Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 20

= October 20 =

Margo Peters, author
Margo Peters wrote, "Summers/A True Love Story" I think she was born in Wausau, WI. What is her birth name?00:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.74.79 (talk)
 * Is there some reason to believe that Margot Peters isn't her real name? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This bio states she is "the mother of Marc and Claire Peters. She lives in Lake Mills with her husband Peter Jordan", so it's not clear if Peters is her married name or whether she kept her maiden name. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sister in the shadows
I saw a biography of Yu-Na Kim. She has one sister. What's her name and what does she do? Is she older or younger?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If the sister doesn't want to be a public figure, and she doesn't prominently impact on Yu-Na Kim's career, then how is she newsworthy or notable? AnonMoos (talk)


 * That's not pertinent. Anon is not proposing to create a Wikipedia article about the sister.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I saw a video on YouTube. The video was about Yu-Na Kim and her sister.24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * She has an older sister named Aera. Check and -Meerkatakreem (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Last Rites for a Catholic priest
Suppose a Roman Catholic priest finds himself unexpectedly and suddenly mortally injured, with only a short time left to live. What would be the proper/recommended course of action recommended by the Catholic Church for him to take, especially with regard to Last Rites? Specifically, what would he do in each of the following three situations?

(1) If the priest was with another priest, would the other priest administer Last Rites to him, or are priests exempt from Last Rites?

(2a) If no one else was around except a layperson, would the priest quickly instruct the layperson in how to administer Last Rites to him, or do rules prohibit laypersons from administering Last Rites?

(2b) Given that women cannot be ordained as priests in Catholic Church, would it make any difference if that layperson is female?

(3) If the priest was alone, would he administer Last Rites to himself, or are Last Rites something that one cannot administer to oneself?

—SeekingAnswers (reply) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your questions are answered in the article you linked, and in the articles linked within that article such as Anointing of the Sick (Catholic Church). For a start, priests are not exempt from anything in the Catholic Church, and the question seems to assume that the Sacraments are a burdensome duty rather than a source of Grace. That is: it is a privilege to have access to the Sacraments, rather than the Sacraments being something we must do because we are told to.


 * As our articles say, the 'Last Rites' include 'Anointing of the sick', which is a Sacrament that can only be administered by a priest, and the Sacrament of Penance, which can only be administered by a priest, and viaticum, receiving the Eucharist, which can be brought from the Tabernacle in the nearest chapel or church by a layperson, and given to the dying by a layperson, although it must have been left over from a Mass presided over by a priest, and the ordinary form is for the Eucharist to be brought and administered by a priest or deacon. The priest could not anoint himself, nor give himself absolution, although he could make a good act of contrition. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The sacrament of Marriage is something that only a priest can conduct but is not something he can personally receive without it having significant ramifications for his priesthood. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Sacrament of Marriage is conferred by the couple getting married, and overseen by a priest or deacon. Just a weird quirk: Baptism and Marriage are the two Sacraments that don't need to be administered by an ordained person, which is why Protestant Baptisms and Marriages can be considered valid by the Catholic Church. A priest who has been defrocked can marry, and marrying would almost certainly lead to being defrocked, but he can never lose his priestly status because it is considered a permanent mark on his soul. He'd still be a priest, even if ordered not to do any of the jobs a priest does in the Church.


 * But, yes, I was interpreting the word exempt as meaning you don't have to do it rather than you may not do it, which was perhaps a mistake on my part. There is nothing that all lay Catholics are supposed to do which Catholic priests are not also supposed to do. There is no priestly shortcut that means you don't need a Sacrament. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Let me explore this a little because I'm not sure I have it nailed down.  To be recognised as a valid sacramental marriage, it must occur in a Christian church (as distinct from a registry office, or in your living room before a civil celebrant, or in a non-Christian religious ceremony) but it does not have to involve a priest?  Is that what you're saying?  Apart from the 2 witnesses, does it have to involve anyone else at all? Or must there be someone there "overseeing" it?  Could one of the witnesses also be the "overseer"?  What's the absolute minimum number of people that must be present at a wedding: 4 or 5?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The two witnesses are a requirement of civil law, not church law; the priest is the witness for the church as the couple contracts the marriage. As far as the church is concerned, the marriage can occur anywhere; it needn't be in church; laws as to where weddings can occur are civil laws. (But the church wants you to comply with civil laws, so civil law restrictions on place would be obeyed.) So the minimum number of people would be 3 (the couple and the priest), unless civil law requires more. The other distinction you may want to explore is between "licit" and "valid" marriages, but that opens up all sorts of casuistry in which the licitness and validity will depend on the religions of those getting married. (I suspect the minimum number of people who could be at the valid and licit sacramental marriage of two non-Catholic but baptized people is two...) - Nunh-huh 22:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, N-h. So, combining what you and 86.163.1.168 have said: as far as the church is concerned the marriage can take place anywhere at all, not necessarily in a church; and the celebrant-cum-witness can be anyone at all, not necessarily a priest. Say a couple got married on top of Mt Everest, using their sherpa guide as the celebrant/sole witness.  How would they ever prove to the satisfaction of the Church that they had married in accordance with church law?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  05:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, they probably couldn't, and if they did, it wouldn't matter. Speaking specifically about sacramental marriages, at least one party must be a baptized Christian (otherwise the church isn't going to claim jurisdiction: the church calls marriages between two non-Christians "natural marriages"). If two Catholics went through a marriage ceremony in the absence of a priest, that marriage would likely be deemed invalid (unless there is a dispensation obtained), because it is "deficient in form". If two Christian non-Catholics marry in the absence of a priest, the church does not consider that that makes the marriage invalid.  In the case where two non-baptized persons marry, and one later converts to Christianity and can no longer tolerate his spouse, that marriage can be dissolved and the baptized party can then marry a Christian (the Pauline Privilege). If a baptized person and a non-baptized person marry, that marriage can be dissolved by the Pope (Petrine Privilege). In any case, the validity or licitness of a marriage would be decided by testimony before a church legal tribunal. (And of course, like any legal proceeding, a specific outcome can't necessarily be predicted. :) - Nunh-huh 06:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to have strayed from the original question a tad. One thing is unclear: Wouldn't the Roman Catholic Church recognize pretty much any "conventional" marriage (one man, one woman) that's allowed by law? For example, a married Jewish couple. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Nunh-huh's answer to which you are indented as a reply explains the distinction pretty clearly. What part of their answer was unclear to you? I don't want to just repeat what they said. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The best I can figure is that it's not that the RCC doesn't recognize non-Christian marriages, it's just that the RCC doesn't care... unless the couple decides to convert. Is that a reasonable conclusion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. As Nuhn-huh says, the Church considers a marriage between two non-Christians (one male, one female) a "natural marriage", on which we have a brief explanatory article. They aren't under Church law or authority, so in that sense the Church doesn't really care: there's no problem in non-members of the Church not following canon law, because it is only binding on members of the Church. A natural marriage is not considered sacramental. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we please address my original questions? (Most of the long discussion above is a tangent on marriage rather than on the original questions.) Thanks. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 09:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While the discussion did get fairly sidetracked, this only happened after 86.163.1.168 had mostly answered your questions. Do you doubt these answers? They suggested you could confirm the answers in the articles although to be fair I don't think Anointing of the Sick and Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church) explicitly say they can't be administered by a priest to themselves but particularly in the later case, I don't see how that would work anyway.
 * The only one of your questions that perhaps was't clearly answered was the one on females. 86 didn't directly comment on whether female Laity can deliver the viaticum (the only thing a lay person can do that is part of the 'last rites'), but the lack of any comment on the matter by them or in the article on viaticum seems to a female laity could do it.
 * Further if you check the article on Catholic Laity, it seems to suggest the only thing reserved for men is "Lay men can be admitted “…through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.” Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church." This is mentioned in another place where it says:
 * However, "In accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, institution to the ministries of reader and acolyte is reserved to men."[10] Due to this fact these ministries are rarely formally instituted in may regions of the Catholic Church.
 * In their place has evolved the widespread use of commissioned Readers, Altar Servers and Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist as these functions can be undertaken by both men and women.
 * In other words, I think we can be extremely confident there's nothing stopping a lay woman delivering a viaticum.
 * Edit: Actually if you check out viaticum, it says lay minister may administer the eucharist and links to Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion under lay minister which makes it even clearer both males and females can do it.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking a bit more I guess 86 also didn't comment on whether a mortally wounded priest could preside over a mass needed for a eucharist if none are left over. At a random guess they theoretically could (why couldn't they?) but it would seem they likely have better things to do and if they were really mortally wounded it seems doubtful they'd succeed anyway. There may be something against presiding over a mass if you don't think you can manage the whole thig which would I guess cross over in to the 'no they can't not even theoretically' territory. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that the question seems to have been answered, I can report this item, from The Joys of Yiddish. An old Jewish man is slowly crossing a street when he's hit by a car. A priest, seeing this and knowing nothing about the man, runs over and begins to administer last rites, just in case: "Do you believe in the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost?" The old man casts his eyes skyward and cries, "I'm dying, and he's asking me riddles!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Although some hints have been given above, I will attempt a more thorough answer with some references to reliable sources. As our article says, Last Rites are a set of three sacraments; just as the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist form a unity called "the sacraments of Christian initiation," so too it can be said that Penance, the Anointing of the Sick and the Eucharist as viaticum constitute at the end of Christian life "the sacraments that prepare for our heavenly homeland" or the sacraments that complete the earthly pilgrimage (Catechism of the Catholic Church). The rules for administering these three sacraments vary, so depending on the OP's scenarios, some of them could be adiministered and some not.
 * 1) If the priest is with another the priest, then the other priest could administer all three sacraments of the Last Rites, provided that:
 * 2) * He has with him the holy oil for use in the Anointing of the Sick. The oil should be made from olives or other plants, (...) has recently been consecrated or blessed by a Bishop. Older oil is not to be used except in a case of necessity. (Can. 847 §1) The oil to be used in the anointing of the sick can be blessed not only by a Bishop but also by: (...) in a case of necessity, any priest but only in the actual celebration of the sacrament (Can. 999). Any priest may carry the holy oil with him, so that in a case of necessity he can administer the sacrament of anointing of the sick. (Can. 1003 §3).
 * 3) * He has with him the holy host to administer the Eucharyst. Alternatively, he could celebrate a holy mass, but would need both the host (unleavened wheat bread) and wine to do so. It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration (Can. 927).
 * 4) A layperson cannot adiminister the sacraments of Penance and Anointing of the Sick. He or she could, however, administer holy communion. Christ's faithful who are in danger of death, from whatever cause, are to be strengthened by holy communion as Viaticum (Can. 921 §1). In a case of necessity, or with the permission at least presumed of the parish priest, chaplain or Superior, who must subsequently be notified, any priest or other minister of holy communion must do this, i.e., bring the blessed Eucharist to the sick as Viaticum (Can. 911 §2). Where the needs of the Church require and ministers are not available, lay people, even though they are not lectors or acolytes, can (...) distribute Holy Communion (Can. 230 §3). We should assume "lay people" includes both men and women.
 * 5) A priest cannot administer the sacraments of Penance and Anointing of the Sick to himself. And he can only administer the sacrament of the Eucharyst to himself, if he celebrates a holy mass. Again, he would need unleavened wheat bread and wine, and certain other implements (sacred vestments, an altar cloth and a corporal, etc.) to do so. A priest who is ill or elderly, if he is unable to stand, may celebrate the eucharistic Sacrifice sitting but otherwise observing the liturgical laws (Can. 930 §1). I've once participated in a holy mass that was only 15 minutes long, so I think it might be possible for a mortally wounded priest to celebrate one before he dies. Whether it's a good idea, I don't know. — Kpalion(talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Il Canzoniere - Petrarch
How many different kinds of poems does Il Canzoniere contain?--Doug Coldwell talk 11:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by "kinds of poems" that isn't elucidated by the second sentence of the second paragraph of the WP article? Deor (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the 5 different types here, however I see also "two sections" related to Laura's death of 'in vita' and 'in morte'. Were the 5 different forms still then the same within these time periods? Was the collection all then within one book? I also notice the "themes" as: religion, poetry, politics, time, glory. I would assume "love" is another theme.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is labor a deductible expense in Cain's 9-9-9 plan?
I am confused about whether labor costs are a deductible business expense in Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. On the one hand, he says that all deductions except those listed would be dropped and labor is not listed. But on the other hand, he says that his business income tax is a flat tax and I thought that labor is normally deductible in a flat tax. Also he says that he eliminates all multiple taxation (including the social security tax, death tax, gift tax, taxes on reselling used consumer goods, dividends, etc.), but taxing the earned income of workers and not giving businesses a deduction for labor would be a multiple tax. So which is it? JRSpriggs (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * From our article on Cain: "...corporations would be able to deduct costs of goods sold (provided the inputs were made in America) and capital expenditures, but not wages, salaries and benefits to employees". Shimgray | talk | 12:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I cannot find the text you quoted in the article. In any case, I would like to see a quotation from Herman Cain himself in a reliable source to verify that. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Cain's plan is so divorced from economic reality and would cause so much pain to so many people that it is unlikely ever to be enacted without substantial changes. That said, not allowing employers to deduct labor costs from income and taxing employees on those same wages is no more double taxation than taxing both the wages and consumption of employees.  That is, assessing taxes on labor costs (in effect the same as not allowing deductions for those costs) amounts to a consumption tax not unlike the sales tax.  I've checked Cain's website, and he does not explicitly state that he will eliminate the labor deduction.  He just says "Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports." I don't see labor in the clause after "less", do you? Seriously, what politician is going to explicitly spell out a feature of a policy they propose that could alienate part of their base?  Politicians tiptoe around those things and evade direct questions about them.  Marco polo (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed after I posed this question, I saw this essay by Peter Schiff which specifically criticizes Cain for not allowing a deduction for labor cost. The question of whether labor is deductible could make all the difference in whether this is a marginally good idea or very bad idea.
 * By double or multiple taxation, I understand that, when a widget is sold, two or more taxes are paid. If the corporation is paying an income tax on it (without a deduction) and the individual worker is also paying a tax on the labor which he put into building the widget, then that is double taxation. I appreciate that the sales tax (the third 9) would also be another tax on the widget, but that was not part of the flat tax (first two 9s) which was supposed to exclude multiple taxation. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In terms of its effect on the economy, the most important fact about a tax plan is the maximum marginal rate of taxation. If labor cost is deductible, then that would be
 * $$1 - \frac{1 - 0.09}{1 + 0.09} = 1 - \frac{0.91}{1.09} = 1 - 0.835 = 0.165 \,.$$
 * If labor cost is not deductible, it would be
 * $$1 - \frac{0.91^2}{1.09} = 0.240 \,$$
 * which is quite a bit higher. The income remaining after the flat tax is in the numerator of the fraction since it is a fraction of the gross. The sales tax is accounted for by the denominator because it is a fraction of the net. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gently chiding Marco over, "That said, not allowing employers to deduct labor costs from income and taxing employees on those same wages is no more double taxation than taxing both the wages and consumption of employees." Is this an argument from a wages fund position? You seem to imply that capitalists offer wages from a fixed pool, so when labour is input taxed, capitalists reduce the amount actually offered to workers?  Australian payroll tax doesn't seem to operate as if there were a wages fund. (I don't think we need to remember when Kazza and Freddie criticised some other Germans for holding this idea regarding wages). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

When is a music track considered to be published?
The 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows: “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of owner- ship, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

I'm looking for clarification on this part - "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication".

So, if the owner of a track has passed on copies ("offering to distribute copies") of a song to youtube or a radio station ("group of persons") for them to promote ("for purposes of public performance or public display"), does that mean the track is deemed to be "published" even though it hasn't been made available for sale? My interpretation of the definition makes me think that in this scenario it would be deemed to be published, but i may be wrong.

Anybody got any thoughts or further clarification?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd47321 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Long before 1976 and well after 1976, it was standard practice in the music industry to distribute copies of singles to music stations, music magazines, etc... before a single was published. The rationalization you are going down will eventually take you to the point that you will claim a song is published as soon as one guy scribbles some lyrics on a napkin and hands it to a friend. Obviously, that is not publishing a song. -- k a i n a w &trade; 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think your use of "published" differs from the use of "published" according to the act quoted above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify my post... Distributing to a radio station before a song is published does not mean that the radio station can play the song over the air before it is published. A movie is a better example. Distribution companies cannot wait until Friday when a movie is released to deliver the movie to the theater. They distribute it ahead of time, but it is illegal for the theater to display the movie to the public before the movie's release (publication) date. -- k a i n a w &trade; 13:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * . "Illegal"?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wondered about that, too. It's becoming common to have a formal release of a movie in a particular country preceded by formal "pre-release" showings in that country.  Which makes a nonsense of the formal release date.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To receive permission to show a movie, the theater must sign a contract with the distribution company. In that contract, there is a stipulated date and time on which the theater has permission to start showing the movie. Side note: This contract also stipulates the minimum ticket fee - so theaters cannot simply lower their ticket fee whenever they like without getting a new contract, which isn't going to happen. So, if a theater shows the movie to the GENERAL PUBLIC too early, they are in violation of the contract, which is not legal, so it is illegal. Some contracts have stipulations for showing the movie early to the press and/or special contest winners and such. That is not considered the general public. Since publication/release date is the date it is available to the general public, displaying it early to a select group of people does not constitute a publication/release date. -- k a i n a w &trade; 19:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand all that. But "illegal" means "against the law", meaning the government can indict you and bring you to trial, and you can be fined or sent to jail.  Violating a contract is a tort, meaning you can be sued; but it is not against the law.  I also disagree with your last sentence; there's nothing in the copyright law text quoted above that requires that "publication", for its purposes, has to mean "shown to the general public."  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In the last case I can think of, The King's Speech was advertised as opening on Day X, but "Special Pre-Release Screenings" were being shown a number of days earlier. These pre-release screenings were advertised in the local media, and anyone at all could buy tickets to them; they were not restricted to the press, contest winners or any other exclusive group.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not music, but perhaps related: A book might have an "official" publish date that is after it is physically available for sale in a bookshop. Example details at Talk:Daniel_H._Wilson. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is just the publisher threatening the bookstore to not put it on sale before it is convenient for the publisher. It has no bearing on the legal question of whether publication has occurred for copyright purposes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I, like almost everyone else here, am not an attorney and you should ask one if you are asking for legal advice; as a layman, my straight reading of your quote sounds like the track has been published, because it has been distributed for the purpose of public performance (whether the performance has yet occurred or not). Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm an attorney, but my contributions are for amusement purposes only. Generally, posting a video on youtube would be considered publication.  Publication is not necessary for the creation of a copyright.  That occurs as soon as an original work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium.  Publication can be an issue where defendants raise the independent creation defense or innocent infringer defense in an infringement suit.  Publication is an issue in works made for hire, the duration of copyrights, inter alia. What constitutes a publication is not a matter of statute but a question of fact left up to the trial judge.  See, Donald Frederick Evans and Assoc. v. Continental Homes, 785 F. 2d 897 (11th Cir. 1986) (Courts are disagreement in deciding this issue); See also Original Appalachian Artworks v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821 (11th Cir.1982), (1% not a significant number to constitute publication without notice).  What constitutes "the public" is another issue.  A private show among friends could or could not be a "publication" within the meaning of the act.  Distribution of a completed film to movie theaters before the release date does constitute publication under the act however.  Publication is distribution.  There is no requirement that anyone read, buy or view the material, it just has to be out there in the public. Gx872op (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's surely some interesting case law yet to be written in this regard. Digital movies are distributed to movie theatres in an encrypted form, and typically the distributor emails the decryption keys to the theatre manager only just prior to the date at which the theatre is authorised to show the movie (and sometimes they mess that up and send bad keys, which drives theatre operators to distraction). Similarly the bulk of unreleased computer games (on platforms such as Steam or Origin) can often be downloaded days ahead of the release time, again in an unintelligible encrypted form; with the official release comes the decryption key.  Whether the distribution of something in a temporarily unreadable form constitutes "publication" is surely something various courts are going to be asked to consider over the next few years.   Is an intact but encrypted text merely "locked in a special box" or is it "incomplete without the key"?   By the time various jurisdictions' commercial courts of last resort have figured that one out, we'll be watching movies beamed directly into our brains by orbital lasers. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I expect it's a moot point whenever physical medium distribution exists and is 'released' at the same time as the digital distribution stuff though. I'm guessing the films sent to theaters and the optical or flash medium sent to stores are usually produced and sent before the digital stuff is made available. Games are a more interesting example here as in a few cases despite physical distribution existing, these actually only functioned as a cache for the online distribution platform and you did need something from online before the game would work, and of course it wasn't made available until the release date & time. Nil Einne (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans and the law
On a historical basis: Can Native Americans be sued on a civil matter in local courts or have these cases required filing in Federal court? Thanks for your assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.223.149 (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Non-criminal cases, such as being sued for debt, are not covered under the Indian Bill of Rights. So, there is no reason they can't be held in a local court. -- k a i n a w &trade; 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indian Bill of Rights is a red link. Do we have an article under another name? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indian Bill of Rights = Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968.
 * Tribal sovereignty in the United States also has some information though it's not terribly clear. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a complicated question that will depend on:


 * The nature of the action (e.g. contract, tort, civil rights, land dispute)
 * The tribal citizenship of the Native American
 * If a reservation is involved, the state in which the reservation sits
 * Whether the events giving rise to the suit occurred on a reservation or within the territory of the state
 * The status and identity of the parties (businesses, tribal organizations, governments)
 * There are many reasons why a local court would be prohibited from hearing the case. A court must have jurisdiction over the person (in personam) and against the matter (in rem).  Venue must also be proper.  No federal statute or treaty must exist that places jurisdiction solely within federal or tribal courts.
 * The US Supreme Court in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), has held that state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over suits brought by non-Indians against Indians for those matters originating in Indian country when exercising jurisdiction would infringe "on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be governed by them." Similarly, tribes and tribal organizations are immune from suit in state courts.  However, there is an exception to this rule for a limited number of states and tribes listed by Act of Congress, 28 U.S.C. § 1360..  This conveyance of jurisdiction is not absolute.  Another exception would be if an Indian sued a non-Indian in state court; supplemental jurisdiction could apply in some cases for counter claims.  Jurisdiction can be waived.  This might be seen specifically in certain contracts as a requirement for doing business across reservation borders, but the effectiveness of choice of forum clauses involving Indians, Tribes and Tribal Organizations is questionable.  The answer is, it will depend on the facts of the case.  A specific answer of which courts could be courts of competent jurisdiction over a particular matter is a legal question which should be directed to an attorney in your area. Gx872op (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Uneven bars
Why uneven bars are designated only for women? Our article currently doesn't explain why men can't compete on them. --178.181.117.139 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Women took to them first in Olympic competition (1936 according to this history). Interestingly, women could also compete in parallel bars at the time, now exclusively a men's event. Once women gravitated to the uneven bars, I'm guessing men didn't want to be considered unmasculine by taking up a discipline seen as feminine. Still applies today I guess, since you don't see many male rhythmic gymnasts either. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Men don't do them because they would get their genitals smashed. Here's a random clip of an uneven bars routine from the 80s. Certain moves there would be highly uncomfortable for men, to say the least. I recall a few Olympics ago, when a male gymnast did a funny skit dressed in a female-like outfit, with predictable extremely-pained reactions when he did those moves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was longer ago than I thought (1981) and it wasn't the Olympics. In any case, ignoring the comedy, you can see that (1) he's actually quite good at it; and (2) men would not want to do the pelvis-slammed-against-the-bar move that's key to the unevens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't bother Chuck Norris one bit, with or without a protective cup. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll quickly note that there are only two events in common between men's and women's gymnastics; the floor exercise and vault are the only ones. The explanation I have heard for the difference is that the emphasis on the two sports is different.  Men's events are designed to be primarily tests of strength, where as women's events are designed to be primarily tests of grace.  Which is not to say that men's events don't have an artistry to them, and not to say that women gymnasts don't have to be strong, but the women's events focus more on things like balance and form and poise and things like that, where as men's events are very much more focused on upper body strength.  Consider that men don't do balance beam, but they do have events like the rings and the pommel horse (speaking of genital danger... so I don't think THAT'S why the uneven bars aren't necessarily done).  Also, the men's equivalent of the women's uneven bars, at least in terms of similar styles, is the high bar.  Again, not to say that either set of events is inferior, but they are not judged on exactly the same standards, because male and female gymnasts have different sets of expectations they are judged against.  -- Jayron  32  04:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder when pelvic floor exercises will become Olympic events. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When I was watching the 2008 Olympics, it seemed to me that the only event that was more or less equivalent between the men's and women's sides was the vault -- since all the remaining men's events (including floor exercises) placed heavy emphasis on upper-body strength, while only one of the women's events (uneven bars) did likewise... AnonMoos (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion & Political beliefs
Due to the Christian injunction to "love thy neighbour as thyself" and be a good Samaritan, I would expect Christians to be the strongest political advocates of humanitarianism. They should be pushing for more government welfare for the poor, a more progressive tax code, an internationalist foreign policy, and less nationalism. It seems that in the US, the opposite is true: the more Christian a person claims to be, the less likely they are to support these leftist policies. In fact, atheists and agnostics (as a group) seem to be the strongest supporters of these policies. Why is this the case, and is it also the case in other democracies (Canada, western Europe, Australia)?

If what I said isn't true, please don't be afraid to say so. Even if it were true, I'm in no way attacking Christianity, because correlation does not imply causation. --140.180.26.155 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Churches are typically very involved in charity. Christianity also typically encourages self-starting and sustaining, as opposed to becoming dependent on handouts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it, Bugs? I am not saying it does not; I have too little learning to make any claims at all. Where might I find a New Testament (or Old, I guess) writing that supports self-starting and sustaining, or, for that matter, that equates charity with "handouts"? Bielle (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See this recent thread that covers similar ground. Alansplodge (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what Jesus meant by "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword": personal salvation is all about setting up a confiscatory redistributive state which will take your money at threat of gunpoint and give it to others without your consent? For the Catholic view read Rerum Novarum and Cardinal Mercier's manual of modern scholastic philosophy avail in full at google books. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The first quote was Jesus' response to Pilate's question of whether he considered himself king of the Jews. Jesus said he did indeed consider himself king, but a religious king instead of an earthly one.  The second quote could be advocating either pacifism or a karma-like poetic justice.  I don't see how either relates to humanitarianism, and they certainly have nothing to do with taxation.  (In fact, did Jesus ever oppose Roman taxation?  Render unto Caesar... suggests he was ambiguous about taxation of Jews in particular, but it says nothing about taxation in general.)  Also, conservative Christians tend to support an aggressive foreign policy (including military intervention), which also seems to contradict "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword".  --140.180.26.155 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything that America does in its foreign policy has to do with protecting ourselves from enemies and "defending our interests". For that matter, so does every country's foreign policy. Whether our foreign interventions are all truly "defensive" in nature is up for debate, but that's our official view, in any case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Another way to put it is that so-called "secular humanism" focuses on this life, while Christianity (and Islam, for that matter) focus on the "next life", or afterlife. That's the theory, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but being being focussed on the next life does not mean total disinterest in the things of this life. How one conducts oneself in this life is relevant when it comes to determining which place one goes to in the next life.  That's the theory, anyway.  In countries where voting is compulsory, such as Australia, one cannot cut oneself off totally from the world of politics.  You must front up and vote every so often, and to do so appropriately means having some idea of who you're voting for and why. That's a political choice, and it betokens having political beliefs of at least a rudimentary kind.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Compulsory voting, as with compulsory giving, is anti-democratic. If you're forced to vote, you might just toss a coin to decide who to vote for, which is about as useful as not voting at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the response I was hoping for, Bugs. Your personal views on the issue of compulsory voting are not germane here. Democracy per se is not something that the religions have ever been too cracked on (witness their own internal structures), or have ever particularly enjoined their followers to uphold.  What they do require of their followers is to obey the civil law within the limits of one's conscience.  A follower who did not have strong moral objections to compulsory voting would be required to obey the law by voting, and to do so in a conscientious manner, i.e. by not having a donkey vote.  That requires at least some limited appreciation of what each candidate stands for, in order to make an informed vote.  That is political involvement, pure and simple.  It might appear to be involvement of a marginal kind, but many individual voters are what chucks out existing governments and brings in new ones.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, again, that's stuff from the Pauline corpus and from a certain church tradition, not really from Jesus. Jesus said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's but did not legitimize the civil authority per se, as far as I'm aware.  If I understand correctly, the "render" comment was in the context of someone trying to trap him into taking a side between the Roman empire and the Jewish nationalists.  --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesus said a lot about helping the poor, telling the rich man to sell all he had, give to the poor, and follow him, and various other uncompromising sorts of things. I don't recall a single passage where he said to take from someone else and give to the poor, or to take over the machinery of the state and use it to support the poor.
 * The impression I get of Jesus's attitude towards the state is that it is a fact of life to be tolerated. Other books of the New Testament have this idea of the state as an instrument of God for punishing wrongdoing, but I can't recall a single statement of Jesus that supports that idea.  The impression I get is that he wanted his followers to focus on bigger things; politics was a distraction.  --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, you got it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I must say I really am impressed with the general awareness here that Jesus did not advocate any sort of forced statist retributionism. I almost feel. . . good. . .will. . . .to. . .wards. . . men. . . μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Another thing. The act of charity is itself a source of grace. If the state gives a poor man a meal, that is material benefit. If I give poor man a meal, that is a material benefit but also a benefit to me: I have committed an act of charity which -- not sure of the theology, but something along the lines of, makes me a better person, brings me closer to God, earns me points with the Big Guy, something like that I guess. So win-win. Not really up on this, but see Actual grace and so on and so forth.


 * I think it would follow from this that a hypothetical world where everyone is at about the same level (materially) would, in some ways, be a bad thing, from the standpoint of opportunities for individuals to maximize their grace. Not sure of that though. Herostratus (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguments about Jesus not advocating a charity state does not hold water when you consider the other issues fundamentalist Christianity is most often associated with in terms of politics - the really conservative far right. Note that I am not even American but the following are what I've observed (impressions from the "objective" Fox News) in terms of political stances of American fundamentalist Christians:


 * They don't want the state to dole out humanitarian help to the lower social strata, but have no qualms when it comes to tax breaks and incentives for large companies.
 * They support the dissolution of the separation of the Church and the State and the establishment of a Christian theocracy, claiming the US constitution did not forbid it. Goals are pursued with a rather Machiavellian bent
 * They are xenophobic, racist, chauvinist, homophobic, and largely intolerant of non-Christian religions. They continually attempt to get schools to teach creationism in preference to all other religious mythologies and in opposition to objective science. They even tried to vaguely forbid schools from teaching secular humanism once though that attempt failed when they could not even define what was supposed to constitute "teaching secular humanism".
 * They like conspiracy theories, be it about the Jews, the Muslims, Obama, 9/11, Atheists, the Illuminati, the Gay Mafia, Commies, the Chinese, Mexicans, etc.
 * They support harsher punishments for crime and are rather prone to violent solutions in general (one of the most common "solutions" I've encountered from conservative Christians in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack was "nuke the Middle East"). The derisive epithet of anything that even remotely resembles mercy is "bleeding heart", ironic because it originates from Jesus' capacity to forgive.
 * They are invariably in awe of the social structure of the military, paradoxically treating it as a separate institution from the federal state they claim to despise so much. All this despite the military being the single institution most of their taxes are likely spent on. War is also treated as a noble undertaking sanctioned specifically by God to protect America and only America (Manifest destiny).
 * The bible belt supported slavery, they were Democrats when Democrats were still the conservative party of the United States ("the Solid South") but switched to Republican when Republicans shifted to being more conservative in the 1970's (Nixon's Southern strategy) and Democrats started listening to the civil rights movements. Parties change, ideologies of the southern states remain the same.
 * They like guns.

If you disagree show me evidence to the contrary. All of these show stances quite opposite to views espoused by Jesus and has little to do with "forced statist retributionism". --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   05:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending the Christian Right in general, or saying that their general politics is in line with the sayings of Jesus. I am saying that I do not see any support in those texts for a redistributionist state, or indeed for any state.  There's also no support in them for abolition of the state.  The Christians who appear to me to come closest to following what could be construed as political advice in those sayings are ones like the Amish, who to the extent possible stay out of it altogether. --Trovatore (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that, though Luddism is also not quite scriptural, heh.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   05:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The USA doesn't have "forced statist retribution"; it has democratically-elected politicians setting tax levels based on the will of the majority. There's an important difference. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How does any of that make it not forced, not statist, or not redistribution? Do you think that just because the wielders of force are in the majority, that makes it not force? --Trovatore (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What the Christian Right in the United States is really about has only a tenuous connection with the teachings of Jesus. As others have pointed out, they are selective about which teachings they emphasize.  What really seems to motivate the Christian Right is a reaction to the social change that has occurred in the United States over the past 50 years or so:  the movement of women out of submissive roles and into positions of power, including power over their own bodies; the questioning of traditional structures of authority; gay liberation; and so on. In their reaction to these changes, they cherry-pick  Biblical passages and interpret those passages to support their own adherence to authoritarianism, militarism, and patriarchy.  Marco polo (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't Europe gone after Facebook for keeping user info?
Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Several complaints are in process. Dualus (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume the 'DPC' referred to in that link is not the Digital Preservation Coalition?  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  00:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) The Mighty Engines of Justice take a while to get into gear, and some of the details of what Facebook does are only now emerging. Don't rule out legal proceedings once the EU's Lawyers have had time to get all their ducks in a row, as well as some furious revamping by Facebook :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.33 (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "This just in: Brussels shatters CRT cartel" Card Zero  (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)