Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 4

= March 4 =

Menachem Begin--PM Of Isreal 1977-1983
I am trying to find a cartoon showing Menachem Begin Showing what the United states would look like if the U.S. gave back all the land annexed after each war. Can you help me out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.137.46 (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the original 1977 version. Tevildo (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A little off-topic, but I never saw this cartoon before. It is really funny and insightful. Futurist110 (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Cute. Now, if everyone gave up land that they or their ancestors had confiscated, all 6 billion or so of us would wind up living in our original African village. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Only if you count land we stole from Neanderthals and others. Of course, restoring the original ethnic group to each chunk of land would be problematic, as most of those ethnic groups no longer exist.  Perhaps those on some isolated islands are the original ethnic groups.  So those on Easter Island can stay.  The rest of us have to leave. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What, and invade outer space? Wretched imperialist! הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Fulgencio Batista
ERROR - NEEDS CORRECTION : In the page on Fulgencio Batista, the term used (bohio) for the word slum listed under a photograph is incorrect. The word bohio refers to the mud-floored thatched roof dwellings used by farmers. The term for slum used in the 1950's in Havana was solar with the accent on the 'lar'. I am sure of this. The photograph is the fourth photo on the English page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolablanche (talk • contribs) 01:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can either edit the article yourself to make the correction, of ask someone else to do so on the talk page for that article: Talk:Fulgencio_Batista. StuRat (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Be bold! If you are sure, why not just edit it yourself, afterall, it is for everyone! (If you have a reference it would help, maybe add it in your edit summary?) Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 01:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Countries with large-scale historical immigration
Which countries had large-scale immigration both in the decades before World War I and in the last several several decades (also, other time periods can be included if you want)? I can think of the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe Israel/Palestine, but which countries am I missing/forgetting? I know that several countries in South America/Latin America had large-scale immigration (Argentina, Uruguay, perhaps Chile and Brazil) before World War I, but probably not in the last several decades. Futurist110 (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you mean by "large-scale", but the UK/British Isles has always had immigration, be it conquerors (Romans, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normans), refugees (Huguenots, Jews, Vietnamese, Bosnians) or invitees (Commonwealth nations). --TammyMoet (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Scots (from Ireland) and Jutes. Sleigh (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * France, I think, although I would have to double-check for the decades before WW1. Has had a lot of immigration from Italy, Spain, and from Poland to work in the coalmines of the north, followed by post WW2 immigration from various places. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * By "large-scale", I mean countries which had a foreign-born population as 10.00% or more of their total population at some point before World War I and again today. The United States of America would work for this -- History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States. Canada would likewise work -- http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/auto/diagramme-chart/stg2/c_6_38_1_2_eng.png?20121002195953815. The United Kingdom, though, would not work -- https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oeo6ObGsZzAJ:www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.10/2012/Presentations/1__WP4__Measuring_Migration_in_the_UK_Census_Ian_White.ppt+u.k.+foreign-born+population+1841-2001&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiVfNoNx3K7vo_YlemzZhLSsce3H0uM_YhiVY9jHpjO-n3mv9VUM7GiNoUUAsKs8j_Be54KvwHauNIcgBEIPAXQ6noBEHp49xUwQV6uqBqgOFRyA27Ppyh8AQAb5KFPrsj6JyZI&sig=AHIEtbRa7FfjNj4q3IvpAsXWXbRPOo-xJw. Argentina would likewise not work for this. As for France, I don't have the historical foreign-born data for France with me right now, at least not yet. Futurist110 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Non-native population in Argentina.png

Hong Kong fits the bill. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it's not a (separate) country, and thus unfortunately it doesn't count for the purposes of answering my question. Futurist110 (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to migrate to Hong Kong without finding you've migrated to China? --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  06:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong was only returned to China recently so it depends on how limited the OP's "last several decades" are. Rmhermen (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong still wasn't its own country before being returned to China in 1997, so unfortunately it does not fit the bill for my question. Futurist110 (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Name the white stuff?
What is the name of the white square-shaped thing on the collar of a parish priest who dresses himself mostly in black? Sneazy (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Clerical collar. --Onorem♠Dil 04:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

German World War II films showing their surrender to the Western allies?
You see, Der Untergang was a German film that depicted their surrender to the Soviets. I would have felt more delighted seeing a scene of their surrendering to the Americans, British or French forces. There were plenty of newsreel footages, and some films that were American or British-made, that I already saw.

However, I have yet to find a single German-made film showing their forces in WW2 surrendering to / being captured by the Americans, or the British, or the French.

What such films would depict this? If you link it to any video hosting site, will they have captions / subtitles? Thanks. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We cannot. Linking to a video hosting site would be a violation of copyright. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would that necessarily be true? Surely some of the films made shortly after the war are out of copyright by now? Or are we merely close, but not there yet? 46.30.55.66 (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No assumptions can be made about copyrights that aren't stated. But you could use Google as well as we could. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Films made shortly after the war would be out of copyright by now, of course, but if it is a video hosting site, they would surely have others, completely unrelated, which are not. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hosting films is not always illegal. There is also pay per view systems and archive.org also hosts videos, which appear to have no copyright issues. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion has gotten far off track; all the OP is asking about is whether there are such films. Nobody asked about obtaining an illegal copy. So ...

... let's try to answer the OP's question: There are many such movies. One that readily comes to mind is Die Brücke (film). &mdash; Sebastian 18:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not about surrender, but about defeat. I guess for surrender proper you would have to look at the leaders, hence the focus on the Führerbunker. &mdash; Sebastian 19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be about the surrender made by high command in Berlin. It can show Jödl signing the unconditional surrender document in Rheims, or it can show a platoon / company / battalion / regiment of common soldiers deciding to surrender to the Allies after a drawn-out battle. What films fit this description? --70.179.161.230 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Alfred Jodl (no umlaut)? --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  06:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I thought the way his name was pronounced had it have an umlaut. Would it sound identical? But anyhow, what German films show a depiction of Jodl signing the surrender document? And as before, if anyone happens to know, what such films show common soldiers (and maybe the insane, guiltless Waffen SS units) making a surrender? Thanks again. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you looked on YouTube? There are many such videos available in English (mainly WW2-era news reels), and I'm sure that there are German translations available. It's unlikely that any German cameramen recorded German soldiers surrendering for fairly obvious reasons (eg, they would have been too busy surrendering themselves, and the formal surrender ceremonies were held on Allied-controlled territory). The Waffen SS was anything but 'guiltless' BTW: Waffen-SS. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if there were no German-made newsreels showing their own surrender (what WAS the last Die Deutsche Wochenschau newsreel, and what'd that show?) then how about German-made films made years or decades later depicting this? Again, I have looked all over YouTube, and they're so hard to find, Nick-D. By the way, when I said "guiltless," I meant that they must've felt no guilt, no matter how heinous their actions were. --129.130.18.100 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Bartizan


Can this position be regarded as a Bartizan? Thanks -  Etan J. Tal(talk) 08:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say yes - albeit a modern version. It seems to have a small bulletproof glass window (instead of arrow slits) which would suggest a fortified building. I would not call it this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriel_window or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_window 196.214.78.114 (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect the glass is a later addition, but who knows for sure? Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The British troops would most likely have called it a Pillbox; I know that they are usually sunk into the ground, but there are some pillboxes on stilts in London, to allow fire over a railway embankment. In more modern usage, it would be a sangar. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. It seems Bartizan is still the best term. Etan J. Tal(talk) 19:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

is this presentation flawed due to not considering negative net worth?
In viewing this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&feature=player_embedded

I was continually asking myself where all the negative net-worth people are, which includes many a law student at the start of their career, medical students, indeed lots of people who owe more than they're worth?

Doesn't that completely skew "wealth"? For example, if the 'lowest wealth' 100 people incldue 10 people worth -80,000 and the rest just have between $7-$12, averaging $9k, then the average will be (90*9000 + 10* -80000 )/100 = $100. So if the "drastic poverty" were defined as having less than $5000 to your name, then 90% of our sample wouldn't qualify (have $7k-$12k wealth) while the remaining 10% actually will have income that lets them live fine despite their negative net worth.

So isn't a chart like that fundamentally wrong?

I don't know what the solution is - whether it would be showing "income", as anyone whose wealth/net worth is millions of dollars doesn't need any income at all to obviously not be poor.

But at the least, shouldn't a chart like that somehow differentiate between debt and wealth, or between wealth and income?

I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe it should instead show expenditure - how much people actually spend. Then rich people spending from their wealth would show up at the level they're spending at (which is obviously reflective of their quality of life) perhaps with an allowance for anything they enjoy the use of without having to spend on it, meanwhile people in debt can be shown based on how much they spend even if it is extra debt, and people on benefits can have the benefits calculated the same way as we try to calculate anything the rich get use of that they don't directly pay for as expenditure?

What would such a chart look like? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The graph is based on this which in turn is based on this paper.
 * Quoting from the paper: "Wealth, also known as net worth, is defined as the total value of everything someone owns minus any debt that he or she owes. A person’s net worth includes his or her bank account savings plus the value of other things such as property, stocks, bonds, art, collections, etc., minus the value of things like loans and mortgages."
 * The graph does not consider income, which is fine considering it's only trying to show wealth distribution. As for the temporary negative net-worth individual I don't think there are *that* many of them to skew the graph. (no reference sorry too lazy)
 * P.S the last part in the video about CEO earning 380X times more than your average worker (see CNN link) does not match the data given in the Motherjones link (185X).
 * Here are the four links given at the end of the video Motherjones Dan Ariely blog Thinkprogress CNN Royor (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, I do think there are ton of people with negative net worth. I mean, imagine paying off a mortgage.  You take on a thirty-year mortgage and take over the property: bam, you are now worth -$140,000 or whatever.  Add back in your down-payment, and add in your payment every month, and eventually you are net-worth positive.  Same if your home accrues in value for some reason, beyond what you owe on it.  I just think that this kind of net-worth analysis is INCREDIBLY suspect if you consider rich people's owned networth but you don't consider anyone's debt.  There's another thing too: the quality of living shows an incredible amount of diminishing returns on wealth.  If in a few minutes I will become either someone with an annual income of $15,000 or an annual income of $2.5million by a roll of the die, but I can choose now whether to increase the $15,000 by another $7,000 if that's the one that comes up (no change on the other one) or increase the $2.5 million by another $120,000 if that's the one that comes up (no change if I draw the $15k) then hands-down absolutely no contest it is in my interest to balance out the $15k one.  This is proof positive that $7k is worth WAY more at the $15k level than EVEN $120K (let alone $7k) at the $2.5m level.  There is just no contest.  So the graph that I would REALLY like to see is one that shows how much UTILITY the people have access to in America.  Hands-down I absolutely agree that a person who goes from making $1.7million per year to $25 million per year would thereby experience a hugely difference in lifestyle.  But that difference is logarithmic.  If you want to show unfairness, it's not enough to show how much more money that guy has than the guy making $8k.  I think not including debt is a particular skew because it makes it seem (as in my example) as if everyone who utilizes debt heavily - i.e. rich people - are even richer.  Truly poor people just don't have access to that much debt. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you take on a mortgage you are not worth -$140,000. A mortgage is a liability balanced by an asset, the real estate. Unless you do it after a speculative bubble has burst and the real estate prices have plummeted, I don't see how that could happen. And even then, you could give back the keys and pass the loss to the financial backer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right, you are not worth: -$140,000 the moment you sign a $140,000 mortgage. I did mention that if the real value of the home goes up (e.g. there is a huge explosive bubble two weeks after you sign, the house triples in value, you're a millionaire) then your net worth quickly goes up.


 * But before that happens ), the minute you buy it, you have just committed to paying a huge interest rate on it for a long long time: the value of the home at that moment MUST be less than value + interest rate!  So the moment you commit to buy real estate, you very much do take on very significant debt.  As an example, according to this site: http://michaelbluejay.com/house/interest.html  a thirty-year loans shows Total Paid over 30 years at $358,971 and Total Interest at $208,971 - that shows that nearly two thirds of what you've committed to paying is in interest!!  Is it really fair to say that that is not negative net worth in terms of net present value?  The only way to say that is NOT negative net present value is if you say that your net present value includes the "built-in" appreciation of your house's value.  But by that token, even a mdeical student with -$200,000 to their name after college + med school is not in debt, as their net present value includes their future salary.  I think that's silly.  Nobody is obliged to give you a salary, and nobody is obliged to make you a higher offer on your home later: but you are very much obliged to pay the interest rate.  The only reasonable way to view a mortgage is as a huge amount of debt for the chance to live in the place you will own once you're finished paying for it, and perhaps for some chance to sell it to someone else later under potentially similar terms.  91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet another proof it's debt: suppose you pay the monthly payments for a year or two, which, as the article indicates, are nearly 100% going toward interest rate (i.e. not really building any equity to speak of). Then you can't pay anymore and the home is foreclosed on.  In this case: what did your monthly payments go toward?  Were you paying rent?  No.  You were paying off your DEBT.  Your house doesn't have to depreciate in value if you pay interest on it for two years and then are left with nothing.  This proves that you were merely reducing your debt and doing nothing else during that time.  There is no other way to view it.  91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I still don't believe you have automatically into negative net worth when you buy real estate backed by a mortgage. Real estate generates income not just by prices going up. You can also rent your real estate and obtain something equivalent to the interest paid. In both cases, rent and loans paid, you are paying for using something that doesn't belong to you. Real estate should be treated as an asset that can be a good investment option or not, like every other option. BTW, you do not commit to pay an interest for x years just because you have a mortgage. A house, like any asset, can be sold, rent, and even given back. Even if you committed to paying interest for 30 years, you will also have a house to obtain rent from it for 30 years. And it doesn't matter if you live in it or rent it. It is providing something of value (shelter) for 30 or more years. In a good accountancy practice you'll have then liabilities for x $100,000 for 30 years and an asset, which will be valued in its potential for generating income through rent or being resold. Obviously, the bubble and burst of it were not 'normal' times. Valuating real estate and mortgages was a mess.  OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can do all the funny accounting you want. For example, the medical student already gets to rent themselves out doing some kind of work that generates income thanks to the education they got that got them into that high debt.  It's still debt!  Saying "you didn't take ownership of the house - you're just using it" is so silly.  Why do you even have to sign a mortgage then.  Why do you have to find a seller, since you're really just using a bank's house? If all it is is a "usage right" how could you sell the underlying house, if it's just the bank?  You can add all these "rights", like right to sell, right to use, and so on, while somehow claiming that you are "paying for using something that doesn't belong to you."  You can buy a house from me, that I didn't own, oh no, I was just paying for the right to use it.  And rent it out.  And sell it to you.  This is very silly, I hope you will agree.  You are free to internally in your own mind think of it that way... but to say that this is how people should do their accounting is rather silly.  In accounting terms, the fact that you have all these rights - pretty much anything you want.  What if you destroy your house?  Or neglect it?  Do you not have the right to do certain negative renovations or neglect, since it's not your property, you are just paying to use it?  If you sign a mortgage and then start making payments but neglect it, will the bank come and maintain your house, since it's theirs, you're just paying to use it?  Silliness.  Fact is, anyone with a mortgage they haven't put significant equity into, or which hasn't gone up in market value enough to cover their debt on it, is thereby in debt.  91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Arghh. Nope 91.120, you are definitely not right. My accounting is certainly not 'silly.' You are confusing several concepts: the first, and fatal for your argument, is confusing being in debt to being indebted. The only way of reaching a negative net worth is when assets are smaller than equity. But, at least in the US and in other countries like the UK or Canada or Ireland, you can simply restructure your debt giving the keys back to the bank, if you believe you won't need a loan in the next years and the house is less valuable than the mortgage. I see, however, that your IP locates to Hungary, which was heavily hit by the bubble bursting, and it's, sorry for the pun, hungry now for growth. But yes, at the moment of signing the mortgage, the mortgage equal the asset, more or less. One drags your finances down, the other up. It's all balances, which doesn't mean you did a good business. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Incoming wall of text alert! First we need to go over some accounting basic.
 * US Census Bureau define household net worth as Asset minus liability. If you are familiar with accounting 101 Asset = Liability + equity. The two side MUST equal.
 * Suppose you brought a house for $100,000 (asset - book value), 20% down payment - $20,000 (equity) and took out a 80% mortgage - $80,000 (liability).
 * Your net worth is asset - liability = $100,000 - $80,000. You are worth $20,000.
 * Now let's say 1 years later you paid a total of $18,000, $10,000 toward principle and $8,000 in interest. Your house is now assessed at $150,000 (from your property tax assessment), what's your net worth?
 * Your asset is $100,000 + $8,000 (asset - book value), $20,000 + $18,000 = $38,000 (equity), remaining mortgage = $70,000.
 * Net worth based on book value = $108,000 - $70,000 = $38,000
 * Net worth based on market value = $150,000 - $70,000 = $80,000
 * Notice how you CAN NOT just take liability and calculate a negative net worth. Your asset's book value is based on how much it COST (interest is part of how much it COST so it's added to book value) and your asset market value will fluctuate based on the market.
 * Normally a car will depreciate in value over time and historically, the average home’s value has increased in value over time (not for the last couple year though). This depreciation/appreciation is reflected by the market value.
 * Now that's out of the way, for the average household their net worth is POSITIVE after a home purchase (down payment), whether that equity is liquid or not is another story. As for your indebted law/medical student they are a relatively small number compare to the entire US population. So in conclusion the argument about debt is not being accounting for is void and null, and the number of student with negative net worth is not large enough to make a difference to the graph. If you think net worth data is insufficient you can always look at it along with the income distribution data too.
 * Edit: The debt is already accounted for as part of liability. Royor (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The average U.S. college student has $26,000 in debt and no/few real assets. I think negative worth is probably pretty common there. Rmhermen (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, I can see your arguments. Do note that very little down-payment has been required for a couple of years.  I also don't believe in the housing bubble.  91.120.48.242 (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL. You "don't believe in the housing bubble". Now I know you are a troll. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I mean the opposite what you thought I meant. What I mean is that if I am given a mortage for a million dollar house on a shack that the market values at a million, then when you say that I have a million dollars in collateral, I just don't think it's true.  I 'disagree' with the market, if you will.  So the minute I take control of the shack in my own personal mental accounting (which you have justified as being out of keeping with actual accountancy) I have all the net negative worth that is the difference between the inflated price and the worth of the house once the house wakes up.  I will grant you that nominally the 20% downpayment gives me nominal positive equity as nominally there is no net change when taking control of the collateral in exchange to counterpartying the loan. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Houses do not have any specific intrinsic worth in dollars. Their worth varies depending on the market and the location. The "shack" you describe could be much pricier in Beverly Hills than in a small town in the middle of nowhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't Elie Wiesel a tattoo?
There are pictures of his left forearm without a tattoo circulating through the internet. The left forearm was the standard place to put it when Wiesel got into the concentration camp. I don't know whether these pictures are photoshopped, Wiesel let this tattoo be removed, or he is a liar, as some claim. Which is true? Is there a chance Elie Wiesel was not at a concentration camp? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This was already asked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_December_30#Elie_Wiesel.27s_tattoo --TammyMoet (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That question from December would be mine, and to be fair, it was never fully answered. There is evidently video footage of him without a visible tattoo, so I doubt manipulation is at work, else unaltered footage should have surfaced at some point. I know tattoos often fade with age (I'm not sure exactly what mechanism is at work there, but I have observed it), so there is a chance it was just too faint to be picked up by the camera at a distance. The problem with researching this sort of thing online is that 95% of the results you get in a Google search are from websites operated by Neo-Nazi morons. One could probably find a photo of his tattoo by contacting news agencies that may have photographs archived, many of which may not be available online. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 15:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ditto. It's a valid question without a valid answer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer is valid... just not satisfying. The answer is that we don't know why those particular pictures do not show him with a tattoo.  We can speculate, but that is not the job of this reference desk. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely it has a valid answer. We just haven't found it yet. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 15:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting and possibly pertinent: The person who claimed to have a tattoo with the number Wiesel gave as that of his own tattoo (if you looked into this in any depth, I'm sure you know who I'm talking about) has evidently never been interviewed by a news agency, as far as I or anyone else can tell. The "article" featuring his story showed up ex nihilo on several message boards within a few days of each other, lacking a byline or any mentioned of where it originated. Where, when, or by whom it was originally published is unclear, assuming it ever was published. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 15:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no possibility that Elie Wiesel was not in a concentration camp. When I first read this question, I suspected that it might constitute some form of Holocaust-denial trolling. It is imperative that if this topic is going to be discussed at all in this form (and the value of doing so is not at all clear), that people be sensitive in how they phrase things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is imperative that this topic be discussed, because two editors in good standing asked the same question, and the Reference Desk's job is to provide references. Whether you personally find the question valuable is irrelevant.  No, people don't need to be "sensitive".  Sensitivity is just another excuse to restrict other people's freedom of speech, and Wikipedia is not censored.  If you don't like it, don't edit Wikipedia.  --140.180.251.41 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh yes certainly this and anything can be discussed. But there is no need to be insensitive. Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're either missing the point or being deliberately obnoxious. No one is censoring anything. Of course everyone has the right to discuss whatever topic is pertinent to this desk, but they also have the obligation to not be a dick about it. Just because you can do/say/type/spout a thing doesn't mean you should. The reason I asked the question is that I was hoping someone had access to a picture of Mr. Wiesel's tattoo, to definitely establish (as if it hasn't been established enough already) that the Neo-Nazi trolls are nothing but an uniformed pack of bigoted morons. I would suggest that's reasonable cause to discuss the topic, but I certainly don't blame Brad or anyone else for being uneasy or suspect as to the motives of the person asking the question. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 17:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Being suspect as to the motives of the person asking the question is by definition a violation of WP:AGF. You (Evanh) should know better than anyone how important WP:AGF is, because you asked this question and presumably wouldn't have appreciated accusations of neo-Nazism.  Additionally, Newyorkbrad said "it is imperative [...] that people be sensitive..." No, it's not imperative.  There's simply no policy requiring people to be sensitive.  It's a good idea and highly recommended, obviously, but not "imperative".  That's all I objected to; otherwise I agree with Bus stop & Evanh.  --140.180.251.41 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Motives" are a function of wording. Wording should be sensitive and not insensitive. Bus stop (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Asking for sources that establish that Elie Wiesel currently has a tattoo is a different thing entirely from someone coming along and saying "Well, if he was in auschwitz how come he doesnt have a tattoo, huh?" One is an explicit request for sources for a stated purpose, while the other could easily be read as an invitation to debate by someone who has an agenda to push. I had the context of Osman's reply to my thread in December to refer back to in order to establish that he wasn't here to push an agenda. Brad may not have had the same benefit, and it was ambiguously worded enough that he had good cause to be suspicious. If Brad had blanked the question with a note to the effect that it was neo-Nazi spam, then AGF may be relevant. Merely stating that we should be careful not to give racist fringe theories more legitimacy than they deserve is not an AGF violation. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 18:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a typical conspiracy theory. Here's a source from a few months ago, where the journalist themselves saw the tattoo. "Aha!" shout the conspiracists, who of course, have no agenda whatsoever in trying to somehow 'disprove' the Holocaust by attacking one tiny detail. "Where are the photos?". Weisel himself gives the answer in that article, "Usually I don't show it,", except, it seems, to that journalist, Obama and Merkel. I can certainly understand why. Because if he did react to the speculation, which is a fairly repugnant thing to wish to do, it'd do no good. The theorists would simply call it a fake, PhotoShopped, inked, or recently tattooed. Logical arguments aren't really the issue here - people trying, because their ideology say so, to refute the wholesale slaughter of 6,000,000 people, aren't really going to be too bothered about logic.Or truth. --Dweller (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ^What he said. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: the question is as analog as asking if Alicia Esteve Head is a 9/11 survivor. It doesn't imply that you are constructing a conspiracy theory aroud 9/11. And BTW, no matter what you say, how relevant or well sourced something is, conspiracists won't change. It's not worth taking them into account. I have never seen one been converted. They always have a catch all argument for any evidence: "the evidence was constructed so you won't notice the conspiracy." OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds pretty reasonable. But tell me please, why then do you need to know whether someone who obviously doesn't want to show it, has a tattoo? &mdash; Sebastian 20:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't need to, and it is not just whether someone has a tattoo. It's not as if I were asking about Britney Spears' or Angelina Jolie tattoo disaster. I was asking about a notable writer, who built his notability upon surviving the holocaust. If he appears on a picture showing his forearm without a tattoo, it leads to certain questions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You say "leads to" as if it were a natural effect that you have no influence over. But you are a thinking and deciding human being. There are millions of questions one can follow in the world. Why, of all these questions, do you feel this one is worthwhile asking? He did not merely "buil[d] his notability upon surviving the holocaust", but by expressively writing about it. That doesn't "lead" me to want to see his tattoo. If someone tells you they are Jewish or Muslim, does that mean it "leads" you to check whether he is circumcised? I am asking this question of you because (1) I have a very hard time trying to understand what motivates you, and because (2) it will help us meet your need if you can explain it. &mdash; Sebastian 22:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are about 150 questions on the Reference Desk. Do you intend to ask each OP why they want the answer to a certain question?  If the answer is simply "because I'm curious", is that good enough for you?  The Reference Desk's job is to provide references for questions, not to question the OP's reasons for asking them.  Nobody needs to justify why they want to know something, be it trivial or profound.  --140.180.251.41 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How many of these 150 are repeat questions? If an OP repeats a strange question without mentioning that he/she participated in asking that same question before, then I might ask them, too. And if someone then says "is imperative that this topic be discussed", it adds significantly to the weight of the question for the motivation. &mdash; Sebastian 00:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The widely varying reaction of survivors to their experiences are well recognised. Some have spent the decades since avoiding discussing or referring to it in any way, shape or form. Others have found thrive on telling their stories and giving witness to what they saw. I met a survivor once who proudly showed us her tattoo, referring to it sardonically as "Hitler's phone number". I can well understand that there'd be some survivors who'd rather keep it concealed. It'd come down to personal choice on an incredibly sensitive issue. Weisel can express himself fully with words, perhaps he feels no need to do so bodily, especially as many others have done so. Giving credence to the conspiracy by responding to it, would therefore be as personally offensive as it would be utterly pointless, as I explained above. --Dweller (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

police,fbi,cia,state,federal law inforcement imprisoned for crimes
looking to find data or records of the numbers of law enforcement convicted in the usa 206.125.74.123 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting topic... I would assume that someone has researched the topic before, but if so I am not finding anything about it in Wikipedia, nor I can not find anything with a quick google search.  Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that "convicted" and "imprisoned" are different things. Many people who are convicted never serve any time in prison, due to probation, plea deals, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable person who was a late-speaker
I'm looking for a story of a famous person, with the following elements:
 * The person was male
 * They were a late-speaker (ie did not speak until a relatively advanced age)


 * Their first-ever sentence was one that was complex, lengthy and impressive

I think there were other elements:


 * The first sentence was addressed to a domestic servant


 * He may have called her "madam"


 * The notable person became notable for writing, possibly philosophy


 * It might have been Bertrand Russell


 * I might have first read the story on Wikipedia!

Can anyone help? --Dweller (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thomas Babington Macaulay's first utterance has been claimed to be "Thank you, madam, the agony is abated" (answering an enquiry at age 4 after having had hot coffee spilt on his leg). It doesn't appear in our article and may therefore be apocryphal {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Put "the agony is sensibly abated" into Google, and you can find various versions of a story which has been circulating for many decades... AnonMoos (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Which reminds me of a joke: Thomas didnt talk when he was one, or even two. By 3 his parents were worried. He was evaluated and no reason could be found but the doctors declared he was clearly developmentally delayed and Thomas' parents got used to the idea that he was mute and would never talk. So they were shocked one morning when he was 4 years old to hear him say, "the toast is cold". And they said in surprise "Thomas, you can talk! Why havent you talked before this?" And Thomas replied, "Up to now, everything's been fine." alteripse (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That reminds me of the notoriously taciturn husband. He was wonderful in every way, and they had remained happily together for 40 years - but conversation was definitely not one of his strengths.  One day his wife said to him "Darling, you never tell me you love me.  I don't remember the last time you told me".  He turned to her and said "What did I tell you the day I asked you to marry me?"  She said, "Well, you said you loved me and wanted to be with me always".  He said, "That's right.  If anything ever changes, you'll be the first to know".  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  08:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A family story concerning my goodself was that I was rather late in starting to speak and communicated by pointing at what I wanted. One afternoon, I was left in the care of a neighbour to whom I recounted the entire story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears; I had just been biding my time. I have a dim recollection of the event, but whether I really remember it or have pieced it together from later retellings, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I heard this story about a late speaker: A child is nearly 5 and has never said a word. One evening at the dinner table, the child says, "Please pass the salt." The parents are stunned. "You can talk! Why haven't you said anything before?" The young'un says, "Well, up till now, everything was OK." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's definitely the Macauley story, but oddly, [I think!] I've never heard of him before. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A question about formal logic
Logic is the widest subject for me. I am very interested in logic. I have encountered Infinitary logic, Fuzzy logic, and Set theory, but I get confused, which among these should be the focus of my readings? I think that these subjects are more on mathematics than actual logic. Anyway, I find propositional logic and calculus to be very practical and very useful. This motivated me to ask the question: Is propositional calculus and logic the core content of formal or mathematical logic? And, is it a form of classical logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.15.149 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It might help us to know what your interest in logic is. For example, do you want to be able to point out logical fallacies in order to win debates ? StuRat (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in making and testing the validity of arguments, which is very useful in argumentation. However, I also would like to have some basic understanding about mathematical logic. I think logic and mathematics are still greatly different, although they are both formal sciences. What can you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.15.149 (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * fuzzy logic is usually part of applied mathematics and AI. IBE (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mathematical logic is not so much the logic of mathematics as it is the mathematics of logic. You seem to have more or less come to that conclusion on your own.  So it's probably not what you're directly seeking.
 * That said, to me, it's one of the most fascinating studies ever entered into by the mind of Man. So I'd encourage you to spend at least some little time looking into the basics of it.  Many of the very early concepts in mathematical logic (for example first-order logic) are relevant to the things you're asking about. --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Skipping church due to illness?
Can a person skip church due to being seriously ill? Can the person feign illness in order to skip church? 140.254.226.251 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The answer to your questions are "yes" and "yes." To my knowledge, there is no country where church attendance is legally mandated, nor is there any Christian denomination that requires a record of perfect attendance. In fact, I suspect the vast majority of churches don't even keep records of such things. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 17:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What if I change "church" to "house of worship"? 140.254.226.251 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the answer would remain the same. I'm sure there are some houses of worship somewhere that keep a record of attendance, but I doubt any of them would be prone to do anything about someone not showing up. I don't think failure to attend worship services is legally actionable in any jurisdiction (I could be wrong, though; some very conservative Muslim nations may have laws pertaining to this). Unless it's a very small community, there's a good chance the person's absence wouldn't even be missed, and a similar chance that no one would think to inquire as to its cause. If you are asked, and claim to be sick when you were not, it's unlikely anyone would care enough to launch a full-scale investigation into your recent state of health. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Can a person become a member at more than one church and alternate attendance at the chosen churches, or does the person have to attend the church to which he or she has given his or her loyalty or has been granted membership of the religious community? By the way, can a person become a Jew, Christian, and Muslim at the same time? 140.254.226.251 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Many of those religions are mutually self-exclusive. For example, you must believe Jesus was the son of God to be a Christian, and you must not believe that to be a Muslim or Jew.  So, such a belief would be considered apostasy.  In many cases, they might not actually do anything about it, but those strict Muslim communities might. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking you "can" do pretty much anything when it comes to church membership and attendance, constrained by your ability to juggle attendance in a way that won't cause suspicion or result in some form of sanction against you (a Catholic priest, for example, may not be too happy if he hears rumors of you frequenting the local Baptist church once a month, or the Methodist congregation every third Sunday). With regard to conversion, Islam regards any person who assents to the doctrines and teachings of the religion to be a de facto Muslim. Protestantism generally requires only baptism and a brief declaration of faith in the basic tenets of (the particular denomination of) Christianity. Catholicism will require baptism as well, but also confirmation and a course of catechism study in some form. Judaism is somewhat more complicated, as no rabbi of any Jewish religious movement would perform a conversion on anyone openly pledging allegiance to any other religion, least of all Christianity. You could lie about it, of course, but your conversion is likely to be invalidated once it becomes known that you converted under false pretenses (I imagine this would also be the case for Catholicism, but I'm not sure). Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. See also the helpful fictional reference Life of Pi, where the main character practices all the main religions at once. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suspect that in some conservative Muslim communities, never attending the mosque would get you in trouble. However, even they realize that dragging the seriously ill to the mosque is inappropriate, as they may get everyone else sick, and vomiting and having diarrhea in a mosque isn't exactly "respectful". StuRat (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OP, there seems to be an unstated element to your first two questions: "Can I skip church, feign illness etc without incurring some penalty, punishment, or sanction?". But you haven't stated what these hypothetical fates worse than death might be.  If you're talking about going to Hell for eternity, or some lesser penance commensurate with a lesser sin, you'd better consult your priest/minister about that.  If you're talking about the Church Police turning up at your house and dragging you kicking and screaming to church, that doesn't happen in civilised societies.  If you're talking about your own guilty conscience, that's a matter between you and yourself.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP geolocates to Ohio State. Hardly civilised society. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I should refer to the Test Acts at this point - in seventeenth-century England (not _that_ uncivilized by absolute standards), it _was_ compulsory to go to church if one wished to hold any sort of public office. Tevildo (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not every Sunday however -- the point was to demonstrate affiliation with the Church of England, not to enforce regular Sunday attendance. AnonMoos (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be easier for such a person to hold an "Unaffiliated" status, because such a person is unaffiliated with any religious body. At the same time, that person may be a visitor at local congregations to savor different religious experiences in many different ways, while holding up the "Unaffiliated" sign. Such a person may alternate attendance at various churches but may raise his or her children in only one particular faith, which in the opinion of the person, is the most reliable one. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Practically it is very hard to raise children in a faith you do not practise yourself. Many, perhaps most, places of worship welcome visitors. Rmhermen (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Does the questioner understand the difference between "Can"(Is it physically possible?) and "May (Might the act incur the wrath of earthly or heavenly beings?). Edison (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can skip church due to an illness. You will find no salvation in church attendance, it is simply a means to an end. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I dated a Catholic once with a rather strict/religious father. The Catholic Church states that mass attendance is mandatory on Sundays and on other Holy days of obligation.  Interestingly attending a Saturday service that followed the Sunday Mass appeared to fulfill this obligation.  According to her father, at least, attending my church did not fulfill her obligation so if she went to church with me, she had to go twice.  Later, when he began attending Latin Mass, she had to attend the Latin Mass even if she already attended the regular Catholic Mass.  This was more of her father's restrictions than the Church; however, some Catholics have mentioned that they aren't allowed to receive the Holy Communion if they did not attend Mass the prior week.  That said, there are many Catholics, like members of other denominations, who frequently miss church service.  Aside from this, there have been, and still are, areas in the United States where church attendance is culturally mandated, but infrequent absences due to sickness would still be acceptable in these regions.  The Bible Belt is a well known area where this culture exists, but there are many other small towns with similar characteristics.  Town leaders and business owners make sure it is well known that they attend church, and while it is not uncommon to see a church fill from the rear, in many of these areas, members of the congregation will sit in the front so that they can be seen doing so.  This said, many frequent attendees may not actively practice the tenants of their religion outside of church; conversely, there are those who actively practice their religion, but attend religious services infrequently. Ryan Vesey 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A particular denomination may mandate and oblige as it pleases, but such are ultimatly irrelevant and may even be harmful, with repect to a member's salvation. Here are two facts from the Bible (paraphrased): salvation does not come by way of works, nor can holy devotion be compelled, for it must be desired, less it be empty and vain. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which may be true for Seventh Day Adventists or whatever you are, but not for the Catholic Church, which is what Ryan was talking about. However, if that girl in Ryan's story went to mass and took communion more than once in a single day (or more than once in a single week), that's A Bad Thing, Catholically speaking. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be true, Adam. See COMMUNION TWICE A DAY and Why does the Church teach that works can obtain salvation? which points out that Catholics don't teach that although it misrepresents the usual Protestant position. Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not making some sort of denominational interpretation, I'm just laying out the facts as they are written. I can insist that you are from Tanzania, but that does not make it so. Likewise, what any denomination insists, cannot override what is written in Scripture. The most I can do is pretend that you are from Tanzania, and the most a denomination can do is pretend to be God, and retract what was established, and we all know (I hope) what the implications are of such pretence. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather, you shouldn't be insisting that a) your interpretation of scripture is the only valid one and b) that because your denomination holds that the Holy Bible and only the Holy Bible contains the necessary rules for living a christian life (Sola scriptura) does not mean that Christian denominations that believe something different are wrong. They are wrong according to the rules of the denomination you follow which is fine, but they are not wrong according to the rules of their own denomination, which is what is relevant for this current discussion.  What you or I believe to be correct based on what our own denominations follow is irrelevant to a discussion about what Catholic doctrine tells Catholics is correct or wrong.  -- Jayron  32  00:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I bolded 'not' for clarity. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bolding it doesn't make it true anymore than when you first stated it. You are making statements which are specific to certain denominations and not others.  To make a claim that the interpretation of your denomination can be applied to the interpretations of another, like Catholicism, and based on that interpretation claim that Catholicism is wrong; well that's just not valid.  You can state that based on the interpretation of your denomination, you would consider Catholicism's position wrong, but the Catholic position on the matter is entirely internally consistent with Catholic doctrine.  When you state "what any denomination insists, cannot override what is written in Scripture." is simply false, in the sense that Catholics don't see what they practice as overriding anything written in scripture.  You may see it that way, and the official doctrine of your denomination may see it that way, but insofar as Catholics don't, you can't make unilateral statements that imply that Catholicism is in the wrong.  You can state that you believe them to be in the wrong, but you need to make clear the distinction between views expressed based on your own personal beliefs versus principles which are not in dispute.  -- Jayron  32  14:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not making statements which are specific to certain denominations, I am paraphrasing. Paraphrasing and interpreting are two very different concepts. Of course the catholic position on the matter is consistent with Catholic doctrine, I am not agrueing against that. What they see their practise as, is irrelevant, opinions don't count when it comes to logic - add will always mean add, and substract will always mean substract, irrespective of what I opinionate concerning it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Catholics would argue that what a denomination insists can easily override what is written in Scripture, see Papal infallibility. If a denomination accepts Papal infallibility, any requirements not explicitly stated in the Bible can be added. Ryan Vesey 08:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Certainly, that does not contradict my comments at all. No one can stop you from accepting that which you fancy. In any case, Scripture still remains independent from the denomination - it remains their reference not their work. It would be like someone going to Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and crossing out E = mc2 and writting E = m/cπ, and then saying that is correct and acceptable because they say so. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that all denominations who agree on "sola scriptura" have managed to disagree with each other on very nearly every other theological topic you can imagine. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 08:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "I'm not making some sort of denominational interpretation, I'm just laying out the facts as they are written." Please read with careful attention in the future before you comment. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When that person makes those changes, the work is no longer of Einstein, but of that person, albeit heavily plagiarised. Any subsequent studies based on the new work would be unique as well. Thus, if one were to modify Scripture in such a way, they would be creating a unique source for a unique religion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Scripture itself was written and compiled by different denominations - the Bible most Protestants use is different than the one Catholics use. Which scriptures to use, in which translation, how much weight to give to them as opposed to other traditions, and how to interpret them are all decisions made by different denominations in different ways. thx1138 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "I'm not making some sort of denominational interpretation, I'm just laying out the facts as they are written." There you go, it is a unique religion, with unique scripture. For example, they deify Mary and the Pope, so it's not just the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but also Mary, and the Pope.


 * I've never heard of any religion that deifies Mary or the Pope. Which one were you thinking of?  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  19:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * According to their own encyclopedias, and authorised writings, Mary and the Pope are imbued with God-like abilities and natures. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When you left your comments unsigned, I assumed you were trolling, because nobody able to cope with editing and indenting properly could surely be so ignorant as to think that the Catholic Church actually imbues Mary or the Pope with God-like abilities. I mean, if you have access to the internet, the ability to use a search engine, basic reading comprehension, and an interest in the topic, it would take wilful ignorance to think that. But here you are, signing your comment, claiming to have read "their own encyclopedias and authorised writings" (I assume you mean the Old Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catechism of the Catholic Church), so maybe you really think that. Most puzzling. But then, there are people who reach adulthood convinced the moon only comes out at night, so I suppose it takes all sorts. 81.156.144.160 (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, unpicking that: adult Catholics have an obligation to try their very best to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of obligation. Attending a different service at another church doesn't count, because it is not the Mass. If you're ill, or there's some other good reason (which doesn't include "I really wanted to watch this film" or "I had a football match"), then that's fine. Placing trivial things ahead of Mass and your duty to God (for example, by not attending Mass because you wanted a lie in, or because you wanted to go to a concert, or something) is considered grave matter in Catholic teaching. If you commit a sin involving grave matter, on purpose, knowing that it is grave, then that is a mortal sin. If you have committed a mortal sin, then receiving Communion is "eating and drinking judgement" on yourself, so you shouldn't receive Communion (as a Catholic) until you have been to the Sacrament of Reconciliation to wipe the sin away (and you're supposed to do that anyway). For the purposes of obligation, the day is considered to start the evening before, so Saturday evening counts for Sunday.


 * Adam is a little confused. Catholics are encouraged to attend Mass and receive Communion more than once a week, although the obligation (the minimum) is only weekly for attendance, and annually for Communion. It used to be that the Church restricted Communion to once a day, to avoid people treating it like a charm to be taken in greater and greater quantities. In more recent decades, this has been loosened to twice or more a day (as a maximum), provided that it is received in the context of a Mass, but the clarifications on this clearly suggest this is intended to let people receive Communion at Masses they were otherwise attending for some other reason (like the girlfriend who goes with her father).


 * The girlfriend didn't have an obligation to attend both a Tridentine Mass and an Ordinary form Mass, but may have had personal reasons for doing so. 86.140.54.54 (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To answer the OP's original question: Yes, you can skip church whenever you like even if you are perfectly healthy. I've managed to avoid all houses of worship and religious observances for years without suffering any ill effects. If anything, it has enhanced my mental well-being tremendously. —D Monack (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The "greater sin" axiom would apply here. If you're sick, attending might spread your sickness to others and cause them physical harm. That would be a greater sin than not attending. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe in the Church of Bugs. In the Catholic Church (the only one I know with an explicit obligation), there would be no sin at all in not attending because you were ill. No "greater sin" idea, simply no sin at all. Not anything about spreading illness: just no sin, because you're not doing anything wrong. 86.140.54.54 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Llywelyn the Last
Would Llywelyn the Last be the twelfth Prince of Wales before its conquest by Edward I of England?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not according to List_of_Princes_of_Wales, but I strongly suspect that this is an area where historiography plays an important role and different scholars will count the princes in very different ways. Our article is strongly rooted in an Anglocentric worldview. A historian less bothered about English recognition would have a very different list but then, I seem to remember, things get complicated, as you have claimants to the title that aren't universally recognised as such, even by Welsh historians. --Dweller (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck some of that - it's a long time since I studied the issues, it's late at night and I'm not convinced I'm right. Where's User:Clio the Muse when you need her? --Dweller (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks for reply Dweller. Looking at Llywelyn the Last's Family tree it shows him as one of the twelve before its conquest by Edward I of England, taking in consideration that English recognition might not be consistant on this. Hopefully I'll get some additional answers on this.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That family tree doesn't exclusively list Princes of Wales. It listed his father who never ruled and his daughter and the descendants of his brothers who never ruled either but were just prisoners of the English. Only Dafydd ap Llywelyn, Llywelyn the Last and Dafydd ap Gruffydd used the specific title "Prince of Wales" before the English conquest, but there were many other kings and princes of the different Welsh kingdoms listed on List of rulers of Wales. Also counting rulers is really arbitrary since we got period of history where Llywelyn contended the rule of Gwynedd with his brother Owain Goch ap Gruffydd. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that nothing like the primogeniture inheritance of the right of rule in all of Wales ever existed in the way it did in the Kingdom of England. It may have been developing by the time period under discussion, but it never came to fruition because Wales was conquered by England.  Instead, Wales (like Ireland and earlier Anglo-Saxon England) was full of petty states ruled by various clan/tribal leaders.  At times, a particularly strong leader would establish a temporary Hegemony over several other kingdoms; this sometimes extended to most (though probably not ever all) of Wales, especially in the case of Llewellyn the Great, but this sort of hegemony was akin to a sort of high kingship or Bretwalda (to use the Anglo Saxon term): it was not a heritable title, was not passed down through families as a matter of law, and only lasted as long as the person in question could maintain his power through politics and force of arms.  At the very end (after Llewellyn the Great) there came a time when the "Prince of Wales" title looked to be developing into a hereditary kingdom, akin to what happened to the Bretwalda that developed over the centuries into the King of England (through the long Hegemony of a single family, the House of Wessex), but that process never completed, as Wales lost its status as an independent land by the middle 1200s.  -- Jayron  32  14:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayron32. I see I have some studying to do here.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want some of the original sources, Brut y Tywysogion is probably worth looking into. King of Wales is also some good reading; it discusses the putative Welsh kingdom; it represents a historiographical concept rather than a historical fact, as only one person ever ruled all of Wales, and then only briefly, and he never used the title "King of Wales", rather titles like "Prince of Wales" and "King of the Britons" was used.  From the King of the Britons article, you can see how the title passed around between the various major Welsh principalities like Gwynedd, Powys, and Deheubarth but never represented a the sort of kingship we come to associate with places like England, France, etc.  -- Jayron  32  00:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional information. This is great! I see this is going to keep me busy for some time.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Where can I find an introduction to austerity vs. stimulus?
Recently someone pointed me to this Paul Krugman video as an example of Krugman's arguments for economic stimulus instead of austerity being "demolished" but as you can see from the segment starting at 49:25 Krugman gives three reasons that he and his colleagues have been proven right (interest rates, inflation, and the results of government spending cuts). This is all very confusing to me, and honestly, Wikipedia's articles on the subjects involved to not make the explanations any simpler.

So, my question is, where can I get a simplified summary of the major arguments in favor of supply-side austerity on one hand, and the major arguments for demand-side Keyensian stimulus for job creation on the other, with evidence and rebuttals, preferably geared towards something like a High School reading level? 71.215.68.213 (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Which of Wikipedia's articles have you looked at so far? You could make it easier for us to help you if you helped us avoid posting something here that isn't helpful for you. &mdash; Sebastian 22:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Austerity, supply-side economics, Keynesian economics, macroeconomics, liquidity crisis, financial crisis of 2007–2008, Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, regulatory responses to the subprime crisis, subprime mortgage crisis solutions debate, Great Recession, causes of the Great Recession, consumer spending, aggregate demand, anti-austerity protests, pensions crisis, and several others which aren't as closely related as any of those, so I won't bore you with them. I do have two specific suggestions:
 * Stimulus (economics), where I would expect to find what I am looking for, needs to be more than a two sentence stub, and
 * demand-side economics really needs to exist. It's got half a million Google hits. 71.215.68.213 (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's an impressive list! If you looked at all of these, you certainly did your homework! I agree that "demand-side economics" or "demand side economics" is an important term that deserves an article. The latter currently is a redirect to Keynesian economics, but that page only mentions that term in passing. &mdash; Sebastian 23:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Be aware here that framing the debate as austerity versus job creation is, in some people's views, to take a negative stance on austerity. The two are not necessarily opposing poles. --Dweller (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Granted, I've replaced "job creation" with "stimulus". 71.215.68.213 (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also note that austerity and stimulus aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, either. That is, stimulus can be used during economic downturns, and austerity when the economy is booming, to pay off all the money borrowed during the stimulus (or better yet, to save up money for when it's needed for the next stimulus period).  Actually getting politicians to practice austerity in good times, however, is darned near impossible. StuRat (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That happened in the US in the late 1990s, but tax cuts and war in the early 2000s undid it several times over. Most of the time war involves a tax increase, so I wonder if "darned near impossible" reflects what actually would have happened under a more typical series of events. 71.215.68.213 (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * []. 23:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm looking for something in a pros-cons-evidence-rebuttals format, not an ideological reflection on proponents. 71.215.68.213 (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, try as you might, you're probably in the wrong place. Honestly, if you're going to delve into monetary policy, you're going to be largely on your own. Don't think this is new. It's been true since the first fiat currency was created. There are a lot of smart, active traders on wall street that believe deeply in the gold standard, or whatever variation is up at the moment. This has been going on since Madison. There are very few true fiat currencies in play. Many are tagged to the Euro, or the Pound, or the Dollar. If you really want to blow your mind, look at bitcoin. Shadowjams (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stimulus and austerity are fiscal policies as opposed to monetary. (But fiscal policy doesn't have a good summary of both points of view, either. So far, austerity comes closest, but it's written at a graduate or postgraduate level, mostly.) 168.103.90.42 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing I should point out is that stimulus helps in the short term, and hurts in the long term, when the bill comes due. Austerity, on the other hand, helps in the long term, but can hurt in the short term. StuRat (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While that's a probably accurate platitude, I don't know if any economists back it up. Shadowjams (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Cause it's probably not accurate, either. The economy is not a household budget. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As quoted in Austerity:

IMF managing director Christine Lagarde wrote in August 2011: "For the advanced economies, there is an unmistakable need to restore fiscal sustainability through credible consolidation plans. At the same time we know that slamming on the brakes too quickly will hurt the recovery and worsen job prospects. So fiscal adjustment must resolve the conundrum of being neither too fast nor too slow. Shaping a Goldilocks fiscal consolidation is all about timing. What is needed is a dual focus on medium-term consolidation and short-term support for growth. That may sound contradictory, but the two are mutually reinforcing. Decisions on future consolidation, tackling the issues that will bring sustained fiscal improvement, create space in the near term for policies that support growth."


 * StuRat (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What both parties have learned over time is that government spending helps fuel the economy, and government austerity helps to shrink it. The monkey wrench in the system is that the "job creators" in America have been creating lots of offshore jobs rather than hiring Americans, which counteracts the theoretically beneficial effects of govenrment spending. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? Austerity means tax increases, and stimulus means spending increases.  That's less than half the actual potentiality. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Austerity can mean both spending cuts and tax increases. It basically means that the government is trying to live within it's means, both by reducing spending to match it's means, and by increasing taxes (or reducing loopholes) to increase those means.  The austerity is on the part of the public, which now gets fewer benefits, and, perhaps, pays more taxes. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Deficit reduction in the United States is reasonably current and informative. 70.59.19.61 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)