Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 18

Epistemology of Wikipedia

What are the philosophical arguments and implications of [citation needed]? -- The guy from the other day (talk · contribs) 13:47, 18 December 2013

If one is making a claim about a subject, then one needs to show which written source evidences this claim. Is that what you're talking about here? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The basic philosophical argument to a citation being needed is that the information is not unquestionable fact and therefore may be challenged requiring verification by a reader. The implication is, that the sourced material is accurately represented in summary from a reliable source.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This may not be the direction you were thinking of, but I've been doing some work into different understandings of knowledge and their application to Wikipedia - I describe it research into a kind of applied epistemology. I tend to see a citation as providing for justification, and "citation needed" as an indicator that the statement lacks justification. In that sense it meets one of the criteria of the standard/Platonic definition, and claims without a citation either need some other source of justification, or don't qualify as knowledge within the framework. However, as Wikipedia fails on the other two criteria, (content on Wikipedia doesn't need to be true or held as a belief) it isn't a definition of knowledge that applies well to Wikipedia. That said, I still feel that epistemologically citations fall best into the category of justification, or perhaps even something like Plantinga's notion of warrant due to the requirement for sources to be reliable, if you want to make that argument and you remain concerned about the Gettier problem. I also suspect that there is room for viewing Wikipedia's understanding of knowledge to be simply "justified (or warranted) belief", which makes citations central to the issue. - Bilby (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark, it has nothing to do with "unquestionable fact". It has to do with WP:Verifiability, which makes it plain we're focussed on verifiability, NOT truth (or fact). In other words, what is written in our articles is not just what some editor thinks, but what some reliable source(s) have said. The information might still be very much in the "questionable" zone (such as who really shot JFK, or who wrote the works of Shakespeare, or what happened to Percy Fawcett), but it's at least not some editor just making it up as he goes along. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The word "verify" means "to make true". Citations are needed in a lot more places than Wikipedia. More and more we hear reporters say, "Police say that..." or "Officials say that..." which is their way of doing what we do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Rather than give you a bunch of OR, go read WP:RS. It speaks for itself. There's also Wikipedia for Dummies. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@The guy from the other day: - Can you be more specific? That question can be answered so many ways. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

How about you invert it? I started contributing to Wikipedia because I was coming across some very unique, interesting and historical information and did not wish for it to be lost down my personal--or society's in general--'memory hole', so I built article sections (and sometimes entire articles) from the citations/references out. Instead of saying 'hey you know this thing needs an article' etc. To look at this inversion completely, wikipedia could be seen as just a very large cluster search portal of references many of us don't wish to lose to the dispersion field known as the world wide web. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That's why many editors maintain their own "To Do" lists. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Diplomatic Immunity and the arrest of Devyani Khobragade

Devyani Khobragade, apparently an accredited Indian diplomat, was reportedly arrested, strip searched, and even cavity searched by federal law enforcement officials in the US, for allegedly trying to bring a domestic worker into the US which was to receive less than minimum wage.The arresting officers apparently were fully aware she was a diplomat. The diplomatic immunity article lists numerous cases of espionage, vehicular homicide, other murder,and theft, with the accused allowed to leave the host country. The press reports I've seen have made no mention of why the US apparently chose to abrogate diplomatic immunity for her, even though it stirred up a political shit storm. Was it retaliation for some previous Indian action against a US diplomat, or is the US just out to humiliate India for some geopolitical reason? Has any press source discussed the motives for ignoring diplomatic immunity? When the Iranian government ignored US diplomatic immunity in the seizure of the US embassy in 1979 the US media were all over it. Edison (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This has potential to be an ugly incident.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between diplomatic immunity (granted to diplomatic personnel in an Embassy, i.e. in a diplomatic mission in the capital), and consular immunity (personnel working at a consulate, as was the case of the Indian diplomat in New York). The first is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and the latter by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The second convention provides immunity simply in the context of work performed on behalf of the consulate. As explained by the State Department spokesperson quoted in the news story linked by Bugs, the U.S. considers that the Indian diplomat violated U.S. law in the course of actions that were not related to the performance of her duties. That is the official US position. That being said, even in cases where consular staff are not covered by immunity, there is usually consideration paid to their status, and it is extremely rare (not to say unheard of) for such extreme treatment to be meted out in what is essentially a civil matter. It's quite understandable that the Indian government is mad. One last point: it is not for the U.S. to ignore diplomatic immunity (they are bound by the two conventions mentioned above, to which they are party), but India can renounce it on behalf of its diplomat. This is usually done in extremely serious matters only, the famous example being Georgia having renounced immunity for one of its diplomats in Washington who killed someone whole driving while intoxicated in the early 1990s. --Xuxl (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that this is an escalation in an on-going tit-for-tat pissing match between the US and India (This action by India, a few months ago, may be lurking in the background... and that was apparently in retaliation for something the US did... which was in retaliation for... etc). I won't comment on "who started it" or who is right or wrong... Certainly both Nations feel aggrieved, and there is probably blame on both sides (there usually is). I am just noting that a diplomatic pissing match exists, and may be influencing events. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any mention in the article provided of the AdvanFort case being a retaliation for anything the US did nor does a search find anything (although it's difficult to search given junk from the recent case). I can't of course rule out the possibility but I don't see any particular reason to think it was retaliation against something the US did. Seems far more likely the main reason why the Indian government may have been more concerned over the Advanfort ship (whether you want to call it retaliation or justified concern is not relevant to the discussion) was because of the reason the article did mention namely the killing of Indian fishermen by Italian marines on a private ship 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea. (Which didn't have anything to do with the US and I don't think any suggested the killings were retialiation for something India did although there were accusations of tit-for-tat moves arising afterwards.)

I would note while Advanfort is a US company, the link you provided doesn't mention any Americans being among affected crew and sources suggest they weren't [2] [3]. In fact while I assume the US government did communicate with the Indian government on the matter and while it did happen during the United States federal government shutdown of 2013, I can't find any real evidence the arrests and detention of the ship were something the US made much noise about. Frankly I'm not surprised, my impression from previous cases like Blackwater (I assume this link still finds the company despite their many renames) as well as based on what I expect is the thought process of those involved, most governments prefer to stay out of doing too much defend mercenaries when they get in legal trouble elsewhere, particularly if they aren't their citizens and weren't acting on behalf of them at the time, regardless of if the company itself is from their country. And even when your citizens are involved [4]....

Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Civil matter? As I understand it the crime she has been accused of carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. [5] Note that allegation is not just that she tried to pay less than the minimum wage but that she lied in the visa application (said she would pay more than the minimum wage but had a secret agreement with the maid to pay less [6]). I don't really know about the way the arrest was handled but [7] if the Indian view is that this is a civil matter, I think they don't really understand how sensitive the US can be to immigration issues such as visa fraud particularly in light of September 11th (even if this sort of lie doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that risks letting someone the US considered dangerous in). Or for that matter that the minimum wage is seen as much more than a civil issue in most Western countries (and not forgetting the legacy of slavery in the US) although from what I can tell, there's so far no indication she's going to be charged with anything in regards to the minimum wage law. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I doubt that many people who underpay their domestic staff in New York City serve lengthy prison sentences. --Xuxl (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The case isn't really about under-paying as such, but about allegedly lying on a visa application, which the US takes seriously, hence the max 10 year sentence. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes precisely as I said.

However we shouldn't underestimate that exploting workers such as by seriously underpaying them is viewed as a serious thing in much of the Western world [8] Postville Raid [9] [10] [11] [12] (UK) (NZ), and much more than simply a civil matter. (Many would suggest such cases aren't pursued vigiriously or widely enough, but there's no question they are usually seen as something the government should involve themselves in, that's after all the reason why the laws are there in the first place. And I don't think this is unique to the developed world either [13].)

This story suggests that in fact there is concern that it's a wider problem [14] among diplomats resulting in a recent crackdown. While some may consider this xenophobia or racism (but remember the domestic servants are rarely white or Americans) there are obviously cultural differences and in particular financial issues (supporters of the Indian diplomat suggested she didn't earn the minimum wage herself in fact a fair bit below it so there's no way she could afford to pay it) which make it more likely to be a problem among them.

Remember also that there are different levels of underpaying (or other violations of legal requirements). While I obviously have no idea of the realities of the diplomat case, the figures that have been quoted were said to be about 1/3 of the minimum wage. If true, this is the sort of thing likely to be seen as serious exploitation rather than the more ordinary disputes between domestic servants and their employers like minor violations of the minimum wage or making the person work longer than they should etc (although that also depends how far you go e.g [15] [16]).

Note that in some of the links I provided of cases in the US weren't or aren't being pursued simply as violations of the various worker protection laws, but related crimes like employee undocument migrants, submitting alse documentation, i.e. somewhat similar to the diplomat case. This likely reflects the fact amongst other things, that such crimes are easier to prove and carry equivalent or stronger sentences. Yet all of the examples did emphasise to some degree the explotation of workers was a concern (often part of the government PR), further emphasising my point.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe part of India's rage over this incident is that they were "shown up" by the revelation of routine exploitation of workers (as suggested on NPR the other day). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Senate resolutions during the Clinton impeachment trial

I'm looking at several Senate resolutions from the Clinton impeachment trial with unusual histories, at least as presented through the ProQuest Congressional database. For example, 106 S. Res 16 and 106 S. Res. 17 don't have any committees mentioned, so it looks as if the resolutions went straight to the full Senate for consideration. Did these two go to committee (meaning that the database omitted something), or did they indeed go straight to the full Senate? 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:46C8 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, both went to the Senate floor and were passed the same days they were introduced. John M Baker (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Both in the House and Senate, "housekeeping" resolutions are frequently taken up without reference to a committee, usually by unanimous consent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

December 19

Forums & diplomatic immunity

I have two questions:

• What are the foremost internet forums for asking questions about law, when that doesn't mean asking for legal advice?
• Concerning diplomatic immunity: I used to think that diplomatic immunity meant simply that a person admitted into a country as a diplomat was subject only to the laws of his or her own country and not to the law of the host country. That would presumably mean that if you wanted to sue such a person, you would have to sue in his or her home country. But now I wonder.... I found a web site saying that under German law, various statutory provisions are incorporated into leases on real estate. Let's say an American diplomat in Germany (I promise: this didn't actually happen in any case I know of) is a party to such a lease. If there were a breach of that contract and you wanted to sue that person, maybe you'd have to go to a federal court in the USA. German courts couldn't touch him. Might that federal court in the USA decide that although German _courts_ couldn't do anything, nonetheless German _law_ was applicable? It could be enforced only by order of an American _court_, but still, that court, looking at the contract and understanding that it incorporates statutory provisions of German law, might apply that law? So would diplomatic immunity in such a case only imply something about which courts were involved and not about whose laws are involved?

Michael Hardy (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the specific question, but in general, yes, courts of country X do indeed apply law of country Y if the question falls under X jurisdiction but the applicable law is Y. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Our articles on the subject are State immunity and Extraterritoriality, but, frankly, neither of them is very good. The position in the UK is governed by the State Immunity Act 1978, which removes state immunity for "proceedings relating to a commercial transaction entered into by the State." Whether or not a particular case involves a "commercial transaction" is fact-dependent. I assume German legislation is similar. Tevildo (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an entire field of law dedicated to addressing this question of what country's or state's law applies in a case that has contacts with more than one country or state. In the US, this field is usually called conflict of laws, and elsewhere called private international law. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Diplomatic immunity only applies to diplomats.

Ideally it makes them immune against any law in the country they are sent to be diplomats in according to the Vienna Convention.

Diplomatic immunity DanielDemaret (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Tevildo says courts of country X sometimes apply the laws of country Y, and that much of course I knew or I wouldn't have posted the question. But I was wondering how diplomatic immunity might affect that in situations like what I described. DanielDemaret says diplomats are not subject to the laws of the host country, but also does not directly address the situation I described. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@DanielDemaret: You say diplomats are "immune against any law in" the host country, and you cite the article titled Diplomatic immunity. But that article says this:

Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity and a policy held between governments that ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be extradited.

Immune to prosecution or lawsuits in the host country doesn't mean immune to having the laws of the host country applied in lawsuits in the diplomat's home country, as in the situation I described. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a lawyer. I am only going by a number of cases that I happen to know about, so you should take my comments as suggestions based on experience, rather than any sort of expert. I would not have attempted to make suggestions had you not now prompted me to address your question in more detail. If I understood it correctly in the case you describe, you are wondering whether "German _law_ was applicable?"... in a US court. If I have understood the question correctly, then my answer, based on the few cases I can recall that are relevant, is no, not directly. There are however ways that one could make the case stick anyway. One would be if one found a US law that matches the German law in criminal law, however the case you describe above does not seem to be in criminal law, but in civil law. (Even the meanings of these two groups of laws differ between countries in boundary areas). A way which is more often the case in civil law is if there are formal agreements in the particular area of law, either multilaterally or unilaterally. Unfortunately, I could not even guess whether that is applicable in this particular case. DanielDemaret (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Theology in art question

In respect of the following mural File:Almakerek7.jpg, I'd like to add to the description so

i) What is shown symbolically? ii) Is this common theme in such art? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't identify it exactly, but it appears to be devils harassing a saint. For similar themes, see Temptation of Saint Anthony in visual arts etc. During some periods, ailments such as migraine headaches etc. could be shown as mini-gargoyles pounding away at the sufferer's head, probably without much intended theological implications... AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it shows Judas Iscariot after he committed suicide by hanging himself, and the little devils are grabbing for his soul. We have a whole category of "Judas hangs himself" at Commons, one example (with devils) is File:Autun, Judas.JPG. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The image represents Judas Iscariot. He's dressed in yellow, the colour of cowardice and betrayal. He's depicted with red hair to emphasize that he's Jewish (see Judas Iscariot#Representations and symbolism). The uppermost demon is tearing off his lips, which he used to betray Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. Tevildo (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you , so far. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Jesus King in Heaven

identified Danish IP troll with blocking history for such questions here and at help desk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When was Jesus made King in Heaven--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC) I'm sure that there are as many answers as there are denominations of the Christian faith. However, the phrase is mostly associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, who give the date as October 1914 (based, I believe, on their interpretation of the Book of Daniel). See Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses. Tevildo (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC) According to SDA eschatology, He is currently the heavenly high priest (since 1844), I'm not sure whether this precludes Him from concurrently being the heavenly king. If it does, then He would definitely be made the heavenly king upon His second coming, when his service as priest comes to an end. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC) The IP in question has now been put in wiki-purgatory for a month. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Collective bargaining and quality assurance

I'm looking for a history of important legal cases, white papers, basically anything big picture about how these two entities interact. In short, quality assurance activities are often explicitly designed not to be used in human resources activities (i.e. firing people, which unions tend to be rather concerned about). All I can find using the google is university professors and I'm looking for more along the lines of manufacturing or healthcare situations. 150.148.14.8 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't easy-peasy stuff. It sounds not so much like homework as a doctoral thesis. I think you may mean in the USA although you don't say so. Have you tried the websites of trade unions? See what they say about quality assurance. On a basic level, the union has to represent its members. If a member is being treated unfairly because of a quirk of the quality assurance system, then the union must try and rectify that. But a union isn't going to oppose the existence of quality assurance, and may not even have a great deal to say about how quality assurance works. The employer has a right to run a business-like operation. ITaylorism is relevant in the historical context. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If it were easy, the google would have been more useful... There's a certain amount of Non-overlapping magisteria that's intentionally designed into quality assurance activities and human resources activities so it may not be a big issue, but I'll keep looking. Given the history I've heard about labor issues with General Motors, their attempts with the Toyota Production System and NUMMI, it has to have come up at some point. 150.148.14.8 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If its about labour discipline in general, then following Itsmejudith's suggestion about Taylorism is good, particularly functional foremen. My reading of labour sociology is that in piecework quality control was almost non-existent (_Worker in a Workers' State_), and was treated as a personnel discipline issue. Particularly in fields like medicine where professionalism has been a commonplace for both nurses and doctors, the quality control systems of past years have involved heavily interpersonal labour discipline, and systematised disciplinary systems of performance. So you'd want to chase QA through that route historically. Both nursing and doctoring as professions love talking about quality and performance, but you might find that this rarely interacts with formal contemporary QA structures? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December 20

Babylonian Method Of Calculating Roots

What is the history behind the Babylonian Method? Such as:

• Do we have an article on this topic?
• Was it published in a treatise?
• Was it compiled in a anthology of mathematical formulae?174.3.125.23 (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

See "Babylonian method".—Wavelength (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

How is calculating square roots any different from calculating cube roots?174.3.125.23 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask this on the Math desk... AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the first calculates square roots and the second calculates cube roots? I don't understand your confusion. If you read our article on the Babylonian method, it's clear that the method doesn't work for cube roots. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

My question is: What makes calculating a $n$ root different from others? Such as: What makes the-method-which-works-for-square-roots render the computation of a cubic root impossible?174.3.125.23 (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, as Bowlhover already said, because it calculates square roots, not cube roots? Seriously, this question will receive better answers on the maths desk --109.189.65.217 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Which was the first recognized country ?

Resolved

I admit that it is a bit of a trick question. Today, a new country would only be considered as such if it is recognized by other countries. Obviously, the first country to be could then never have been, since there would have had to be countries before that country, an argument a bit in absurdum. So there were obviously other criteria at some point in time. Could anyone shed light on this? On earlier ways considering what the first country might have been and on when the change came to be this "recognized" criteria, which seems to limit any countries existence to first have to conform to the existing countries norms? DanielDemaret (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't answerable in those terms, unless you can give us a very precise definition of "recognize" in this context, and then we might stand a small chance of examining exactly what "recognized" exactly what. You might like to read Diplomatic history and Political history of the world for some pointers.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

DanielDemaret -- One position is that the modern diplomatic system as we know it today more or less came into being with the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. According to that point of view, all the main European states existing in 1648 recognized each other at that time (see Westphalian sovereignty etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Although there was a well developed ambassadorial system before that; see The Ambassadors (Holbein) from 1533. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The existence of ambassadors doesn't necessarily have anything to with the recognisation of countries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

One possibly relevant distinction is between the city-state and nation-state. City-states developed in prehistoric antiquity, where one city was the center of the nation or Empire. An example is the Roman Empire. Only a few of these exist today, though, such as Singapore, Monaco, etc. So, perhaps what you are asking is which was the first nation-state ? StuRat (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Earliest known peace treaty between nations; inscribed in hieroglyphics in a temple precinct in Karnak

Various ancient civilisations such as the Ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Sumerians, ancient Assyrians and so on were on various occasions willing to recognise the existence of other nations by (for example) making peace treaties with them. One such treaty (or, perhaps, a declaration of war) would be the first recorded instance of one nation recognising another. The verbiage would often mention an individual ruler on each side, but it's still a recognition of another nation as existing. So you're looking at somewhere between 3500 B.C. and 1500 B.C. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Earliest known peace treaty, in or around 1259 B.C., between Egypt and the Hittites. Includes such modern niceties as extradition arrangements for political opponents. It's pretty certain that nations "recognised" each other in such ways before this; but not that we have records of. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Upper and Lower Egypt were unified into a state by Narmer ca. 3500 BC and there are mentions of neighboring states. That's about as far back as you can go in the documented archaeological record although other countries have their own traditions that may or may not be historically accurate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

But if the question is about the current network of countries recognizing each other, one of the earliest recorded is Uruk, which diplomatically recognised several other states early on. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're strictly talking humans here (you never know with trick questions). Maiasaurs may have had some permanent territory (their nesting colonies) in Montana, where about 10,000 of them died together. Perhaps Egg Mountain could be seen as the seat of a nomadic empire. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear me, I am very grateful for all insightful responses here. I got more than I bargained for in the details. However, the core of my question is in what makes a country a country, and according to whom and when. This list may be a good starting point to what I am really after : List_of_unrecognized_countries . Some might argue that the title in itself is misleading, since either it is recognized or it is no country at all. One might comapare the list with List_of_states_with_limited_recognition. If one asks people whether they are countries or not, one will get different answers from different groups of people : The fence between these two groups of people would be the the principle of recognition. So let me add a question: Is the principle of recognition the only valid way of deciding whether an entity is a country or not? And now to the original question: When did that principle BECOME the only way of deciding this. Did it become the deciding principle become established and accepted since Uruk (thank you @Til Eulenspiegel ) ? If so, then incidentally the naming of the article with the list of "unrecognized countries" is a contradiction in terms. DanielDemaret (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that both links lead to the same article. Silly me. So le me put it differently. Some of the countries listed have no recognition at all, so should they really be listed as a "country" in there? DanielDemaret (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell so far, there are a number of possibilities. @AnonMoos has implied the treaty of Westfalia and Til has implied that the principle has been there since the dawn of history. I have tried to read up from your suggestion, but have not yet come to a conclusion for myself. DanielDemaret (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Still reading. Diplomatic_recognition is interesting. Perhaps I shall have to make do with phrases like "some consider" :) DanielDemaret (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I found an answer in the article about a Sovereign state under the sections about a constitutive and declarative theories. "This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century". It leads to a further question, i e which of the theories are considered valid, but that is for another time. Thank you all. I shall see if I can find the way to check this off as "resolved". DanielDemaret (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I think I have two answers. Uruk as being the first to recognize, and 19th century as being when it officially became a way to decide what a country is. Thanks all! DanielDemaret (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

And probably the Westphalian treaty was the upstart of what became developed into the theory. DanielDemaret (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Which US presidents opposed or supported the death penalty?

Which US presidents of the 20th century supported or opposed the death penalty? I am especially interested how Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson thought about it. Did those two chief executives oppose it as they are considered as liberals? --92.228.5.244 (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This may be not precisely addressing the question. The original Pennsylvania Law Code (1682) restricted possible appliance of the death penalty to cases involving premeditated murder and treason. --Askedonty (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

92.228.5.244 -- Presidents are only directly involved in Capital punishment by the United States federal government, and there have been rather few federal executions after the 1950s (five, if I'm counting correctly). However, I don't think that any modern president has come out against the death penalty in all cases while in office... AnonMoos (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

26 executions since 1950 says that article. You have to count civilian and military which are listed in a separated article. Rmhermen (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I was counting from 1960, not 1950 (since the question was about Kennedy and Johnson)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Overt refusal to enforce a legally-imposed death penalty, by a president or a governor, could well be grounds for impeachment. The executive takes an oath to uphold the law, and doesn't include anything about deciding which laws to uphold. Executives who have the power of clemency can commute a condemned prisoner's sentence. But apparently not all governors have that power. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The individual subject to elections who really got in trouble over the death penalty was Rose Bird of the California Supreme court. She voted on the court to overturn every single death-penalty case that came before her, but she didn't declare the death penalty unconstitutional, but instead found various narrow technicalities in each case to object to. She had no meaningful answer to the question of whether she would ever uphold the death penalty in any circumstances whatsoever. Many California Democrats have unfond memories of Rose Bird as a semi-disingenuous person whose idiosyncracies and flaws helped catalyze the rise of the right wing in California politics... AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

D-bate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Of course I'm generally in favor of that which irritates California Democrats. But I think, even without that, I'd like Rose Bird anyway. It's true that her presentation of her position was not entirely honest. But it was how she kept the state from murdering people. --Trovatore (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Capital punishment is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Murder is murder. Man's law is null and void when it conflicts with natural law. --Trovatore (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, murder is murder. Capital punishment, warfare and induced abortion do not qualify as murder. The USA is under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. "Natural law" is irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Natural law is not irrelevant, and it supersedes the constitution. The constitution was largely written to express natural law. It didn't always do it perfectly. But in any case, natural law is utterly unsusceptible to modification by any political process whatsoever. --Trovatore (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC) The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC) The supreme human law of the land. Human law is inferior to God's law. --Trovatore (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) God's law is a good ideal to adhere to for personal morality. However, it has no legal standing in America. America is not a theocracy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC) America is not a theocracy, meaning it's not under the jurisdiction of those who claim to speak for God, no. That's a different thing from not being under the jurisdiction of God. You're talking about murder relative to some legal code. I'm talking about it in an absolute sense. --Trovatore (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Give me your definition of murder, then. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure I know the exact circumstances that constitute murder. But I do insist that it's a concept that transcends law books. Humans have always had it, whether they had a legal code in our sense of the word or not. That's the sense I was using the word, not in the sense of anything written in a book. Let me put it another way, so it's not just about the definition of a word. Rose Bird's "personal morality", as you put it, instructed her to behave as she did. Was she right to let her personal morality take precedence over the wishes of a majority of tens of millions of Californians? Depends. If she was right and they were wrong, then yes she was. --Trovatore (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC) If she could defend her decision within the confines of the laws of California and the USA, then she could be considered to be right. If she defended her decision on something other than the laws of California and the USA, then she was wrong. Obviously, society has always had rules or laws against extreme behavior, such as murder, because it's damaging to the social fabric. Is warfare murder? Is induced abortion murder? What about the use of deadly force to protect yourself? Is that murder? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC) No, she was right if and only if she was right, period. Right and wrong are not about human law. The other questions are a distraction and I'm not going to address them at this time. --Trovatore (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Cop-out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• So far as I am aware, Michael Dukakis was the only (major party) candidate ever to express opposition to the death penalty, and doing so caused a huge hubbubb, and hurt him in the election. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably not as much as looking silly while driving a tank did. --Jayron32 17:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • That was kind of the flip side of Nixon walking on the beach in a business suit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Dukakis' experience (and expectations of similar treatment before him) possibly influenced many Presidents to either avoid commenting, or to say what they thought the electorate wanted to hear, rather than what they really thought. Knowing what politicians actually think is one of those great mysteries of life. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The "many" you mention would be three, and Clinton and Bush executed people, while Obama, as a former senator, only had opportunity to have them assassinated by drone strike. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that Obama has shown great restraint in the use of drones. For example, not once (that we know of) has he ordered a drone strike on Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

On the specific question about JFK and LBJ, I don't know where to point you on JFK. But Victor Feguer was executed on LBJ's watch, and Johnson evidently passed on the opportunity to stop that from happening. That doesn't by itself answer the question of whether he thought it was good policy, and I don't know the answer to that. (But if I had to guess, my guess would be that the fairly socially conservative Johnson was likely a death-penalty supporter — emphasis on "guess".) --Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, it's a subject that really doesn't come up. Regardless of one's personal beliefs, if the justice system in a state or at the federal level has determined a death sentence, politically speaking the executive would have to have a pretty powerful reason to commute the sentence other than just, "I don't believe in the death penalty." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the kind of "believe" you're talking about. If you just don't think it's good policy, that's one thing. If you think it's an active moral evil and an offense against God, that's another matter.

I think both Pat Brown and Jerry Brown believed that exact thing, at one time, and the elder Brown commuted many (but not all) of the sentences where he had a chance to. How he made the distinction between the ones where he did and the ones where he didn't is a bit murky, but that's the human condition. The younger Brown never had to face the issue directly in his first two terms, but he did appoint Rose Bird (which contributed noticeably to it not coming directly to his desk).

What Brown thinks now, and what he would do this time around, I don't really know. --Trovatore (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal restrictions prevented Pat Brown from stopping the execution of Caryl Chessman, though he did make the effort. Jerry Brown has any number of folks on death row, one obvious one being Scott Peterson. The evidence against Peterson was largely by inference, but I'm not aware that Jerry has done anything about commuting his sentence. (Not that I would question the verdict, but only that some might take the approach of "beyond ALL doubt".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be really surprised if the Peterson case came up before Brown, even if he gets a fourth term. There are over 700 people on California death row, and no one has been executed in almost eight years. But it's not unlikely that he'll have to face the issue for someone. (I don't know of anything that stops him from commuting Peterson's sentence pro-actively without waiting for an execution date to be set, but he hasn't evinced any interest in that sort of thing in the past.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It has probably occurred to the Gov that California has a lot bigger problems than worrying about a convicted killer about whom no serious questions of innocence have arisen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

See also Toney Anaya for a governor who commuted all death sentences on the basis of categorical opposition to the death penalty. The case of George Ryan is more nuanced; he could countenance the death penalty in a regime where he believed it would be applied without error, but did not think that could be guaranteed at the time in Illinois. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It might also have been an attempt at distracting from the truck drivers' licenses scandal, although I wouldn't necessary question his argument. I wonder what he would have done with the likes of John Gacey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Mannfred of Sicily

Do we know the history behind this image of Manfred of Sicily? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Just speculating, but could the bird he's holding be symbolic of the arms of Hohenstaufen? See File:King Manfred of Sicily Arms.svg which shows the eagle/falcon as the arms of Hohenstaufen kings of Sicily (Manfred specifically here) and File:Frederick II and eagle.jpg which shows Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor with a similar eagle. Apparently, Hohenstaufen association with eagles and falcons derives from Frederick II's authorship of De arte venandi cum avibus , which was dedicated to Manfred. So both Frederick and apparently Manfred were associated strongly with falconry and that would explain the motif in artworks and symbols of the Hohenstaufens. --Jayron32 18:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the original page from De arte venandi cum avibus, from the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana online. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The image file is so not informative.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are jesses in the photo, aren't they? Wnt (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December 21

Latin as university language

When, why and how did people stopped using Latin at universities? If all cultivated people could speak Latin at a certain time, what was the point of turning around and starting using their own languages? OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Which universities? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

From university: "university culture developed differently in northern Europe than it did in the south, although the northern (primarily Germany, France and Great Britain) and southern universities (primarily Italy) did have many elements in common. Latin was the language of the university, used for all texts, lectures, disputations and examinations. " OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

All cultivated people didn't speak Latin. In England, boys went to grammar schools to learn Latin to enter universities or become a priest or monk. Elizabeth I had a secret Bible in English which was heretical.
Sleigh (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Heretical to the Anglican church, or just to the Roman Catholic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It would have been during the Catholic restoration in the reign of Queen Mary I of England. After Mary's death, Queen Elizabeth sponsored the printing of the Geneva Bible in London. Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

From the article you linked above: "With the foundation of the ancient universities from the late 12th century, grammar schools became the entry point to a liberal arts education, with Latin seen as the foundation of the trivium." Indeed, it seems to confirm my point, that being educated meant you had to learn Latin. Hence, people at universities could communicate in Latin. I was not claiming they spoke it at home. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a citation for that statement, or is it just an editor's opinion? Also, Latin was used to share information across countries with different languages. English (which is partly Latin filtered through French) has taken over that role. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is no citation, you could add the 'citation needed' tag. But it seems as a pretty unremarkable statement. And English as a kinda lingua franca is a relatively recent development. It is not as if Latin was substituted for English. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The abandondement of Latin as the main language at universities in Europe (for lectures, disputes and theses) occurred gradually throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, as it became seen as antiquated and part of the old scholastic way of learning, as opposed to the new scientific way, combined with the rise of nationalism and newfound interest in the history and care for the native languages of each country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I found some interesting although brief information here. [17] Itsmejudith (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's a reference... Clackson, James (2011) A Companion to the Latin Language, Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1405186056 (Chapter 18) says "This widespread use of Latin as the language of scholarship began to decline in many areas of Europe from the early eighteenth century onwards, as French, English and German in particular gained greater ground in their respective countries, inspired through the Enlightenment with a desire to present new learning more intelligibly to a broader audience." Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

See also New Latin#Decline. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cairo Geniza question

I read somewhere that divorce in the Islamic-ruled Mediterranean was so common that the very first Cairo Geniza document discovered was a writ of divorce. However, I can't seem to find it in my books. It may have something to do with the chest of Cairo Geniza papers that S.D. Goitein found. Does this sound familiar to anyone or am I just thinking of something else? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how common divorce was, but the Cairo Genizah was a collection of several thousand documents, 'genizah' being a sacred storeroom for religious texts that could not be destroyed. So, it makes no sense to say the "very first Cairo Geniza document discovered." On the other hand, the Cairo Genizah specifically was the storeroom of many everyday documents, so it won't be a surprise to find many divorce deeds among them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There's academic research using the Geniza documents to investigate how often non-Muslims had recourse to the Muslim courts. They had their own courts, but were permitted to take out cases in the Islamic courts. It seems that both Jews and Christians did, and one of the purposes was for divorce. There were other reasons, such as business disputes. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I confused the writ of divorce with something else. I believe the first letter that Goitein came across was a letter from David to his brother Maimonides. Never mind. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Rothschild

In the Wikipedia article on Benjamin Disraeli there is a picture of four men with this caption: "Clockwise from top left: Russell, Rothschild, Manners and Granby." I am wondering if somebody will help me with the identification. I would like to know approximately (1) the age of Rothschild when this portrait was made, (2) his first name and perhaps (3) the year this picture was taken (or portrait drawn). I am also curious if it was a drawn portrait or a daguerreotype. Thanks, AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)AboutFace_22

If you click on the picture, the source says "Rothschild: Unsigned portrait from "Baron Rothschild", Illustrated London News 31 July 1847, [when he would have been 37] p. 76". Perhaps someone else can supply more information.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The particular Rothschild depicted is Lionel de Rothschild (1808 - 1897), who, if the 1847 date is accurate, would have been 39 at the date of the photograph engraving. Tevildo (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

... and it seems he wasn't a baron of the UK but of Austria, inheriting from his father, Nathan Mayer Rothschild. His son was the first Jewish person to be allowed into the House of Lords. I'll correct the link in the image legend. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he was a baron of Austria; a royal licence 16 June 1838 allowed him, and any other heirs male of the body of the grantees of the Austrian barony (granted his father and uncles in 1822) to use this title in Britain. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much guys, your erudition is overwhelming!!! AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)AboutFace_22

Otto of Wittelsbach

Why did Otto IV, Count of Wittelsbach (see de:Otto V. von Scheyern) have the grown sons named Otto: Otto I Wittelsbach, Duke of Bavaria and Otto VII, Count Palatine of Bavaria? It is extremely unusual to name sons by the same name if those sons both reached adulthood and had no differentiating middle name.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

See House of Reuss and George Foreman and have your mind blown. --Jayron32 20:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You've left out Michael Jackson's children; "Prince" Michael, Paris-Michael, and Prince "Pillow" Michael. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And apparently Otto I Wittelsbach carried on the tradition and named two of his daughters Heilika I (b. 1171) married in 1184 to Hallgrave Dietrich of Wasserburg, and Heilika II (1176 - 1214). So here too, the older one was alive when the younger one was born, and it wasn't a case of naming a newborn after an already-deceased older sibling, as was common practice in many parts of Europe while infant and child mortality was high. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also much too early, historically, for there to have been middle names to differentiate by. - Nunh-huh 00:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily...there were the twin counts of Barcelona, Ramon Berenguer II and Berenguer Ramon II. As for why these two were both named Otto, maybe Otto IV already knew they would inherit different places, so one would be Otto of X and the other would be Otto of Y. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the Reuss are a rare case because it was a family tradition to name all sons Heinrich. On the father's death there was only the family lands in Scheyern and the title of Count palatine of Bavaria, subordinate to the Duke of Bavaria, at that time Henry the Lion, which were all inherited by the older Otto until he was randomly invested as Duke of Bavaria after Henry the Lion's defeat against the Holy Roman Emperor. Then did the older Otto give the lesser title of Count palatine of Bavaria to the younger Otto.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In German tradition, there was and is no concept of a differentiating middle name. Whereas I would be reluctant to believe the family reconstructions of medieval times (often done by later genealogists at will), I have no problem at all with several children of one family bearing the same name. This happened in ruling and non-ruling families. In ruling families it may have helped to demonstrate the legal succession. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

All the Heinrichs in the Reuss family (repost)

Did the male members of the House of Reuss refer to their father, brothers, uncles, male cousins, children and etc by Heinrich follow by their numerals or were pet names used like in the Russian Imperial family? I assume it is allow to repost old unanswered questions. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This question has been combined with the previous, still-active thread. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh. Not very relevant to this other question. One editor's answer only reminded me of it. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December 22

What's the difference between sociopath and psychopath?

I looked at the definitions and they look nearly identical to me. Both are antisocial right? ScienceApe (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Colloquially, a sociopath is taken to lack empathy or a conscience, whereas a psychopath is taken to be violent or criminal as well. This is not a recognized distinction by the DSM-V. See psychopathy. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the way I generally hear it, too. "Sociopath" seems to mean introvert, the kind of guy who obsessively plots and imagines murder in his mom's house. "Psychopath" better fits those who just "go psycho" and suddenly eat your face outside a bar. Officially, they're all "individuals" with "antisocial personality disorder". Most don't kill anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, December 22, 2013 (UTC)

The guy who eats your face outside a bar would be more accurately described as psychotic, which is not the same thing as psychopathy. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A sociopath is not necessarily (or primarily) taken to be a loser. See The Sociopath Next Door for a popular, if not necessarily academically well-respected treatment. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

She seems to use the word as a catch-all for anyone who meets the ASPD criteria, so her sociopaths include those who might be colloquially called psychopaths. Of course, language works differently all over the place. I didn't mean to imply the way I generally hear it is the way the entire world uses it. Here, losers can be extroverts or introverts. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, December 22, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a scientific diagnosis, just some legal runaround. For example, as I interpret the criteria as explained in the article, someone who is caught having homosexual relations in a country where it is outlawed would be dubbed a "sociopath" (provided he started doing it by age 15, that is). The concept that societal norms exist, and that violating them generally expresses some kind of biological phenomenon, seems highly suspect to me. Surely someone who rats out a gang is just as much if not more of a "sociopath" in relation to his own chosen sovereign, but would a shrink dare say that? Wnt (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of calling them disorders instead of diseases was to eliminate the association with biology. Each of the behaviours required for a mental health diagnosis can be caused by different things, but causes aren't taken into account. We "are" what we do, not why. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, December 22, 2013 (UTC)

@Wnt The original diagnostic criteria for Antisocial personality disorder AKA Sociopathy AKA Psychopathy were not created to shun a group of people who behaved differently, but to predict recidivism amongst convicts. The concept of psychopathy is that the individual is completely incapable of empathy, which is almost universally considered a normal human trait (though what you are supposed to do with your empathy varies from culture to culture). That itself has its detractors, with some evolutionary psychologists who believe that psychopathy may be advantageous to a society in small doses. In any event, here we have a disconnect between the literal definition implied by the diagnostic criteria and the colloquial definition. That is, there are people who may meet the diagnostic criteria who nonetheless feel empathy. Since one would expect a true and criminal psychopath to lie to his court-appointed psychologist, imperfect diagnosis is unavoidable if one wishes to avoid a 100% rate of false negatives. @Hulk, the phrase "disorder", in medicine, is typically though not exclusively used to refer to a constellation of symptoms devoid of any suggestion as to their origin. So to say someone has a "disorder" is to say that they are different in an undesirable way, without stating why. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Lately I think the difference is it's the politician who beats everyone else in the primary but then loses the general, compared to the politician who actually gets elected! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Last of the House of Trastámara

Were there any discussion of the possibility of considering the descendants of Infante Henry, Duke of Villena as potential successors to Ferdinand II of Aragon given his desire to keep Aragon independent and out of Habsburg hands. They were still male line Trastámara.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

First Modern State?

According to Max Weber, a state is defined by having Monopoly on violence. A modern state also has a beauraucracy (and a few other things). Two questions here, really:

1. Does anyone know which state Max Weber himself considered to be the first?
2. Professor francis fukuyama suggests that China was the first modern state since it has a beauraucracy . However, I have seen some other suggestions as to which was the first modern state, Sweden, Denmark and ancient Egypt among them. Any more suggestions, and hopefully why? DanielDemaret (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Converted your "1. 2." into normal numbered lines I learned from an Usborne book that Persia was the first "independent" country. I have no clue whether that position's held by scholars as well, but you might want to check into it. Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

According to State_(polity)#History, the earliest proto-states existed during the Neolithic period. The earliest clear states probably were city-states of Mesopotamia during the early 4th millennium BC. It's likely that we cannot reliably identify a single one as "the first" as several candidates rose up within the same broad time period, and it's difficult to date any of them to within an exact year. Uruk is a particularly well-known site from this period, but it's only one such city among many, and well known more for its state of preservation and as being well studied more than for its absolute primacy. --Jayron32 18:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The earliest literary texts involve Uruk's political affairs, so that seems to correspond with the archaeological picture. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The word modern is confusing me. You comment that a modern state has not only a monopoly on violence but also "a bureaucracy (and a few other things)". However, many ancient states had both a monopoly on violence and a bureaucracy. So which, if any, of those "other things" distinguish a "modern state" from earlier states in your view, since "modern state" isn't a widely recognized category? By "modern state", do you mean anything other than state, since you list ancient Egypt as a candidate for that status? Marco polo (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to get more exactly at what Max Weber meant by a *modern* state. His definition of a "state" is the de facto standard definition of a state. His definition of a *modern state" is seldome cited. It is so unclear to people that different writers seem to have interpreted it differently. My quest may be futile, since we can not ask Max directly, but I would be very interesting in knowing a good way of clearly characterizing a state on a clearer ground than just that is "violoent". There are of course measures of democracy, freedom , liberal, libertarian, etc of a state out there, but I would prefer it if one could measure just how "modern" a state is in a way that is less connected to ideology and more , well, "objective" in some way. DanielDemaret (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The "other things" I referred to first of all that beauraucacy had to be a rational-legal authority, and he also wrote that the modern western states were defined by :

1. Monopolization by central authority of the means of administration and control based on a centralized and #stable system of taxation and use of physical force
2. monopolization of legislative organisation of an officialdom, dependent upon the central authority

Unfortunately, rational-legal authority seems to have been interpreted differently by different people. There are other ways of defining a state today, like the declarative and constitutive theories of states, but these do not describe a state in a way that is very clear and useful, so I was hoping that Weber was onto something that I can not clearly see. DanielDemaret (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you are looking for the first instance of what Max Weber would have considered a modern state. Of course, we can't put ourselves inside Weber's head, but I think that the key for Weber was that in a modern state the bureaucracy operates on impersonal, rational, regular (legal) principles. Weber also identifies the modern state as a Western development, which quasi by definition rules out imperial China or other non-Western states. The bureaucracies of ancient and medieval states generally served the personal interests of the monarch rather than impersonal, rational principles. Since bureaucracies evolved gradually from a state of near-complete subservience to personal interests (usually of the monarch) to a state of independence, it is almost impossible to pinpoint a time and place where independence was first achieved. Maybe an argument could be made for the expansion of the power of the States-General of the Netherlands after 1597 as the first modern state in this sense. However, I think Weber wouldn't have seen much point in identifying the first, since Weber's "modern state" was a parallel evolution in all western European states and their colonial offshoots during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Marco polo (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also hard to define the "first" even on those terms, since the creation of such a "state" is evolutionary and not revolutionary in nature, in the sense that it developed slowly over centuries. It wasn't like someone woke up one day and decided "Today, England is going to operate entirely on impersonal-rational principles rather than on the personal whim of the monarch". Without an event to pinpoint at a "time" and "place" it's hard to rank-order states by date when they became Weber-defined "modern" states. --Jayron32 03:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What sort of principles did the witan operate on? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the article? --Jayron32 04:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Paranormal auras

Our paranormal article includes a quote from Terence Hines placing "human auras" among a group of several things he considers pseudoscience. What kind of aura does he mean? I'm quite familiar with an Aura (symptom), and the usage of "he has an aura of [character quality] about him", but neither makes sense. Aura (paranormal) sounds right, but that article sounds more like a Halo (optical phenomenon) around a person than a phenomenon that he would find worthy of attention. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Aura (paranormal) is the correct reference - for unimpeachable pseudoscientific (as opposed to merely mystical) examples, see Walter John Kilner and Rupert Sheldrake. Tevildo (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

When you see pictures of paranormal auras, it's probably produced through Kirlian photography. At least so was the case in the bast. I don't see any reason not to sue photoshop nowadays. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That article has sections entitled Parapsychology research and Claims. Thelma Moss was a disciple; "Moss came to believe that Kirlian photography depicts the astral body. She made several trips to the Soviet Union to explore Russian work in the field, and wrote two books on that and related subjects, plus lesser works" Alansplodge (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

December 23

Copyrights on government works.

I was just wondering about something: what is the reason why many Commonwealth countries claim copyright on their works (although our article implies that laws are usually excluded), whereas the United States federal government and many other countries put most government works (with certain exceptions) under the public domain? Meaning: why the difference in copyright strategies? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Geography / history question

Which geographical phenomenon was beneficial to mankind especially over a period of 350 years and continues to be an asset. Would appreciate any response.98.194.137.222 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Jayron32 03:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Geez, they could be asking for anything. There's probably something listed in your textbook or class lectures which they are fishing for, and we can't guess at that, not having read the text or watched the lectures. StuRat (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The discovery of Australia, as a useful place to dump convicts and other weirdoes after the rebellion of the 13 colonies.

The British Empire; the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer; global warming (if you believe in that); plate tectonic theory/ the mapping and measurement of fault lines/ early warning systems for earthquakes and tidal waves; weather satellites 86.183.79.28 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Cape Colony Parliament

In the Cape Colony which later became part of South Africa, there was the Cape Qualified Franchise in the 19th century which allowed Black and Coloured men to vote on a basically equal basis with White men, although voting rights for nonwhites were later restricted by a series of laws and later eliminated entirely after the Union of South Africa in the 20th century. However, I don't see it specifically mentioned in Parliament of the Cape of Good Hope whether any nonwhite candidates had been elected to the Cape parliament before the union occurred. Did that happen? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Russian nobility

What percentage of Russia was part of the Russian nobility (article doesn't say) at the eve of the Revolution? From the article and War and Peace, it seems like they were a significant number of nobles in the Russian Empire.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutism and Ruling Class : The Formation of the Russian Political Order by John P. LeDonne Fellow Harvard (p.22) gives a figure of 0.83% in 1816 - "a tiny proportion of the total population". Still looking for a later figure. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we go... The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917, by Boris Nikolaevich Mironov (p. 413) has a handy table showing the figures for 1913:-

Heriditary nobility: 1,249,000 or 1% of the total population

Personal nobility: 687,000 or 0.5% of the total

The total population was 128,864,000. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing? Twenty years ago, it might have taken weeks to find that information (if at all) instead of five minutes. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)