Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 25

= January 25 =

High-ranking transsexual officials
According to news reports from Poland, there is a possibility that Anna Grodzka will be a candidate for the post of deputy speaker of the lower house of Polish parliament. I looked at all entries in Category:Transgender and transsexual politicians and it seems that no other person who has undergone a sex-change operation has ever been elected to a comparatively high office. But perhaps someone knows of another example which I couldn't find? To what extent Grodzka's election would be unprecedented? — Kpalion(talk) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this Pink News article from 2011 says that Grodzka "is thought to be the world’s only sitting transgender MP". As far as I can see, the only other people in the category you linked to who have been elected into national office are Vladimir Luxuria (a former Italian MP) and Georgina Beyer (a former New Zealand MP), neither of whom appears to have reached a position comparable to Deputy Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland (which I assume is the position you are talking about?).  The category might not include intersex or third gender people - though I couldn't find any examples who have been elected on a national level.  By the way, I know the terminology around trans issues is a little confusing, but "transsexual" is not necessarily synonymous with "undergone a sex-change operation" (more usually called sex reassignment surgery).  The article transgender goes into a lot of detail about the terminology. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So it appears that if she does get elected, it will be a big first globally. But the chances are probably slim. Thanks for the correction on the terminology. But then, is there a single word in English that describes a person who has undergone sex reassignment surgery? The article Transgender doesn't say, and Sex reassignment surgery actually does say that "people who pursue sex reassignment surgery are usually referred to as transsexual" (no source given). — Kpalion(talk) 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not really an expert on trans issues, but I don't think there really is a word for that. There are many different medical procedures that come under the term "sex reassignment surgery", of which people might have several (some intersex people have SRS too, often at a very young age, and they generally don't identify as transsexual or transgender).  Generally, trans people (like everyone else, really) care far more about their identity and the way they present themselves than their physical sex characteristics, and they are often unwilling to talk publicly about which medical procedures they have had, if any.  The usual catch-all term nowadays is "transgender" (or "trans" or "trans*"), which covers anyone whose gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth - that doesn't necessarily imply that they have gone through, or intend to go through, hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — Kpalion(talk) 23:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking for a book
As a child in the early 1990s, I read a book with the following attributes:
 * Setting is colonial New England (USA, not Queensland)
 * New England (New South Wales) is in, well, New South Wales. It borders Queensland, but that's as far as it goes. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Any clue what I'm talking about? Google didn't help. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Basic plot is that a man and his adolescent son move to the wilderness, where they build a cabin on land that they've just bought. Dad goes back to civilisation to wind up affairs and to get the rest of the family ready to move to the cabin.  Son stays at the cabin through the winter to watch it, and he meets some local Indians.  A chief brings a young relative (son? grandson?), who becomes a friend of the white boy and teaches him to become wilderness-savvy.
 * The white boy has a dog.
 * The Indian boy teaches the white boy to make fishhooks out of bone at some point in the story
 * At some point, one of the boys (the Indian?) goes off (or perhaps just talks of going off) to find his manitou, apparently as part of a coming-of-age ritual.
 * The Sign of the Beaver? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 01:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's definitely it; thanks. Perhaps I should have checked Special:WhatLinksHere/Manitou, since it's in the first page of results...Checking the map, I realise that I was thinking of an area vaguely near Mackey or Townsville.  Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be Mackay, Queensland. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * :-( I think I'll stop misreading things now and return to reserve powers or something else :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Reserve powers are much safer ground. Still tricky, though.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Options for a family's family names in the USA
I assume that in the majority of cultures in which people bear given names and family names, traditionally a wife adopts her husband's family name (I know that this is different in Spanish), which is also applied to all the children. In Austria, this has been liberalized step by step in the last decades, but is still quite restricted. For example, either of the spouses is entitled to bear a double name, but not both of them, or both might keep their family names. In any case, all children must bear one and the same of their parents' family names. I'd like to know about the current situation in the USA. I assume this differs from state to state... but would it be possible, for example, that both partners keep their family names, sons bearing that of the father and daughters their mother's name? Other possibilities? --KnightMove (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can see an example of Tennessee here. In that case, the default expectation is the fathers surname will be there (whether in combination with the mother's suname/s or alone) if he was married to the mother at any time between conception and birth but there is an option for only the mother's surname/s provided both parents mutually agree. However from what I can see there's no option to use a surname which doesn't come from either the mother or father. It doesn't say anything about any other siblings so I suspect that doesn't come in to play. Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW is your first sentence referring to the US only? If not, although I expect patrilineality when it comes to the child's family name is in the majority, I don't know if you can say 'traditionally a wife adopts her husband's family name'. This commonly doesn't happen with Chinese surnames, Korean names and Vietnamese names, in non Western areas for example. (Although the wife may be referred to as Mrs. Husband's surname.) And where patronym are still used instead of family names, I'm not sure how common it is for the patronym to change upon marriage (it clearly wouldn't be a patronym anymore for starters), e.g. it doesn't generally happen with Arabic names and those closely related like Malay Malaysian names. See also Married and maiden names. Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It varies person to person. Women are presumed to have the option of adopting their husband's last name when they marry.  I am not aware of any state where there is some problem if she keeps going by her own name.  It's generally legal to use any name you like in the US as long as you are not trying to commit fraud or avoid the law by doing so.  Common law is much more liberal than the Napoleonic Code.  See legal name. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The assumption in the USA is that the woman will adopt her husband's last name, and most of the paperwork is designed to make this easy, but there are no legal requirements for this. It is perfectly legal for the husband to take the wife's last name, for each to keep their original last name, for both partners to adopt hyphenated last names, for both to adopt a completely new last name, and so on. --Carnildo (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., you can legally call yourself or your children any damned thing you want, so long as you don't do so as a means of fraud. There are no established rules for naming oneself.  The tradition is that the wife will get the surname of her husband upon marriage, and the children will take the surname of their father, but variations are common enough; every permutation described by Carnildo I have personally known people to do.  -- Jayron  32  03:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, just to contradict you for having repeated my answer almost verbatim without credit, Jayron, one can't usually just assign a surname to one's children that doesn't belong to the parents. A legitimate child is entitled to his father's name unless both parents agree to give him the mother's.  That's part of the child's right to inherit, but doesn't prevent him from adopting any name he likes on majority. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? I don't believe you're required to give your children the same surname as either parent.  This article gives examples of American parents who gave their children last names that don't match either parent, This page also states that U.S. law does not require babies to take either parent's surname.  This forum seems to indicate that Louisiana may have a state naming law, but may be unique in that regard.  SMDB is of the opinion that, in the U.S. you can name your child anything you want.  This paper from 1983 notes that some states (at that time) so restricted a parent's right to name their children, but argued that such statutes were not valid for various reasons.  this page states that as of 2007 (when it was written) that mother's generally have the right to choose a child's last name, and are not bound to give it either the father's name or their own.  In Minnesota, you can legally give your child any last name you choose and are not required to have a name from either parent.  This lawyer says that in the U.S. there aren't any strict laws against giving your child any particular name, unless it is particularly traumatic.  This source agrees.  The GW Law Review lists only a few states that have surname restrictions: Louisiana, Tennessee, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Mississippi: in most of those cases, however, the law is written in resolving naming disputes between parents: there seems to be a general agreement that is cases where the parents both agree, they can give it any surname they wish.  That's the sources I can find on the matter.  -- Jayron  32  04:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the Tennessee law I showed above in the first reply, allowing a surname which does not include at least one parents surnames. If both parents agree, the father's surname isn't required, but in that case the mother's seems to be. There may be something I'm missing, IANAL and it may be allowed elsewhere, and it's also possible state officials ignore what the law actually says. But as it stands it seems to me whatever the intention of the law in Tennessee, on the face of it it appears to restrict the surname to one or both of the parents even if they both want something else. (I'm of course referring to restrictions for those only involving Tennessee, not those who have registered their child's name elsewhere.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll note that Tennessee is written in my own research as one of the "few states that have surname restrictions", so I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with. -- Jayron  32  14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You explicitly said 'in most of those cases, however, the law is written in resolving naming disputes between parents: there seems to be a general agreement that is cases where the parents both agree, they can give it any surname they wish'. This statement may or may not be true if we take 'in most of those cases' to apply to 'that is cases where the parents both agree' which isn't entirely clear from the wording but is largely a minor issue and I never gave any indication I was disputing that or anything else. But the evidence we have so far for Tennessee from before your reply is that is it is not true there that when parents agree they can give any surname they wish, something you did not mention so I pointed out. In other words, as far as we know thus far, there is at least one state where parents cannot give their child any surname they wish instead only one coming from one or both parents. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As is aggravatingly true for much U.S. law, the naming of children – including the selection of a surname – is regulated by a patchwork of state laws. This paper from The George Washington Law Review surveys some of the different rules and legal precedents.  On the issue of surnames, some states (including, but not limited to, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, South Carolina, and Washington) are essentially wide open.  Here's a first-hand account of New Jersey parents who gave their child a 'blended' last name: . (She's Mrs. Fisch; he's Mr. Flynn; their son is little Timmy Flysch.)  Here's the FAQ for a Florida birth certificate, noting explicitly that "Parents may give their child any name they wish.  Traditionally, children born to married parents have the same last name as their father.  However, a child can have the mother’s surname, a hyphenated name made up of both the mother and father’s surnames or any name the parent(s) choose."
 * Some other states have very strict rules limiting the choice to the parents' surnames, or to the surnames of individuals related to the parents. (I can't comment on whether or not the states with 'strict' rules on the books actually enforce them, either.)  Whether or not such rules would survive a constitutional challenge is an open question; there is a strong argument to be made that such laws are vulnerable on both First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that, per the Full Faith and Credit Clause, every state is bound to respect the official name of a person as established in any other state. So, if a person is born in a state with very liberal naming rules, like say Delaware, and they file a birth certificate there, and then move shortly thereafter to Louisiana, where the name would have been invalid under Louisiana law, Louisiana can't do anything about it.  They are bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to respect the birth certificate as filed legally under Delaware law.  Thus, if John Smith and Mary Jones name their child Peter Williams in Delaware, then move instantly to Louisiana, the state of Louisiana has to accept the name of the child even if the name would have been disallowed under Louisiana law.  -- Jayron  32  05:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

KnightMove -- under the traditional Common Law, an adult person can call himself or herself anything they want, as long as there is no intent to defraud... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Jayron, I didn't mean to imply that some states might not have come up with novel law regarding surnames, just as all sorts of notions like gay marriage and palimony that have no basis in common law have been created in recent years. The traditional reasoning was that as an heir, a legitimate child was entitled to his father's name as part of his patrimony. Unlegitimized children took their mother's name as inheriting solely from her. Foundlings are another matter. The Spanish naming customs article gives insight into the traditional reasoning. As for naming your child what you like as a 1st Amendment issue, that applies within reason. But children are not property, their rights are what matters most. If you insist on naming and calling your son Shit Head, you are quickly going to be charged with abuse and face a court order or loss of custody. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hardly. The authorities would refuse to allow such a name to be registered in the first place.  But if you're talking about an abusive name that a parent calls a child in the privacy of their own home, or even within earshot of others, that is beyond this question.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On the assumption that's to me, I fixed your indent, Jack. Arguing over a hypothetical example is hardly profitable. Perhaps certain state laws do outlaw a name like Shit Head.  If so that supports my point.  But I am not sure whether many states do practice prior restraint in regards to first names.  There was the recent case in NJ where parents had named their children Adolf Hitler and the like.  They were not prevented from doing so, but lost custody for easily imaginable reasons when it became news that a bakery had refused to make the child a birthday cake.  And name-calling and naming are two different things, so no, I wasn't talking about a father calling his son John a shithead. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Adolf Hitler Campbell custody case. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How could that possibly support your point? What government is going to allow a parent to give their child some inappropriate name, and then turn around and prosecute them for doing what they allowed him to do?  In any case, what's the deal with you being able to make hypothetical assertions but others are not allowed to ever question them?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, feel free to question away at hypothetical arguments, just don't expect me to defend or explain them as if they were true.
 * Then don't make them to begin with. This place doesn't work on people making pontifical statements ex cathedra and others accepting them unquestioningly, on pain of instant decapitation.  If you can't deal with others commenting on, questioning, or otherwise discussing anything you post here - and I mean anything - you'd better get back to ancient Mesopotamia or wherever it is you're from.    Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I will give OR examples of two couples I know personally. (The actual names are changed for privacy's sake, but the examples are real.) (1) merged name: John Bax ter and Karen Ster ling kept their own names, but their children have the merged surname Baxling ; (2) stage name: A couple who are both performers, Henry Johannes uses the stage name "Henry Jones", while Erin Latham uses her own name for performing. Upon marriage, they both legally change their surnames to Jones, which he continues to use while performing while she now uses "Latham" as a pseudonym.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My own last name is a highly modified spelling of my Great Grandfather's. He immigrated to the US and opened a business.  Although the last name was easy for Americans to pronounce, the spelling conventions of the old country made it impossible to figure out.  He never legally changed his name, but his children were issude birth certificates with the greatly changed spelling. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As for boy Adolf, the government is not a monolith. It's not a question of "the government" "approving" the name and then "the government" reversing its decision.  There are various agencies doing different things.  The parents registered the name through whatever clerk in whatever department handles that.  Since I doubt NJ has any restrictive state law on given names, the clerk probably laughed and added a photo copy to his scrapbook of funny names.  But names are not "approved".  Then four years later the matter comes to media attention and various other allegations of abuse are made, the name being just one of them.  Social services investigated, and if I remember first left the child with the parents then removed him and a sibling or two after other allegations were made.  The boy was put in someone else's custody, and the press reported that his name was changed. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What was the original language?
What language was B. K. S. Iyengar's Light On Yoga originally published in? Apparently it was translated into 17 languages, so which was the original language?Curb Chain (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This bibliography gives "Light on Yoga, Allen & Unwin, London 1966". If it was first published in London by a mainstream publisher, it suggests that it was written in English. Many educated Indian people are fluent English speakers. However, there may have been a previous edition in another language, but if so, I can't find it on the internet. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yoga for Singing:A Developmental Tool for Technique and Performance says that the "first American edition of Iyengar's work was an adaptation of the original Light on Yoga published in England in 1966..." It goes on to say that Yehudi Menuhin had been a pupil of Iyengar's for 30 years, so it seems likely that he was working in London at the time the book was published, if I'm reading the text correctly. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Iyengar article identifies them as Tamil language speakers. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Was the BOOK in Tamil or English?Curb Chain (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm almost 100% certain that the book published in London in 1966 would have been in English, but I haven't been able to prove it. User Medeis is saying that if there was an earlier edition in his native language, it would have been in Tamil. However, I haven't been able to find anything that suggests that there was an earlier edition, and it is very common for Indian nationals to write books in English rather than in their native language. I'm sorry that I can't be more positive. Alansplodge (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can actually look at the copyright page at which says copyright 1966 by Allen & Unwin, printed by Shocken Books, and nothing about "translated from the Tamil 1st edition" or the sort.  Hence you can confidently assume it was in English. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler
'''What are some strong, solid evidences that prove Hitler was dead? (and please don't include witness because I don't trust any of them, all witnesses that claimed Hitler suicided were all his subordinates at some points. Don't forget that when the Soviet came Hitler already died if he actually suicide)''' Personally I don't believe he is dead. He is a crazy bastard but obviously a very intelligent man. Why would he kill himself instead of running and hiding some places else? He can easily escape like many other Nazi officials did. Of course he has to be under disguise so his face doesn't look like Hitler but that's easy. His ambition seems too strong for him to give up. He could have escaped and raised his children and his children raise their children and so on... Hitler's descendants could be blended in to us right now without we're knowing it. They are waiting for a best chance to blow the ultimate revenge on humanity (I know this is really hard if not impossible, that's why nothing happen involving Hitler after so many years). Even if he escaped he would be too old by now and probably died many years ago but surely his descendants are still alive if he escaped. This is my logic, if he escaped then the best way to ensure long term revenge is to make sure that even after he died there will be someone to continue his ambitious crazy dream. The best candidate for that is his own descendants and he could have easily brainwashed them into thinking the best thing for the world is to blow it up or something like that. The chance of if he escaped and just live like a normal person without planning any big scheme is almost 0. My point is if he escaped then there must be some plans going to destroy the world right now that we currently unaware of. This sounds like a more likely route he would take rather than suicide. I have read enough about Hitler to know his personality somewhat, he is super extremely paranoid dreaming about his own utopia world and he may know it is impossible to achieve his goal but he refused to believe in the real situation. I believe he WILL never give up unless someone actually kill him not he killed himself. Suicidal is not something Hitler would do.

Anyway my doubtful of Hitler's death is not without evidence. In the Death of Adolf Hitler, we have tested a skull that the Soviet claim of Hitler but turned out the skull was of a woman? This has proven we thought a dead body that was Hitler is actually not Hitler at all! We never actually find his body! So what makes everyone so sure that Hitler was dead? I believe the Soviet knew that Hitler was not dead but announced he was dead to calm the world. Imagine if they did announce Hitler wasn't dead then that would panic the whole world afraid that he may come back and start the World War 3 or something. So as the natural decision, they should announce Hitler was dead no matter what. The whole details of Hitler's last few days were told by Hitler's subordinates, which should not be trusted. The fact should be consider that almost all his subordinates worship him so they can do whatever he order. He could plan up a nice flawless story before hand and make sure everyone's stories are consistent that he killed himself. Not a problem! Some claimed the dead bodies match up with dentists' records, those records could easily made up. Hitler could easily just kill 2 people and make sure his subordinate confirm that they're his body and his wife body. We didn't have DNA test back then so we can't prove that was indeed Hitler's dead body. I'm not saying that Hitler didn't kill himself, as the matter of fact is we don't know and nobody knows except Hitter himself. We just don't have enough sufficient information to make any conclusion. But if I would make a guess, I would lean toward the idea that he escaped because base from his never-give up mind, he would do it. Plus I bet he wanted a chance to revenge too. Sorry this is rather lengthy, I'm not going for a debate here but strong sources that can back up claims on whether he was dead or not, should have strong evidences instead of just saying he is dead (again exclude any witness accounts). 184.97.244.130 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have time for your paranoid rant or conspiracy theories, and the reference desk is not a place for speculation. --140.180.242.224 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please respect other people's questions. Please prove that what I said is a paranoid rant? I can say the same thing, your accusation is a paranoid insult to me. I bet you didn't even read half of it and just make some random accusation base from the length. And I think you're really getting confused between a question and a speculation. It's obviously I'm asking a question here. 184.97.244.130 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He was born in 1889. He would be 124 if he was alive today. Looie496 (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * False. He would be 123 if he was alive today. While maybe age 123 is thoeretically possible for one man in a billion or so, Hitler had Parkinson's disease, so I don't see him living anywhere near this age if he would have hypothetically somehow survived WWII. Futurist110 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that! I have also mentioned that above if you read what I wrote. That's not what I'm concerned, I'm more concern about if he escaped back in 1945 or suicide.184.97.244.130 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no reason to be concerned now then, is there? You did use the present tense repeatedly, as if you thought his plan to start a third world war were a going concern. Even if he had escaped, he most likely would have lived out his life in Argentina or the South Pacific (like the Nazis that actually did escape). The idea of him secretly planning to carry on the Reich into the next generation is a little far-fetched, and I can basically guarantee you won't find any scholarly literature on it. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there is a lot to concern about if he escaped back in 1945. Chances he will have kids and he could easily brainwash his kids and his kids brainwash their kids and so on. Basically his descendants will cause some troublesome in the future, which is unpredictable. Perhaps they're patiently waiting for a good chance to revenge now. This is just an unproven idea so of course there won't be any book about it. Anyway it's not what I'm looking for, I'm looking for a strong evidence that can convince me Hitler was dead.184.97.244.130 (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the evidence which exists now in the current, mainstream scholarship is not enough to convince you, no one here is going to be able to. This isn't the place for that.  There's every major history of World War II that reports his death and the manner of it.  If you don't want to believe those, there's nothing else anyone here could possibly add to the historical canon which may convince you otherwise.  -- Jayron  32  06:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See! It's just an evil conspiracy that he isn't allowed to claim such a prestigious record! -- Jayron  32  06:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, you may be interested in the book Ratline. I haven't read it, but I did hear an interview with the author (a professional journalist) and he did seem different from your standard paranoid conspiracy theorist. Personally, I still think it's nonsense, but since you asked I reference I thought I should provide you with the only one I can (partially) vouch for. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, even eloquent writers can present evidence for clearly batshit insane conclusions. I haven't read the book you're referring to, but guys like Graham Hancock have shown that you can write a compelling book and present cases in a compelling, not-at-all-cooky-sounding-way, and still arrive at a conclusion which is just plain wrong.  Being cogent and coherent and well presented is not a guarantee to being 'correct'.  -- Jayron  32  06:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From the description, Ratline is written by a guy obsessed with stalking and persecuting former Nazis. It's hardly an objective and neutral source for historical information.  --140.180.242.224 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the "obsessed" statement, but otherwise I agree. My mention of it was really nothing more than "heard about this and thought it was interesting; since you asked the question, you might too", in the same way I might mention a Harry Turtledove novel to someone who came along and asked about alternate outcomes to WWII. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, OP, I read your entire post. That's why I knew that most of it was paranoid speculation.  But since you at least seem sincere in asking the question, I'll try to address some points.
 * First of all, your idea that Hitler would brainwash future generations and make them destroy the world is utterly ridiculous. Hitler's aim was not to create "evil", and if you believe it was, you have a highly naive view of the world.  He believed in the supremacy of the Aryan race and wanted to build a strong German nation that was no longer humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles or the economic disaster of the 1920s.  That involved the elimination of people he perceived to be destroying the German nation, including Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, etc.  It also involved wars of aggression to gain back lost territory under the Treaty of Versailles, and to gain Lebensraum for the German population to expand.  Is it possible that, had Hitler escaped, he would have trained his children to kill Jews for revenge?  Yes, but that was not his primary goal, and it never was; his goal was to be the leader of a militarily and economically powerful German nation.  By May 1945, with the Soviet military 500 meters from his bunker, it was clear that was never going to happen again, and that he had failed in his goals for Germany.  People have committed suicide for lesser reasons, such as financial collapse and romantic issues.  Being the leader of the most powerful country on Earth, winning every battle for 2 years, and then losing it all to fall into Soviet hands (who were not particularly known for treating their prisoners nicely) while every German city had been bombed to smithereens, would seem a good reason for suicide as any to most people.
 * As for evidence that Hitler died, if you don't trust the testimony of people who were actually there, and you don't trust the records of the Soviets (who found his body and essentially verified the witnesses' accounts), then almost by definition, there's no evidence that he died. Historical evidence is never certain, especially when you start postulating conspiracy theories involving every witness on both the German and Soviet sides in addition to the dentist.  As for Hitler's body, the article you linked to makes it clear that it was exhumed in 1970, cremated, and scattered into a river.  Make of that what you will, but except for correcting your extremely naive views about Hitler (which make me doubt that you've read him), reference desk volunteers are not going to magically come up with evidence of his death that isn't already well-known and well accepted.  --140.180.242.224 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking like you are one of those people that like to advocate for Hitler. Are you saying he is not evil? You can argue that Hitler did everything for the better Germany but his actions were unbelievable evil, concentration camp was an example. I don't care if what he did was just for the goods of Germany but what he did was wrong and evil. Plus he doesn't seem to care much about German people anyway. He can kill any of them whoever stands up against him.184.97.244.130 (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From a psychological perspective, you (OP) have actually hit on one excellent circumstantial piece of evidence for why Hitler could not have survived: his never-give-up attitude. Having conquered almost all of mainland Europe, and survived several assassination attempts, he was increasingly convinced of his own invincibility. Not always - he'd have periodic dark rages in which he believed his efforts were doomed due to the incompetence or treachery of those around him. But he was very sure of his strategic genius. This was a considerable problem for his military commanders, some of whom had had grave doubts about his strategy since the announcement of Operation Barbarossa or earlier. But Hitler was a skilled orator, and could be extremely persuasive. We're often shown only footage of him ranting wildly, but this would often be done as the impassioned climax of a speech which had begun on a sombre or restrained note. He had many ways to win people round, and so did Goebbels, who believed in Hitler implicitly at times when other ostensible loyalists were wavering. And Hitler used his party loyalists to bully and browbeat the army, many of whom were not Nazis. The conservative 'Valkyrie' coup attempt was driven by army officers. Many of those were executed, and others were imprisoned. Erwin Rommel was done away with partly on the basis of suspicion of involvement. So the army were terrified of even being seen to contradict Hitler, even when they knew his plans were suicidal.
 * Towards the end, Hitler was giving irrational orders to defend and hold positions that were indefensible, or in some cases even already lost. He seems to be have been wildly self-deluding about the scale of the Russian invasion until the very last days. This lack of clarity and rationality about the collapse of his grand project can be seen as deriving from his fanatical self-belief. So when it became apparent that key figures even within the party were fleeing, or trying to negotiate defection or surrender, and the Red Army had reached central Berlin, Hitler's world was turned upside down. He and Goebbels alike set about destroying those around them, and then themselves, rather than accept the possibility of surrender.
 * I agree with the IP above who points out that you are needlessly mythologising Hitler. He was not the personification of evil, or a literal monster bent on crushing the human race; he was a politician, and while his objectives were plainly cruel and dangerous, and his methods unspeakable, it is naive to see him as a movie-style villain intent on destroying the world. You also mention his descendants. Although Eva Braun was quite young at the time of her marriage, Hitler himself was quite middle-aged and in deteriorating health. There's no reason to believe he would have been capable of having children, even if his marriage had lasted longer than it did. So once again: discard ideas of this man as a super-villain. He was quite bad enough to deserve his reviled place in the history books, and does not need to be invested with mystical qualities. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for the OP's claims that Hitler survived, it is very unlikely someone born in 1889 would still be around today. He weren't Methuselah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's deja vu all over again. We've already been over the ground that the OP is well aware that Hitler would now be dead no matter what happened in 1945. To quote him, "I know that! I have also mentioned that above if you read what I wrote. That's not what I'm concerned, I'm more concern about if he escaped back in 1945 or suicide".  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

should have been left closed as trolling the first time μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I reckon he confused me when he said, "Personally I don't believe he is dead." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP is clearly not a native English speaker as he confuses his tenses a lot. What he meant by that was that he believed Hitler survived the bunker (but obviously died some time later).  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you kidden me? I'm not trying to troll here. I'm asking a question. Can you guys stop insulting me? I thought Wikipedians are better than this. I'm not some stupid kids who have a lot of time fooling around trolling people. Stop accusing me without rigid evidence.184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wart
In T. H. White's version of the Matter of Britain, Arthur was nicknamed "the Wart" by his foster brother Kay. Was this name original to White, or was he taking up an older idea? Marnanel (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm almost positive this was White's own addition to the canon. White's focus on the upbringing and childhood of Arthur shows a clearly 20th century psychological focus on the motivation of adult lives being heavily influenced by one's childhood experience.  That sort of perspective simply doesn't fit in the times of earlier tellings of the Arthurian story.  Malory doesn't even deal with Arthur's childhood at that level of detail, for example, and Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur is usually taken as the first really complete, canonical attempt to bring the entire Arthurian story into one narrative.  Reading White's work it really stands out for its middle-20th-century-ness, and Arthur's cute nickname of "Wart" is one of those things that would seem out of place in the writing style of an earlier time.  For the record, this is not a criticism of White's work, The Once and Future King is, bar none, my favorite version of the Arthurian story, but that's probably also because White's work follows 20th century storytelling paradigms, something earlier works did not do.  Sorry to get off on too much of a tangent, but this really is one of my favorite books.  To the original question, I don't believe that any earlier (or indeed later) author used the "Wart" nickname for the younger Arthur.  At least, I can't recall its use outside of White.  -- Jayron  32  06:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * White's approach to Arthurian tales seems to me to be greatly influenced by Twain's satirical take in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Almost any character in The Sword in the Stone would be at home in Twain's version of the tale. Even the silly, deflating nickname "the Wart" was used by Twain to describe planet Earth in his "Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven." I have no idea if White regarded Twain as an influence, or if he was familiar with the Captain Stormfield story, but it would not surprise me. —Kevin Myers 09:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous people
Please name some indigenous people who have been able to retain their traditional culture intact without being affected by "modern culture" (as the case of Maori, American Indians who lost their traditional culture). This list should exclude uncontacted people. --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure if you exclude uncontacted people, your list would be the null set. There are many indigenous people groups which have retained aspects of their traditional life from times prior to modernity, but I'm not really sure there are any such groups which have maintained a fully traditional life, unaffected by contact with other people, after they have been in continuous contact with modern society for extended periods of time.  -- Jayron  32  06:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As to why, the reason is that modern culture has some aspects which are superior to those of traditional culture.  Therefore, it would be unwise for a traditional culture to refuse all aspects of modern culture.  In the case of native Americans, for example, Europeans brought horses, which were a vastly superior method of transportation compared with walking, and thus were widely adopted as the preferred method of transportation on land.


 * The trick is for the traditional culture to reject those aspects of modern culture which are not superior to their own, while adopting those which are. A very difficult goal to achieve, unfortunately. StuRat (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * An additional complication is that the notion of "superior" (and "inferior") is inherently subjective. Roger (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In some cases, yes, but the horse example is pretty clearly an example of where 99.9% would agree that one is superior. StuRat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Being as how "superior" and "inferior" can be politically-charged terms, maybe the term "more useful" would fit better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The horse is actually an excellent example. The horse actually spread through the new world faster than people did, to the point where horses introduced into the Americas in the early 16th centuries from Europe were adopted into Plains Indian culture to the point where some groups of the Northern Plains already had a well-established horse culture by the time they had first contact with European peoples.  Thus, an indigenous people were directly affected by and had their own culture drastically altered by European culture before they even met them. -- Jayron  32  13:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going through the article Indigenous peoples, and looking at the pictures, wondering whether the Huli people and the Kayapo people count? --PlanetEditor (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A brief google search shows that the Huli people have access to regional FM radio. The article on the Kayapo people says they have "trade agreements with The Body Shop". Both of these would disqualify them from your initial question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think, apart from uncontacted peoples, you would be hard pressed to find any sizeable group of people who would warrant being called a "people" who do not have at least one radio or TV or phone among them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting study on how Huli language and culture has changed in modern times. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To the OP: But even uncontacted people could modernize within their own capabilities so I think the question itself is not valid. I'll bet in some isolated cases or a single area of development you could argue that the uncontacted people actually modernized more that cultures who were in close contact with each other.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is actually a matter of great argument in anthropology. Or was. Unfortunately, WP is sadly lacking in in-depth coverage of this sort of thing (see, for example, the sad article on anthropologist). In short, anthropologists like Richard Borshay Lee have asserted that, when they worked among the ǃKung in the 1970s they were studying an isolated people, living as they had for thousands of years with only the most minimal influence from outside the group. Most other anthropologists, especially later ones, pointed to several exceptions to that position. For example, Lee apparently glossed over the fact that the !Kung usually wore t-shirts and shorts while he was there. Stronger, more profound, connections became apparent with further study. It's been twenty years since I stopped studying anthropology; the fact that the debate (which was simply the debate in anthropology in the 80s and 90s) has apparently died down leads me to think that the next generation has downplayed the romanticism required to sustain Lee's position and the argument is now over. In short, populations are not nearly so discrete as was formerly asserted. At best, groups are like segments of a ring species, where the connection is circuitous but nevertheless solid. Matt Deres (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It really depends on what you mean by "keeping their culture". If people organise a folk culture festival, which tourists can pay to go to, is that strengthening the local culture or losing it? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Secular humanism
Can a person who is an active practitioner of the Taoic religions, Dharmic religions, or Abrahamic religions be considered a "secular humanist" if he/she basically agrees with secular humanist principles (only using reason and empirical evidence in decision-making and ethics) while still practicing religious rituals based on the belief that those rituals are deeply intertwined and inseparable from his/her worldview but still very compatible with secular humanism? For example, a person may realize the importance of reason and empirical evidence, but also know that some things is difficult to be measured, observed or quantified and thus resort to ethical philosophy (e.g. Confucianism) to give the person a sense of how life works from a metaphorical perspective and what it means to the individual. Is a practitioner or faithful adherent of Chinese folk religions (Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism) labelled as "secular humanist" by Westerners who often believe that religion is closely associated with theism? 140.254.226.245 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Secular humanism is based on Naturalism (philosophy) which is in conflict with supernaturalism of religion. --PlanetEditor (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think labels are a convenience when it comes to spiritual world-views. I am reliably informed, for example that in Japan it is entirely possible to be a Christian, a Daoist and a Buddhist all at the same time. So someone may well have a personal spirituality which includes a belief in Christ, but in public life may choose to live according to secular humanism in the belief that it is the best thing to do. I myself was raised a Christian, but now am more "spiritual but not religious" and certainly when it comes to things like politics and ethics can identify with secular humanism. I think a narrow view of religion is counter-productive these days. (I know this is all very much my own feelings but I don't think I'm the only one with those views.) In the end, whose opinion matters? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * From our article, secular humanism rejects "religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making". --PlanetEditor (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can person still be an active practitioner of a traditional, ancient faith and reject religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making? A person may believe that good ethics is the result of good reason, which is the result of the benevolence of a personal creator deity. As you can see, I don't think I have rejected your claim by writing "good ethics is not the result of good reason" by rejecting supernaturalism. Rather, I just added that a person may believe that good reason is based on the result of the benevolence of a personal creator deity who works with everyone, whether they know it or not, to achieve happiness on earth and in afterlife. In practice, such a person may pray to his/her personal creator deity to "give reason or enlightenment" or "try to work with the individual in some way" to use reason in order to make ethical decisions. 140.254.226.245 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What we are seeing here is a common error -- arguing on the basis of logic about what a word ought to mean. But in real life people almost always use secular as the opposite of religious, so if those things are classified as religions, then beliefs based on them would not be called secular. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, does that mean the meaning of a word in real life may not be the most logical but rather based on tradition from the former generation to the later generation? If that is the case, then wouldn't a secular humanist come to the conclusion that logic is to be expected and that what a word should mean is superior to what a word is generally accepted to mean? Perhaps, the person assuming the secular humanist position that reason should be at the bottom of decision-making and ethics has some sort of anti-religious prejudice, thinking that religions are illogical and irreligious atheism is logical while undermining the diversity of different religions. 140.254.226.229 (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looie496: your point puzzles me. I firmly believe that the state has no business impinging on a person's religious conscience, and that therefore anything which is enforced on a citizen should not have a solely religious basis. And this, as far as I know, is a position called secularism. However, since I also believe everything in the Nicene Creed, pray daily, and go to church every week, are you saying I should stop describing myself as a secularist? And how then would you recommend I describe my position on church and state? Marnanel (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have come to the conclusion that all religions are basically a spiritual "baseline" based on familial/local culture and customs employed to get children through childhood, so that once we can make these informed observations and decisions we can become Humanists. In other words its like filling in the gaps that children would not comprehend in order to not loose them to nihlism in the mean time.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from being patronising to adult believers, that would be OR and not a valid helpdesk answer, wouldn't it? Marnanel (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I know openly gay Catholics, even though the RCC insists that gay people suppress that aspect of their sexuality and live as straight. I also know of many religious people with the attitudes of secular humanists, for whom religion is just a personal thing. Why not?--89.101.237.2 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We've all heard about the religious people who profess a life of celibacy and preach morality to their congregations, but then sexually abuse young people. We've all heard about the religious organisations that urge their congregations to atone for their sins and if any law has been broken, to submit themselves to the authorities and take whatever medicine is appropriate - but assiduously protect their own abusing members from any such legal action.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please seek an internet forum. This desk helps with searches for reference material. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you've read the article on secular humanism carefully, the answer is clearly no. "Secular humanism considers all forms of religion, including religious Humanism, to be superseded", and "All three types of Humanism (and all three of the American Humanist Association's manifestos) reject deference to supernatural beliefs; promoting the practical, methodological naturalism of science".  "All member organisations of the International Humanist and Ethical Union are required by bylaw 5.1[16] to accept the Minimum Statement on Humanism: '...It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.'"
 * No amount of etymological argument can negate the fact that secular humanists consider themselves defined, in large part, by their rejection of superstitious beliefs. You cannot make all decisions based on reason rather than superstition, and simultaneously "practice religious rituals based on the belief that those rituals are deeply intertwined and inseparable from his/her worldview", because practicing those rituals is itself a decision, based on beliefs with absolutely no supporting evidence.  You might as well ask whether an environmentalist can support large-scale deforestation.  The answer is no, because no matter what you think "environment" should mean, the fact is that the vast majority of both environmentalists and non-environmentalists identify "environmentalism" to mean a philosophy that seeks to prevent large-scale deforestation.  --140.180.242.224 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Opportunity of a Lifetime
A person has "opportunites" in their life that comes up from time to time where one could take advantage of them for some kind of a benefit (i.e. power, money). Maybe once in a lifetime a super great Opportunity of a Lifetime comes up. How is an Opportunity of a Lifetime related to general opportunities in life (if at all)? Why do some people seem to get all the breaks and have many opportunities in life (including the Opportunity of a Lifetime), while others get none?--24.180.106.88 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * few people do and it is all relative. IE Perception. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons someone might have a better life than someone else. Luck and ability. Maybe the person with more opportunities in life came out of the right vagina. Even in modern, socially mobile, liberal democracies where everyone is equal before the law, there is much inequality. If your parents are bad or poor or crazy, you are more likely to achieve less. Then there's ability. People who are charismatic, empathetic and don't worry about what other people think will have more opportunities presented to them in life. Ability is gained, unlike luck. I remember in my late teens I didn't know what to say to women I fancied, so I just went up to one and said some very naive stuff that got me embarassingly rejected. Around the same age I was told I was a boring storyteller. I was quite shy and had a thin skin. A decade later, I consider myself the opposite of all that, my ability has developed, and so has my life.--89.101.215.166 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Creationists
Do they believe in the laws of thermodynamics? ? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=thermodynamics&p=par.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Define "belief". What do you mean by "believe in the laws of thermodynamics"? The OP's usage of the word "believe" in "believe in the laws of thermodynamics" is awkward, in my opinion. I am going to assume that it means "find the laws of thermodynamics most reliable in explaining some part of the universe". If that is the case, then all you have to do is look up the population parameters concerning the number of physicist creationists. 140.254.226.227 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Can't one find the laws of thermodynamics most reliable in explaining some part of the universe and still believe that God had a role in the creation of the universe? Futurist110 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which type of creationist? Has anyone interviewed every single one, or at least a representative example of all people worldwide that identify as such, and collected such data?  -- Jayron  32  22:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The ref desk doesn't speak on behalf of groups of undefined people. Please don't ask for opinion or invite debate.

Israeli Elections Party Lists
Does anyone have the party lists for all of the parties in the Israeli Knesset elections of 2013? I want to see the whole party lists of the members who made it into the Knesset as well as the politicians who were just below the cutoff line for each party. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind--I found the lists here--http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/who-made-it-into-the-19th-knesset/2013/01/22/ Futurist110 (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

emo/goth
what's the difference anyway? and it is true that the enemies (emos / Goths)?--109.232.72.49 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the two dress differently. Emos are typified by the long swept-away bang of hair on the front of their heads, while Goths are typified by their dark Victorian appeal. There is the other type of "Goth", which is the group of people living on the outskirts of the Roman empire in northern Europe. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They're largely based around music "scenes". The emo scene began in the mid 1980's as an offshoot of Hardcore Punk in the Washington DC and Northeast with bands like Fugazi, got mixed up with the Grunge scene during the 1990s with Sunny Day Real Estate before emerging as its own distinct style during the early 2000s.  In many ways, the British cousins of Emo was the Manchester music scene of the 1980s, bands like The Smiths and the Happy Mondays explored many of the same lyrical themes as later Emo acts, while the 1990s brought shoegazing bands that added an electronic edge to it.  The key component of emo is the sort of emotional "nakedness" of the lyrics.  Musically, there's a pretty wide diversity between Fugazi and say Fall Out Boy, but they all fit broadly under the Emo banner.  Gothic rock is closely related to emo, but generally "darker", often dealing with more depressive, "down" lyrical content.  Unlike the American origins of Emo, Goth started in the UK with bands like Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Cure, and also unlike Emo, Goth has a distinct "look" to it, with black white and red being the "national colors" if you will.  Emo isn't necessarily as known for a specific fashion mode.  American Gothic Rock developed later in the 1990s, and took a harder edge, becoming interwoven with industrial rock with bands like Nine Inch Nails.  -- Jayron  32  02:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)