Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 1

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.

February 1

I'm looking for the artist of an image, of which I have no information whatsoever

I recently came across this image online, but there was no information regarding it whatsoever. I downloaded it, and now I'm wondering if there's anyone who can help me identify the artist, and give me any other information possible. here is the image:

Unkown image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.94.43 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's by Zdzisław Beksiński, but I don't know the painting's name. Cycle~ (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Connecticut (BB-18)

I'm one of several editors working to bring Connecticut up to FA by 22 February (only 22 days...-_-) for the anniversary of the Great White Fleet's return to the U.S. (we plan to get it on the main page on the 22nd). However, I need a/some reliable source(s) that cover the court-martial of William Swift. Can anyone help? (And if you find a good RS that does not pertain to Swift but does pertain to the ship, feel free to list it here too...we'll need all the RS' we can get! :) Thanks everyone, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Poke. Anyone? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Second poke... :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 09:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the convergence theory, and who were some of its advocates?

What is the convergence theory, and who were some of its advocates? I'm referring to the mid-20th century idea that the capitalism of the USA and the West, and socialism of the USSR, were becoming closer and closer and would eventually become identical systems. --Gary123 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A little bit at State_capitalism... AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The theory seems to be in the process of happening. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and China turning towards capitalism, there are very few purely communist nations left, perhaps North Korea, and, to a lesser extent Cuba and some others. On the other side, there are very few purely capitalistic nations left. The US, for example, seems headed towards something more moderate, with socialized medicine perhaps coming sometime soon. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gays in Iran

Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud Asgari were two boys who were executed in Iran and some said they were executed because of their homosexuality. Is it REALLY true?, is it PROVEN that gays are executed or senteced to death in Iran?. --Ahmed987147 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about this case except what's in our article. But even in Iran, people are not executed merely for having general feelings of sexual or other attraction to people of their own sex. They get into trouble with the law when they act on their feelings and engage in proscribed sexual activity. What the specific activity was that led to the executions in this case is a matter of considerable debate, to say the least, but supposedly the 2 boys did something they weren't permitted to under Iranian law. (I am truly shocked to read that the victims of sexual assault are deemed as guilty as the perpetrators in Iran. What sort of thinking could lead to that policy?) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the idea is that anyone who was raped must have somehow tempted the rapists. For example, a woman not wearing a burka in public is considered to be inviting men to rape her. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if they don't strongly adhere to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" then the fact that there will probably be significant evidence of the sexual activity but very little evidence that it wasn't consensual (because such things are normally just one person's word against another's) could result in there being no conviction of rape, and that being taken as proof that the activity was consensual. This is particularly aggravated by the fact that a woman's testimony doesn't count for much in Iran, as I understand it. --Tango (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a TV show on these issues in Iran on this Wednesday: [1]. It's on at 10:01 PM (a 1 minute content warning first ?). It's in Ontario, Canada, Jack, so you'll need some extra long rabbit ears. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... very long indeed. It might qualify for the world's tallest structure. Thanks for the heads up, but I doubt I'll be tuning in, somehow. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack, the idea that the victim of a sexual assault is as guilty - or even more guilty - than the perpetrator is by no means confined to Iran. [2] Karenjc 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How terribly sad. And even sadder that it was done in the name of a religion. That's the sort of thing that gives religions generally a really bad name. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article does not provide evidence that the girl was stoned in accordance with the laws, neither Sharia or secular.

As to laws for punishing the victim as well as the perpetrator, I know of at least two formal grounds for such. Both are horrendous, but also note that both have been considered as valid in "western, Christan lands".

1. The law automatically considers the victim as not quite unwilling, unless otherwise clearly proven. An example of that attitude is the rule, that if a maiden was subjected to sex in the desert, the man would be stoned; but if it was in populated areas, then both should be stoned, since she didn't cry out to get other people stop him. (The possibility of a strong man threatening her or having her hands around her throat is not considered.) In the legislations that incorporated Old Testament laws as valid, like the Swedish in the beginning of the 17'th century, this became valid law - although I think executions in Sweden never were done by means of stoning. (I remember reading of a case of a man having abused his daughter. The case, the name of the man, and the day of execution was reported; and then there is a brief notice that his unnamed daughter was executed the same day.)
2. There was a real scare of the possible outcomes of "unnatural" sex. People of course new very well that there was a close relationship between sex and getting offspring, both for humans and (other) animals; but the true biology was unknown. In Sweden, a man having sex with an animal was promptly sentenced to death; but this was not an early animal protection measure. The animal was also slaughtered. I suppose that the religious abhorrance for this deed was connected to a real fear of there being monsters born as an effect. JoergenB (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this specific case a while back including discussing it with an Iranian living in the US for 20-30 years. The evidence that they were executed for homosexual acts is very slim. Most evidence suggests that they were executed for repeatedly raping a 13 year old boy. As I understand it they repeatedly raped the boy until one day he couldn't stand it any more and told his father. The rapist probably would have gotten off with a lesser sentence were it not for the fact they were also guilty of some other crimes including robbery. As a number of commentators have noted, the executions were still a violation of international law which forbids the execution of people for crimes commited as juvelines so regardless of your views of the death penalty, the executions were still disgusting IMHO (although the US also executes people for crimes commited as juvelines). However as with HRW, I'm also disgusted at the way certain people and groups have tried to make this a gay issue, they do a great disservice to both rape victims worldwide and gay people in Iran (and elsewhere) who suffer real harrasment and do risk being put to death if they are caught by linking rapists to people who engage in consensual sex. In terms of your general question, IIRC when I looked into this sometimes last year according to HRW, the last execution that they know of for consensual homosexual acts was in Iran was in 2005. It's possible there are some they are not aware of but it's worth remembering these executions are not something the Iranian government/media tends to hide. The greater difficulty is determining (when an execution occurs) whether it was for consensual acts or rapes but from what I can tell, it's not necessarily impossible if you actually look into the case. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Christianity white?

To what extent was Christianity, in the form of current major denominations, formed by white people? NeonMerlin 04:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You could try beginning with Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Protestant Reformation, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptist, and Unitarianism. In general terms, all major denominations except those of Oriental Orthodoxy were formed by white people – indeed, it might be better to say by white men - but remember that the more Evangelical churches, such as those of Fundamentalist Christianity, base themselves firmly on the Bible, in which European influences are rather limited. If you've also been set a text to read, it might be worth giving an hour or two to that. Xn4 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it all depends what you mean by "white". Jesus certainly wasn't white: he was a Jew from the eastern Mediterranean, and one wold imagine having a skin tone similar to modern Jews and Arabs from that area. That goes for everything up to the advent of Protestantism, i.e. most of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. From that time, the other denominations mentioned above were founded by Europeans, who may be "white" in the sense of "paler than Arabs"! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are cabbages white? Is rice really yellow or brown? Is corn red? Are yams black? If I knew the answer to these then I think I'd be able to answer if Christianity is white. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'd also need to know what colours figs and chillies are as well Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea of being "formed" by whties is also tricky - to what extent do you mean? Martin Luther was white, and mostly Europeans were involved in many denominations, but the influence of other races on some denominations has been great. (Lessee...influence has...yeah, that's right.) They may have their own worship style within these denominations, which further distinguishes them, but instead of asking if a relgion is white, I would instead look at the similarities and differences between the worship styles in the different denominations in white versus non-white churches. And, as noted, if this is homework, that is a good lead without giving you too much

Also, as noted, Jesus and all the early apostles were certainly of Middle Eastern origin, and this is where it truly has its beginnings..Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In ancient and medieval times, when the major Christian denominations formed, there was no concept of race as such. So, in a sense, nobody was "white". They were Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, whatever. Today, definitions of racial boundaries vary from one culture to another. User:TammyMoet above says that "Jesus certainly wasn't white." I'm not sure where TammyMoet lives, but in the United States, I think that most Middle Easterners would be considered white. They might be mistaken for Latinos, and some of the most dark-skinned Middle Easterners (from Egypt or Yemen) might not be considered white, but I think that most would qualify as white. (Note that "qualifying as white" is merely falling within the bounds of a cultural category based on skin tone rather than possessing any meaningful biological distinction.) I'm guessing that in some parts of Europe, Middle Easterners do not qualify as white. Marco polo (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Marcopolo, I'm in the UK and Middle Easterners aren't "white" here! Just to clarify. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things might contribute to the idea that it's Caucasian or Europeanised. One, that Europe spawned the Christian missionary movement that tailgated European expansionism throughout the "new world". And two, portraits of Jesus based on this guy generated the impression (see the section "Evaluation" where Alexandre Dumas, père states that some pictures of Jesus Christ produced around then were based on him, "and that this in turn has influenced images of Jesus produced since that time.") Jesus tends to be imaged according to the dominant culture. My two bits, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Christianity didn't come to be somewhat based in Europe until following the Muslim invasions of the 7th-century A.D., 600 years after the death of Jesus. Of the five Christian patriarchates of ca. 400 A.D., only one (Rome) was unquivocally in Europe, while one was in Africa (Alexandria), two were in Asia (Jerusalem and Antioch), and the fifth was on the Europe-Asia border (Constantinople). It wasn't really until several centuries after the Arab invasions, when Christian communities were starting to become population minorities in many regions of the middle east, the Byzantines lost Anatolia, and major progress startted to be made on the Christianization of northern and eastern Europe, that Christianity could really be called a predominantly European religion... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's also recognize that religion is not a static concept. While many of the Christian faiths may have been formed in Europe and North America by white men, the religions have spread throughout the world and have been reshaped by the different races who came to embrace the theologies. A prime example of that can be seen today in the influence the African leaders of the Anglican faith have on the worldwide Anglican community. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

@Marco polo Looking at their artwork the ancient Egyptians certainly thought that people from Northern Egypt were different from Nubians and Hittites. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Mythology - Yokai for the Dying

I have been wondering about a certain Yokai I've seen in a movie, animes, and mangas for a while.
They are very small green lizard humanoid creatures, that appear when some one is dying. Usually they have chains, but sometimes they do not.
They can usually only be seen by Buddhist Priests, or Shinto Priestesses.
The first time I seen them was in Conan The Barbarian, when they attack his body. The other times I've seen them are from Inu-Yasha, when Kikyo saves the lives of folks close to death.
Can any one name these creatures? They do not appear on the List of legendary creatures from Japan found in Wiki, nor am I having any luck Googleing different references.
Please forgive me if I make Wiki formatting mistakes, I am new at this style. --RLS0812 (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen of the references you listed above but perhaps since they are depicted as appearing when someone is dying they may be shinigami which are Japanese psychopomps. You also may want to take a look at the illustrations of Toriyama Sekien which are divided into four sections in Wikimedia commons here. [3] He attempted to illustate all the yokai who participate in a supernatural parade called the Night Parade of One Hundred Demons. Maybe it's illustated in there somewhere.
Your formatting is pretty good for your first(?) wiki post. You don't need to use the line breaks after every sentence although they are appreciated when faced with a wall of text. Kudos to you if you spent the time to look up how to do a line break. Wikipedia:How to edit a page will help you with your basic formatting questions. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Identifying people and the picture

Does anyone know the origin of this picture?[4] Or can anyone provide a list of all the people in the picture? Thanks! 99.226.138.202 (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, and no. But here are some that are clearly present: Albert Einstein, Shirley Temple, Charlie Chaplin, Audrey Hepburn, Queen Elizabeth II, Elvis, Shakespeare, Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln, Mao Tse Tung, Gandhi, Adolf Hitler, Bruce Lee, Lenin, Bill Clinton, Napoleon, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Marilyn Monroe, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Prince Charles, Salvador Dali, Toulouse Lautrec, Mother Teresa, Gorbachov, Luciano Pavarotti, Marlon Brando (as the Godfather), Osama bin Ladin, Sigmund Freud, Lewis Carroll, Pele, Beethoven, Vladimir Putin, George Bush, Dante.

And here are some that are likely present: Lao Tzu, Confucius, Tojo, Gengis Khan, Moses, Thomas Paine, Jesus, Mozart, De Gaulle, Ernest Hemingway, Julius Caesar, Georges Braque

- Nunh-huh 06:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Confucius, Genghis and Mozart are all there. As are Steven Speilberg, Bill Gates, Nietszche, Tamerlane, Stalin, Columbus, Sun Yat-sen, Mark Twain, Ferdinand Marcos, Tolstoy, James Cook, Wilt Chamberlain, Eisenhower and Henry Ford. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

click here for picture key

I've posted a partial key on the image description page; others can add to it. - Nunh-huh 07:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that 76 is Salvador Dali. The piece around his neck looks like a pocket watch... I've filled in some of the others as best I can. Dismas|^(talk) 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

8 is maybe Pol Pot. I'll second 27 and 29 as Hemmingway and Guthrie. 37 maybe Syngman Rhee? 46 does look like Darwin, but it could also be Socrates or another similar Greek philosopher. 78 maybe Khublai Khan or Ghengis Khan or someone like that. 81 looks like Deng Xiaopeng. 85 maybe Ho Chi Minh (going by the hat here, I've seen Ho in a hat like that). 71 maybe Bruce Lee. 88 looks like Yul Brynner. 100 is NOT Wilt Chamberlain. Its definately Michael Jordan. 103 Maybe Ghengis Khan or someone like that. I hope that helps some. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling a combination of the names, I find this website, which says that the painting is Discussing the Divine Comedy with Dante by “Dai Dudu", painted in 2006, and has a nearly complete list of people depicted (including non-person Dolly the Sheep), though they are uncertain on some of the identifications. Googling again on the name of the painting, yields this page, which says there was once an image-mapped version with links to Wikipedia, but it seems to have disappeared. I haven't compared their list yet with ours, or found the image-mapped version. - Nunh-huh 12:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

An even better answer key is located here. Should we have an article on this painting? - Nunh-huh 13:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

29 is J. Robert Oppenheimer, no question (see image here). 21 is Alexander Pushkin. 60 is Marie Curie. And while we're at it.. image on the TV at far left is Ivy Mike. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your answers. 99.226.138.202 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

52 is Kant. Llamabr (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would Kant be playing violin 41 is Paul Newman rather than Putin and I think their Audrey Hepburn looks a lot more like Shirley MacLaine76.97.245.5 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Disabled monarchs

I came to think of something. I have never heard of any monarchs, kings or queens in history, who were blind, deaf or mute. Have anyone else heard of such examples? It would be interesting! --85.226.41.66 (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

John the Blind of Bohemia is one... - Nunh-huh 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you extend it to mental disabilities, Charles VI of France (aka Charles the Mad) was likely schizophrenic and George III of the United Kingdom also suffered from serious mental illness, necessitating his temporary removal from power during the Regency period. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re George III: That's what they thought at the time, but consensus these days is that he suffered from porphyria, a physical, not mental, condition. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reasons there aren't many are: 1) A fair percentage of blindness/deafness was (and is) caused by problems that cause other symptoms that were lethal then but can be treated now - eg. head trauma - and so there were few people living with blindness particularly in the royal classes who did not engage in particularly dangerous activities; 2) The percentage now is fairly small - probably under 0.1% in people under the average life expectancy then of around 40 to 50 years. Since there may have been a couple of thousand monarch at the very most, there are only likely to have been a very few who had these sort of disabilities; 3) moderate disabilities may not have been noted for fear of making the monarch look inferior. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is worth remembering that disabilities may disqualify a royal person from acceding to the throne. John, the son of George V of the United Kingdom, was never likely to rule, as he had four elder brothers, but even if he had been eldest, his epilepsy would still have meant that he was hidden away in shame; he died young. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

PS, I realise this is still not about being blind, deaf or mute, but cf Haemophilia in European royalty for another significant disability. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful citing historical life expectancies - while the average life expectancy may have been 40 to 50, that's because of a high rate of infant mortality. If you made it through infancy, life expectancy wasn't that different to today (living into your 60s or 70s was pretty common, as I understand it, at least for the higher classes). --Tango (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem was a leper and eventually went blind. There was a Holy Roman Emperor Louis the Blind but the article doesn't say if he was literally blind. Enrico Dandolo was probably also blind (though I suppose he is technically not a monarch). Isaac II Angelos had been deposed and blinded, not out of the ordinary for a Byzantine emperor, but he was briefly restored as sort of a puppet emperor while blind. Mughal emperor Shah Alam II was also blinded during his reign. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the expectation now is 70s or 80s, it used to be 60s or 70s. There is a definite difference, but it's nowhere near as big as many people think (once you exclude infant deaths). --Tango (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the original questioner, but can anyone think of a monarch who took office while blind, deaf, or mute rather than simply becoming during his/her reign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.15.23 (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vasily II may marginally qualify, as he both "took the office" and had to flee Moscow multiple times. He ultimately regained the throne already after he was blinded, and reigned until his death. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, though, men with obvious physical defects, and specifically blindness, were considered unfit kings and were skipped over in lines of succession; its for this reason that various Eastern emperors contented themselves with blinding, rather than killing, their rivals. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Until relatively recently deafness, at least profound deadness, meant a life without language--a condition much more debilitating than blindness. I'm not sure what common conditions cause muteness, other than profound deafness in the past, but wouldn't that make it difficult to be the head of state? Of the three presented, only blindness seems viable for rulers in pre-modern times. Others have already given a number of examples. Pfly (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Baldwin IV's leprosy was probably considered far worse than blindness, since it implied some great moral (especially sexual) deviancy being punished by God. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Would Ivar the Boneless qualify as a monarch? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Though it's more of an impairment than disability, there's Kaiser Bill with a withered left arm due to Erb's Palsy. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a Louis the Blind, of Provence & Italy, and a John the Blind of Bohemia & Luxemburg. Also Robert the Bruce King of Scotland had Leprosy. AllanHainey (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Richard III had a clubfoot, and possibly a hunchback - though this may be apocraphyl. There is also a slew of disabilities associated with the Habsburg royal dynasty[[5]] due to their in-breeding, in particular the Habsburg lip which 2was characterized by a protruding lower jaw, which often led to difficulties chewing, speaking and keeping one's mouth closed." You may not class it as a disability but I think the sufferers may have. AllanHainey (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers!--85.226.47.151 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chip Implants

Are we even close to getting forced to have RFID tags implanted in us? What I mean is this probably going to happen like in the book Barcode Tatto or is the majority of the world and the US against it? --Melab±1 ☎ 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the books you are talking about and I don't know what timeframe you mean by close, but I doubt that humans will be mandatorily implanted with anything like an ID chip within your lifetime. RFID tag implants would require surgery which would predispose people against it because it would cost money and could cause complications. That doesn't rule out implants for convenience, but it seems more likely non-invasive solutions like cards of some sort would be preferred instead. Human biometric monitoring in the present and the future will likely advantage of already existing and conveniently accessible physical features like fingerprints, iris patterns, or facial structure (which are used currently). Once the technological hurdles are jumped, DNA is a logical target, but I wouldn't rule out something bizarre like a "smell fingerprint" (I mean something like a profile of the vaporized molecules your body gives off by virtue of your metabolic processes).

Even without biometric data, there is a wealth of information about your activities, personality, and movement contained in your credit card purchases, store club cards, and internet browsing habits for example. Heck, your location could be at least roughly triangulated if you have your phone on in an area with decent phone reception. Apple makes a business out of knowing where you are. iPhones provide all sorts of nifty services in exchange for your privacy like offering you close by restaurant suggestions, or figuring out your general location so you can get un-lost. There is more than enough data right now to do the government-stalking-the-citizens job pretty well. Other than legal hurdles, the biggest problem in human tracking is simply getting all the information out there to analyze in one indexed place and getting the computer resources to actually analyze it. The computer resource problem is rapidly becoming more and more feasible: see FLOPS.152.16.15.23 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it surgery. The tags they put in pets now are basically injected under the skin. However, I still can't see it happening in the US, as people would object, based on the invasion of privacy and perhaps also the discomfort of having a foreign object inserted into your body (and, even worse, in a non-sexual context). :-) StuRat (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The case for doing it to one's own soldiers is pretty good (as a dog tag and a medical ID); this way a badly injured soldier can be wanded when they enter a field hospital and the medics know immediately their blood type, allergies, and any relevant history. From there things in increments. FBI agents get one, and a little computer in their gun prevents a non agent from firing it (limiting the cases where an agent is shot with his own weapon). Then all DHS agents. Then national guardsmen and reserve members of the military. People get them for a swift-traveller program (to speed through airport security). People who drive dangerous loads or fly airliners or navigate large ships get them. From the other end, it's mandated for high-security prisoners, then all prisoners, then everyone on probation, then for everyone on probation or in a diversion programme. Non-landed immigrants (foreigners like skilled-worked and students) get one, then landed immigrants (people with greencards). Then all cops (state, county, local). Then all welfare recipients, and everyone on medicare. Then all truckers. Then all federal employees (and their contractors) get one, and the states are pressured to do the same. Then they mandate it for all driving licences. That's how these things go: mandate it for people that the public have no sympathy for (criminals) and for government employees who have no choice (soldiers), then roll it incrementally forward, where each step itself seems like a reasonable expansion on the previous one. By the time you get to ordinary people who have done nothing wrong at all and have little to do with the government, such a large proportion of the population has one that they can say "only terrorists having something to hide" to objections to further expansion. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As noted earlier, their are other even better ways to absolutely identify people (biometrics). RFID chips could be removed and replaced with somebody else's (maybe someone murdered for it), so they really aren't all that reliable. Also, putting them in prisoners could make the general population even less accepting of them, the argument being that "now the government wants to treat everyone like criminals". StuRat (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

squatters rights

i have a friend she has five children youngest 5 years oldest 18years.

she has been in relationship unmarried for over 20 year. here partner left the couples home to start a new relationship. then approx a year later insisted she leave with her children. we are aware that she has no claim to ownership of property. however she has been homeless since april 08, when her ex insisted that she leave property. my friend believed he had support of police and balifs heance she left scared.

she still has back door key and could enter the property without causing any damage, as it remains empty. what could she leagley do to secure her self and her children back in property that belongs to her ex the childrens father and has remained empty since she was aggressively persuaded to leave?

would appriciate your promt return with any advice you can give?

thanks sue gillett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.249.50 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This almost certainly constitutes legal advice, which this desk cannot give. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice, she'll need to speak to a lawyer. I can give you a link to squatter's rights, though, and tell you that in most jurisdictions that have a concept of "adverse possession" (at least, ones I know of) require a squatter to live there for quite a long time (in the UK, 12 years) and the time spent there with the permission of the owner wouldn't count, so that probably isn't useful in your case (there would also be other hoops to jump through). There may be other methods she can use, though, but she needs to seek professional advice since it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and we don't have the details of the case. She should certainly ask a professional about what child maintenance requirements in her jurisdiction are. --Tango (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do a search for "Women's Legal Services" in your community. Help should be available. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't enter the property. Follow the above advice, and find some legal help. There are a lot of people who will know exactly how the system works in your area, and they will help.NByz (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the law may be different depending on which country she lives in. Also there are legal, moral and practical answers which may be different. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The OP's IP address is in the UK. From what we're told, it's not at all clear that this friend was well-advised to leave the property. As she still has a key she may still be able to get back in without any suggestion of "breaking and entering", but by now someone has probably changed the locks: it would be a remarkable oversight if they hadn't. However, if she has children and is homeless, the local authority almost certainly has a duty to house her, unless she made herself homeless. This friend badly needs legal advice. If she can't afford it, she should go for free advice to a Citizens Advice Bureau, there's hardly anywhere in the UK which doesn't have one within reach. Xn4 (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Common Professional Examination in/around London

I'm looking for a school in or around London that offers the Common Professional Examination for the lowest price. I'm particularly keen on ones that award the Graduate Diploma in Law. It seems that in searching, there are a hundred from which to choose. Is there an easy way to sort them according to price? Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Openly gay

The front page currently says that the new Prime Minister of Ice Land is the first openly gay head of government in MODERN times. Does that mean there were openly gay heads of governments in history, or just that we're not sure about other heads of governments in ancient times? 99.226.138.202 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perceptions of homosexuality were very different in certain past cultures. For example, see Homosexuality in ancient Greece. I don't know of any specifics, but it wouldn't surprise me if some ancient Greek leaders were openly involved in homosexual activity (I'm not sure it would be accurate to call them "homosexual" since they didn't divide people by sexual orientation in such a way - applying current identifiers to historical figures can easily result in nonsense). --Tango (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of historical figures who were a country's leader who we suspect (adn in some cases, know) had same-sex relationships. But as Tango says, it's difficult to talk about homosexuality in ancient cultures. But if you want to read about a few people, try Alexander the Great, Hadrian (and Antinous) and Khnumhotep_and_Niankhkhnum. Steewi (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Many Roman emperors are known to have had same-sex relationships. Hadrian was famously involved with Antinous, whom he deified. But Roman age-structured homosexuality was not the same as modern egalitarian homosexuality. Lantzy ^talk 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

List of the first LGBT holders of political offices might be useful. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Charles I of Württemberg may not have been "openly gay" in the sense we understand that today, but apparently he made little secret of his ... appetites. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the first openly gay head of government in modern times is (arguably) Per-Kristian Foss, who acted very briefly as Norwegian Prime Minister in 2002. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Edward II of England had a "favourite", Piers Gaveston, whom some people believe was his homosexual boyfriend. As to whether Edward was "openly gay", read the article and make up your own mind. From that article I would say he was. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Henri III of France is another monarch known for his preference for men (the linked article only hints at the amount of debate about this issue). He was childless when an assassin's knife ended his life, prompting a huge succession problem. --Xuxl (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

William II of England and Richard I are both generally thought to have been gay (though the William II article makes no mention of it). AnyPerson (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, James Buchanan, America's first "Bachelor" president (bachelor meaning don't even THINK this guy would get married to a woman) was widely understood by even his contemporaries as gay. He lived with another man, William Rufus King for many years before he became President, and besides refusing to "officially" declare himself gay, there was little secret as to what was going on at the time. Much of their correspondance has been destroyed, so there is no direct evidence of a sexual relationship. However, Buchanan did note in a few extant private letters to "wooing gentlemen" after the death of King, and other such oblique references to his homosexuality. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Even the term "head of government" doesn't travel back in time very well, being an 18th century notion. Before that, rulers (princes, if you prefer) ruled, and the advisors of various kinds who acted as their senior administrators weren't much like heads of government now. Xn4 (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a very pleasing juxtaposition above: King William II of England - who was known as "William Rufus", hence perhaps "King William Rufus" - and William Rufus King. Both involved in government/politics, both gay males. Maybe King was William's reincarnation. Or he may even have been named after him. Curious. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)