Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 19

-pour Iranian christians

I notice that Iranians who are Christians have surnames that end with -pour like Christine Amanpour. Is that always that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.99 (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by your question. First, "Christian" is not an ethnicity, so I'm not sure that a specific surname would be connected to a faith like that. Second, I see no evidence at Christiane Amanpour that she or anyone in her family were Christians. So, unless you have more examples than that, I'm not sure that your question is based on any correct assumptions. Christianity in Iran indicates that many Christians in Iran are ofArmenian decent, so one may find a large number of Armenian surnames among Iranian Christians. But I don't know if Amanpour is an Armenian surname; many Armenian surnames I can think of end in -ian. (Ross Bagdasarian, Kim Kardashian, Avedis Zildjian, etc.) --Jayron32 03:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If her family were Muslim, or Jewish, they would hardly have been likely to name her Christiane, I think. I suppose they could be non-religious, but it seems a good bet that they were at least "culturally Christian". --Trovatore (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but her father's name was Mohammad, so there is that. --Jayron32 04:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point. --Trovatore (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if -pour meant "city", like the similar-sounding Indic language suffix... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

According to this paper, "pour", or other similar spellings, is Persian for "son of", and is widely used in Iranian names, not specifically for Christians. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm: It is not at all the case that Iranian Christians have surnames that end with -pour (meaning "the son of"), and I'm not sure if Christiane Amanpour is Christian at all, though she is the daughter of a British mother. Arbitrary naming is not uncommon among Iranians.Omidinist (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article says Amanpour attended a Catholic girl's school. Her father's name was Mohammed, her mother'sd Patricia. NNDB says she's Roman Catholic. μηδείς (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

She very well may be, but if so it has nothing to do with her surname "Amanpour". They are unrelated. --Jayron32 12:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. So far the evidence suggests she got the name Amanpour from the Muslim side of her family, even if she herself grew up RC. Not that attending Catholic school is good evidence; a Hindu friend of mine attended a Catholic school in India. Angr (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that I attributed her father's family name to her religion. Did I? I was simply reporting information that seemed to contradict unsupported implications above it. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you didn't. I assume her father's first name is an indicator of his religion, as it seems unlikely for anyone but a Muslim to be named Mohammed. And as Trovatore points out, it's unlikely for anyone but a Christian to be named Christine. (Or at least, in both cases, the child of anominal Muslim or Christian at the time the baby's name is given.) Angr (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jew languages

So far, I know that Ashkenazi Jews speak German, Polish, Russian and Yiddish. What other languages do they speak?--70.53.231.99 (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

They spoke most of the languages of central Europe and eastern Europe west of the Pale of Settlement, but in most areas Yiddish was their internal community language. Of course, all this is historical now that relatively few of them live in central or eastern Europe... AnonMoos(talk) 03:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They probably speak hundreds of different languages. Many Ashkenazi Jews migrated all over the world in the diaspora preceding, during, and after the Holocaust, and many probably migrated well before that. I'd imagine you can find Ashkenazi Jewish people speaking literally every European language. --Jayron3203:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

English and Hebrew are also two main languages that in the present day they speak (about 100 years ago, Yiddish wouldl've been more predominant). Of course, it depends the country they live in, which can be anywhere on the entire world. So we can't really restrict the languages someone can speak, in fact, someone can learn any language if they want to. --Jethro B04:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Rusyn language. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE - it'd also depend the level of observance of the Jew in question. A Reform, Conservative (Conservative Judaism doesn't mean traditional or reactionary, it's a bit past reform on the spectrum), or modern-Orthodox Jew (traditional, religious Jew who incorporates the surroundings and the present-day era) are not as likely to speak Yiddish as an ultra-Orthodox Jew, where Yiddish is frequently spoken as the norm. --Jethro B 05:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Dont mizrahi's speak yiddish too? cant be all Russian? Or ami talking out of my bum?Lihaas (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because they wouldn't have been exposed to it, and Yiddish was largely suppressed in Israel (even for Holocaust survivors) from around the founding of the state and subsequent large influx of North African immigrants. Same for Sephardim, whose international tongue is mainly Ladino(also called Spaniolit). One of the hardships, often fatal, of the Thessalonika Jews deported to the Auschwitz concentration camp is that they couldn't understand what the German and Slavic camp staff were saying and had no language in common with the vast majority of their fellow inmates. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I asked that question because I read the languages of Israel article and it said that Spanish is an Ashkenazi language due to immigration of Jews from Latin America. Also, it forgot Portuguese language being spoken in Israel because of Jews from Portugal (Sephardi) and Brazil (ashkenazi).--70.31.22.91 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

Man Booker Prize

This prize is award to the best original full-length novel. I wonder what it means to be "original full-length novel"? Somehow I feel like the words "original full-length" are unnecessary. It could just be the prize for the "best novel" unless "original full-length" means something else. Thanks!184.97.240.247 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

At the least it means no translations and no novellas or novelettes. Looie496 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, "original" means that it can't be an adaptation from another work (for example, novelizations of films), and "full length" means that it can't be a novella. --Jayron32 04:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Novella has a word count between 17,500 and 40,000. So how many pages is equivalent to that? Plus I don't understand how Happy Potter book doesn't win this award, it is the most popular book around the world. Why?184.97.240.247 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how many words there are to the page, and since books are published in many formats (hardcover, trade paperback, pocket paperback, e-books now), page has no standardized meaning, but word count should be fairly consistent. And the prize isn't awarded for popularity, it is awarded for quality, basically the same thing as the Academy Award for film. --Jayron32 05:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying Harry Potter is not a quality novel? What makes Harry Potter so success is its quality. It didn't just success for no reason.184.97.240.247 (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's to say the Harry Potter books haven't been considered? Lots of books get considered, but very few get onto the shortlist, and only one of those wins. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said that they weren't "quality" (for any arbitrary definition of quality), I was refuting your claim that they should have wonsolely because they were popular. It was not a criticism of Harry Potter novels (which I enjoyed thoroughly), but rather a refutation that popularity has anything to do with the Man Booker prize. --Jayron32 12:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Harry Potter books are, rightly or wrongly, normally considered children's books, and the Booker Prize is for adult fiction. Also, many would not consider them examples of what might be described as literary fiction, which is the raison d'etre of the Booker. --Viennese Waltz 12:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, if you take a look at the previous winners of the Man Booker prize you can see that Harry Potter is really not in the style of the others. These awards are chosen by judges who have some idea of what a Man Booker winner is like. Harry Potter, for all of its charms, is simply not that. If it was, it would never have appealed to children or even most adults. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The website lists the terms and conditions. The most important rule may be 3 i): "The decision of the Literary Director as to whether a book is eligible shall be binding and no correspondence shall be entered into." Zoonoses (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the Harry Potter omission is because those books aren't classed as fiction for adults, but as fiction aimed at teenagers. J K Rowling herself is currently publicising her first book written specifically for adults, which presumably will be eligible for entry for the Booker prize next year.--TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Then I think the award should says "This is an award to the best original full-length adult fiction novel". It's funny how it wasn't an original goal of the prize but somehow it has only chosen "adult fiction novel". I think Harry Potter deserves to win than many of those books that won.184.97.240.247 (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, think again! Children's books are explicitly permitted, but there's a condition:

• Rule 3(g): Children's books will only be accepted on the condition that they have also been published by an adult imprint within the specified dates.

My assumption here is that children's books have, by definition, limited appeal, and the convenors want to recognise books that have broad appeal. Hence, as long as a children's book has been accepted by a publisher who is not marketing the work as particularly for children, it should be fine. I don't know that the Harry Potter books met this stipulation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The longlisting of The Amber Spyglass demonstrated that children's/young adult fiction can indeed be eligible for the Booker (it also wonWhitbread Book of the Year in 2001, the first time the award went to a non-adult novel). The OP is fully entitled to admire the Harry Potter novels, but unless they have also read the actual Booker winners it's not clear how they can judge the former more deserving of the prize than the latter. - Karenjc 16:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

looking for the dumbest methodology ever ... well, sort of

Hi, as part of my research, I may do some qualitative research, but I have looked at some of the "official" paradigms out there, and they strike me as something of a joke (to wit, grounded theory). The problem is that they seem to all involve a huge amount of overhead from nailing down different categories and so forth, which, from what I have seen, does as much to stifle thought as to clarify it. I'm wondering if anyone knows of something really vague and general, which can be interpreted however you want, so as not to force me to waste time following some predefined scheme for how my thoughts are going to go. The closest I can find is thematic analysis, which seems so ill-defined even its practitioners don't know what it is (seehttp://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11735/2/thematic_analysis_revised...). Does anyone have any other suggestions? Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it. In the meantime, if you are doing qualitative research, I expect that you'll need to have some kinds of interviews or conversations. If you recruit your participants as you go along, with no kind of sampling frame, that's called "snowballing". Are you doingparticipant observation - that's a method not a paradigm. Sounds like you're doing social anthropology rather than sociology or any other kind of social research. There's participatory action research, but that would give you even less control of the process and require pre-planning.Itsmejudith (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite that in-depth, just evaluating some educational software I'm producing, and it may involve qualitative assessment as well as quantitative. The quantitative bit will be the main bit, but it isn't likely that there will be unequivocally positive results. I strongly suspect the value of such things depends on the person using them, so I'm expecting in advance that results will be somewhat mixed. Hence the need for a fairly blank slate. Also, since the qualitative research is likely to be just a side component, for framing the quantitative research, I'm trying to escape from any massively involved, formulaic approaches. Participatory action research scares the living heck out of me, if you are wondering. IBE (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you're the the person doing the evaluation. The good news is that you're using mixed-methods research, which is very good practice. You can operate some kind of triangulation between your quantitative and qualitative findings. You can do it either way round: the qualitative element is your homework to help you make sense of the quantitative findings, or the quantitative element is your homework to help you make sense of the qualitative findings. Participatory action research is full-on, but you don't have to adopt the whole thing. Letting some research users comment on the process might help both you and them. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. Looie496 (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it? I think he's just doing a small evaluation and wants to keep it simple. A questionnaire backed up by some interviews. Nothing wrong with that so long as he doesn't extrapolate too far. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he's just having a go at my last comment. This may be relatively mild for Looie. IBE (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the dumbest methodology ever is the Strong programme, which basically involves writing the history of science from the point of view that there is no truth or objective reality, so that all changes in accepted scientific explanations (e.g. phlogiston vs. heat, luminiferous ether vs. no ether etc. etc.) must be regarded as purely due to fads or social influences. However, it doesn't appear to have much to do with your question...AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The world exists independently of our knowledge of it. Therefore there are research questions about the knowledge-gathering process that are independent of the truth of the knowledge acquired. Little to do with the OP's question. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that some of the Strong Programmatists tend to believe that everything is a social construct, and that it's possible to write an adequate history of science without paying attention at all to whether some theories might be closer descriptions to physical reality (assuming physical reality even exists) than other theories are. Or at least that's the impression of themselves that the Programmatists tend to create among actual scientists... AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do give that impression, deliberately I reckon. Nevertheless, sociologists may point out that it is possible to do soc of religion without reference to the truthfulness of the religions studied. You can even say a lot about soc of education without commenting on whether the curriculum is based on correct science. Soc of the film industry without taking an interest in the quality of the movies. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

has an amateur ever won the nobel prize?

by our account, Paul Gauguin was a stock broker until his late thirties, when he started painting after hanging out by painters. I wonder if anyone started in the sciences as an amateur (e.g. in their late twenties, in their thirties, fifties, sixties, whatever) and went on to win a nobel prize?

I am interested primarily in Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gentleman scientist is probably the best starting point. It mentions Peter D. Mitchell as a modern-day independant scientist that has won a Nobel prize. --Tango (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Marconi might fit your definition. 86.166.191.232 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gore vs. Bush: A Political Fable by Jeff Greenfield Summary

Can someone please give me a good summary of all of the major events in this book? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason that I'm asking is because I couldn't find a good summary of all the major events in this book anywhere online.Futurist110 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not just read the book? Blueboar (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried finding this book at my local library and couldn't, but I want to get a grasp of what's in the book before I read all of the details.Futurist110 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about World War II

Why did so many civilians on the Nazi side commit suicide as the war approached to an end? Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious - are there statistics to show that this is true? I can think of several possible explanations, but I'm loath to speculate without data.AlexTiefling (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I can't remember now, but there were cases of entire towns committing suicide. Found it, mass suicide in DemminIowafromiowa (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda had done a good job of telling everyone how barbarous the invading Soviets were going to be, with good cause. The war on the Eastern Front was one of total war, where wholesale atrocities against civilians by both sides were commonplace. See Soviet war crimes#World War II andRape during the occupation of Germany#Soviet army and Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950). Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Legends of Red Army atrocities would have been my first guess. The people of Pomerania might have heard first-hand accounts of the fall of East Prussia to the Red Army, too. (I watched a German documentary about this a couple of years ago. The Nazi leadership in the area mostly got on the last plane out, leaving the civilians to face the Soviets alone.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't cite specific sources, but another possible explanation is that after years of being told that it's the superhumans' destiny to rule and dominate, and the subhumans' to serve or be exterminated, it became obvious to many Germans in 1945 that if they were losing the war, then it was them who turned out to be the inferior race after all. Imagine that you think in these categories and you come to reach such a conclusion about yourself; there isn't much incentive to keep on living, is there? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe among senior Nazis, but for ordinary folk, I think unbearable fear of the immediate future would have been a more important factor. My understanding is that these mass suicides were a feature of the Eastern Front; those in the west expected rather more humane treatment from the Western Allies. Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just found Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the suicides were heavily weighted towards high Nazi officials and their families. As for civilians, I don't know why they didn't head West in the hope of making it to parts of Germany to be occupied by the West. Of course, there's a good chance they could be killed along the way, but that seems a lot better than certain death, to me (keep the cyanide capsule handy, in case things get bad on the way west).StuRat (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot did, but look at this article talking about the Soviet conquest of Berlin, which says; "Estimates of rape victims from the city's two main hospitals ranged from 95,000 to 130,000. One doctor deduced that out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result, mostly from suicide." Alansplodge (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian Kershaw's excellent new(ish) book about the last months of Nazi Germany, The End, discusses this. Aside from the fear of the Red Army, lots of people with prominent Nazi links or who had been involved in war crimes (or both) committed suicide as they expected to be prosecuted and either jailed or executed at the end of the war. That said, and from memory, Kershaw considers the emphasis which has been placed on the number of suicides to be somewhat overblown - he highlights the huge number of murders and semi or extra-judicial killings of people who wanted to end the war or surrender which were committed by the Nazi government in the war's last months. Anyway, I strongly recommend Kershaw's book for a rounded discussion of this period. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Titanic question

I've read that many passengers later said that the Captain may have committed suicide, or other officers may have. What's the most accurate report on that?, who is most likely to have committed suicide? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

According to his article, Smith was reported by a couple of witnesses as jumping into the water as his ship finally sank, but that could hardly be called suicide. It also goes on to say that most likely he simply remained at his post til the end. I find it implausible that he (or any other officer) would go to the trouble of finding some means to end his life when the cold would do it for him soon enough. This Daniel Allen Butler article (despite being titled "Captain Smith committed suicide") says that his fate is a "mystery", but that he likely didn't commit suicide. Encyclopedia Titanica reports only rumors that one of the officers shot himself, either First Officer William McMaster Murdoch (his article says a witness saw his dead body with what appeared to be a head injury, leading to speculation of a gunshot wound), Smith or others.[1]Clarityfiend (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We could not say that anyone who died as a direct result of the ship's sinking committed suicide. Men who had the chance to get away in a boat but opted to allow a woman or child take their place - that is not suicide. Officers who went down with the ship rather than abandoning it - that is not suicide. People who jumped overboard and died in the fall - that is not suicide, unless we somehow knew they intended to kill themselves by jumping, rather than save themselves by jumping. If someone slashed their wrists or shot themselves rather than facing the icy waters - that would be suicide, but we have no evidence of the captain doing any such thing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We have an article; Captain goes down with the ship. My grandfather, who earned his Master's ticket before the Titanic sank, used to say that the tradition was because even if not to blame, the captain would be unemployable thereafter. There seem to be only three examples quoted in our article though, and one of those is the captain of the Titanic. Alansplodge (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As our article says, the principle is more about being the last to leave than actually going down with the ship. In the case of the Titanic, it wasn't possible for everyone to leave, so the principle mandated that the captain be one of those that stayed on board. In most cases (especially with modern laws about carrying enough lifeboats), everyone does leave, with the captain simply being the last. In all three examples given in our article, there were other people on board as well when the ships sank. Would a captain by employable if they lost their ship but managed to save all the people on board? (Or, at least, those not killed in whatever happened to the ship to make it sink.) There is a common naval practice of putting the captain on court-martial whenever a ship is lost, but if they were acquitted of any wrongdoing would they still be unable to work as a captain again?--Tango (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The merchant service is rather different to the armed forces. I think his point was that an employer wouldn't want someone associated with a sinking whether at fault or not. There were always more masters than ships, so they could afford to be choosy. However, he died 30 years ago, so you'll have to take what he said at face value. I can assure you that those were his words, but can't provide further detail. It may have been a myth among merchant officers or maybe not. Alansplodge (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Could we say that there's a persecution of homosexuals in the Middle East?

Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think that's an unhelpful generalisation. The specific problems faced by LGBT people in Middle-Eastern countries vary widely. It might be worth looking at things like the Turkish army's ban/exemption for gay men (it's not enough to fancy men - they want to see a picture of you having sex; but as there's national service, getting out of the military may be seen as desirable) or Iran's position on transgender issues (they're getting very good at gender transitions, because the religious leadership regard it as a cure for sinful same-sex attraction). The Middle East is a huge area, and very varied. There's absolutely no unifying position.

And I don't mean to bait, but here in the UK we have a fairly comprehensive set of nationwide anti-discrimination laws, civil partnerships, and moves towards equal marriage on the way. Could I argue that because the US has utterly failed to do any of these things at the federal level, and has actively interfered with some of them, there's anti-LGBT persecution in the USA? The threads further back about being able to come out at work show that this has a more than incidental impact on the lives of LGBT people. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is misleading and unnecessarily "politically correct". There's a unifying position in that, at a minimum, homosexuality is generally illegal in Muslim countries. (Homosexuality#Middle East) Wongot (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So is Turkey not a Muslim country, by that yardstick? And did you choose to ignore my response below? Mr.98's answer is exemplary; your 'more specific' response is actually less specific than his. "Politically correct" as a criticism is useless; it's just a 'boo-word', telling me nothing more than that you don't like what I've said. Say what you really think, rather than parroting a cliché. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkey is really not a Muslim country. I mean, demographically, of course, it is. But in terms of the apparatus of state, it is not. In fact there's a strain of official anti-clericalism that, in many Western countries, would be considered to infringe on the religious liberty of Muslims.--Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware of that. There are some interesting parallels with France, for example. But Wongot seems to be accusing me of 'political correctness' precisely because I don't want to give a blanket answer that assumes the Middle East consists entirely of autocratic constitutionally-Muslim states. I know things are tough for LGBT people across much of the region. But I still think a more nuanced answer is better than a generalising one. Mr.98's response strikes the balance better than my own, I think. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think one could say, as a generalization, that most countries in the Middle East persecute homosexuals. (We have a large article that outlines all of this.) There are several notable exceptions, though. Israel is the most tolerant by far, though even they do not allow homosexuals to be married in the country (though they do recognize foreign same-sex marriages). The other relatively tolerant countries are Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and the Palestinian West Bank — though "relatively tolerant" just means that it isn't illegal, not that it is protected or given equal rights. In all other countries in the region, homosexual activity is illegal and comes with fairly terrible consequences. I would call that unambiguous persecution. I agree with AlexTiefling that there certainly is a spectrum of tolerance, but this is clearly on the side of "persecution," and I don't think it's an unhelpful generalization to say that all countries in the region except five persecute homosexuals, and that even among those five, at least four of them are probably pretty socially intolerant of homosexuality even if they don't have laws outlawing it explicitly. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, see Homosexuality#Middle East and the articles linked to in that article section. Wongot (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the article I linked to goes into far more detail. That particular article has only one paragraph on modern practices, apparently doesn't consider Israel as part of the Middle East, and gives only one specific example (Iran) which is more about what someone said than what the practices were. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree! I wasn't attempting to claim otherwise - only to sound a necessary note of caution. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where is Israel located? μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to this map it's located at the center of the world.Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If X is a place in the Middle East and there's a persecution of homosexuals in X, then we can say that there's a persecution of homosexuals in the Middle East. —Tamfang (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And wise and enlightened opinions, too! Not to mention hot babes in string tangas, and amazing Prosciutto di Parma. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for everybody else, but I can say that. I can also say hurnfidqpodxys. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So, given that there's persecution of homosexuals in the universe, Tamfang, can we say there's universal persecution of homosexuals?μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"in the universe" is not equivalent to "universal". There is capital punishment in the United States, but not "universally" in the United States, but only in some states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 13:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for playing. —Tamfang (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

Can you bring a boxcutter aboard now? I don't travel much. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in your carry-on luggage; they will be (ideally) spotted on the X-ray machines or metal detectors and you won't be allowed to bring them through security. You can check them in your on-board luggage, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

FDR

Can you publish pictures of FDR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by76.179.169.163 (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by FDR? - Lindert (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "can you publish"? If you are looking for photos of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, visit that article, or just go to an image search engine like images.google.com and search for FDR. Wongot (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Our cache of FDR images is here. --Tagishsimon(talk) 15:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You might also be interested in Wikipedia:Image use policy. Taknaran (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Golden Dawn (Greece), nationalism and Germany

Being Greek and nationalistic, how can a party use German Nazi symbols? Greece was obviously a victim of Nazi Germany, or do some Greeks dispute that? Can someone explain this contradictory association of nationalists using foreign symbols? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's important to note that a lot of the symbolism used were not intrinsically German. There's a wilful antiquarianism about a lot of fascist thought, especially at the more mystical end. The Nazis appropriated Indian symbols for their own use - symbols which have existing close parallels in classical Greek and Roman art. If you go to the Roman-German Museum in Cologne, you'll see in the basement there the Hakenkreuzmosaik, or Swastika-Mosaic. This is a genuine Roman artifact, and emblematic of how widespread a symbol it was in the Classical world. Similarly, there are Greek key variants in which there are two lines, not one, and each time they cross, they form a swastika (or its mirror-image).

Being proponents of an ancient and distinctive Indo-European nation, the Golden Dawn are drawing on similar ideas to those invoked by the Nazis through the work of the Ahnenerbe and the sentimental antiquarianism surrounding locations like the Externsteine. (Persian/Iranian nationalism has had a similar theme from time to time, too - bear in mind that 'Iran' and 'Aryan' have related etymology.) Recent history has little to do with it. In 1940, when northern France, including Paris and Reims, were under German occupation, the collaborationist government of southern France, based in Vichy, put up adverts telling the populace "You are not betrayed! You are not abandoned!". The obvious falsity of the claim was secondary to the unifying tone it brought.

Besides all which, aside from being Greek instead of German, the Golden Dawn are very much neo-Nazis. Indeed, they're arguably the most popular and successful genuinely neo-Nazi political party in Europe since 1945. They're a lot more Nazi in theme than (say) the British National Party, who are much more like the Portugese Corporatists. Fascism and its related ideologies come in many forms, but both the beliefs and the tactics of the Golden Dawn very closely resemble those of the NSDAP. So it makes sense that their iconography is so reminiscent as well.

It is, of course, ironic that Greek protesters against Angela Merkel's recent visit trotted out the WW2-era Nazi flag to mock her - deliberately recalling Germany's occupation of Greece - when something recognisably like Nazism is growing so much closer to home.AlexTiefling (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Jobbik in Hungary also neo-Nazi and more successful than the Golden Dawn? Futurist110 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly comparable, at the least. You're right; Golden Dawn's success is not unique - they just happen to be in the news more at present.AlexTiefling (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OsmanRF34 -- I've wondered about that too: Fringe parties in countries which were victims of Nazi invasions using flags with an obvious Nazi-influenced structure (i.e. black emblem on white area on an overall red field). The most conspicuous example is the National Bolshevik Party... --AnonMoos (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Such fringe parties want principally to shock, don't expect to find a well-developed and non-contradictory ideology behind them. That's also why there were cases of Neonazis Jews (with German symbolism) in Israel. Gorgeop (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Greece or Greek politics, but I was under the impression that Greek far-right nationalists use German Nazi symbols to represent Greek racial and ethnic supremacy, rather than "Aryan"/Anglo-Saxon racial and ethnic supremacy. This is similar to how some whites in the Southern United States use the Confederate flag right now to represent their culture rather than racism and slavery. Futurist110(talk) 23:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Think you mean "Aryan"/Nordic racial supremacy. Anyway, when people in or from the U.S. south wave confederate flags, they're recalling something based on their own region or ancestry (regardless of the dubious politics involved, or the fact that most of them display the confederate naval jack instead of the actual confederate battle flag). However, when Greeks wave a Nazi-structured black-on-white-on-red flag, they seem to be making a positive allusion to outside hostile conquerors of Greece... AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nordic and Anglo-Saxon are almost the same thing, so the terminology doesn't matter too much. That said, I'm not an expert on Greece, but it would appear to be that Greek neo-Nazis could simply be using the Nazi flag to praise Nazi ethnic/racial policies (except replacing Nordics with Greeks at the top of the hierarchy), rather than praising the Nazi occupation of Greece (with the exception of the Holocaust in Greece, which they might definitely be praising). Futurist110 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

They're not really "almost the same thing". Anglo-Saxon supremacy means exalting Englishness in various senses, while Nordicism means a cult of blue-eyed blondness and/or appropriating elements from the Norse sagas (or at least the Wagner opera version of Norse sagas) or from runes (or at least the Guido von List version of runes), etc. If Golden Dawn had a blue and white flag, then it would not raise much of an eyebrow, but when they adopt a black-on-white-on-red flag it gives rise to suspicions that they're exalting the Nazi conquerors and oppressors of Greece...AnonMoos (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Meandros flag

I'm not sure what 'symbols' you are referring to. If it is the Meandros flag (pictured right), although it bears some resemblance to the German swastika (not least in the choice of colour scheme), that's not what it is. It's a Greek symbol. V85 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, any resemblance is purely coincidental ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your swastika: This is your swastika on qualudes:

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

2... 4... 3: -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Carl Sagan's Comet suggests an astronomical origin for the swastika.μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do older women choose short haircuts?

Why - in the US, anyway - do almost all older women choose short haircuts? Wongot (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mothers seem to prefer them. They are certainly easier to maintain, and probably it doesn't matter to look good when you are old.OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) Please remove your ageist remark, as an older woman I find it offensive. Thank you. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not ageism. Appearance matters less when you are getting older. Even if you compare a teenager with a young adult, you'll discover that the latter cares less about other non-image related aspects about himself and about his partners. You can construe my comments, assuming good faith, from a positive point of view. Although you can also interpret it with an unintended meaning that nothing matters anymore when you are old.OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

One day, young man, hopefully you will be old yourself. Then you can come back to me and tell me that I'm wrong to find your remarks offensive. Until then I will reiterate that your remarks are offensive to me. Not only that, but you are wrong. It is much more important to keep up appearances once you reach a certain age. Oh and you can also tell me how getting your hair cut every other month (at greater expense for women than men) is easier to maintain than just not having a hair cut at all. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If he keeps putting down women, old age might not be in the picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

---

I think there's a natural effect among both men and women that once they've attracted a long-term mate (or have given up the search), they can relax a little from previous strenuous efforts to be attractive (e.g. a man not going to the gym so many times a week, etc.). AnonMoos(talk) 15:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn! Just spent a lot of money on a very nice (shortish) haircut. Apparently I didn't need to. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To the OP: (1) Personal preference: [2][3]

(2) Cultural expectation: [4][5]

(3) Physical difficulty caring for long hair: [6][7]

And surely for many more reasons, as there are individuals. Taknaran (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you've hit the main reasons in your post. I do want to point out a current counterexample to this trend and about its ability to change older women's hairstyles--Hillary Clinton now has very long hair, and she will turn 65 this year. Futurist110 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why it's so, but it's long been the tradition for older women to at least wear their hair up even if the hair itself is long. Up until the 1960s or 1970s at least, it would have been quite unusual for a woman (in the U.S. at least) over 40 to wear her hair down flowing over her shoulders and back. Even if she had it long enough that it could, she would wear it up somehow, e.g. in a bun. Angr(talk) 20:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Kim Novak

Well, I am in my fifth decade, and I still wear my hair long. I am curious, Tammy, how you decide which hair not to have cut. :)μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone in her sixth decade, let me enlighten you that once you get past the menopause there is no need to have pubic hair cut or shaved, not is there any real reason to pluck eyebrows. Underarm hair still needs some topiary though. As an aside, I had my hair so long I could sit on it until I turned 40, then my new man said he preferred it short, that I looked better. Someone sent me a photo I had taken with very long hair: I have to say he was so right! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if [8] is relevant (sebum decreases somewhat with age). Wnt (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Long hair is a lot of work to maintain, and is done so by young women, mainly to attract men. Since older women are often either married or not looking for a man, that makes it extra work for no benefit. I like to refer to older women with white hair all pushed up on top as "Q-tips". :-) StuRat (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Miss Novak in 1962

I am not sure where you get the idea that maintaining long hair is harder than having it cut and styled regularly. My sister and I both wear ours long. My mother looks like Kim Novak, however, so she keeps hers short, never below the collar. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Also in my fifth decade (and nearly out of it). Occasionally wonder whether or not to cut my long hair, but it has never suited me short and I can't be bothered with the hassle of maintaining a short precision cut like my teenage daughter's, which requires far more maintenance than mine. If it gets to the point where I feel like mutton dressed as lamb I'll probably take it to shoulder-length, but while I can continue to carry it off, it stays. - Karenjc 21:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I just called my mom and asked. She says she wears it "short" by which she means something like Novak in the '62 picture. Half of the time I spend talking to her is about her hair, her last haircut, her last die job, and who's cutting her hair now since she severed ties with the last stylist.

My late youngest sister wore hers long until she joined the crew team in college, when she cut it medium (bobbed below the ear) but kept a Chinaman's queue. I cut my or have my own ends cut maybe twice a year--I did so myself just last week. But I haven't gone to a shop since the 80's. BTW, I think Hillary Clinton looks sooo much better that she's let her hair grow out. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing to see Medeis exchanging information about her hair after all her complaints about the decay of the RD. OsmanRF34(talk) 23:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to hat whatever thread you like Osman. Given this one hasn't been hatted, pardon me for telling you to bug off. μηδείς(talk) 02:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a young man and had long hair (well below my shoulders) while at Uni and now have very short hair. I can confirm that long hair is generally less work. I got it cut at most every few months (and that was just while I was growing out my fringe - once it had all got to the same length, I could go more than 6 months without getting it cut). In the morning, I would just put a brush through it and then tie it in a ponytail and it was done. Now, I have to put wax in it to get it to what I want, which makes washing it much more work. I have to get it cut at least once a month or it starts to look unkempt. The only thing that is easier about it is drying it after washing it - I can now just towel it dry in about a minute, or leave it to dry on its own and it's fine. I used to have to be very careful to avoid it going frizzy. So, unless you just have a number two all over that you can do yourself in a couple of minutes and not leave enough hair to need any maintenance, then I don't think short hair is more convenient than long hair.--Tango (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd also point out that, with hormonal changes, one's hair grows thinner as one ages. This applies to women as well as men. Wearing short hair tends to maximise the look of the hair in these circumstances. You only have to look at some of the old rock stars to see how awful thinning long hair can look. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, see Combover. Differences between male pattern baldness and female hair loss may account for styling choices among older women who find a short, full cut, permed or blow-dried for volume, makes the most of their crowning glory if it has been affected by the ageing process. - Karenjc 12:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

One very cogent point that hasn't been made is that as one gets older, one's face tends to sag (unless the old plastic surgeon gets stuck in!). Long hair can visually "drag down" the face, so many older ladies choose shorter hair as that makes the face look more lifted. It's an optical illusion, but it's how human perception works. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do lawyers now advertise, when in previous times they did not?

Forty years ago or so in the US, it was verboten for lawyers to advertise. They just did not do it. Now, I seem to see lawyer advertisements, from the Yellow Pages to the television. Why the change? Wongot (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On a practical level, I suspect because their professional association deicded to allow them to when previously it had forbidden it. (That, at least, is my remembrance of the UK situation.) As to why they took that decision, we could only speculate. Demand, presumably.--Tagishsimon (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please supply references in your answers, this is a reference desk. Wongot (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See Legal advertising in the United States. Basically in 1977 the Supreme Court threw out a state law banning legal advertising; state bars can now regulate advertising but not prohibit it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect and thank you. Wongot (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In many states before that time, the only advertisements that law firms were allowed to run were "tombstone" advertisements -- basically the unadorned name and location of the firm in an enclosing rectangle, where it was not even allowed to mention that it was a law firm which was being advertised. Sometimes when I see the ambulance-chasing adds on early-morning TV, I feel a little nostalgic for those days... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's something that the article Legal advertising in the United States only hints at, but I remember as being assumed by economists at the time to be an important, maybe the most important, consideration on the part of the state bar associations in their opposition to advertising (sorry I don't have any citations on this): advertising allows lawyers to advertise prices that undercut the prices of other lawyers, and so those other lawyers end up not being able to charge as much as they otherwise would. Same with doctors, as I recall. Of course they tried to disguise this implicit price-fixing as "professional ethics". Duoduoduo (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I rarely see an advertisement for a lawyer mention prices. The closest I've seen are those which say they work on a contingency basis (only pay them if you win your lawsuit) and perhaps some fixed price work ("A no-fault divorce, with no children or property settlement, for only $200").StuRat (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We have an article Tombstone (advertising), but it's not much... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't that lawyers did not advertise in the past, more that the ads were limited in their content. EvenAbraham Lincoln advertised.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 18:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Christ Church, Bergen

Are the remains of the Kings of Norway still under the site of the ruins of Christ Church, Bergen or were they buried above ground and destroyed when the church was demolished? Actually how are European monarch normally buried? Do the tomb effigies in European Churches that look like stone sarcophagus contain the bodies of dead kings and queens? Doesn't Christians have something about burying the dead in the ground? -The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes they do, sometimes not. The monuments in St Denis Basilica don't contain any bones because all the bones were dug up and reburied in a mass grave during the French Revolution (same with the ones in Fontevraud Abbey for example. But the bones certainly used to be there. On the other hand there are actual burials in Westminster Abbey. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This might also interest you. It is a blog covering the recent exhumation of the (purported) remains of Magnus Ladulås in Riddarholmskyrkan. The blog itself might not be very interesting unless you speak Swedish, but there are some pictures at least! By the way, there are lots of Christians whose remains are not "buried" under ground, see the "Incorruptibility" for some examples.Gabbe (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Award-winning crime novelist David Housewright

I've been told a page concerning the Edgar Award-winning mystery writer David Housewright was submitted Sept. 13, 2012. It is not up. Is this the result of a backlog of pages waiting to be reviewed, or had the page been rejected for some reason? — Precedingunsigned comment added by David Housewright (talk •contribs) 16:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be at David Housewright. As I right in assuming that you are the 'Award-winning mystery writer' himself? If not, you should familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia:Username policy - it is not permitted to impersonate others. If you are David Housewright, I suggest you readWikipedia:Autobiography - and also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy - we need better sources than your own webpage for many of the statements made. It might be worth looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And if you are David Housewright, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia before changing a single comma of the article David Housewright. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Econ. Nobels

Is there any place (preferable free) to get thedissertations of the nobel laureates>?Lihaas (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I imagine you're unlikely to find them all in one place, if that's what you mean. —Tamfang (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What dissertations do you mean? Their doctoral dissertations? You'll find them in the university library the doctorate was awarded by. Or do you mean the papers that they were awarded the Nobel prize for? You can find back issues of major journals in any good university library - the details of what papers they wrote were probably given in the formal announcement of the prize. --Tango (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I expect he means the address the winners give at the prize ceremonies. And I don't mean 378 Springfield Drive, Charmville, New Hamphsire. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also the Nobel lecture, which I believe is separate from the acceptance speech. He could mean that. Since those are both spoken, rather than written, I wouldn't call them a dissertation. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Videos & pdfs for recent econ Nobel lectures are here. You can find the acceptance speeches (all, I think) and other material and Nobel lecture pdfs (for some) from following the links for each winner fromhere.John Z (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Some voices

Hi I see that some voices in wikipedia (Matteo Goffriller) are reporting information ( before unedited) drawn from my book witoit reporting reference. Just an example All the historical data on Matteo Goffriller are drawn from my book titled Violin and Lute Makers of Venice 1640 -1760 by Stefano Pio (it is me) edited by Venice research, venice, Italy 2004. It would be appreciated if you mention the source Thank you Stefano Pio — Preceding unsigned comment added by151.95.60.179 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, our editors should indeed cite their sources... but, how do you know that the information in the article came from your book and not one of the other cited sources? Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - it may be worth mentioning this on the talkpage for this article (Talk:Matteo Goffriller). I'm not sure whether its frowned on or not but technically you can edit the article yourself to include the references (I know there's something about using your own work/Wikipedia liking third party references but I can't find the page right now). ny156uk (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no good or evil, except in your eyes or mind

I'm having some difficulties in wrapping my mind around such way of thinking. What about the more extreme cases of psychopaths, rapists or murderers? Is evil just in my eyes or mind? I'd be OK if it were more restricted to harmless cases. Gorgeop (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That's moral relativism. "Absolute belief in moral relativism is absolutely rare". Nearly everyone finds some behaviors to be universally evil. Although, in the case of animals, moral relativism is far more common. That is, we think that our cat torturing a mouse before killing it is fine, because "that's just what cats do". StuRat (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what StuRat wrote but also want to point about that people's morality can change over time. Also, I don't consider some things (like polygamy and incest) to be morally unjustifiable, in contrast to most people. Futurist110 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely evil what StuRat does with apostrophes. "Cat's"? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. StuRat (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Or chaos theory, you just cannot calculate what act produces what outcome. (In this interpretation, it is also a moral relativism).OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

After a long period of time, perhaps, but, in the short run, you can be reasonably certain that pushing somebody off a cliff won't do them much good.StuRat (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Chaos Theory does not provide moral guidance. It especially doesn't mean that we can abandon belief in causality. Sensitive dependence on initial conditions is important, but it doesn't allow us to ignore the obvious. The legal doctrine of the chain of causation is much more relevant here -did the actions being tried lead in a foreseeable way to the consequences in question? Or did some other thing intervene to have a more significant effect on the outcome?

In any case, morality existing 'only in the mind' doesn't mean it's not absolute or commonly-held (although it might). The fear of painful death is practically universal, for example. It's a tricky (and probably intractable) question to determine if there is some kind of moral constant.

My own belief is that there is, but that it exists at some very basic level, and different self-consistent but divergent moral codes and practices can be built on that foundation. The value on which I base my own moral code is "Are other people, in general, worth saving?" - to which I answer yes, and then derive a bunch of other stuff. But one might argue that my existing experience as a liberal Christian has predisposed me to find those answers and consequences appealing and acceptable, and to believe they're logical. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a moral relativist, and I have to say that moral questions are only interesting when there are extreme disagreements. If I think you should hold the door for me and you disagree, we might get mad at each other for a while, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. If I think the greatest glory is to sack a wealthy city, kill all the men in front of their families, and rape the women before enslaving them, and you happen to live in that city, that's a problem.

Let me try to explain moral relativism, or at least the meta-ethical Humean, sentimentalist philosophy I subscribe to. No, rape and murder are not objectively evil. Insofar as a rapist or murderer intrinsically desires to rape or murder, such an intrinsic desire cannot be rationally criticized, because it is not based on reason. In the same way, you cannot say whether my desire to eat an apple is rational or irrational; if I simply desire an apple for the sake of having an apple, that desire has no basis in reason. The only way in which reason can affect morality is if I desire something instrumentally based on false beliefs about the world. For example, if I kill someone in order to relieve thirst, that would be irrational--killing does not relieve my thirst. If I think women should be oppressed or slavery is justified because the Word of God says so, that is irrational--there is no evidence that God exists, even less evidence that any extant text is the Word of God, and no reason why the Word of God must always be moral even if it does exist (see Euthyphro dilemma).

Moral relativism does not necessarily say that all intrinsic desires must be tolerated. In the case of rapists, it is true that rapists' desires cannot be rationally criticized insofar as they are not based on reason. However, they're not the only people who have desires; non-rapists intrinsically desire to not be raped. Since rape does far more harm to the victim than good to its perpetrator, and this is even for true for murder, it is fully rational for society to put rapists and murderers into prison.

Finally, to respond to StuRat above: moral relativists like me and Hume do not find any behaviors to be evil, let alone universally evil, because there is no such thing as evil. To paraphrase Hume, "Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." --140.180.242.9 (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So, morality through social contract? I prefer that you don't try to murder me, in exchange I do not try to murder you? OsmanRF34(talk) 01:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Game theory is not morality. What 140.180 is saying is that he believes that you can still have social constructs that impose a de facto morality, if you are looking for certain types of aims and value certain types of individual states (e.g. if you respect individuals' and groups' desires for certain basic outcomes, which historically is a big "if" amongst human societies). You can say, "it's better to live in a society where life and property are protected, because otherwise the societies tend to fall apart in really awful ways and I don't want to live in that sort of society." You can value things even with moral relativism and you can act on those values. You just can't claim that your values are objectively better than someone else's in a philosophical sense, though that doesn't mean you can't think they are better for other reasons. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I can think of three sources of morality. Most fundamental is the concept of atman, which I would purposefully misdescribe as, conscious beings are implementations of some fundamental quality of consciousness, and as it is this universal quality which causes consciousness, it is this universal quality which experiences it. Wrongdoer and victim do not remember living one another's lives, nonetheless it is the "same person" that experiences both. In this conception, morality exists solely in the minds of the people involved, but they are the same mind. The second source reflects Christian notions which I'll misdescribe as the revision of the universe in a series of drafts of increasing perfection; as those moments not dedicated to goodness are expunged, personalities are preserved only by doing good - this postulates an exterior judgment, a divine purpose to the evolution of the universe. The final layer would emanate from such elements of Daoism as De, in which morality can be seen in a more practical context as how the world works, which I suppose is more like a law of nature. It seems possible to me that all could be valid. Wnt(talk) 15:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's much more mundane than all those philosophical points. The source of moral values is the understanding that a lack of moral values runs a serious risk of causing the social group (family, tribe, nation, etc.) to disintegrate. Underlying that conclusion is the assumption that it's important keep the social group from disintegrating. "Safety in numbers", and all that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Moral relativism is a self-refuting idea. The moral relativist cannot claim that it is actually evil to pass moral judgments.μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a strawman Medeis. Moral relativists do not claim to hold absolute knowledge that morality is relative; moreover, when did anyone say that passing moral judgments is "evil"? Moral relativism is only self-refuting if you assume that relativists take their philosophy to be absolutely true, but it is perfectly possible for a relativist to accept that moral relativism is relative, i.e., it is possible that for some people there is an absolute moral truth (presumably for yourself, for instance). 24.92.74.238 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your point seems to be that moral relativists are free to be inconsistant and to contradict themselves. That was my point as well.μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

GDP Question

Which GDP is more useful--nominal GDP or PPP GDP? I always used nominal GDP since that is what Goldman Sachs used when making their economic projections, but I'm not sure which one is better to use. Futurist110 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Better for what? People use different measures to assess a country. Nominal GDP might be useful if you want to export something to a country. If you care about how well the populations is economically doing, you better pick PPP GDP. Add to that Gini coefficient, age expectation, and maybe some happiness index. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Better at making economic comparisons between various countries, including by the side of their economies. Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Size of their economies? Then nominal GDP. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If Futurist110 means size, not necessarily. Indeed, probably not, if you are doing "real" comparisons. PPP would do better, the nominal is affected by manipulable or varying exchange rates. See our Purchasing_power_parity#Need_for_adjustments_to_GDP. E.g. If one uses nominal terms in one measuring unit, US dollars, then as Australian dollars vs US ones have doubled in value in the last decade or so, nominal overstates the "real" growth of the Australian economy, while it understates the growth of China, say. For doing financial comparisons, useful to investors, nominal makes more sense, which is probably why the Vampire squid uses it. And of course it is one less fudge factor applied to the data.John Z(talk) 01:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd want currency exchange rates to be factored in to the comparison. Futurist110 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends what you want to compare. If you are interested in the country's influence in international trade, then you almost certainly want nominal. If you are interested in the standard of living of the inhabitants, then you almost certainly want PPP. For some things, it is a little less obvious. For all comparisons, you need to be aware of the limitations of the metric you are using. Both nominal GDP and PPP GDP have plenty of limitations.--Tango (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither nominal nor PPP GDP will tell you anything about how well the population is doing economically. For market size measures it would be better to look at nominal GDP per capita at average market exchange rates. (For the sake of this discussion, I’m ignoring private consumption, disposable incomes or other non-GDP measures.) If you’re selling expensive watches, for example, a smaller economy with fewer people (e.g., Japan) might be a better bet than a larger economy with a lot of people (say, China).

Comparisons between economies also needs some clarification. What is the purpose of the comparison? If you’re trying to show that India (for example) is not as bad off as its nominal GDP per capita of Rs71,900 in 2011 might suggest, then use PPP, which was $3,652. The problems are (1) India’s GDP is generated and originally tabulated in Indian Rupees, and so a common measure such as the US dollar needs to be used; and that PPP looks like a straight-forward dollar figure, but in fact is an artificial construct that has little bearing on how large a market for imports might actually be.

In fact, PPP is totally inappropriate as a means of understanding total economic size. It is a measure of the different local currency prices of a specific urban consumer basket of goods – no trade or investment, if you please! – and not merely an alternative exchange rate. Further, if you’re interest is in international trade, or economies with a large trade component (say, Singapore), PPP is useless as it requires distorting the value of internationally traded goods and services with a purely domestic, consumer-specific modification. As such, PPP is misused more often than it is used correctly, particularly by the CIA and Wikipedia! DOR (HK) (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)