Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 October 26

= October 26 =

Communism and Atheism
Why is communism atheist?

Sedont (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We have Marxism and religion. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the proliferation of images and statues of their leaders, it's pretty clear they weren't really "atheist". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ignore Baseball Bugs, he clearly doesn't know the difference between personality cults and religion. As for the actual answer, Bus stop provided the useful link, and also see: Opium of the people. Long story short, they correctly identified it as the main historical tool for oppressing the lower classes. Fgf10 (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Religions start out as personality cults. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ...and here I thought all along that the cudgel was the main historical tool for oppressing the lower classes... Bus stop (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point well made! Lets call it the enabling system then. Fgf10 (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Long story short, communists correctly identified religion as the main historical tool for oppressing the lower classes. Akseli9 (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The USSR and China proved that religion is not needed for oppression. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there are so many different ways to oppress people, still, religion historically proves its supremacy, and it goes on and on today and it's coming back, even stronger than ever before in history. Akseli9 (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Religion itself isn't a problem; it's a rationalization used by oppressors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Erm yes, as I pretty much literally said above.... Fgf10 (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt that Christian communism could be said to embrace atheism. Bus stop (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would argue that communism would have been more successful if it had incorporated religion instead of rejecting it. Specifically, the main problem with communism is that there is no incentive to work hard, since you aren't rewarded (on Earth) for doing so.  However, if people believed that they would be rewarded after death, that could provide the missing incentive.  Of course, actually convincing everyone of that is no small task.  (They could also add in some rather modest rewards on Earth for working hard, like a bigger TV.)  StuRat (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Working hard under communism is just as rewarding as under any other regim, like for example capitalism. Under communism just like under any other regime, there is only the small few who work hard and they know who they are, and all the corrupted rest who cheat and steal and lie. The idea (and the ideal) of working hard for the community VS. the idea (and the ideal) of working hard for oneself, which is truly the most rewarding? Which indeed is truly the closest to religion/religious mindset? Akseli9 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: "Working hard under communism is just as rewarding". No, not if you mean financially rewarding, as I do.  For a specific example, doctors in Cuba make very little money, despite the years of study required. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As part of my Khrushchev kick, I read Not by Bread Alone. Even allowing for literary license, it was very clear that the factory manager and the factory worker lived very different lives; the manager's wife went on shopping trips to Moscow, and I doubt the worker's did.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, "communism" being nondemocratic, ensures that those who make the decisions will enrich themselves. Of course, with "representative" democracy you again get a small number of people making all the decisions, which still guarantees they will make those decisions so as to enrich themselves.  But, with direct democracy, where everyone makes the decisions, we could put an end to that. StuRat (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, for a while at least, since the result would be anarchy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, now that the USSR and the Eastern Block have lost the Cold War and have disappeared since more than two decades, now that the victory of the Western Block and of Capitalism is total and complete and already ancient and established all over the world, we have now to admit without any doubt left, that we now live in a happy and perfect world of abundance and peace and harmony. Akseli9 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In the long run, Communism is likely to turn out to be just a minor blip in history - an experiment that supposedly had good intentions, but failed because it was imposed by bad people. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * But, since "power corrupts", any system with a small number of people in charge will become corrupt eventually. StuRat (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's why we have elections. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, but eventually the system itself becomes corrupt, such that nobody can get elected without taking massive funds from special interests, and becoming beholden to them. So, the "small number of people in charge" becomes whoever runs the PACs, and they are elected by noone. StuRat (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's always been true. But the fact that we can point that out, without being killed or sent to the Gulag, automatically gives us an edge on Communist countries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The more one individual is financially rewarded, the more it takes from the community. In a religious or in a communist state of mind, you wouldn't find it very rewarding to take from the poor in order to get more for yourself. At the contray you would feel ashamed, guilty, etc. You would feel much more rewarded in giving to the community, than in taking from the community. Akseli9 (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Individuals are individuals. That which rewards one individual may not reward another individual. Wealth and poverty and hard work and languor are only a few factors that pertain to human happiness/satisfaction. I don't think we are likely to define all the motivating factors in religious and political systems in this discussion, but we can try; it might be fun. Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And the more one individual is financially rewarded, and the more that individual takes from the community, the more that individual spends, and the more money flows back into the community. Money equates to freedom. If no one makes any money, then no one has any freedom. As Will Rogers once said, "In Russia they ain't got no income tax. But they ain't got no income!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The pro-communist argument, as cited by Aksel, is that the individual does not have the right to decide what will make him happy. Someone else decides it for him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of Kuwaiti Slant Drilling
Is there any serious evidence to substantiate the Iraqi allegations that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil from the Rumaila Oil Field by slant drilling prior to Saddam's invasion (or indeed that it happened at any time up to and including the present)? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think slant drilling to steal oil really makes any sense on a national scale. You would need quite a coincidence to happen to have oil right on your border but still close enough to get at by slant drilling, and not have the oil on your side to make the whole exercise pointless.  Slant drilling does make more sense when talking about individual property owners, where there are so many millions of miles of borders between all pairs of adjacent properties that it's bound to be profitable in a few of those cases to do so.  And if oil companies intentionally buy up the neighboring properties to where oil was found, just for that purpose, then that's a problem. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you'd read the article linked, you'd see that just the situation exists in the Rumaila oil field where there are billions of dollars worth of oil that could be exploited from across the border by slant drilling. In any case the question asks for evidence, not aspersions.. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Rumaila oil field article puts it at 32 km from the Kuwaiti border. That's a long way to slant drill.  And Kuwait has plenty of oil of it's own, so it wouldn't make any sense for them to slant drill and risk a war with a nation with a vastly superior military and a crazy dictator.  And any hope to keep it secret would seem unlikely, considering the amount of specialized equipment and engineers slant drilling on that scale would require. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I vaguely remember thinking that the progression of news to outright slant drilling seemed like a misinterpretation at the time. My feeling was that the oilfield itself was reported to be like a huge oil aquifer underground, so that drilling into one little part controlled by Kuwait meant stealing the oil out from the rest of it.  There's some legal principle for this that I forget the name of (something about "capture"), but it applies for fracking in the eastern U.S.  If you don't sign a paper with the gas drillers, they can run wells all around the edge of your land and get all the gas from under it anyway.  The only thing promising landowners any value at all was that there was a statuatory minimum on how much royalty the private owner could be required to sign for - but then the drillers could tag on fees.  I remember reading that some Pennsylvania residents literally owed the gas company money for drilling that nasty gas from out under their land, by the time they were finished. Wnt (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked in to this and while some sources like claims there was some evidence or simply that it was going on   , they don't really seem to provide much evidence (some of them aren't the best sources either). Comments  even go as far as to claim Kuwait was drilling on Iraqi land, per several sources and , the border was poorly defined but this does seem a little extreme. Some others like   support Wnt's view that there was probably no reason to slant drill, because it was basically the same oilfield you'd get the same oil without slant drilling (at least initially I assume). Some of the sources mention that for this reason, the norm is to come sort of agreement on how to divide the revenue, but because of disputes on both sides this didn't happen here. Which combined with disagreement about the border, may have been a factor in the invasion. As these sources, our article and others like  suggest, there was almost definitely other reasons for Iraq to want to invade Kuwait. If I had to guess, I suspect given the quality of technology at the time, fact that the Iraqi government of the time didn't seem to be the most competent in collecting quality evidence, fog of war and propaganda given all that has happened since etc, we'll never have good evidence what actually happened for a long time, if ever. (It depends on whether there remains good records on either the Kuwaiti side that they did slant drill, or the Iraqi side that the accusation was completely baseless and just made up to generate symapthy. Alternatively, perhaps there are records in some company or from the CIA or someone else which can be trusted, as opposed to publicly released comments at around the time of the controversy where it isn't surprising that the accusations are denied, which may one day be released.) I'm not sure where people are getting figures quoted above from, per the NYT 1990 article  and I think at least one of the other sources, at one time people working on the Iraqi sites were regularly visiting the Kuwaiti ones for lunch. In other words, a distance of 32 km seems wrong. By the same token, Saddam may have been crazy but at least at the time, he seemed quite far from North Korean level crazy and somewhat willing to avoid pissing off the West, particularly the US too much. So if one were to suggest Kuwait weren't willing to piss off Iraq even if there were a big advantage for them to do so (which I'm not saying there was, but rather than it hasn't been established that there wasn't), one also has to question why Saddam Hussein would invade Kuwait, an invasion which was repulsed and which eventually lead to his and his countries long term isolation and indirectly his eventual downfall and execution. While a number of Kuwaiti's suffered from the invasion, ultimately they seemed to come out okay. In other words, clearly people including dictators (and there was one on each side) make miscalculations. And in this case now that we can see the end result, even if Kuwait really was slant drilling, it still seems to be Iraq/Saddam Hussein who made the miscalculation, not Kuwait/the Emir despite the invasion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The gain for Iraq would go far beyond "preventing slant drilling". If they could annex Kuwait and add Kuwait's oil production to their own, they would have a much firmer grip on the world's oil supply, with all the power and money that comes with that.  Of course, they ultimately miscalculated the US reaction, perhaps because April Glaspie gave the impression that the US wouldn't intervene ("We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."). StuRat (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Part of the entire problem with this, as with MOST conflicts of this type, is the entire way decolonization happened around the world. Just as in Africa and Southeast Asia, the way modern national borders were drawn has little to do with respecting natural nations, by collecting people with a common cultural history in a land that they have historical connection to in one single nation-state.  Borders today often reflect historical administrative borders within the colonized lands that were laid out for the benefit of the colonizers, and not for the cohesiveness of a cultural group.  To reduce the Iraq-Kuwait conflict to "Iraq just wanted more oil" or "Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq" is to oversimplify it to the point of gross inaccuracy.  Certainly, control of oil was and is an important factor, and not to be ignored, but similarly important is the entire cultural and historical background to how these states came into being, and how that effects the nature of these conflicts.  To ignore such things is to miss a major part of the story.  -- Jayron 32 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If they choose to reunite they certainly could, under International Law, provided it is done peacefully and with agreement from both sides, as did East and West Germany. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we all agree with that but it's irrelevant to my point, which was that clearly both sides may have had strong motivations and also risks, but at the same time both sides may would have made calculations based on what they knew at the time etc on whether the risk was worth the motivation. While we have some limited idea with the benefit of hindsight what the risks were, we really have no idea how the people at the time saw the risks. As it turns out, if Kuwait were slant drilling and gaining significantly from it (which remains a big if, but while relevent to the topic, is irrelevant to my point), they seemingly made the better calculations. So it's impossible to reliably conclude that Kuwait wouldn't have carried out slant drilling simply because there was some risk. After all, regardless of whether the truth of Kuwaiti slant drilling, or for that matter, the claims that Kuwait had moved the border, it seems likely Kuwait could have significantly reduced the chance of an invasion by cancelling their loans and settling border disputes infavour of Iraq. And while there may have been additional motivations why Kuwait wouldn't do this (but then again, we also can't assume that Kuwait would have seen slant drilling as inherently wrong, so justifying an invasion while the others as not), as well as some possible perception it would never end if they give in to Iraq, they ultimately decided not to do these. So if the gain from slant drilling was similar, it's even harder to assume they wouldn't because of the risk it would impose on them. Nil Einne (talk)

Unusual abdications
I was reading Lesotho and noticed something I hadn't seen before: a King willingly abdicating in favor of his father (who'd been forced into exile). It got me wondering if this is a unique example of such an abdication, or if there have been others? --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for other examples of willing abdications or other examples of monarchy passing from child to parent? Abdication has several instances of the former. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems clear to me, the question is about the intersection of those two sets. —Tamfang (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, one starting point could be to check the intersection of Abdication with List of heads of state who have been in exile for child-parent pairs.184.147.131.85 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's some confusing and convoluted relationships between João VI of Portugal and Pedro I of Brazil during which time the father (João) and/or the son (Pedro) had various levels of de facto and de jure control over both or either Brazil or Portugal. It has to do with the Transfer of the Portuguese Court to Brazil and its eventual return several decades later to Iberia, during which time the Independence of Brazil and the Liberal Revolution of 1820 occurred.  -- Jayron 32 12:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another close hit. Philip V of Spain replaced his son Louis I of Spain, but also preceded him.  Philip had abdicated in favor of his son, but the son died after only 7 months on the throne, and Philip resumed his prior kingship.  So there's another example of a father replacing a son, but only after the death of the son, not an abdication.  -- Jayron 32 12:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an abdication, but a coup d'etat: Carol II of Romania deposed his own son, Michael I of Romania, thus another example of a father succeeding a son. -- Jayron 32 03:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Minimum mandated percentage of fat in mayonnaise
This site says:

Why Miracle Whip isn't mayo: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that anything labeled "mayonnaise" contain a minimum of 65 percent vegetable oil by weight. And though Kraft keeps Miracle Whip's exact oil content a secret, the company confirms that it is too low to meet the mayo standard.

Is this really true? Then how come fat free mayonnaise can still be advertised as mayonnaise?

Our mayonnaise article says: "Low-fat formulas will typically decrease oil content to just 50% and increase water content to about 35%." but doesn't specify whether that 50% is the mandated percentage or not. 731Butai (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To answer just the "really true" part of your question, apparently yes. Here is the FDA requirement page for mayonnaise that contains the 65 per cent claim. (The advertising requirements appear to be here.)184.147.131.85 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * (Very "secret", given that they basically print it on the jar. Miracle Whip contains 25 grams of fat per 100 grams, while Kraft Real Mayonnaise contains 71 grams fat per 100 grams. Assuming that the fat content is mostly oil (there will be a smaller contribution from the egg yolks too), that puts an upper limit of 25% and 71% oil by weight respectively on the product.) It looks like "low fat mayonnaise" is legally defined as salad dressing – look at the small print on that jar, and they're not selling mayonnaise, but "mayonnaise dressing", which the FDA seems to be OK with. Some companies also (as Kraft is doing here) claim that "mayo" is not "mayonnaise", but that doesn't seem to fly. Smurrayinchester 10:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Why were there no continent-wide (or beyond) empires from the Southern Hemisphere?
Looking at the empires throughout history, it appears that the major ones have all been in the Northern Hemisphere.

I can understand this for Australasia, but why have no major empires started in the Southern Hemisphere?

For example, the Aztec empire was over a relatively small portion of South America - I can understand why they did not reach world-wide, as the distances involved to reach the nearest land away from the America continent is so much; but why did no South American Empire reach out to colonise the whole of South America, plus North America/Canada?

Why have no continent-wide empires start in India? or Southern Africa?

Or am I mistaken, and there have been some, which have spread over a large area, such as the British, Spanish, French, Portuguese, etc did?

Thanks

Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The book (and article, I guess) Guns, Germs and Steel is worth a read here. The short answer is, "lots of reasons." Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 11:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The largest Indian empire, IIRC, was the Mughal Empire, whose ruling dynasty was culturally Persian-Mongolian-Turkic, though. -- Jayron 32 13:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct answer is that India is not in the Southern Hemisphere. But the Guns, Germs and Steel book is to the point. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither was the Aztec empire in South America. Deor (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in a physical sense, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Taken as read, part of the answer to the question is that there's not really that much southern hemisphere in which to carve an empire. In terms of habitable land, you're talking about South America (which was home to several empires of various sizes), the southern third of Africa, which has large-ish expanses of desert and scrubland, and the Australian archipelago, which the OP has already removed from play. The distribution of dry land is not very uniform on the globe. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Incan Empire and Zulu Empire were large; if they didn't occupy the entire continent, well, neither did the Romans. What the Romans did manage was (briefly) to occupy all shores of a sea, in an age when sailing ships dominated commerce; to do the same thing by rounding the infamous southern tips of the continents, however, was no easy challenge even for British sailors. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Zulu empire was not large. At its greatest, it was about the size of Lesotho, one of the smallest African countries. It's a stretch to even call it an 'empire'. The Incan empire was impressive though. - Lindert (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * South America has a remarkable diversity in types of geography, from mountains to desert to jungle. For one civilization to conquer all these diverse environments would require a remarkable level of flexibility.  For comparison, the US has modern technology and massive resources, yet has still not managed to find much financial benefit to large swathes of the nation, such as the Alaskan interior.  StuRat (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Um... there was a brief period (in the late 1500s and early 1600s) when the the Spanish Empire at least claimed to rule the entire continent of South America (for a while, Spain and Portugal were united... and so Spain claimed Brazil as well as the rest of the continent). Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * They never conquered the interior of the Amazon, though. StuRat (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Did they need to? Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To claim control of the entire continent, I certainly would expect them to actually control the entire continent. StuRat (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * By that logic, no empire (indeed, no state or people) has ever really controlled the territory historically attributed to them, since you can continuously subdivide a given area, in the fashion of the dichotomy paradox to deny the claim; "Oh, they did make into the Amazonian interior? Well they didn't "conquer" the western-most third, and that's still a relevant area." But the OP was clearly inquiring about continent-spanning empires (that is, those who controlled borders on diametrically opposite shores), not those that could realistically be shown to have been in direct and continuous control over ever last hectare in their domain.


 * But more to the point, your original observation does not hold water. There can be a large number of different local populations well-adapted to exploit their immediate environs while collectively being members, vassals, or subjects of the same empire through some political, militaristic, social, economic, cultural, ethnic, or other nominal factor.  To take just one of many examples, a number of the historical Chinese dynasties ruled over expansive lands including all of the topographies you mentioned (and many sub-varieties thereof).  And I'm not saying that ecological conditions can't work to bound the spread of peoples (for a discussion of that topic, I join others above in recommending Jared Diamond's works, Guns, Germs, and Steel in particular), but that doesn't really suffice to explain why political unity or militaristic hegemony might extend to some areas that were historically well-populated with humans and not to others, especially when they shared certain characteristics.  For that, you need a different explanation.


 * But getting back to the OP, just to give a rough preview of the arguments, mostly the situation comes down to the nature of food-production, the resulting population densities and the technological developments that follow from both. Most of the land of the Southern hemisphere is laid out on a North-to-South axis.  The consequence of this is that these continents run through many different latitudes which have different seasonal qualities to which their vegetation is adapted.  A very useful crop that one population may come to rely upon can take hundreds or thousands of years to adapt to new seasonal conditions (it it does at all, not withstanding human agricultural efforts).  The effect is that a given culture based on a certain type of food production was often stalled in it's spread along the North-South axis for this reason, stalling some people in the prehistorical era.  Compare this with Eurasia, which is much longer along it's West-East axis than the North-South.  Useful crops (and the population densities dependent upon them) could spread much more readily along this axis because they shared much more similar climates.


 * Other relevant factors include a much higher number of domesticatable social species in Eurasia, and more surface resources in terms in metallurgy, an important prerequisite for developing technologies. To fully answer your question would take much more than can be easily supplied here, but the short answer is that it was an accident of circumstance (specifically geography and ecology) that allowed Eurasia to get a leg up on expansive empires and statescraft. This is one of the great developments in the understanding of history and culture in the last century, supplanting earlier (and often highly racist) notions of inherent (that is, genetic) superiority of certain peoples.  S n o w  let's rap 06:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There were natives deep in the Amazon who not only were not conquered, but they probably never even knew the Spanish and Portuguese existed. And I disagree with your assertion that the OP's "colonise the whole of South America" does not mean to control all of it's inhabitants. StuRat (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition to appropriate mentions of Guns, Germs and Steel, I direct you to the articles Southern Hemisphere and Northern Hemisphere where one can see, for example, that "90% of the earth's population lives in the Northern Hemisphere" and one can also see a map of the Earth highlighting one half of it, demonstrating the greater ocean-to-land ratio in the Southern hemisphere. Munci (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Was England the only early 19th-century European country were unmarried women were of legal majority?
I have heard about the fact that unmarried women in Great Britain were of legal majority, while married women were minors under the guardianship of the husbands, until a number of reforms abolished couverture in a series of reforms in the 19th-century and 20th-century: this seem to apply also for the United States, Australia, and other English speaking countries. I have heard that the reason for this was because unmarried women were counted as feme sole while married women were under couverture. My question is: was the legal independence of unmarried women this something unique for England? I am speaking about European countries in about the 18th-century or so, prior to the late 19th-century, when reforms in women's rights gave adult unmarried women the same rights as unmarried women in England apparently already had. For example, in France, unmarried women were legally minors, and the same thing was true for the Scandinavian nations, were unmarried women were also minors and granted their right to legal majority through reforms in the second half of the 19th-century. Were there any European country prior to the second half of the 19th-century, were unmarried adult women had legal majority, similar as the unmarried adult women in England? It seems remarkable that England should be such an exception when it comes to unmarried adult women's legal independence in early modern Europe. --Aciram (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not in a position just now to research the question directly, but our article Timeline of women's rights (other than voting) may have some relevant information. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Canadian citizenship oath and niqab
I've read several articles (on the web) regarding the recent failure to uphold a law that would mandate Muslim women who wear the niqab (face veil) remove it while taking their Canadian citizenship oath (e.g. this one) but I'm still confused as to what exactly was at stake and what the legal consequences are, so I have a few questions:


 * is there a WP article that deals with this?
 * is it correct that some Muslim women had taken their citizenship oath in the past while wearing the niqab before it became an issue for Stephen Harper? If yes do we know how many and when (some) Muslim women began taking their citizenship oath wearing a niqab?
 * on what grounds did the Supreme Court of Canada strike down the proposed law?
 * if it is on the grounds of religious freedom does it follow that only Muslim women will be allowed to take the citizenship oath with their faces covered or did the Supreme Court affirm the right of anyone (who so wishes) to take their citizenship oath with their face covered?
 * has it ever happened (for whatever reason) that someone who was not a Muslim woman has taken their citizenship oath with their face covered?

Thanks for your help

Contact Basemetal   here  16:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * All we have on Wikipedia, I think, is Oath of Citizenship (Canada), which discusses this particular case. It's probably not going to be an issue in the future, since the Conservatives lost the election last week. Here also is a CBC article about Zunera Ishaq, the woman in question, which may also be helpful. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The explanation given in the article is that "veils and masks prevented citizenship ceremony officials from confirming each candidate is speaking the oath"... if that's not literally in the law, it seems like a remarkable claim. After all, participants could be given a dictaphone to confirm they are really saying the words, for example, or could repeat the oath privately in front of acceptable witnesses to confirm every word (I think Barack Obama had such an accommodation, though not his fault). Wnt (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * While this case seems rather frivolous, the related issue of Muslim women not wanting to show their face so they can be identified is a real issue. Should the right to religious beliefs trump the government's need to be able to identify people ?  If that precedent was set, I can imagine many new religions forming so their members (male and female) can also refuse to ever show their faces.  There may be a technical fix, though, if instant fingerprint analysis can be done, although that still wouldn't help if the perp for a crime didn't leave fingerprints, but did leave his image on film. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The niqab is not islamic, anyway. Nowhere in the Coran is it ever said that women should wear any veil of any sort to cover their face nor their hair. The only mention of a woman's veil in the Coran is to cover her chest. This entire veil/niqab new big thing is not islamic, not at all. Akseli9 (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean in the same sense that Christmas or the the Nicene Creed or taking Sunday as the day of rest are not Christian, because they are not in the Bible? Of course, not all interpretations of Islam require a full veil (indeed, most do not), but the argument that only things in the Quran are Islamic is a fallacy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is technically correct but I believe it misses Akseli9's basic point which is that Muslim women who demand that they be allowed to wear a niqab in this or other circumstances base their claim of religious persecution on a fringe interpretation of the requirements of their religion. So the question arises whether anyone is free to interpret the requirements of their religion as they see fit and claim persecution if those requirements are not met? If any Muslim is personally allowed to define Islam, is it ok if I start a Christian sect that requires you to be naked in this or that circumstance and claim religious persecution if people are not allowed to take their Canadian citizenship oath naked? Who defines Islam for the purpose of the Canadian guarantee of freedom of religion? This is the kind of complications that you get into when you allow religious requirements to trump the law of the land and the cultural norms of a society that is doing people the favor of accepting them in its midst. And why is religion favored? A religion is just a peculiar kind of ideological construct so maybe, if the words of the Canadian oath do not agree with some ideological bias of mine I should be allowed to change them, shouldn't I? And who forces anyone to become a Canadian? If some of the requirements for becoming a Canadian do not agree with my religious or ideological bias, well, a more logical approach would be to simply not apply for Canadian citizenship, wouldn't it? Since when is becoming a Canadian a right ? I didn't want to get into this minefield and my questions were specifically restricted to the Canadian legal aspects of the question, but since others, unfortunately, touched upon these much more complicated issues, I couldn't let this piece of legalistic distraction pass. Contact  Basemetal   here  23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) that this is a significant related issue. Most women who wear face coverings seem willing to remove them to allow identification in private and perhaps to someone who's female. These additional accomodations may increase cost and complexity (particularly the later if it's demanded), and there may be concerns over the fact that the person can't be readily identified in certain circumstances (like on CCTV), but this is distinct from the issues you mentioned. As for this specific case, as our article sort of hints at, and sources discussing the case say , there was never any suggestion by the woman, or any of her supporters she wouldn't allow identification. She was willing to either take the oath in private without her face covering, or take the oath in public with her face covering, after having identified in private. If necessary, the person who did the identification could have followed her from the moment of identification and watched to ensure she didn't somehow substitute herself with someone else. If there were concerns over whether it was her speaking, or some sort of directional speaker in the audience or whatever, probably a covering which only revealed her lips could have been agreed to (I don't think this ever came up because it was clearly an excessive suggestion)). Technically this wouldn't stop a super teleporter capable of teleporting her out and someone else who looked the same in without anyone noticing but if that sort of tech was of concern, well I think you have much more to worry about than whether or not some random person is swearing her oath of citizenship. And I strongly suspect the people involved in the ceremonies take no real effort to ensure the right twin is there if identical twins are involved (or even check whether there are identifical twins). In fact, I suspect at least with certain officials, if you're the sort of person the official privately thinks "all look alike", they wouldn't even notice it was the sibling or may be even some random person who looks similar who's swearing the oath. (Do we even know if they made any real attempt at identification based on photo ID, like the police or airport security normally do before this controversy came about?) In other words, however people feel about the appropriateness of wearing a face covering during the citizenship ceremony, the idea that identification is a major concern, doesn't really hold water. Nil Einne (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In case my post wasn't clear, I meant that all concerns over wearing a face covering during the oath are frivolous, but identification of people wearing veils can be a real issue, outside of the citizenship oath ceremony. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was aware of that, but you still haven't provided any citations for your claim it's a real issue in the manner you mentioned, as I requested. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a worldwide problem and issue. More and more people from Muslim origins/culture, started to claim their women had to cover their hair and their faces so no man could ever, never ever, see them. They state this is "religious rights" and "islamic", but it is not (nowhere in the Coran is it said that women should hide their hair and faces from men). This problem and issue is so huge, you'll find thousands of articles and documentaries etc, in the UK alone about this, for sourcing it. In France, the sourcing is even easier and obvious as it has even become an official law of the Republic to rule this veil thing in public buildings, in schools, in the public sector in general. See Laïcité. Akseli9 (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be referring to cultural, human rights and related issues. As I thought I made clear, I was solely referring to StuRat's claims that "Muslim women not wanting to show their face so they can be identified is a real issue. Should the right to religious beliefs trump the government's need to be able to identify people?". As I already said, when the government has the right to demand identification, I'm not aware of a significant number of cases where Muslim women refuse to reveal their faces to allow identification. As I also mentioned, this is seperate from the issue of allowing ready identification such as on CCTV or in more general cases. And is also separate from the added burden the request to identify in private and perhaps to a woman may involve. StuRat referred to circumstances where the woman "not wanting to show their face so they can be identified" and "government's need to be able to identify people", which implies they wouldn't identify at all. But neither you nor StuRat have provided sources for this being a common issue. (In other words, I'm asking for statistics or similar, not a tiny number of cases where it happened.) As the French ban on face covering article says, the ban arose because of a whole host of issues. Where identification came up, it related to ready identification, rather than a complete refusal to identify. And there was obviously no need for a complete ban for that any way, only a law requiring identification when required (which I'm fairly sure already existed in France). Note also that a lot of that isn't exclusive to religious face coverings as made clear by the French ban. The religious aspect may allow the face coverings in some cases where it normally wouldn't be allowed, particularly when a private party is involved (a shopping mall for example) and perhaps in some cases where the government is involved (like in airports or government buildings). But in the general case, in much of the developed liberal world, there are no restriction in general, regardless of whether there is a religious motiviation. A person is free to wear a Chewbacca costume or a Morphsuit to a public park or while walking in the street. Perhaps they'll be beaten up by idiots, but it's not illegal and the government can't demand they remove it, except temporarily for identification. And as I've said, AFAIK and so far no one has provided sources to challenge this claim, the same applies to most people wearing face coverings for religious reasons. In case it's still unclear, I'm not interested in a debate over the appropriateness of such bans, the appropriateness of such face coverings, the religious or cultural reasons for such covering etc. That is beside my point which was solely to question StuRat's claim that a refusal to identify was a common issue. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * (below posted by SemanticMantis (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC) for IP user having problems posting)
 * A quick bit of perspective on the word "covered": While it might strike you as mundane to say it, people are allowed to wear eyeglasses, yarmulkes, make-up, facial jewelry, and so on during that oath. You're free to do likewise in court as well. I bring up those examples because those are all things you're not allowed to wear, for example, when posing for Canadian governmental ID (passport, driver's license, health card (in places that use a photo)). You literally can't even wear a smile. In some cases, the mandate to have a 'naked face' during those photos has gradually become more and more hardline over the years. For example, I used to have my glasses on during the driver's license photo, but not anymore. Hopefully someone will be by soon with more comprehensive answers, but I wanted to chime in on a word you used that may be more nuanced (or loaded) than you might think. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Facial recognition software, I daresay.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. And  above, I think that many of the proposed/enacted laws have been throwing the legality of Chewbacca costumes into account.  I really have a hard time believing that all the anti-niqab laws are about anti-Muslim sentiment - not when some of the same authorities go out of their way, say, to punish Koran-burning regardless of free speech constitutional requirements.  There is a lot of personalized marketing at stake here.  The days when you can just go in to a supermarket and buy a can of soda for the same price as anybody else?  Just about over.  Not when the company has on record that some idiot with your face will pay a dollar for it from a machine four or five times in the past year.  Or knows that you're poor and depend on the bus to get around.  Or... you get the idea.  It's a lot more convenient to prohibit facial hiding when it seems directed at Muslims than when the "first-class" citizens realize they are the target. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to some specific points by the original poster. According to paragraph 49 of the Federal Court ruling cited below, "The Minister at the time said during an interview with the CBC on December 12, 2011, that the Policy was adopted after one of his colleagues told him about a citizenship ceremony where four women had been wearing niqabs." So unless either Kenney or his colleague were lying or mistaken, the answer is yes. I don't. They didn't. The court case was about a policy of Citizenship and Immigration Canada&mdash;administration, not legislation. After two women had dropped their active applications for citizenship over the issue, the plaintiff chose instead to sue in Federal Court. The court ruled in her favor, declaring the policy illegal. The government appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, which not only upheld the lower court's decision, they did it immediately, in order that the plaintiff could get her citizenship in time to vote in the then-upcoming election. The government declared their intention of a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; I don't know if they actually filed their case, but the Supreme Court certainly had not heard the case by the time of the election, and Justin Trudeau promised during the campaign that he would not pursue such an appeal.
 * is it correct that some Muslim women had taken their citizenship oath in the past while wearing the niqab before it became an issue for Stephen Harper?
 * ... If yes do we know how many and when (some) Muslim women began taking their citizenship oath wearing a niqab?
 * on what grounds did the Supreme Court of Canada strike down the proposed law?

The Federal Court was asked to declare the policy unconstitutional, but declined to rule on that issue. They instead declared it inconsistent with the Citizenship Act and associated regulations (which are not legislation but have higher precedence than policy). For the details see paragraphs 50–57 of the decision, but in brief, judges are required to allow "the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation" of the oath, and the policy contradicts this.

Because the ruling was not on constitutional grounds, new legislation could supersede it, and a law to do so was indeed proposed just before Parliament was dissolved for the election. However, this was really just a political statement by the Conservatives, as there would not have been time for the law to be enacted. So there was no reason for any court to rule on it.

The Federal Court ruling was not limited to Muslims. It also mentioned monks who had taken a vow of silence, and people physically unable to speak.
 * if it is on the grounds of religious freedom does it follow that only Muslim women will be allowed to take the citizenship oath with their faces covered or did the Supreme Court affirm the right of anyone (who so wishes) to take their citizenship oath with their face covered?


 * So it seems at least that you have to have a religious reason (or a physical handicap). It is still not ok to say that your reason is that you feel like taking your oath dressed like this:


 * Anonymous at Scientology in Los Angeles.jpg


 * At least that's how I understand your explanation. Contact Basemetal   here  23:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea.
 * has it ever happened (for whatever reason) that someone who was not a Muslim woman has taken their citizenship oath with their face covered?

--70.49.170.168 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Adam and (especially) 70.49.170.168 for answering my specific questions about the legal implications of the Canadian ruling. Contact Basemetal   here  23:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm just adding a note to the archived copy by way of update: Trudeau's promise to drop the appeal has been carried out, according to an announcement today, November 16, by his justice minister / attorney general. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are men who like Barbra Streisand considered gay?
Where does this association come from? Men fans of Barbra Streisand are classified as gay, or, Barbra Streisand is seen as a singer gay men would like. --Denidi (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Barbra_Streisand, "Streisand is a supporter of gay rights, and in 2007 helped raise funds in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Proposition 8 in California." Also Barbra_Streisand has a lot of background on her relationship with the LGBT community. -- Jayron 32 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Streisand is something like the mainstream face of musical theater, and gays traditionally love that world. Same deal applies to other "divas" like Liza Minelli, Bette Midler or Judy Garland. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll tackle this one. First of all sexuality is not determined by musical preference. All kinds of people like all kinds of music for all kinds of reasons. Now, having said that, Barbra Streisand is well know for her overtly theatrical songs and stage shows, making her her a " Camp" icon. "Camp" is a subversive artistic genre where self-awareness, theatricality, and purposeful use of the banal are used. This style is commonly linked to gay and queer subcultures due to its celebration of the effeminate, the flamboyant, and usage of popular culture as a high art form. Many artists and filmmakers that are stars of the Camp aesthetic identify as gay or queer including Andy Warhol, John Waters, RuPaul and Richard O'Brian. So in short, Barbara Streisand is a gay icon, having a fanbase that is generally gayer than other artists. Even though this may be true, it does not mean that a person that likes her music is gay.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The "flamboyant" part is where the term "gay" came from, maybe a century ago or farther back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, flam-boy-ant, a portmanteau of "flaming boy" and "Auntie Mame". μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny. But it actually means just plain "flaming" and originally referred to a style of architecture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First I've ever heard of Dame Edna identifying as gay or queer. Where did u read that, Found5dollar?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Notably, Barry Humphries's own Wikipedia biography gives quite the opposite impression.  -- Jayron 32 10:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Woops. Sorry. My bad. I read it in an article about Shock Treatment but it seems they were referring to Barry Humphries' character, not him. I have edited my comment above switching out Dame Edna with Richard O'Brien, the maker of Shock Treatment and Rocky Horror, who identifies as Third gender.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Jack may have been referring to Dame Edna, not Barry Humphries. AFAIK, neither identify as gay or queer, per our articles. It sometimes suggested Edna may have had a relationship which was more than platonic with Madge Allsop, but that's different from identifying as at or queer. Bert Schnick, I don't know. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, neither of the two male Broadway critics here, the interviewer or the interviewee is "gay", although you would not be able to tell there sexual orientation from the way they speak. I'm not a gay man, but I do always suspect there's something a bit 'off' with people who don't appreciate classics like Barbra Streisand's "Evergreen", Judy Garland's (live) "Stormy Weather" or this tragic performance Judy Garland - "How Insensitive" (Live 1968). μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It surely dances to the beat of a different drum, but lyrically, that last song's pretty much "Stinkfist". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)