Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 7

= March 7 =

All notable philosophers = Mathematical geniuses?
Undoubtedly, all prominent philosophers (Machiavelli, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Saul Karl Marx) have high IQ to the point that they have the right to be narcissistic, although none of them is. I think they can answer almost all questions, but despite their high IQ, is it possible that they have some academic or intellectual weaknesses? For example are all notable philosophers mathematical geniuses? or are there some philosophers who hates it or weak at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.15.149 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is your evidence that "all prominent philosophers...have high IQ"? -- Jayron  32  03:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The only notable philosophers I can think of who might be considered brilliant mathematicians are Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, and Russell. Looie496 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't count Gödel as a philosopher? He wasn't trained as one, of course, and academic philosophers tend to think he made a lot of mistakes, but he was absolutely fundamental to contemporary philosophy of mathematics.  Gotlob Frege, Hao Wang, Alan Turing, Willard Van Orman Quine, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Montague surely get somewhere into the mix as well. --Trovatore (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we need to supply evidences to prove the intelligence of different prominent philosophers. Prominent philosophers are those who are academically and historically recognized. These includes Hobbes, Locke, Nozick, and Rawls. Of course, one reason for their prominence in academic discussions is their intellectual capacity that surpasses most people. Now my question is:, is it possible for them to be weak at some subjects specifically mathematics, despite their philosophical intelligence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.15.149 (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wittgenstein was more "mathematical crackpot" than "mathematical genius". --Trovatore (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible for a great philosopher to be very weak at maths if they have no interest it and never study it. Or perhaps someone alerts them to one aspect of maths, like set theory, then they might read up on that, but still be pretty ignorant about other aspects, like trigonometry. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't construe Trovatore's comment in the direction that Wittgenstein was weak at maths. Being a crackpot means that you have a lot of fringe theories at best, not that you are not good at mainstream theories. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Somehow, philosophers like Kierkegaard and Sartre don't strike me as potential mathematical geniuses, but maybe I'm wrong. Some schools of philosophy depend strongly on logic, and have as a result significant kinship with mathematics; others are much more litterary (like existentialism, as the two examples I give above, or even Nietzsche), in which case the links to mathematics are much more tenuous. --Xuxl (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Readers ignore the word "said"
I once was told to be careful about using words other than "said" unless I really want to draw attention to it, because readers basically ignore the word said but will get tripped up reading words like "mentioned" or "added." First, is this true? And second, where can I find a reputable source to say this? As you can imagine, this is a difficult query to Google. 64.106.114.172 (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem true to me, although words like "alleged" in place of "said" might draw attention to the fact that you don't necessarily believe it. BTW, wouldn't the Language Desk be a better place for this Q ?  StuRat (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this a request for references? Maybe someone can suggest a better forum?  The language ref desk is certainly no more relevant than this one. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's more about how people read words than the words themselves, so I opted for this one instead. I'm not opposed to its being moved, however. 64.106.114.172 (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can find it lots of places, for example rules 3 and 4 of Elmore Leonard's 10 rules. Looie496 (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, our article on Tom Swiftys might be interesting in this context. Looie496 (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Never let it be said stated, asserted or declared that I would follow such a "rule". Using the same word over and over again seems to me a stylistic faux pas and the sign of a limited writer. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You should try the exercise of pulling out some fiction book whose style you particularly liked, ideally one with lots of dialog, and look at how the author handled this. I think you'll be surprised. Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A bit of a mixed bag: Pride and Prejudice has a fair amount of "cry"ing and "reply"ing, but Phineas Finn is mostly "say"ing. In the best and worst of times, it starts out more varied, then seems to settle down mostly to "said". I will admit it occurs much more frequently than I'd been aware of. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The search term you need is "dialogue tags". Consensus among contemporary novelists is exactly what you said - the overuse of creative tags is distracting to the reader, while "said" is neutral and therefore creates better flow, letting the reader focus on what the characters are saying. The best writers go beyond by using very few verbal tags at all. Some references:, , , . 184.147.116.201 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Many people use the word "go" in place of any of the traditional options. It's an irregular verb in that it exists only in the present tense, but is still perfectly useful for past tense contexts.  Or so someone goes to me.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  17:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agency staff
As used here, what are "agency staff"? Did Mrs Brown have to call people whom Americans would call "temporary employees", e.g. Manpower Inc.? Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. StuRat (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez net worth at death
I'm hearing figures of 2 billion. Is this true? False? Ultimately unknowable? Somewhere in between? Citation battle! Ab e g92 contribs 04:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reliable source claiming that. I would be wary of such information, since a lot of malicious misinformation has always been spread about him, mainly from US sources. 82.0.112.151 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, you mean from the people that "infected" him with cancer? Speaking of "misinformation". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Misinformation can't be bi-directional? 131.251.133.27 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No question about it, it can be. The point being, last I knew they hadn't even owned up to which type of cancer he had, so how likely are they to provide useful and valid information about his net worth? For one thing, theoretically an extreme socialist should have almost no "net worth", unless he's (gasp!) a hypocrite. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, Bugs, you have no factual information on this subject, just opinions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, our own Hugo Chávez article reiterates that his type of cancer has not been revealed. Feel free to make corrections to that article if your own factual information is better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is this mysterious "they" and why do you have to "own up" to types of cancer? is cancer a crime now? And who said he was an "extreme socialist"? It's precisely the sad and sorry attempt to create the "hypocrite" claim that's the issue here. It reminds me of all those Hollywood movies on which apparently ideologically motivated revolutionaries or 'terrorists' all turn out to be thieves motivated by money. Because (gasp!) no one can really be motivated by ideals can they?! Everyone's really a capitalist. It's reassuring to believe that. Paul B (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If they are going to accuse the US government of somehow "infecting" him with cancer, then they have to be more open about it. That's where it stops. As for being motivated by "ideals", one of his "ideals" was buddying up to a nation that wants to destroy Israel. So much for "ideals". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I say, who is this mysterious "they"? As for Israel, you seem to be saying that no-one can have ideals that happen to differ from your own. Charming. Paul B (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, genocide is charming, no question about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And complacent ranting is not informative. This is the point. We have to acknowledge that even views we disagree with or even deplore can result from ideals: ideals we choose to reject, for sure. It's more comfortable to believe otherwise. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling genocide an "ideal that happens to differ with ours" is not informative either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As per 82.0, I see no reliable sources on the matter (the only referenced source is apparently a think tank or lobbying group with virtually no web presence or secondary search results), and lean toward "ultimately unknowable". Chavez can probably be fairly described as being somewhere on the autocrat spectrum, and so how do you divide up the net worth of various nationalized industries?  On the other hand, his Chavismo politics should not be confused with an extremist "no personal possessions" style of socialism.  For instance, there are good sources for other billionaires in Venezuela, at least two of whom are valued at $4+ billion USD and acknowledged political opponents of Chavez.  So we can fairly rule out "hypocrite" as a useful categorization, at least in this regard. &mdash; Lomn 14:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the implication of Bugs' post. Chavez' net worth is in inverse relationship to the extremeness of his views. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Dafydd ap Llywelyn
In the article it says He was for a time recognised as Prince of Wales. Even after re-reading the article I don't understanding what "time" they are referring to. Can I get some dates they are speaking of as him being "recognised" as Prince of Wales? Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's article King of the Britons gives an uncited note that he was so recognized as Prince of Wales by "treaty with England". -- Jayron  32  13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like then from around 1220.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

what benefits does the legal precedent of killing american citizens via drone attacks?
The previous version of this question was removed as hypothetical. So, in light of Obama's

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/02/05/justice-department-chilling-drone-white-paper/

"On Monday night, NBC News’s Michael Isikoff published a Justice Department memo justifying the “targeted killings” — without due process — of U.S. citizens who are leaders in al-Qaeda or “associated forces” but are “outside the area of hostile activities,” such as Afghanistan."

So, what specific benefits would this precedent have?

(I realize it may have many downsides, however this question is about benefits).

For example, I could think of the following benefits to the united states government randomly killing random civilian americans on american soil without due process or anything. Besides all the negatives (which isn't what this question is about), some positives might be:

- People might work harder, trying to "fit in" to society a bit better so that it would be politically inopportune for the government to just kill them

- People might actually live life better knowing it might be their last due to a random government killing without any due process or anything

- Perhaps some people would try to avoid this, so security and so forth could be increased for everyone, this would be a benefit to everyone as a house rigged to protect against random killing by the government might also defer petty burglars, who might instead join society as part of the normal workforce

- There could be a greater pressure to specify the legal framework and fundamentals of legal theory that makes this "wrong", as perhaps innocent people would probably be killed. so a benefit is that this might bring greater constitutional scrutiny or an amendment to end this.

would there be any other benefits? I've just listed a few off of the top of my head. I certainly appreciate that the issue raised has potentially many more negatives than positives. However, I'm just asking about any positives. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum to discuss hypothetical issues. This reference desk is designed to get references to help you answer factual questions.  --
 * Fair enough. I made it more specific for references about something that is no longer hypothetical.  However the references I receive will therefore be somewhat narrower.   Thanks for your help or answers. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're still looking for a debate. U.S. citizens are not being targeted as such. People making war on America are what's being targeted, and they can't hide behind their citizenship to get away with it. The President's job is to protect us from enemies. If those enemies happen to be Americans, he still has his job to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, note that US citizens at home are not targeted. Go ahead, booby trap your house, but unless the CIA is absolutely positive that you're working with Al Qaeda and you are training terrorists in some middle eastern country, you have nothing to worry about. Ryan Vesey 14:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Many localities are already imposing restrictions on the use of drones in America for a variety of reasons, mostly about privacy rights. That patchwork will probably yield to a blanket set of rules at some point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would you live better if you knew you might be randomly killed? It might just as easily make you lose any faith in the point of moral behaviour if the state itself engages in random acts of murder. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Is biblical studies a complete science?
When I use the term "science", I do not intend to refer to the academic subject science. I mean "science" as a "body of knowledge", like Anatomy, which is regarded as a "complete science". I wonder how fast this field of study re-update itself. 140.254.226.183 (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what a "complete" science is, as science is never "complete" in the sense of "done". I'd be inclined to call any study of religion a Social science. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest that you read History of anatomy and skip to the conclusion in which it states "Anatomy is often regarded as being a complete science, in that we know what and where most of the body is and does with little left to discover." From my experience, I have heard of that claim many times, in textbooks too. There is relatively little to discover in Anatomy, because I think the human body is a closed system. I don't think it implies or states that it is closed to more inquiries; it's just that we may already know all the basic parts/components. 140.254.226.183 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is a rather large carrot for finding new things about the human body. Does anyone envisage this prize ever being discontinued because "there's nothing worth discovering any more"?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most research about the human body these days is more along the lines of biochemistry than anatomy. The layout of the various pieces of the body has been fairly well-established for a while. --Carnildo (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Science' has never been used to describe subjects, it's used to describe the process - the scientific process. So physics is a science if it uses scientific methods, but me trying to cook the most delicious meal for my customers is also a science, if I use the scientific method. So I make a hyothesis that adding chocolate makes everything taste better, then I go about testing it, and come up with a better hypothesis based on my results. Science is not attributed to subjects, but is a process.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 15:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't true. We consistently refer to "the sciences" and the scientific method is not used in the social sciences. Ryan Vesey 15:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding to that, it's impossible to use the scientific method to History. Historical events are not replicable in the present, and present observations may not be the direct effect of the supposed causes. 140.254.226.183 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not as if you would apply the scientific method to an object. You apply it to a theory or a hypothesis. So, historical theories or hypothesis, can be contrasted somehow with empirical evidence. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but evidence in the Humanities uses a great deal of interpretation and reach a logical conclusion by deduction. I don't think it's the same sort of evidence in the Science or maybe how it is handled that is different. 140.254.226.183 (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the definition put forward by the anatomy reference above, no, Biblical studies is not "complete". Notably, ongoing archaeological efforts continue to inform the field, both by direct historical application and by discoveries of new manuscripts. &mdash; Lomn 16:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That comment about anatomy sounds like nonsense. New discoveries are trumpeted every so often, especially at the micro level. --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The catch word is "especially at the micro level". 140.254.226.183 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Micro level is still anatomy. --Dweller (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's still anatomy. Though, I don't think it really contradicts the quote. I see the quote as an aphorism about anatomy. 140.254.226.183 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I'm happy to disagree with you. --Dweller (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Anybody care to give links? The main point of this is to actually find something interesting to read in this field. I am still trying to understand Romans. I found an article in the Journal of Biblical Studies, but that was written in the 1940s. I also want something relevant and recent too. Not something that happened 50 years ago or what scholars thought 100 years ago. 140.254.226.183 (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly is it you are looking for? Is it a commmentary?  If so, I've heard that John F. MacArthur writes very good ones. Ryan Vesey 16:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The missing magic word in this discussion is hermeneutics. The question needs to be directed to Biblical hermeneutics. alteripse (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I clicked on Biblical hermeneutics, which led me to Historical-grammatical_method. Heh-heh. I guess I was looking in the wrong area. No wonder I couldn't find what I was looking for. Duuuuhhhhhh... This site, which I discovered while browsing through Wikipedia, talks about archaeology. If I want to look for significance, then I probably have read up on theology. 140.254.226.183 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Textual criticism (and higher criticism) of the Bible is an ongoing field, perhaps just as strong now as it was in the 19th century. The Editio Critica Maior of the New Testament is an ongoing project.  For competing theoretical work, see the work of Robinson and Pierpoint, who favour the Majority Text.  For the Old Testament, there are the Oxford Hebrew Bible, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, and the Hebrew University Bible projects.  For the Septuagint, there is the Göttingen Septuagint. There are many academic journals that deal with Biblical studies in general and textual criticism in particular. For active journals, see Journal of Theological Studies, published by Oxford University; Journal for the Study of the New Testament and Journal for the Study of the Old Testament published by Sage; Vetus Testamentum, Novum Testamentum and Biblical Interpretation by Brill; and New Testament Studies by Cambridge University.  All of these are right in the academic mainstream.-- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You might be interesting in reading the recent by James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 2006) . This is under the so-called New Perspective on Paul.  -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stackexchange has an active Biblical Hermeneutics question-and-answer site. --ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the PRC invoke the Succession of states theory of international law to justify its rule of Tibet?
I’m looking for references to actual PRC government documents or policy statements that specifically mention succession of states. The question came up at the Tibetan sovereignty debate article last summer, and the upshot was that no one found such a reference (which surprised me). Here are sources that I checked where I can’t find mention of the PRC claiming succession of states:
 * ”The Making of Modern Tibet” Volumes 1 and 2 and “The Snow Lion and the Dragon” by Melvyn Goldstein.
 * ”Dragon in the Land of Snows” by Tsering Shakya.
 * ”Demystifying Tibet” by Lee Feigon.
 * ”The Making of Modern Tibet” by Tom Grunfeld.
 * ”The Historical Status of China’s Tibet” by Wang Jia Wei and Nyima Gyancain.
 * “Tibet – Its Ownership and Human Rights Situation” (government white paper referenced in the Tibetan sovereignty debate article).
 * “The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics” (pdf) by Elliot Sperling.
 * ”The Story of Tibet” by Thomas Laird.
 * ”Tibet & Its History” by Hugh M. Richardson.

Here are a few that say the PRC claims succession of states, but provide no reference to the actual claim: --Wikimedes (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * “The Sino-Tibetan Dialogue: Talk Shop or Path to Resolution?” (pdf) by Renee Kamm p.7.
 * “All (Geo-)Politics are Local: the Consequences of the People’s Republic of China’s Military Doctrine of Local War for the East Asia Region” (pdf) Scott David Parker p.7.
 * You may find it difficult to find such an exposition, because Chinese sovereignty over Tibet has never, in the 20th century, been seriously challenged at an international level. It also would not make sense for the PRC to invoke the succession of states theory explicitly in relation to Tibet, since its argument (which is well documented), is that Tibet was incorporated into Chinese sovereity in medieval times and has never left it. I guess the succession of states doctrine is implicitly invoked within this argument, in the sense that the PRC claims to have succeeded to the ROC which succeeded the Qing empire which (the PRC, the ROC and the Qing empire all claim or claimed) was sovereign over Tibet.
 * However, the succession is not generally at issue when discussing the legal status of Tibet - whether the PRC successfully succeeded the ROC does not make much of a difference to the sovereignty of Tibet. The key questions are (1) whether the Qing empire either inherited or acquired sovereignty over Tibet, and (2) whether some time after the fall of the Qing empire Tibet acquired an independent sovereignty. The succession of states bears little relevance on these questions.
 * The situation is different for Taiwan, as whether the PRC, at law, has succeeded to the sovereignty represented by the ROC is directly determinative of whether Taiwan (at law) is part of the PRC's sovereign territory or not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the PRC's position is more along the lines of "Tibet has always been a part of China" and doesn't bother to get into the legal details of the succession of states theory. You'd be surprised at how often Wikipedia articles claim that the PRC invokes succession of states to justify its rule of Tibet, though.  Thank you for another valuable answer.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Marijuana tax stamp
So evidently one of my friends has a sibling wanted for "possessing marijuana without a tax stamp". Since possession of marijuana is illegal in the first place, what is the purpose of a tax stamp being required? Wouldn't anyone trying to buy such a tax stamp be arrested for possession of marijuana anyway? (Jurisdiction is Kansas.) Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First result from Googling the phrase and Kansas turns up this concise explanation. It's either a clever revenue scheme or just another way to throw the book at someone doing illegal activities. My guess is the latter. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * According to that article, that law has been repealed for 40+ years. So it's not that. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (EC with all above) Well a simple search finds, , . If you add Kansas you get , , , , . It's possible some of these laws predate marijuana basically being illegal in every state as well as federally but from the Kansas results a number of which discuss the situatuion in other states, it sounds like many of them are new. In terms of the self incrimination bit, well that was what killed Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. However as per the Kansas results, while that has also sometimes been a problem with the new state laws, in some cases including Kansas it has been addressed or at least attempts were made to address it. For example by forbidding sharing of information and allowing it to be done anonymously. Of course it's not abnormal for tax authorities to expect tax even from illegal activities although having a tax which only targets illegal activities is I think fairly rare. Nil Einne (talk)


 * I wonder what percentage of marijuana dealers pay this tax. Seems to be quite an admission that the War on Drugs is a failure.  Another is drug-free school zones.  If the war on drugs had worked, neither would be needed.  StuRat (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just on the general issue of taxing illegal activities in the U.S. The IRS absolutely expects you to pay proper taxes on illegal activities.  See Al Capone for a famous example.  He was specifically tried and convicted for not paying taxes on his illegal alcohol smuggling business during prohibition.  It turns out it was easier to get evidence of that crime than of the actual illegal activity that produced the money in the first place.  IIRC, there were coded books and complex money laundering schemes that made it difficult to proved where the money came from, but the fact that the money could be proven  to exist in the first place was all that was needed to prove tax evasion.  -- Jayron  32  17:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the links I provided, very few. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Too bad Capone didn't plan better. He could have sold, along with each shipment of booze, a painting with an X on it, and claimed that the payment of thousands of dollars was for the "art", paid taxes on that, and stayed out of prison. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Money laundering's no joke. Check out 18 USC 1956 and 18 USC 1957. Shadowjams (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Al Capone case is of course a famous one, but there are plenty of other cases where someone believed to be involved in organised crime got in trouble for tax violations whether in addition to additional charges or as the sole charges. BTW, one of the reasons I mentioned it earlier is because I believe I've heard of tax authorities providing some degree of unofficial advice to those engaged in criminal activity on how to properly comply with their taxation requirements. Definitely in the case of prostitution in the places where it is illegal but somewhat tolerated but also possibly to the extent of organised crime. Unfortunately I can't provide refs as I couldn't find any, and no I'm not thinking of the silly ACORN 'sting' (or any of the related stings) in the US. Of course it seems clear not many fully comply, particularly in the organised crime case as the cases show. One key reason is likely that they have no desire to give away more of their money then needed, particularly to a government they presumably only have a tenuous relationship with and many may assume the same care they take to avoid getting in to trouble in general will protect them against trouble due to tax violations. And in some cases, tax violations are part of their business (smuggling) anyway. When we're talking about the top level people, they can obviously afford to hire people who could advise them on how to fully comply despite the suspect nature of their business. Of course as I mentioned, these Marijuana tax laws seem somewhat unusual in that in many cases they only apparently apply to criminal behaviour. In other words, unlike the case of general taxation laws which affect those involved in things considered criminal but also apply those not involved in such things. This probably means, amongst other things, self incrimination is less of a concern, e.g. in the US there's no suggestion it generally means you don't have to comply simply that you can avoid giving away details which may indicate a crime Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bach, Persian composers
In the book Godel, Escher ,Bach the music of Bach is compared with Godel"s theoreom. I want to know whether classical persian and Indian music composers like Amir Khusrou or Tansen can be treated in same way.Solomon7968 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, any music can be. Afrer all, chose the so-so artist Escher as his visual example. Paul B (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Escher was chosen for his "conceptualism" and congruence with Hofstadter's themes in the book, not for his pure art-for-art's sake reputation... AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * He was chosen because Hofstadter had no taste. But seriously, Bach is not the only composer who wrote fugues, canons etc. I know nothing about Persian music, but playing with the limits of formal structures is common to all musical traditions. In other words it is not a question of the uniqueness of Bach any more than of the execrable Escher. Paul B (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * He's getting worse by the post. First "so-so", now "execrable".  What's your problem with Escher?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The same problem many art critics have with him. He's a designer rather than an artist. I only said execrable because I couldn't resist the alliteration. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- Hofstadter found that Drawing Hands deeply resonated with themes in his book, and that other Escher works were both entertaining and thought-provoking, and could be slotted into the book in various ways. He really didn't care about Escher's reputation among professional art critics, nor do most readers of the book (though he did use some Magrittes as well as Escher works). AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Not much of a musical theorist, but Bach seems to be noted for composing in a particularly mathematical style. I found Can Mathematical Patterns Be Found in Johann Sebastian Bach's Two-Movement Preludes and Fugues?, A Fractal in Bach's Cello Suite, Music, Mathematics and Bach and pages and pages of similar results. No idea if Persian music falls into the same category. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not so much that he composed "in a particularly mathematical style", but that all musical scores are amenable to mathematical analysis or treatment (which is not the same as saying that the essence of the music itself is so easily captured). The works of some composers are more readily viewed through this prism than those of others, that's all.  For my money, there's more mathematics in John Cage's 4'33", which is specified as an exact period of time during which no music is played at all, than anything Bach ever wrote.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're aware, are you, of Bach's canon Quarendo invenietis, which is presented as a mathematical puzzle which must be solved before the music can be played? There are four solutions; I own a recording which covers all four. That's just one example off the top of my head; there are others. I think you must either know very little about Bach, or very little about maths. (Not to diss Cage, mind you; his work is ingenious in its own right.) AlexTiefling (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right, of course. I know very little about any subject you could possibly name.  Some less than others.  Particularly the ones I've studied in depth for decades; I know about them least of all.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not know about Persian, but since you also mentioned Indian I googled "mathematics ragas" and came up with Mathematics in carnatic music and A Statistical Analysis of Raga Ahir Bhairav so that at least is evidence that music other than Bach's has been looked at in a similar way. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

did any large-ish startups get started via kickstarter (instead of a more traditional seed round in exchange for equity)?
did any large-ish startups get started via kickstarter (instead of a more traditional seed round in exchange for equity)? I'm thinking dropbox and the like. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article on Kickstarter includes a list of the most-funded projects, which tops out at $10 million for the Pebble watch. I don't know what you consider the threshold for "large-ish", but I will note that the big Kickstarter projects are all money-for-product instead of money-for-equity.  Thus, I expect the answer to your question is "no", or at least "not yet". &mdash; Lomn 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How much dependant is my country on the U.S.?
Federated States of Micronesia. How much? In what apart from defense? FMicronesian (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * According to our article Federated States of Micronesia–United States relations, which isn't excellent, the US provides $100 million in funding to the Federated States of Micronesia annually. Ryan Vesey 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That represents 80% of the government's revenue and about 29% of GDP. Put another way, without that funding, the country's economy would shrink by more than a third, perhaps even more due to multiplier effects. Marco polo (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The US is also your largest trading partner. And, even though you said "apart from defense", don't forget all the money that brings in, from US soldiers spending money there to your citizens serving in, and being paid by, the US military. StuRat (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * From the CIA Factbook:

Economic activity consists primarily of subsistence farming and fishing. The islands have few mineral deposits worth exploiting, except for high-grade phosphate. The potential for a tourist industry exists, but the remote location, a lack of adequate facilities, and limited air connections hinder development. Under the original terms of the Compact of Free Association, the US provided $1.3 billion in grant aid during the period 1986-2001; the level of aid has been subsequently reduced. The Amended Compact of Free Association with the US guarantees the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) millions of dollars in annual aid through 2023, and establishes a Trust Fund into which the US and the FSM make annual contributions in order to provide annual payouts to the FSM in perpetuity after 2023. The country's medium-term economic outlook appears fragile due not only to the reduction in US assistance but also to the current slow growth of the private sector.


 * I'd say you need to develop tourism to compensate for reduced US assistance. In particular, you might market vacations to newly rich Chinese, who want a tropical getaway.  StuRat (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

People who lived before Jesus
What Christianity (e.g. Roman Catholicism) says about people who lived before Jesus' Incarnation in the sense of their ultimate fate? I mean does Jesus's grace and love extend to them also, despite their polytheistic views?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Polytheism didn't suddenly end the day Jesus was born, as any Hindu will confirm. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I once had a Hindu classmate who was monotheistic. He called his god "God", because he only believed in one god. He put a red dot on his forehead every morning as a way to remind him of God. Sneazy (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See harrowing of hell. I'm afraid polytheists stay there, unless they convert on seeing Jesus. Paul B (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)See Bosom of Abraham, Limbo of the Fathers and Harrowing of Hell for mainstream (but by no means universal) Christian opinions on the issue. 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 1 Peter 4:6 are the main scriptural starting points. Tevildo (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To answer the OP's question, there were many polytheists at the time of Jesus, in the ancient world. Judaism is known to be the world's first monotheistic religion, and Jesus just happens to be born into it. I am not aware of Jesus's love and grace other than the examples in the gospel accounts, and I am not aware of whether or not Jesus had personal contact with polytheistic pagans other than the Romans who supposedly executed him. I think the OP is conflating Jesus with God. It would make more sense to say that God's grace and love extend to other people, not Jesus's love and grace. No person lives in a vacuum. Jesus was influenced by his society and affected his society. Therefore, I suppose in order to accept "Jesus's love and grace", one must first buy into his worldview or understand Judaism. I can't imagine how a Roman pagan would really care about their salvation. Sneazy (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I think this discussion is about Christian theology and Christian cosmology. Excuse my confusion. I thought it was about actual history. Sneazy (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When I was growing up in a strict Christian sect, I asked this question and was told that such people would be judged as to whether they had lived according to the light they had received. I have no idea whether this is a mainstream Christian idea. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not in exactly those terms, but I was told something quite similar growing up. The idea was that the conscience was a kind of God-given moral law that non-Christians (specifically, non-Christians who were not aware of Christianity) were bound to obey as best as possible in order to gain salvation. I have no idea how close this is to mainstream Christian teachings. Despite the teaching of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, I know there is a broad and fascinating range of opinions in Catholic theology on topics like this. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 20:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fate of the unlearned has the answer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005137#p23, paragraph 19.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For one view, that is. That of the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Thank you for providing yet another perspective.  It's important to recognize that (like anything one could ask along these lines) there is probably no universal Christian belief in these regards, but it is helpful to have all of the myriad different viewpoints so the questioner can have a full picture of the bredth of perspectives.  Other interesting perspectives on the matter can be found at Virtuous pagan, which covers the medieval and early modern Christian perspective on the question, as answered by thinkers such as Aquinas and Dante.  -- Jayron  32  21:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should have a standard disclaimer template to use every time Plasmic Physics gives a specifically JW view and claims it's general to all Christians, or the only correct one. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record: I'm not JW, nor do I claim that my views are general to all Christians, nor do I claim that my views are perfectly correct. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please note that Wavelength is the editor who generally posts the JW perspective. And yes, I'm disappointed by his continued omission of the minority (and non-orthodox) viewpoint he presents, and I appreciate Jayron's diligence in noting it. &mdash; Lomn 16:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * However Plasmic Physics does frequently provide their views usually without making it clear these may just be just be their views I presume from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective and often with the implication their views are the correct ones because they come from their interpretation of whatever bible passage and translation they choose. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

plays at theatres
I wanted to take a friend of mine to the theatre to watch either Cats or Pirates of Penzance, two plays he's wanted to see for a while, but I have no idea where would be showing them. Is there any website that lists what's on at different theatres or something, I tried google but with no luck. I just want anywhere near me and within the next couple of months, but no idea where to look for the information.

86.15.83.223 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the UK? (IP geolocates to England) Try a search at this site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that doesn't mention a couple of places I had already found showing them over the summer, does that mean their versions are unofficial or something? 86.15.83.223 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When a play or musical play is first written, it is protected by the copyright of its authors. Its authors can decide when and where it can be presented. Cats The Musical was first produced in the West End in 1981, and so is still in this category. A production of Cats is either authorized by its authors (or more usually by those they have designated to do so), or it is unauthorized and can be shut down. Productions are expected to pay royalties to the authors. Once a certain number of years has passed (the exact number of years has been changed over time, and also varies by location), the copyrights lapse and the work falls into the public domain.  The Pirates of Penzance is now in the public domain. Anyone may produce it in the theatre, and no one pays royalties to its authors. There can be nothing official or unofficial about a production of Pirates of Penzance.
 * There is no central registry of productions of plays in the public domain. And even the authors of works such as Cats may not be able to tell you at any moment where all the current authorized productions of their work are. But they should be able to tell you where the class 1, major presentations are. For Cats, might help. - Nunh-huh 01:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * An exception might be a school production, where the copyright holders may not see it as real competition, and any attempt to shut it down might be bad publicity, so they let it run. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even schools pay for performance rights. They are a substantial expense for high school and local theater productions. Just like music, rights are managed by a small number of specialist rights managements groups who have less interest in negative consequences than individual authors might. Rmhermen (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is true, but in fact both Cats and The Phantom of the Opera have been made available for school productions. There are schools-only versions of some other shows that are not currently available for amateur productions, notably Les Miserables and (I think) Miss Saigon. There's even one for Avenue Q, with some of the more "adult" content considerably toned down. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cats (etc.) has been licensed for school performance, but royalties must be paid (and the script must be adhered to). Failing either of these, the authors have the right to shut the performance down, whether they exercise that right or not. And it is sometimes exercised.   - Nunh-huh 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But the answer to your original question is no. There are many sites that are local to an area (eg http://www.yorkshire.com/what-to-do/artistic/performing-art), to an organisation (eg http://www.noda.org.uk/events), or to a genre (eg for Gilbert & Sullivan, https://www.gsarchive.net/) but it is unlikely that any of them is complete even within its own domain. It takes substantial work to maintain lists such as these, and it also relies on the producers of each show passing the information on to them. And the financial returns from such a site are pretty well limited to advertising, so they are mostly done as public services, which again does not suggest that they will be well-resources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

El Gamil (Egypt) fortress?
I have started work on our stub article El Gamil, the home of Port Said's airport and scene of a militarily successful but politically disastrous British airborne assault during the 1956 Suez Crisis. The article's lead states that it is "a fortress" and it appears in Category:Castles in Egypt. However, the only internet references that I can find to a fort or castle at El Gamil seem to have been inspired by Wikipedia. I have found quite detailed accounts of the 1956 combat, when after the capture of the airfield, the fighting continued in a sewage works, a cemetery, a coast guard barracks and a shanty town, but curiously not a fort. Can anyone confirm or deny the existence of a fortification here please? Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To start: I've found two references from the late 19th century. 1895, mention of "Fort Gameel" and 1882-85, "if preparations at Fort Gemil threaten Port Said... it will be destroyed". 184.147.116.201 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't know how to fix that second link. It should point to http://books.google.com/books?id=slUoAAAAYAAJ page 252. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That spelling, "Fort Gemil", brings more results. Here's another one from the 1880s. "Within eyesight of the town, on the seashore, in the direction of Damietta, stood Fort Gemil, garrisoned by troops variously estimated at numbers ranging from 600 to 2,500..." http://books.google.com/books?id=BqkaZlE7YWsC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=%22fort+gemil%22&source=bl&ots=x4GgUzHwP5&sig=KnZTfEFOTU2f-0UTbqHJrC4qOnw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7kE5UceGC5DE0AGZj4GQDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22fort%20gemil%22&f=false 184.147.116.201 (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks 184, I tried "Gamil fort" but not "fort Gemil". At least I have something to work on now. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. The trick will be finding out what happened to the fort between 1895 and 1956. Any Arabic-speakers who can access Arabic-language sources here? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha! I found this page which identifies the fort on Google maps. Using the satellite image option, you can see that it's a rectangular structure on an island to the west of the airport. In 1956, the need was to secure the road to the east into Port Said, so the fort was well away from the fighting. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hurrah! Love a happy ending. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Crucifixion
how many allied nations represented at Jesus' crucifiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady65 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be surprised if anyone can answer this, but what do you mean by allied nations? Do you mean people from land that was later owned by nations that became the Allies in the World Wars? IBE (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the status quo of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 3. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Any advance on 3? IBE (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be the USA, the USSR, and the UK. Or their predecessors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this maybe a bad machine translation? Perhaps Lady65's native language is not English, and something is getting lost here.  Crucifixion of Jesus gives various accounts of the other people present at the Crucifixion of Jesus.  They include the two men he was crucified with (known as the Penitent thief and the Impenitent thief) and some of his followers, including the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" (i.e. John the Evangelist), and several women, namely The Three Marys (Jesus' mother, James' mother, and Salome (either Jesus' aunt and/or mother of John the Evangelist) and possibly the Myrrhbearers (Mary Magdalene, Johanna, and Susanna).  As far as I know, all of these named individuals were of the Jewish nation; none came from outside Judea.  There were some people from outside Judea who would have been present as well, including Simon of Cyrene, the centurion and soldiers who guarded the scene, mocked him on the cross, hung the INRI sign gambled for his clothes, and pierced his side.  The centurion and soldiers would have been Romans, but probably not from Italia; I'm pretty sure the eastern legions recruited from the Eastern reaches of the empire, so the centurion and soldiers were likely Greek-speaking.  That's just about everyone reported to have been present for some part of the crucifixion event.  -- Jayron  32  02:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed about machine translation - perhaps "allies" means disciples. Alansplodge (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a list of the nationalities of witnesses of the Pentecost in Acts 2:9-11, but not for the crucifixion... AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nationality (and even ethnicity) was not a very tightly defined concept in the Roman empire, they were more concerned with citizenship. Roman soldiers were citizens of the Empire but their nationality (as we understand the concept today) could have been from any part of the Empire. Roger (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)