Humanities desk
< April 16	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 18 >

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.

April 17

Taxation in the United States

I'm looking for information on where the money for the federal budget comes from. My understanding is that the majority comes from taxing the populace. What I'm looking for is, what percent of the US budget comes from what percent of the popuation. My suspicion is that a large portion of the money comes from a small portion of the people, but I have no data to back that up192.136.22.4 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This took me about 3 seconds to find using Google: [1] Is that what you are looking for? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes and no, It told me that 45% or so of the government's spending budget comes from income tax, but it doesn't say what percentage of the population that comes from, that is to say, i'm curious what the breakdown between the various income brackets. Thanks though Jayron192.136.22.4 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This took me an additional 60-70 seconds to find using google: [2]. Is that what you are looking for? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, note that (if I understand the question correctly), your second source is not really responsive, since it gives only percentages for the federal income tax, and not for federal revenues as a whole. It therefore overstates the contribution of large earners to federal revenues. John M Baker (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you know income tax contributes 45%, you can just adjust the percentages accordingly? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese politics

Can someone tell me what is going on in Lebanon regarding its upcoming election in June? Here some videos about it. Elections and candidates in Tripoli, Hariri and Syrians, Lebanese Army in Bekaa Valley, OTV: Al-Mustaqbal scandal about Shia and Sunni and Al-Mustaqbal thugs beating up Homentmen’s girls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.139 (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the link syntax. —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Anyone knows of The History of the Nation?

Does anyone know about the work, The History of the Nation, possibly printed in the early half of the 20th century? Several paintings have been noted to be published in it.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] However, I am unable to locate such a book on Worldcat or Google. Does anyone have information that pertain to this work? Jappalang (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the books in question would be "Hutchinson's Story of the British Peoples" and "Hutchinson's History of the Nations", multi-volume illustrated histories by a Walter Hutchinson. This Hutchinson fellow seems to be pretty much forgotten, unlike the illustrator, Richard Caton Woodville.--Rallette (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Henry Payne (artist),1868 - 1940, who seems to be the artist in question. Searching for The History of the Nation in sites dealing with rare / out of print books gives no results, however, there is Glorious Battles in English History by Major Wylly (and a few more), for which Harry Payne is listed as the illustrator. There is (see above) Hutchinson´s Story of the British Nation, where Payne has been involved as an illustraor also, but this was published as a series of weekly softcovers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC) PS: This site [10] has an offer for volumes 3 to 28. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a couple of Hutchinson's books, including one called "Story of the Nations" which may or may not be the same as "History of the Nations", on ZVAB -- Ferkelparade π 11:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why red shirts?

I was in Thailand a little while ago, and the symbolism behind the yellow shirts is obvious (Yellow is the King's color by an old tradition of birthdays and days of the week). Why the red shirts? SDY (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just speculation, but the NUFDAD appears to be closely associated with the People's Power Party (Thailand). Our article there states that the party supports a "populist welfare" platform. When I read "populist welfare" and "People's ANYTHING" I think leftist/socialist/C-word and the traditional color associated with that ideology has usually been red. Other uses of the color red are often related to revolution in general, especially left-wing revolution, see Red flag. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For pre-Socialist populist and progressive red shirts, see Garibaldi's camicie rosse.---Wetman (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they want to extend their eligibility to compete in college athletics. Or maybe it is like the quarterback in American pro-football wearing a red jersey in practice as a signal that no one is allowed to tackle him. Edison (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely another meaning of redshirt which would be embarrassingly inappropriate. There are some traditional (Chinese?) associations for red as well (bravery and weddings and whatnot) that are ingrained in a lot of Asian cultures, and I'm thinking that those would be more influential than the traditional Western associations (i.e. Garibaldi) and I'd be quite surprised to see Thaksin Shinawatra painted as a Communist, though that party has been absent in Thailand for some time (after being banned) so I doubt it'd be public if it were true. The historical Thai flag (Siamese, really), according to our article, was red, but the group in question isn't really a traditionalist group. SDY (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See red for more info on the symbolism in Asian cultures Nil Einne (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article [11] says red was simply chosen to differentiate from the yellow of the yellow shirts. And this one mentions that the red in Thailand's flag represents the nation [12] which is supported by our Flag of Thailand albeit uncited. I suspect it's a combination of both. The red shirts wanted a colour to distinguish them from the yellow shirts and red associated with nation from their flag seemed the best choice Nil Einne (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English royal standard

Hi. I'm looking for a merchant who will sell me the old France-England royal standard flag, rather than the new royal standard, or the original three leopards alone. Does anybody here know of such a business? Maybe some theatre would sell one of these? Please be of some assistance. Thank you. Catterick (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flagshop [13] may be an option. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude...perhaps I should have specified that I am looking for these in flag form: Catterick (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Flag will do a beskpoke/custom flag if they don't already stock it. Nanonic (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably want to specify whether you want France Ancient (on the shield in the images shown) or France Modern (on the flag). AlexTiefling (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not leopards but lions.

The emblazon of the shield on the right looks wrong. I would emblazon seme of fleur-de-lis with less fleur-de-lis.
Sleigh (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are leopards, because multiple lions passant guardant are often described as leopards. To the best of my knowledge, there's no other heraldic leopard, and you'd probably have to use a special blazon to refer to a 'real' leopard, in much the same way as one blazons a Bengal tiger for the real thing, because an unqualified tiger in heraldry is a mythical beast. I've often seen seme de lis blazoned at about that density, but it may appear to be heavily scattered because it's effectively a reduced copy of France Ancient, rather than a quarter azure seme de lis or. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The shield of the Black Prince, on his tomb, has more fleurs than that. —Tamfang (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's Day

Why isn't St. George's Day celebrated in the States? Is it a Puritan, Yank Anglophobia, even though Yanks supposedly pride so much in their "pure Englishness"? After all, there are Highland festivals and St. Patrick's Day Parades, although admittedly much fewer signs of a Welsh presence. I don't know why. I've had a few heart-stopping moments when seeing the St. George flying over the Roanoke Colony museum and a few other historic places; even the old Union Jack without St. Patrick is a sight to see for sure. Catterick (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might start by asking why St. George's Day isn't celebrated in England, the country that he is the patron saint of. Since there are hundreds of patron saints that could be celebrated, the question is why St. Patrick is celebrated (he's the only one who is, as far as I know). One possible reason is that "Irish" is seen as a popular yet underprivileged ethnicity; another is that it's a day celebrated by drinking huge amounts of alcohol, and who doesn't want to be part of that? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which definition of Yankee are you using? The ones in New England whose major city Boston is now the stereotypical center of Irish American? English American heritage is often considered too common to be distinctive (or for many, too ancient to be remembered) Rmhermen (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in the States for most of my life and have never detected any "pride in pure Englishness". People will routinely inform you that they are "1/8th Cherokee" or whatever, with the other 7/8ths not worth mentioning. --Sean 13:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. in infancy fought two wars with Britain, which may have diminished identification with England specifically on the part of many who were creating the very notion of being American. Add English-speaking immigrants whose experience with John Bull wasn't always positive (Scots, Irish). Some New Englanders do pride themselves on being Yankees (in the American, not the English, sense), but that would emphasize differences with England, since "Yankee Doodle" was originally derision. And many Irish-Americans, and Irishmen in general, would agree that it'd be great to see the Union Jack without St. Patrick's cross. Or, as the song goes, the harp without the crown. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a cynic, but I suspect the fact that the "traditional" celebration of St. Patrick's day involves drinking Guinness may have something to do with its popularity. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my impression (and the Saint Patrick's Day seems to back this up) that until very recently Saint Patrick's day in Ireland was a very sedate affair and was viewed primarily as a religious holiday. The lavish celebration and drunken bacchanalia now associated with Saint Patrick's day started in the US with Irish expats celebrating their ethnic identity, and only later made its way back across the pond to Ireland. So it's not surprising that St. George's Day never made a similar transition. One, Anglicans don't put as much emphasis on saints as Roman Catholics do, so there is less cause to use that as a reason to celebrate. Second, the English expats in the US didn't really need to have a holiday to celebrate their ethnic identity. By and large, they were the ones in control. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking practices of the Tarahumara - do they bake, roast, or fry much?

According to this http://boards.msn.com/thread.aspx?threadid=882128 the Tamahumara, who live in remote desert parts of Mexico, never get cancer, although this could be an urban myth since they do not make the news for the world's oldest people. The article linked from that link suggests they mostly eat some sort of maize dish that is prepared in water. Do the Tarahumara roast bake or fry their food very much? If not, then they would be exposed to very little acrylamide, which may be carcinogenic, and this might be the reason perhaps. I have read both the acrylamide and the Tara humara articles. 78.146.249.32 (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they get cancer all the time. You now have as much evidence that they do as that they don't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that a group of people are not subject to cancer, diabetes, and other common human ailments is certainly extraordinary, and requires better evidence than a random internet comment like the one I just invented to support my point, or the one "SkyHunter" probably just invented to support his. For what it's worth, a PubMed search for "cancer Tarahumara" gets no results and only 2 hits on Google. --Sean 14:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you mean by "the world's oldest people"? Says who? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is "Do the Tarahumara roast bake or fry their food very much?" 89.242.147.172 (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the best type of gladiator?

If you were trasported back in time and forced to be a gladiator, which of the several types of gladiator would it be best to be regarding survival? 78.146.249.32 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The type that is also an emperor. LANTZY ^TALK 13:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Roman emperors had an extremely low survival rate, regardless of whether or not they were gladiators. They were always being stabbed or poisoned by their rivals. 209.251.196.62 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading List of Roman gladiator types, they are all either poorly armored or poorly armed. No choice has any real significant advantage over the other. That said, I agree with 209. Easy to be a gladiator when your competition is afraid to kill you! Livewireo (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be much fun to watch if one type of gladiators always won! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd prefer to be one of the Andabatae, on horse, against some guy on foot. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather be the kind that escaped the night before I had to fight... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious leaders who have converted

Some friends and I were discussing the possibility of a pope converting to Islam, whether it would automatically terminate his papacy, what effect it would have on the church, etc. It got me thinking: has anything of that sort ever happened in reality? Has a religious authority ever converted suddenly to another religion? I vaguely recall a medieval Catholic bishop who converted to Islam, but Google has been useless. LANTZY ^TALK 13:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope, or any other Roman Catholic, would be excommunicated lata sententia for apostasy. I don't know if any medieval bishops converted to Islam but certainly many regular Catholics did, wherever there was Christian-Muslim contact (Spain, Sicily, Syria). Muslims often converted to Christianity too, and both converted to Judaism and vice versa. I think it happened a number of times that a Catholic priest would start using the Greek rite, but that's not exactly conversion and not exactly apostasy. It happened somewhat regularly whenever crusaders conquered Greek territory. In any case, the conversion of the Pope to Islam is exceedingly unlikely... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, lots of people have converted between the various strands of Christianity. The most notable of these (outside the Reformation period) might well be John Henry Newman, who was at the forefront of reform in the Anglican church before becoming a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous case of converting to a completely different religion is Sabbatai Zev... AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media bias study about Vietnam

Hi. I was wondering if someone could help me find a bit of info I have been trying to get for a while.

I remember hearing a while ago about (what was described as) a famous study done during the Vietnam War. I think it was done at Columbia University, but don't hold me to that. It was about media bias, and consisted of showing the same clips of news coverage of the War to groups of pro- and anti-War students separately. They both thought that the coverage - the same clips - was biased against their cause.

I cannot for the life of me remember who did the study, and google searches have so far been fruitless. Does anyone know where I can find more info about the study? Thanks in advance, Batmanand | Talk 13:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See hostile media effect, which cites original studies. --Sean 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that is it - brilliant! I'm sure there is a Vietnam Columbia study somewhere, but the references in the page are great. Thanks! Batmanand | Talk 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Obsesssion with tax

Hello Wikipedia,

The 'Tax tea parties' are seemingly everywhere in the States (at least, they're all over Huffington Post, which is all I have to go on). Anyway, I get that culturally, Americans are less tolerant of tax than say, us brits, but I mean,seriously! No one likes paying tax but why do you guys loathe it so much? Wouldn't you like less crime, cleaner air etc? Is there something i'm just not getting, like a scandal of some sort that means the american government is forever percieved as untrustworthy? I'm not looking for a debate (although it sure would be fun!), but just some reasons why americans are thus. Thanks212.183.134.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Because the American Revolution was essentially a revolt against taxes...the Intolerable Acts and all that. Of course it was really against taxation without representation but does an average person actually know what that means? And do they know about all the other things that led to the Revolution? And do they know why they have taxes now and what their taxes pay for? Probably not. But their foundation myth includes a tax revolt and that's a good enough excuse. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a cultural thing in America and the recent bailouts have only fanned the flames. I think most people are OK with some tax, but many object to using so much tax money to prop up failing companies. At any rate, the number from "Tea Party" officials (or whatever) were slightly over 200,000. Even if you multiply that out to a few million who wanted to protest but were unable to... you end up with a very small fraction of the American people. Tomdobb (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A main goal was to promote tax cuts or extention of existing tax cuts for the wealthy. The "Tea Parties" were a publicity effort organized and promoted and funded by right wing media, a few wealthy individuals, and right wing political groups, with additional attendance by Libertarians and people hurting from the economic downturn. In fact, Gallup polls show that Americans are satisfied with present tax rates. 61% think the income tax is "fair" (more than any result reported back to 1946, save for 2003-2005) and 35% say "unfair." Respondants said that "Lower income people," and Middle income people" are paying their "fair share" but overwhelmingly said "Upper income people " are paying "too little." Edison (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the people are protesting the government spending in that they expect their taxes to increase in the next few years. The taxation without representation argument appears to stem from the fact that the majority of protesters appeared to be conservatives who do not have enough seats in congress to do anything. Or it could be that they don't feel that politicians are representative of the people (how many senators would pass as a regular guy on the street?) 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most Americans are angry about billions in bailouts give to Wall Street financial "experts" who created the present economic crisis, and then feel they are entitled to millions in "bonuses" for all they accomplished, or as "retention bonuses" so they don't quit and take a nonexistent job at another firm. These greedy financial geniuses are probably as popular with the average taxp[ayer as Marie Antoinette and her hubby were with Parisians circa 1793. This outrage is somehow supposed to represent a demand for continued tax breaks for the wealthy. Edison (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor is the different view of government in the US versus Europe. There is a traditional opposition toward "Big Government" in the US, with preference for free market capitalism, infused with themes of self sufficiency and rugged individualism, with allusions to the wild west cowboy mystique. The European model, where government is much more involved in providing things for its citizens is decried by US conservatives (the ones who are holding the Tea Parties) as socialism and a welfare state. In their minds, individuals know how to use their money best, so people should keep their own money, instead of being forced to give it to the government. In the mind of the conservatives, government messes up anything it touches (with the notable exception of military defense), so the less the government is involved, the better - less taxes means that the government does less. That said, there is a view by some that the recent tea parties aren't representative of actual opinion, but are rather an astroturfing stunt orchestrated by the Republican party, trying to discredit their opponents the Democrats, and gain more support after the Republicans' recent electoral defeat. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I was gonna say that, but you beat me to it. :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pay taxes so the rich don't have to. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were some really great answers -thanks guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.208 (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that we Americans see *our* government as untrustworthy - a lot of us (including myself) have a tendency not to trust *any* government. American right/libertarian views of government tend to range from 'a necessary evil/necessary for the military and police but not much else' to 'only what the free market can't do' (military/police/public works/big projects) to accepting *some* regulation of business but fighting it. Americans don't tend to see government as any more trustworthy than business (certainly I don't); is it different in Europe? Vultur (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material

What is 'Action Leather'?96.53.149.117 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speeding ticket myth?

I have heard that if you get a speeding ticket, what you do is send in a check for a trivial amount more then you owe (I heard 10 cents). If you do that, they will not cash the check and you in essence will have gotten of without paying. This sound preposterous to me, but then there are stranger things in heaven and on earth right? Does anyone know if there is truth to this? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's implausible sounding.. and it's a well-known myth, see snopes for more. Friday (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you carefully check all the details on the ticket, you might get lucky and find an error. I once got off a parking fine because the hand-written ticket said "Wednesday, <date> <year>", when the actual day of the week was something else. I made the point in my letter that the last time that date had been a Wednesday was something like 5 years earlier, when I could prove I lived 1000 km away and did not own the car in question. I never heard back from the authorities. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All your pedant are belong to us! BrainyBabe (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed ... I think. Pedantry very definitely has its uses, and is not to be dismissed lightly. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They will cash it and send you a refund. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JelloTube (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Functional form of von-Neumann Morgenstern utility function - any help much appreciated !!!

Just realised that humanties harbours economics so apologies for also posting this in the maths section.

For my studies i need to use the von-Neumann Morgenstern utility function but i am not aware of its function form (i.e. a cobb douglas is Y=K^aL^b for example). I am not trying to get the answer to save me the work of doing so i am just trying to do background research.

Thank you very much for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.232.191 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it has a specific functional form? From my extremely short check on google, it looks like the von Neumann–Morgenstern utility functions are a class of functions that satisfy certain axioms regarding risk aversion. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vNM utility (also called expected utility) has the form that expected utility is the sum of the utility from each possible event times the probability that that event occurs. (These events must form a partition in state space). So if there is one event that occurs with probability 0.8 and gives utility 1, and another that occurs with probability 0.2 and gives utility 2, then EU=(0.8*1)+(0.2*2)=1.2. There are axiomatic foundations for expected utility as Zain Ebrahim says, but these make no assumptions on risk aversion.79.70.246.6 (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' Relations

My parents share a common great-grandmother. She married twice and had my mother's grandmother with one husband and my father's grandmother with another husband. What relation are my parents to each other (besides the obvious husband-wife)? What interesting inter-relationships does this create between my siblings and me and my parents and me? Also, is this common (in modern times) or would an occurrence like this be somewhat rare? 157.127.124.14 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Cousin#Half cousins, they're half second cousins because their grandmothers are half siblings. That would make you your own half third cousin. Cool! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I totally miscounted. They actually share a common great-great grandmother. I suppose that makes them half third cousins and makes me my own half fourth cousin. :) Thanks! 157.127.124.14 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since you're related to yourself through your mother and father, you are your own double half fourth cousin. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuns

Which nuns do never speak? I remember I heard something about nuns who live in silence all the time. Do you know what are they called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just guessing here, but Cistercian (Trappists in particular) monks and nuns are permitted to speak under certain specific strict conditions - but they do not take vows of silence. Were you thinking of them? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on them. Unfortunately, it has remained to be a red link as none of the nuns ever broke their silence. The entry - well there was none - was eventually deleted for being not not able. We also have an article on the Trappist Family Singers in Braille in stereophonic silence. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you. Order the veal, tip your waitresses! Remember folks, the 11:00 show is completely different from the 7:00 show! Good night all! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Catholic contemplative orders (e.g., the Poor Clares) observe long periods of silence, though not "all the time." It'd be difficult for a sister to confess her sins, for example, without speaking. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities on Titanic?

I know most of them (including crew) were British... but do you have numbers? --201.254.83.172 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found this great page. 334 British and 306 Americans. It breaks it down by class too: First class 212 American, far dominant. A lot more British in second class with 169. Third class was close: 120 Brits, 113 Irish, 104 Swedes. Interesting: one Mexican - a first class passenger. Grsz¹¹ 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don. Manuel E. Uruchurtu meltBanana 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FTSE 100 Index - recent history of

What and when was the highest ever value of the FTSE 100 Index, and what and when was its lowest value since then? (It has recently gone above 4000 again - things are looking up). 78.149.114.51 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It peaked at 6930.2 on 30 Dec 1999.[14] —D. Monack ^talk 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into it, that looks like the highest value of the index, but due to the way its worked out, that might not actually be the highest value of the shares in it, but that would be very complicated, because occasionally individual company's shares go into and leave the top 100. Here might help generally, (if you have good eyes!).Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 14:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of Parenting

I was wondering why and how do we have the right to chose to bring somebody to life. By definition we impose the state of life to our children. Life can be good but can also be hard, or even unbearable. Is this ethical? Since we do not know how our childrens lives will develop, if they are gonna be born with congenital problems, if they will suffer from leukemia at their 3 and so ever, no matter how hard we try avoid anything bad from happening to them. Sure some of the mishaps in life will result from THEIR faults and they will be THEIR responsibility, some will still be just "bad luck", and will happen. If we make children and everything goes normal, no problem (under the hypothesis that "normal" means more good than bad things as our children perceive them, or at least in equal amount). But if we make a child and gets afflicted with misfortunes she is not willing to endure, then she can blame us because we sort of bet on her behalf by bringing her to the game called life... Some examples would be impoverished economies, hereditary disorders, periods of war or instability etc. But it can be generalized to almost all aspects of life. Since humans are the only species having full consciousness about themselves and their surroundings, and really know about the facts of reproduction while have effective means of contraception, is it ethical to make children? Based on which criteria? Why the fact that *I* "feel ready to be a parent" should affect someone on the most fundamental basis, his/her _existence_? And if I have that right, why can't I take that life -or any other life, since they could be my children- "back"? How can I have the right to chose to bring somebody to life, when that decision has to do with his/her very existence? And since I do have the right obviously, why shouldn't I kill somebody? It's just the reverse case, but the degree of influence over one's life is still the same! It only would be reasonable if we, a priori, take life as a good thing in general, but we all know that this is not always the case. Of course a negative answer on the ethical matter would have dire consequences for the survival of the human race, but I think it is a very fundamental topic because we do not discuss here the quality/meaning of life but it's existence itself. I am really interested in hearing your opinion on that and your suggestions of any relevant bibliography on the issue. The important question remains: "How ethical is to chose to bring someone to life?" Makischa (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, doing anything that might result in a "bad" outcome for someone else is not ethical. So I shouldn't drive to work today because some moron on a cell phone might knock me and kill himself thus depriving his family of a breadwinner. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That "moron" CHOSE to be talking to his cell, so he has to deal with the consequenses of HIS action. Our children do not have the choice of being born. That's the problem here.Makischa (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what did his children do? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing! He also chose to have them, and decided to behave stupidly. This is one example, as the ones I wrote above. They came to a world having an irresponsible father who would make them orphans and won't have the opportunity to go to college becasue will have to work for their subsistence! That's what it's all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makischa (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about his unethical choice to have children - I'm talking about my unethical choice to go to work. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are part of this world, and in this case you are a part of the "bad things" which are inherently associated with life, since we cannot control everything. So he brought his children to a world where these things can happen. And they actually do happen. It wasn't obviously unethical of you to go to work.Makischa (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If having children is unethical (because bad things might happen to them) then driving to work is also unethical. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if bringing children to a world where bad things might happen is ethical or not. You, or anyone, can do whatever he wants, and your actions might consist a part of the lack of ethics we have in our world along with the misfortunes that are nobody's fault. This is our world and that's a fact. But have we the right to bring someone to such a world? Makischa (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do I have the right to go to work? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you can do whatever you want, ethical or not. It's up to you. And actually we don't care because even if a miracle happened and everyone started to behave ethically, misfortunes attributed to chance alone will continue to happen. Makischa (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Driving someone to work does not guarantee death for them. Coming into this world, however, does guarantee death. When you have a child, there is no doubt that that child will die someday. Wrad (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not? This is not something that might happen to your child, a major part of your arguments above. It is a guarantee. If you have a kid, bad things will definitely happen to him or her. There is no might or maybe. Wrad (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it is unethical to procreate because life is finite? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get rid of the fact of our childrens death since as you say it is certain. Let's assume that living a normal life as defined in my first post is enough for making our decision to have children ethical.Makischa (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But good things will happen to them too. Isn't it said: "It is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all"? - Then we must consider those moral/ethical systems where denying someone a benefit through inaction is considered as bad as actively causing them harm. Does the moral good that comes from potentially sparing your future child from debilitating cancer outweigh the moral harm of denying them the happiness of their wedding day or the simple joy of summer afternoons? -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying them anything since they do not exist. If that was the case we should have as many children as biologically possible, because if you chose to have let's say 4, then you are denying your 5th, 7th, 20th child the happiness of their wedding day. The case your are considering, means inaction=harm and I think it is correct sometimes. But you cannot harm somebody who does not yet exist.Makischa (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has all the earmarks of a debate, where Makischa appears to be more interested in challenging every statement than in an answer. If there is a specific answer (and I certainly don't have one) we could reference it. If not, perhaps this should be moved off the Ref Desk to a forum for such matters. // BL \\ (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I will be waiting for an expert opinion or reference. I think I've made my case clear now. Thank you.Makischa (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody on here is an expert; we're just fellow editors. But here's a thought to consider- is not allowing potential children to live unethical? Sure, they will never die, but they will also never get to live. Is withholding life from someone also unethical? I don't really agree with your original logic, but if you must take that point of view, you must consider the other side of it. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 22:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one possible philosophy designed to quell all qualms such as User:Makischa apparently feels, read the classic satirical novel Erewhon by Samuel Butler... AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think one should only have children if you believe that they will probably be happy. I have no children, and will not have any in the future. Children are not pets or toys. 78.149.207.226 (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that at least a small degree of suffering is certain in life, therefore the decision to have children involves ethical decision making. Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I think too but I don't know how to do that. It seems to me that this process leads us that procreation is unethical in the end.Makischa (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the absence of ethics because reproduction precedes ethics in the sense that earlier versions of the human biological entity were not in possession of the capacity for ethical considerations. More importantly, our potential children are, at least by my reckoning, ours to do with as we please. The life that is inchoate in new people is merely the joining of two already living cells, at least in conventional reproduction. It would seem logical to me that we have complete autonomy over decisions involving our own living cells. I know there are exceptions to this, where the law steps in and tells us what to do with ourselves or our progeny, but I also think the default regard for our cells is that they are ours to do with as we please. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really find very interesting your perspective. You seem to be right that we should have complete autonomy on our own cells but when these 2 combine they create another, different one. And the new one when it grows a little has a different consciousness. Since we now know that, shouldn't incorporate it in our decision making and give up the selfishness of doing whatever we want with our gametocytes?Makischa (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kahlil Gibran touched obliquely on this subject in his book, The Prophet. A link to some of the text of that is found here [15]. In part, he says, "Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you." I don't really agree with it, but I think it is his attempt to address a similar question. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise. Not everything in ethics is black and white; often arguments can be made for both sides: that something is unethical, and on the other hand is ethical. However, one has take into account what ethics is: ethics is the 'big picture', it's about a system; try putting your ethics questions into a sentence like "in a world where X happened and everyone did X, would that be "good" or "bad"?. "Imagine a world where everyone smoked around children." "Imagine a world where everyone stole from eachother." Finally, "imagine a world where everyone procreated even in cases where the offspring had a likely chance of suffering." That's where the compromise comes in. It is probably only ethical to procreate after taking into consideration your circumstances and that of your offspring. The answer may differ according to many different situations: there are 6 billion people in china, most of Africa survives on less than a dollar a day, many African countries have extremely high infant mortality rates, etc etc. Now here's the flipside: "Imagine a world where people procreate and afford their offspring rich and rewarding lives with a 'standard' amount of hardship, pain, conflict, stress and suffering." If that's the position then it is ethical to have children. On the other hand if the environment gets much worse and having children would mean contribute to too much competition for resources, then again it may be unethical. 41.244.228.246 (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong because even the "standard" amount of suffering, whatever that is, is still suffering, and is bad. You can never get rid all of it no matter what you do for your child because it is inherent with life. And if you don't have a child you don't deprive him from the happiness of life since he does not yet exist, but if you procreate you bring him in a world having even a tiny amount of suffering, then wouldn't be better if you hadn't procreate in the first place, not even giving the chance to him to suffer in any degree?Makischa (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question is asking if something is ethical. Ethics are a point of view. For one group of people, the only ethical choice is to sit perfectly still and slowly starve to death - hoping you don't harm anything while you do so. For another group of people, just getting through each day without causing too much harm to other people is ethical enough. This reference desk is not the place to debate ethics. That is what discussion forums are for. -- kainaw ™ 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And with the addition of another 1,000 words, Makischa, with the 4-day-old account that has only edited on this question, still has a debate. // BL \\ (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I think that is a good point. The fact that the original questioner participated in the answering of his or her question I think is a good thing. Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]