hire purchase or anything similar? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Soviet Encyclopaedia indicates by 1979 that wages were paid in a physical fashion, this implies weekly in cash to me. Shkurko notes the large social-democratic component of the Soviet Wage by 1964—my understanding from a seminar on this topic is that social-wage elements were paid out of factory budget…this lead to interesting results in the 1990s as the nomenklatura strategically defunded factories. Bergson indicates that authors were paid by royalty in 1951, which indicates a functioning market system. Matthews writing in 1986 on Soviet poverty hardly mentions personal debt, with the exception of collective housing mortgages which he briefly characterises as usurious.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Are UK Magistrates (JP's) gazetted?
I am searching for a reference that shows when Francis Alfred Broad became a justice of the peace (JP). According to The Tottenham & Edmonton Weekly Herald, Friday 6 January 1956, page 7, he was appointed a justice of the peace for Middlesex in 1933. I have searched The London Gazette without success. Are JP's gazetted? If so, where? --Senra (Talk) 16:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There would be a record at the Lord Lieutenant's office as they are keeper of the rolls. Egg Centric 16:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Useful thank you, but no joy. I read the Lord Lieutenants record's history and found it interesting. I suspect that off-line catalogue would contain what I need but it would require a trip to London which is financially out of the question for me. I still suspect such appointments are gazetted somewhere. I also searched The Times using "Frank Broad" and "Francis Broad" between 1932 and 1934 without success. Still, thank you for your input --Senra (Talk) 18:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just going to email you as there's one extra way I can help Egg Centric 20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, appointments as Justices of the Peace are not published in the London Gazette (or The Times), and as far as I'm aware they never have been. Proteus (Talk) 15:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Cote d'Ivoire not a Muslim nation
I remember somebody said that Cote d'Ivoire is not a Muslim nation when it came to president and constitution in other African nations question. Then, how do you explain this? []? It shows that Cote d'Ivoire is a Muslim nation in dark green underneath Mali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.249 (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That map shows Islam to be a dominant religion in Cote d'Ivoire, this is unrelated to whether the state is secular or not. Public awareness (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To expand a little but on what Public awareness says: there is a difference between the religion practiced by the people of a nation, and the government endorsing (or enforcing) a nation as an official state religion. That is, there is a distinction to be made between being "a nation of people who are mostly Muslim" and "A nation whose government is a Muslim theocracy".  Cote d'Ivoire is the former, Iran is the latter.  -- Jayron  32  20:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 2001 data: Islam 35-40%, indigenous African religions 25-40%, Christianity 20-30%; see demographics of Côte d'Ivoire. Neutralitytalk 03:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All well and good. So, what's the data for Ivory Coast? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ismaili significant population in Muslim world and non-Muslim world
Which Muslim nations and non-Muslim nations like India have the significant population of Ismailis regardless they are Mustalis, Nizaris and Druze? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.249 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article Ismailism has that information, though not all in one paragraph. If you read the article, however, you can find lots of information as to where the various sects of Ismailis are dominant.  -- Jayron  32  20:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Syrians in France
How come there is no article regarding Syrians in France, its former colonial master? like Lebanese in France article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.22.249 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because no one has yet created it. If you can find reliable sources which you can read and then create your own text based on the ideas therin, you are invited to create the article yourself.  -- Jayron  32  20:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

US Code "source control"
What's the best way to look at a particular passage in the United States Code and figure out the law that is responsible for that exact passage? My specific question is about Title 17, section 109, but I'd love a solution to the general case. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The way I know of: get the GPO version of the code; it has the legislative history in it (and "legislative history" is generally the term you want to be searching for when finding out what various bills made up a particulate statute). E.g. For Title 17, Chapter 1, go here, then click on Section 109, and it will tell you in exquisite and difficult-to-parse detail all of the relevant laws that have revised the current code (e.g. "(Pub. L. 94-553, title I, Sec. 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2548; Pub. L. 98-450, Sec. 2, Oct. 4, 1984, 98 Stat. 1727; Pub. L. 100-617, Sec. 2, Nov. 5, 1988, 102 Stat. 3194; Pub. L. 101-650, title VIII, Secs. 802, 803, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5134, 5135; Pub. L. 103-465, title V, Sec. 514(b), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4981; Pub. L. 105-80, Sec. 12(a)(5), Nov. 13, 1997, 111 Stat. 1534.)", for one part of it.) You then have to work backwards to find out the contents of Public Law 94-553, and so on... fun! The GPO version seems to discuss some of the major changes, though, in the text itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The legal citation for you law is either 17 USC 109 or 17 USCA 109. You can find cases that deal with your law with a search for either of those terms, either on the internet, or more narrowly through google scholar. The citation format is title number, followed by the abbreviation USC or USCA (for US Code or US Code annotated) then the section number. The absolute best source would be to go to a law library and ask for where the US Code Annotated could be found. You would pick up volume 17, then turn to section 109 to find your law. Printed there would be the legal text of it, all prior versions of the law, a list of federal regulations or other statues that cite the law, a list of law review articles that cites the law, a list of secondary sources that explain the law, and a list of cases which cite the law organized by jurisdiction and topic. If I was doing legal research on the law you mentioned. I would go to the USCA and find the legal encyclopedias that deal with it so I can learn how it works in the courts. I would then look at the American Law Reports (ALR) and American Jurisprudence (Am. Jur.) sections that were cited with the code. Where my research would take me next would be dependent on the reason for the research. If I were faced with a legal problem such as a client who wanted to sue or who was being sued, I would look to the cases to see where my problem fit within the gambit of the law. If I were doing scholarly research, I would look at the broader scope paying attention to the difficulties the courts have had with the law, policy concerns cited by the courts, and law review articles written on the subject. For your purposes, a search through the cases can lead you to a judge who had to pick a part the law. Often the judge will talk about the background of the law when making his or her interpretation. Legislative intent is a part of statutory interpretation. Some law clerk did extensive research on the law to help the judge render his or her opinion, so you can often save yourself some time if you can find a judicial opinion that does that. If you search for additional terms such as "legislative intent" or "intent of congress" you might find a juicy case with all that information right there for you. Gx872op (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Irreligion in Israel
Irreligion by country claims that Israel is 54% irreligious, but this makes no sense. Isn't Israel almost entirely Jewish? --75.50.55.27 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Judaism is a complicated thing — both an ethnicity and a religion. Even as a religion, it's got many variants which tolerate extremely skeptical attitudes towards religion itself. The idea of "atheist Jews" or "agnostic Jews" is pretty standard (it is a culture that, in all but its orthodox varieties, promotes asking tough questions, and values secular education very highly — which is a nice recipe for producing agnostics). See Religion in Israel for a breakdown of the "spectrum" of religiosity in Israel. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that Irreligion by country says: The Gallup poll has the most broad definition of irreligion: the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?" was asked; the "no" answer is represented below.
 * See also Who is a Jew? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The religion in Israel article has very similar statistics though for the number of Jews in Israel who do not consider themselves religious. 43% non-religious, 5% "anti-religious". --Mr.98 (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The stats for affiliation under the old inherited Ottoman millet system, and for personal religious belief, are two entirely distinct things. As also in the United States, being Jewish is often considered to be the basis of an ethnic group identity... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Whereas in Israel it is considered an umbrella for several ethnic groups, the main ones being Ashkenazi, Sphardi and Mizrahi Jews. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 17 Tishrei 5772 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And of course, Israel is not almost entirely Jewish, as there as are plenty of Muslims and Christians there too. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is around 75% self-identified as "Jewish," but again that is not necessarily a description of their religious practices. So that's a substantial majority, and of particular note since it's an astoundingly high percentage compared to any other country. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * From what I remember about half of Israeli Jews are considred secular these days, but that varies in definition. There's a secularism where our rich cultural heritage is venerated and also atheism, which can involve some of the aspects of secular Judaism or, in some cases, a total rejection of religion alltogether. We're a very complex people you see. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 17 Tishrei 5772 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't put too much faith in polls or read too much into them. The poll did not ask how often they attend services or whether they believe in God.  It asked if religion was important in their daily lives.  We can't have the illogical conclusion that if you don't believe religion is important to you in your daily life you are an atheist or agnostic.  The poll doesn't answer that question.  It points to the most religious.  If you go to the religion in Sweden article, you will notice that other polls indicate that 17% feel religion is important in their daily lives, but over half of all marriages take place in a church and 9 out of 10 have a Christian burial.  46% seems pretty religious for Israel.  Nearly half of Israel believes religion is important in their daily lives. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)