Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 28

= October 28 =

other than exogamy and endogamy
what is the term to refer a marriage between a man and a woman who have different nationality but same ethnic background like for example two Bengali couple-an Indian man and a Bangladeshi woman? What is the term to refer a marriage between a man and a woman who have religious background like a Muslim man and a Christian woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.22 (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For the second, "inter-faith marriage"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles: Interfaith marriage, Transnational marriage. I don't know that there's a specific term for transnational marriages that match ethnicity, although it is surely a common situation in immigrant communities, especially with arranged marriages (and the less happy forced marriages). 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that 'nationalism' is a relatively recent development in human history - even up to the 17th or 18th century people thought in terms of culture and race rather than in terms of nation. a Bengali/Bangladeshi marriage would not ever be considered a problem, so long as they were the same race and religion, so there's no special word for it.  -- Ludwigs 2  13:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Celts??
Could someone be as kind as to answer whether the information in this article (from Null Hypothesis: Journal Of Unlikely Science) is veridical at all?

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/top_ten_british_innovations_celts

ThanksAtonalPhysicist (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The information seems to roughly jibe with what is written in the Wikipedia article Celts (modern), which has its own references you could follow. -- Jayron  32  02:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From the Roman Empire to the Vikings navigating Northwest Europe at the time, the Celts survived because they figured out how to pay tribute to raiders but assimilate or fight off settlers. Dualus (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

[[Image:Celts in Europe.png|300px|thumb|right|Diachronic distribution of Celtic peoples:

{{legend|#ffff43|core Hallstatt territory, by the 6th century BC}} {{legend|#97ffb6|maximal Celtic expansion, by 275 BC}} {{legend|#b7ffc6|Lusitanian area of Iberia where Celtic presence is uncertain}} {{legend|#27c600|the "six Celtic nations" which retained significant numbers of Celtic speakers into the Early Modern period}} {{legend|#1a8000|areas where Celtic languages remain widely spoken today}} ]]
 * The website is being pointy to the point of pointlessness. The phenomenon itself, that of a related group of Indo-European peoples speaking pre- or Proto-Celtic languages originating in the Hallstatt culture and La Tene culture and colonizing much of western Eurasia is a real phenomenon undoubted by any serious linguist or archaeologist.  The fact that scholars adopted the Greek word Keltoi (referring to the Gauls) to cover all these peoples from Spain to Denmark to Anatolia has nothing to do with delegitimizing the underlying facts. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure, however, why the unrelated Viking map to the right is reproduced at the top, see the second relevant map.


 * See also Gaul, Wales, Galatia, Galicia (Spain) and Galicia (Eastern Europe). μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is off-topic, but to my surprise I just discovered that Diodorus Siculus describes ancient Celts as blond. I wonder why, then, I've always pictured Celtic people as dark and swarthy?  Apparently I was misinformed.  Textorus (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In Wikisource the text is translated red-haired, not blond, so it is a question for language experts. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * People tend to identify characteristics as "typical" of foreigners when they're just slightly more prevalent among foreigners than among their own people. A large majority of Irish people, for example, have dark brown hair, and red hair is quite rare - but it's less rare than it is in many other countries, so people from those countries notice red hair more often among Irish people, and think of the "typical" Irish person as having red hair. Similarly, the mediterranean cultures of the classical world would have had fewer fair-haired people than they would see in northern Europe, so they thought of northern Europeans - Germans as well as Celts - as being "typically" fair. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So far as I'm aware, the term "Celtic" refers to a language group - not necessarily a genetic group. There's no reason why a group of people can't be descended genetically from people living in one area, but acquiring a language thousands (or tens of thousands) years later from people living in quite a different area, is there?  So, some people speaking Celtic languages could have been "dark and swarthy" and others blond and blue-eyed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For various reasons, there can be a lot of commonality between a language group and a "genetic" one, people who live in the same area and don't associate with other groups will tend to develop an isolated gene pool and will also develop their own language. But it does not have to be so; the Franks were a Germanic people, but their decendants speak a Latin-derived language (French).  Also, in both cases (geneticly and culturally/linguisticly) it is very rare that a group remains cohesive and isolated for very long; groups of people which come into frequent contact with other groups of people will eventually have sex with them.  Cultures also change and morph over time.  -- Jayron  32  13:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is true the idea of Celtic peoples is a modern phenomenon, in that medieval Europeans did not recognize links between, say, the Irish and the dimly known Gauls who preceded the Roman conquest. However, as Medeis correctly states, ancient Romans and Greeks did notice a commonality among the continental peoples variously known as Galli/Galatai or Celti/Keltoi.  Still, it was really modern linguists who made a connection between the ancient continental Celts and the speakers of Celtic languages in Britain and Ireland.


 * As for the attribution of hair color to "the Celts" by ancient authors, we have to suppose that they were overgeneralizing, as Nicknack suggests. Also, the prevailing thinking these days is that, historically, languages have been spread mainly by small, migrant elites rather than by mass movements of people.  Therefore, a greater prevalence of blond or red hair in some Celtic speaking regions is likely to reflect characteristics of the pre-Celtic population rather than traits brought by the elite (warrior or perhaps merchant) groups who brought Celtic languages to regions where they were subsequently adopted by the local population.  Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It worked the other way too. A lot of Celtic-speaking Britons had to learn Anglo-Saxon and their offspring eventually called themselves English. The old idea that the Angles, Jutes and Saxons entirely displaced the Britons in England is now discredited. An article on the subject is here Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would opine that the majority of English people have mtDNA that is British (as in Britons), rather than Anglo-Saxon considering the invaders would have been mainly men.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Our Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain article quotes Stephen Oppenheimer; "no more than 10% of paternal lines may be designated as coming from an "Anglo-Saxon" migration event and that in the same English regions 69% of male lines are still of aboriginal origin" (aboriginal meaning descended from post ice-age Paleolithic settlers). This is an ongoing debate apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Che and Fidel relatives
G'day, I've read a fair bit about Che and Fidel Castro, and that they are living in, or have lived in Cuba. Does anyone know where their relatives live, and whether they agreed with Che and Castro's communist idealogies? --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Raúl Castro, Fidel's brother, is probably his best known relative. His sister Juanita Castro initially supported the revolution, but later defected to the USA. Fidel's daughter Alina Fernández is also a critic of the regime. We have articles on various of the cousins and nephews and nieces and similar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Che's daughter Celia is a veterinarian at the Havana aquarium:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, Castro's father was originally from Spain, and he has or had some relatives in Spain... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Likewise, Che was Argentine, and he came from a largish family (four younger siblings). I wouldn't be surprised if he had nephews/neices and cousins and their decendents all over Argentina.  Che also had some Irish background, his paternal grandmother was from Ireland and his father used the surname Lynch.  He made an impromptu visit to Ireland once, even.  See Guerrillero_Heroico. -- Jayron  32  13:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fidel's daughter Mariela Castro Espín is a sexologist: http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/castro’s-daughter-impressed-dutch-take-prostitution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Americans and Halloween
When did the idea of Halloween change in the United States, from a night when you dress up in a horror-themed costume to a night which is basically a big fancy dress party, where most costumes have got nothing to do ghosts or horror at all? 87.114.141.182 (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article Halloween costume may give some clues. As a personal observation, I think before 1970 or so, Halloween dress-up was mainly for kiddies, not grown-ups.  Then us baby boomers found it was too much fun to give it up when we got to be adults:  it tied in nicely with sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll.  And it came to be a really big deal among the party boy types in the post-Stonewall gay community.  See Halloween as a gay holiday.  Textorus (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Saturnalia, Carnivale, Mummer's Day, Mummers Parade, Mardi Gras. It's not like the world began in 1970. μηδείς (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't think it did, Medeis, but now I'm very grateful to have confirmation of the fact. The OP was asking specifically about Halloween costumes in recent times in the United States, and my answer was tailored to that.  Textorus (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As someone who remembers the 1970s and even some things from before 1970, I can confirm that, when I was a kid in the 1970s, no adults that I knew put on costumes for Halloween. In fact, no one over the age of about 12 wore costumes.  I think that adult gay men did wear costumes (mainly drag) on Halloween during the 1970s, but I don't think that adults dressing up for Halloween started to be anything mainstream in the United States until the 1980s.  Marco polo (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In the US, there were adult costume parties at Halloween from before WW1 and on, in addition to the kiddie parties: 1915, 1928 1930. 1934, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1941, 1947, 1956, 1958,1960, 1970 (top economic officials). They continue; I just got tired of linking them. There seemed to be fewer parties at adult organizations (country clubs, American Legion) in the 60's and thereafter compared to the kid parties, but lots of adult costume parties at bars. The adult costume market was projected at a billion dollars for 2010, with "Jersey Girls" a popular subject. Celebrities may be more popular than monsters. The costumes were not always monster themed back in the teens and 20's. "Bo-Peep," cavaliers, and other characters from fiction and history were always popular. Edison (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great research, Edison, thanks for these very interesting links. Textorus (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, I didn't ask about adults vs children. I asked when the popular conception of Halloween in the USA changed from dressing up in horror costumes to dressing up in any old costumes. 81.174.199.204 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As Edison's research shows, there has never been as strict a "dress code" as you imagine. My own first costume at about age 3 was a clown suit my mom sewed for me.  Then in first grade, I was a pirate.  Then about 3rd grade, a ghost costume made out of an old sheet with a hole to put my masked head through.  Other kids often dressed up as ghosts, witches, or skeletons, but there were other variations like Cinderella, or Superman, etc.  But people didn't use the word "horror" costumes - the adjective would have been "spooky" or "ghosts and goblins" - most of the time the emphasis was on cute rather than scary.  The modern fascination with horror and evil per se is a disturbing development that I think came from grisly horror movies that have gotten worse and worse in the last several decades, but that's a personal opinion.  Textorus (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wikipedia
After reading this report direct from the revolution, I am struck by how very, very familiar it all sounds: government by of a random group of unrelated volunteers all with different motives and objectives for being there, decisions made by a consensus of whoever happens to show up when the decision is being made, excruciatingly long discussions about what consensus even means in the first place, followed by the failure of consensus decisions to be taken seriously, especially by congenitally disruptive individuals who use name-calling and twisted logic to insult anyone who disagrees with their behavior, failure on the part of the minority to respect the needs and wishes of the majority, the few laboring to clean up after the many, and always the threat that the whole thing will collapse into anarchy and disappear like morning dew. What is the greek word for this type of government? And did the Occupiers consciously steal it from Wikipedia, ya think? Textorus (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Greeks called that anarchy, and it has always been thus. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Many of the problems you describe tend to settle down when anarchist decision making is faced with practical problems of production or distribution. Additionally, most people have prior experience at producing and distributing; generally, people have far less experience of governance (as opposed to being governed).  Fifelfoo (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously not a Greek term, but Consensus decision-making is one name for it, and that article seems quite good. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As the name for the process, okay, but I'm looking for a word that means government-based-on-this-process. Textorus (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Athenian democracy? --140.180.14.123 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that sounds classy. But somehow I can't picture the Occupiers going on to build an empire as the Athenians did with their government.  Textorus (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors get together to give something to the world, while the Occupy folks want the world to give something to them. This fundamental difference probably influences the effectiveness of the decision making. 71.72.156.36 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nay, Wikipedia editors also want the world to give them things - pictures, documents to cite, sometimes even donations. And OWS protesters want to take certain things, like taxes on the rich (horrors!) so that that everyone can have them.  Both are in the business of processing materials for public consumption. Wnt (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should start the 99 Percent Declaration article. Maybe I will. Dualus (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * technically, this is 'democracy', in Aristotle's sense of the term - essentially rule-by-rabble. In modern terms, however, what you're probably looking for is something like 'hegemonic corporatism', where individual groups or factions vie in fairly Machiavellian ways to exert marginal influence over the structures of governance.  Unfortunately corporatism of this sort is very difficult to define, because it is marked by a complete anti-idealism: rules, structures, ideals, and etc. have no value in themselves, but rather exist solely to be manipulated towards the interests of the group (despite the fact that rules, structures, ideals, and etc. must be presented as valuable-in-themselves, otherwise they lose their power as manipulable entities).  Politics at its worst…  -- Ludwigs 2  23:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Hegemonic corporatism," oo, that's got a catchy ring to it. But now before we run with that, define "rabble," please.  Textorus (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What, you don't own a dictionary? rabble.  Keep in mind that in Aristotle's time and place, there was a huge education gap between the rich and the poor. The upper class in Greece was largely literate craftsmen and traders with a tradition of philosophy and analytic thought, while the lower classes consisted largely of illiterate manual laborers.  'Democracy' for Aristotle had overtones of 'rule by the ignorant and unlettered', and was far less desirable in his mind than oligarchy (because 'rule by the wealthy' was tantamount to 'rule by the wise').  Or more precisely, Aristotle felt that participation in governance required a 'wordly' perspective, but that the mass of humans were self-centered, venal, emotionally reactive, narrow-minded, argumentative, and generally far more interested in getting for them and theirs than doing what's best for the society.  In our modern era, of course, we have largely bridged this gap, so that even the wealthy and educated are self-centered, venal, and emotionally reactive.  The wonders of progress…  -- Ludwigs 2  13:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Brilliant exposition, Ludgwigs - the wonders of progress, indeed. So in this brave new world of ours, where anyone rich or poor can grow up to be a tool, what shall we call it:  toolocracy, the real workers' paradise?  :)  Textorus (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This video makes me feel like I've been part of The Movement ever since I clicked edit here. Dualus (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not like OWS: Wikipedia has a semblance of order. We ignore them when they stop making sense, but we're still very much a society of laws and we don't allow breaking the rules for the sake of drawing attention. We even have our own, somewhat informal, law enforcement and court system. OWS, on the other hand, is a shining example of why anarchy doesn't work. Wikipedia also has an objective, and it's we've established fairly strict criteria about what we are and what we are not. OWS, on the other hand, has some general concepts but no objective. Also, Wikipedia has been around for around a decade, OWS will be lucky if it lasts the winter. SDY (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are really quite different in their intentions, so I'm not sure it's sensible to compare the two. OWS is a mass protest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not quite the same thing. So far OWS has done a pretty good job at its main objective, which was to draw attention to their grievances and recruit people to the cause. That seems to have worked. Whether anything more persistent gets accomplished on account of that has yet to be seen, and can't really be known. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I see Wikipedia as a protest against expensive knowledge. Dualus (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the OWS people make a point of saying that their effort is not a protest, but an occupation. I'm not sure how much sense I can make of that, but I suppose Wikipedia must be an occupation too. Wnt (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If so, What Is Our One Demand? Textorus (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Improve the encyclopedia. Dualus (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The concept of "demands" in a protest goes back to the long socialist debate about what a platform is and what it should do—for this see Trotsky's transitional demand and the ideas of immediate demands and maximal programmes. Similarly it traces a route back through the critique of the Gotha programme, and then all the way back to the Chartists in the end.  The idea of "making a demand" of another implies that you're begging for relief in law.  The concept of "protest" goes to the same situation: seeking aid from another.  In recent protest movements, the disconnection between goals, the possibility of relief, and the decision to directly restrict the action of capitalists and government figures caused a reassessment.  The Seattle WTO protests is an example of this.  The idea that protest was moral force has declined, much as the willingness of governments in neo-liberalism to listen to demands from the left of the population has declined.  Not unsurprisingly, the idea of physical force (in the Chartist sense) has increased.  OWS isn't appealing to a liberal state which it believes will serve it with redress; it is communicating with itself outside of a system of redress because the past 30 years of protest have demonstrated that the left gets no traction in parliament any more. … In comparison we're building an encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, look at all the red links. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

conference paper?
Hello,

I'm a college student (undergrad), and I've heard about an upcoming conference being held at my university. What exactly does it mean to say that a visiting professor is presenting a "paper", especially since he's probably giving a lecture on the exact same thing the paper is talking about? Do all of the papers get collected into a book that is issued on the same day as the conference? Can I just get a copy of the conference proceedings from someone (maybe the library?) and read those instead of attending the actual conference? 128.135.100.102 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't get this sense from my previous post, I enjoy learning about the ideas being presented by professors, but I often find professors to be horrible lecturers. Some of them don't know how to make their work sound exciting, and others talk about their work in very esoteric ways. (i.e. suitable for grad students only) 128.135.100.102 (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Presenting a paper means that the professor will be talking about some research. The paper may be collected as part of the conference proceedings, and generally is, although the availability of the proceedings can vary from conference to conference. (It is normally made available to attendees, though). Sometimes the paper will later be extended and published in a journal.
 * Generally I like to attend presentations, as in my field, at least, the presentation is a relatively short summary of the research with questions, so it isn't as painful as a full lecture and the questions can be fun. The real question is who the paper is targeted at, and whether or not the topic (which is generally narrowly defined) is of interest. Generally the papers are targeted at other academics, so there may be a lot of assumed knowledge. - Bilby (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The availability of conference proceedings varies hugely by discipline. In the humanities it is usual for no conference proceedings to result, as publishing them is rather expensive and getting a journal to throw its entire issue at a conference is sometimes a hard sell. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There may be a real "paper" behind it, there may not be. There may eventually be proceedings, there may not be. It may eventually appear in print somewhere, it might not. There is no general rule and it varies a lot case to case. You may often be able to just e-mail the professor in question and say, "I'm interested in your talk, but I have a schedule conflict. Could you send me the paper?" and they often will. I agree that most professors are poor speakers, unfortunately. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) ::Generally speaking, in the academic world "presenting a paper" = giving a talk at a conference such as the one you are describing. Quite often, the people who give those talks - which of course, they have carefully composed in written form beforehand - will then go on to submit it to a professional journal in their field.  Indeed, many such conferences are organized by scholarly or professional societies who also publish a regular journal - thus, by attracting scholars to their conferences, they also are generating material to publish.  While it might be that all the "papers" would be printed in a single issue of a scholarly journal, it's very doubtful for logistical and financial reasons that they would be collected in a publication available on the day of the conference.  And in most cases, I doubt that the speakers would leave a copy at the library of the university where the conference is being held, which is typically selected merely for being a convenient locale; some conferences are so large that they are held in hotels or other non-academic venues with large meeting rooms.  But who knows, there might be exceptions to that general rule.  You can find out about the availability of written copies of "papers" by a quick phone call or email to the people who are sponsoring the conference.


 * And yes, unless you are truly, deeply interested in the subject, you may well find the talks a bit boring and lecture-like. They are given not for entertainment value, but because professor types are obliged to publish or perish, and presenting a paper, no matter how confoundingly esoteric or deadly dull, looks awfully good on a curriculum vitae.  Textorus (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that most of them are truthfully quite interested in the topics, but there is a genre of academic tedium. Those of us who endeavor to make our presentations interesting, humorous, or actually interested to people outside of our tiny niche are not generally rewarded. (Steven Pinker, for all that I find troublesome about him, is immensely talented at conveying complex information to an eager public. He's also outwardly loathed by many other Harvardian academics for this reason.) It's also the case that many if not most papers at academic conferences are addressed to people working on little ideas in narrow fields. This is an artifact of publish-or-perish as well, and a tight market. In the humanities, increased specification, increased presence of "in-group" conversations that make no sense to people outside of the sub-sub-field, increased use of jargon, increased requirement for churning out "novel" and "defendable" research, have all lead to a situation in which your average academic humanities conference paper is going to be pretty uninteresting to your average educated person, and your average college undergraduate. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no guarantee that the paper will have much overlap with the talk, but it is fairly likely. You can ask for an advance copy of the conference proceedings paper, or a (p)reprint if it's a journal article. If it's still being drafted, you can offer to proofread it. You can also ask whether there will be refreshments at the talk. Good luck. Dualus (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

General ethics questions
Four questions:

(A) Let's say for the sake of argument that a few obscure technological advances have resulted in a method to build a medium sized atomic bomb for about $10,000 of easily available parts and about three months labor. Let's say you knew about the details through no fault of your own, but you'd also been told by some feds from the NNSA and FBI to keep a lid on it or you're going to be tossed in jail. Clearly, you probably aren't going to be answering anything close to the question on the reference desk. But lets say people keep asking something like "What's the least expensive way to make a nuclear bomb?" every week or two, and you see that others are slowly getting towards the point where some crucial WP:BEANS are going to be spilled. What do you do?

(B) Let's say someone asks how to commit the perfect murder. How do you respond?

(C) Let's say someone asks how to steal money and not get caught. How to approach that answer?

(D) Let's say that a technical medical journal article describes what appears to be the most powerful date rape drug imaginable, and someone asks about aphrodisiacs. Do you tell them about it?


 * My own answers are: (A) I'd avoid the direct question and mention the born secret doctrine to try to warn others off; (B) I would have no problem mentoning nitrogen asphyxiation for as long as more inhumane methods are being used to execute people; (C) I might ignore the question, but I might answer it if I thought doing so might make the method less likely to be successful in the long run; (D) Currently I think it would not be ethical to do so, but the inevitability makes me think this might be morally equivalent to question (C) in a way, so I'm not sure. Dualus (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (A) call the ACLU; this is a personal threat (B) Say "No" when you get asked about organ donation on your driver's license (C) do it for a bank which is Too Big To Fail (D) a date rape drug isn't an aphrodisiac, so it's not relevant. He'd have to ask about date rape drugs. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any moral issues involved with (A) besides free speech and civil liberties? Dualus (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would just point out that in a real-world (A) scenario, you should probably keep your mouth shut. The attempt to censor known dangerous knowledge confirms it. (As the United States found out the only time they tried to invoke "born secret" to get an injunction against publication of nuclear information — see United States v. The Progressive.) You're better off letting the nattering crowd give their (probably not correct) answers, and arguing with each other, and coming to confused and divergent conclusions, than you are trying to get involved and confirm that there is important information there, and end up hinting at what it might be. Anyway, this is a highly unlikely scenario for any individual editor to run across. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have moved this from WT:RD on your advice. Dualus (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that if information is available, potential victims and law enforcement agencies would also be able to use it. It has some advantages. Quest09 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We've had people asking how to commit the perfect murder before, check the archives to see how we responded. Note that these have been hypothetical cases, if someone suggested they wanted to actually commit a perfect murder we'd probably block or revert them as a troll and/or someone may report them to law enforcement or the foundation (who would decide whether to report them) even if they doubted they were serious. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW I'll add that if someone keeps coming back asking the same question every 2 weeks they're likely to get ignored or told to stop and then blocked if they don't after a while. We've had that before, e.g. BWH, planet colour/interacial marriage person, lately the Muslim majority et al person. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So, if I ask: "I am writing a novel, how can a character kill without living traces" that's acceptable and will get answers; but, if I start with "My neighbor is so annoying" don't? Quest09 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's an interesting challenge: visit the Science ref desk, look only at the table of contents, quick now, identify the question by this OP, just from the title. You've got 10 seconds from when the page loads. If it takes any longer, seek (professional) help. I'm not assuming these edits are in bad faith, but they are so illogical that I think we should be a bit aloof. Am I alone? If so, I'll drop the issue. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I had more than one question at the Science desk at the moment. Please tell me what you mean by illogical. Dualus (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no rule against posing confused questions on here. People can do their best to answer them or not, but being confused or illogical is perfectly fine. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)