Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 January 21

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.

January 21

Equality before the law

Where did the earliest concept of equality before the law originate? Where was it first implemented? (By this I mean only in places with actual set laws, of course-not including in places like tribes) Thanks! 99.226.138.202 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The first record of the concept is probably in Herodotus, who attributes it to the Athenian Cleisthenes. In Greek it was called isonomia. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to start at legal history, History of democracy and maybe take a look at rule of law. The definition you use for of "legal egalitarianism" matters too. Classic Greece and Rome had concepts of citizenship which excluded women, slaves, and certain conquered peoples but ensured a certain rights for said citizen. Around the same rough time frame legalist philosophy developed in China. I'm not sure when or how it was put into practice but Islamic law had a premise for a least some laws being applicable to everyone. John Locke's political theory in 1689 argued for every man deserving equal application of justice. The article for equality before the law says that legal egalitarianism as a political development arose in the 18th century Enlightenment in both the United States and France after their revolutionary periods. I hope this helps. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What this guy said. Ancient Greece was the birthplace of Western civilisation, furthered by Ancient Rome. Such concepts must have been first formulated during this period. Then later in the medieval age and afterwards, other thinkers from Britain, France, Germany, Italy etc. furthered the concepts developed during this period and modernised them, a process that has continued to this day.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Another take on it would be Early Irish law where the kings didn't have the power to enact laws. It is interesting that women had rights taken away with the coming of Christianity because of its saying women were subject to their husbands. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "equality of some" or "equality of all" ?

If the first case is what you meant, I would think that would apply anywhere that laws existed. That is, whatever group of people those laws applied to, they applied to them all equally. The Code of Hammurabi is perhaps the earliest written law we know of. While there were certainly different laws for slaves and peasants, this was true for most of history.

If the second case is what you meant, we don't seem to believe that today. Children and aboriginal people may have different rights, non-citizens, homosexuals, and convicted felons may be denied certain rights, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you guys very much! You were very helpful! I was just wondering whether anyone would bring up Chinese Legalist philosophy. And also looking to see whether it was the first case of Equality before the law. Question now answered. =] 99.226.138.202 (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Police State

When was the term Police State first used?

The earliest reference the Oxford English Dictionary has found so far was an 1851 description of Austria in The Times. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster says 1851, Dictionary(dot)com says 1860-1865, and the Online Etymology Dictionary says it was first recorded in 1865 in a reference to Austria. Hope this helps. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Google Books can often do better on this kind of question - for example, here is a use in 1832. Warofdreams talk 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look closer, you'll find that that use of the term is in Leon Trotsky's The Bolsheviki and World Peace (1918). I have no idea why that book and the 1832 volume are included in the same Google Books file. Deor (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes. The dating of that book is clearly incorrect; the section refers in detail to the Franco-Prussian War and the previous page includes a sentence starting "As Marx had already foreseen in 1870..." This is why Google Books should be regarded with very great suspicion as a research tool: many of the dates are entirely wrong and texts must be carefully studied and referenced against catalogues (e.g. linguist Mark Liberman attempting a similar analysis: "Google Books' dates (and other metadata) are very unreliable"[1]) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. I wasn't relying on the metadata, but on the title page - and failed to notice that was from a different book! Still, this looks a good bet from 1847. Warofdreams talk 14:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen the Metadata wrong too...For Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921 and The American Battleship, it added an extra author...which I then used to cite articles here on Wikipedia. -_- —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for confirming my suspicion! That the quasi-police state in the Chinese Qin Dynasty was before the term police state even came in to usage. =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.138.202 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Aretha Franklin's song

Why was Aretha Franklin singing the melody of the British national anthem "God Save the Queen" at Obama's inauguration ceremony? - Is there some hidden message there? --AlexSuricata (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My Country, 'Tis of Thee is an American patriotic song. Rockpocket 02:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And The Star Spangled Banner is sung to an old British drinking tune. What is it with Americans and patriotic songs - can't they come up with any tunes of their own? DuncanHill (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the political sector for you. —Tamfang (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed; the U.S. and England share a lot of tunes, with different words. For example "To Anacreon in Heaven", better known as the "Star Spangled Banner", was originally published in London in the 1770s. Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And what's wrong with that? At the time many of these songs popped up, most of the writers were former Brits. It's easier to transfer patriotism than to completely remake it. Wrad (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this one. I too wondered why she was singing what sounded like God Save the Queen.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounded like The Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen Anthem to me! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tamfang. I've never liked the Star-Spangled Banner for exactly that reason. Sorry to get all nationalistic on everyone but the national anthem should be an American song. Just my 2 cents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an American song. The words are certainly American. The tune is not, but the person who chose to put American words to an English tune was an American. Maybe the USA should stop appropriating the English language and make up one of their own (ok, I know, they already did that; just making my point). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And, when Francis Scott Key wrote it, was he actively thinking of it, anyway? Even if he was, it was done in the same tone as when Americans took Yankee Doodle during the Revolutionary War, and turned it from a song mocking them to a song championing their cause. Sort of thumbing their noses at the British. Americans will always use their own words; the worst you can accuse them of is being good at parody of British songs.

And, British readers might just find it fitting to call it that. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the tune for 'God Save the Queen' was originally composed for the King of...France, by Lully...True? False? Rhinoracer (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

False, it would seem. See under "History" in God Save the Queen. DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny how folks don't wax nearly so wroth about the national anthem of Liechtenstein. Maybe they don't feel nearly so inferior about the principality. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Aretha seemed a little verklempt yesterday, as if the air were too cold to draw fully in. Personally, I get more verklempt over "America the Beautiful". --Wetman (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Uzbekistan Immigration

What are the requirements for immigrants who want to permanently settle in Uzbekistan? Is it easy for people to immigrate to Uzbekistan today? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that Uzbekistan is still problematic with regard to human rights etcetera. Apparently, it's the most populous country in Central Asia of the five former CIS states in the region, even more population than Kazakhstan despite being considerably smaller, which surprised me when I first heard it. Also, it would probably depend on where you're immigrating from. I hear that Central Asia (i.e. these five states in particular) are growth regions with regard to oil etc. Look on Wikitravel for info - it can be useful.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If an Indian family from India, wanted to immigrate to Uzbekistan, would it be difficult or easy for them? Is there an immigration policy in Uzbekistan? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's another Obama question

While reading this article, I read:

The Obamas were more enthusiastic, splitting up to dance with Marine Sgt. Elidio Guillen of Madera, Calif. — who was shorter than dance partner Michelle — and Army Sgt. Margaret H. Herrera, who cried in the president's arms.

My questions about this are, is this some sort of tradition that I'm unaware of? And who are these two people? What makes them special enough to dance with the first couple? Dismas|^(talk) 05:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Ann Curry's interview with Army Sgt. Margaret H. Herrera this evening (oozing empathy from every pore, as usual), the Obamas requested this especially and it is not traditional. Herrera said she was nominated by her commanding officer, perhaps because of her politeness and good manners, ably demonstrated in her politically correct answers to all of Ms Curry's questions. Rockpocket 07:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mobius loops in operas?

Hi - this is a strange question - I'm working on a story set on Saturn's rings, and part of the conceit is that they're solid (it's steampunk, set in a time when people might have still thought them solid), their shapes determined by the strange forms that spacetime took in the very early universe. Our heroine, an opera singer, is riding a ringwhale over the surface, and for reasons we don't need to go into, has to travel over a prominence in the landscape that is like a mobius strip. It'd be nice if she was able to make sense of this by relating it to some similar looping-back movement in an opera, especially something from Wagner (the story's called Ringcycle). I know nothing about music, and less than that about opera, so forgive me the ridiculous hand-waving I'm doing, but if anyone can at least make suggestions of something that might approximate what I'm talking about, I'd be very appreciative.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the mobius strip as being representative in a diagram form of an actual pattern in the sound/notes/rhythym of the music itself, or merely as a theme of an opera?--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What the question made me think of is a counter-fugue or something of that sort. (I don't really know about these things, I've only read what Hofstadter says about them in Gödel, Escher, Bach.) --Anonymous, 02:43 UTC, January 21, 2009.

thanks for the replies: I meant the former, Lawless, and thanks, Anon - I'll check it out. Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are oddly circular, mirrored, etc pieces in Bach's The Musical Offering. The one called "Canon perpetuus" repeats infinitely, each time one step higher in pitch. It was written as a puzzle, with no ending given. Actual performances have to invent some way to make it end. Operas don't usually have odd music of this type--they are more about the singing and the story. Pfly (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Nicolas Slonimsky composed something called Moebius Strip-Tease, "a perpetual vocal canon notated on a Moebius band to be revolved around the singer's head; it had its first and last performance at the Arriére-Garde Coffee Concert at UCLA on May 5 1965, with the composer officiating at the piano non-obbligato." [2] ---Sluzzelin talk 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Still no opera, but you might be interested in Robert Wechsler and his Palindrome Intermedia Performance Group. I saw them about 15 years ago, and they attempted to translate several conundrums and form-play from mathematics and biochemistry into dance. One of their pieces was titled Möbius Band (Möbius strip). Both music (live performance) and choreography emulated the Möbius structure, if I remember correctly. I found it a bit contrived, personally, but it was certainly interesting. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you, Sluzzelin. I love the idea of the Slonimsky one - synchronistically, the day I decided to pose this query to you guys, I stumbled on this: [3] Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OT: Yay for steampunk. Is this inspired by Philip Reeve's Larklight? Steewi (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard of Philip Reeve, will look him up. I must admit, this is a story I co-wrote about 3 years ago, but it's being republished, and I wanted to fix some stuff I didn't like. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually attempts to "emulate" or create an analogy to a Möbius strip fail because they in fact emulate a simple loop. No idea if that one passes or fails the test, but something to look for. - Nunh-huh 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that too; am gonna try to do justice to the whole mobiusness of it. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Portions of Alban Berg's Lulu play in retrograde. It happens both on a large and a small scale, if I remember correctly: the entire opera is a giant palindrome, and it contains circular structures on the microscopic scale as well. In a staggering Möbius-like moment near the end of this opera based on odd cycles and returns, the actors playing the lovers Lulu has done to death early in the opera return -- only now that she is a prostitute they are her customers. Oh, then she is murdered in a harrowing scene by Jack the Ripper along with her lesbian lover. It's great stuff, music you are unlikely ever to hear in an elevator. Antandrus (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds amazing - I'm gonna try to find a copy. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just don't expect to find yourself whistling any of the "tunes". I may be expressing a teensy personal bias here (shock, horror!), but I think there's a very, very good reason why you'd never hear the music from Lulu in an elevator: very few people who've heard it (myself included) actually like it. Sorry if that offends Lulu-lovers, but it's a fact. (I seem to have temporarily misplaced the actual statistics that would support my claim.) You, on the other hand, may think it's the best thing since sliced bread. I hope you do. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wagner's Das Rheingold opens with an endless loop of non-modulating orchestral arpeggios (in F?), the endless, seamless, timeless shimmer of the Rhine's water and the gold hidden in its sands. Nothing would have ever happened if Alberich hadn't come along... --Wetman (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, just the thing, thanks heaps, Wetman - and thanks everyone for the fantastic response! Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Frank Zappa do the majority of singing on his albums?

I have heard a whole bunch of Frank Zappa's stuff and I'm not ever sure who's doing the vocals. Can someone explain? I understand that on the Hot Rats album there is a song where Captain Beefheart does vocals and they later worked together on the Bongo Fury album but did Zappa do the majority of the vocals himself? Because I'm listening to the Apostrophe (') album just now and I honestly cannot tell who's doing what.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Zappa sings the lead vocals on most of his songs. Some songs have a lot of backup vocals, and sometimes someone else takes the lead during particular parts of songs. On some songs someone other than Zappa sings the lead vocals, such as "Why Does It Hurt When I Pee?" on Joe's Garage, sung by Ike Willis I believe. I think Zappa sings lead vocals on all the songs on Apostrophe ('), although with quite a lot of backing vocals and harmonizations. Pfly (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Another of the rare exceptions is the wonderful Valley Girl, sung by Moon Unit. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, Moon talks on that one but Frank does the singy bits. —Tamfang (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This question belongs on the Entertainment Desk. StuRat (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are other examples where FZ doesn't sing the lead on all the songs. For example, on Sheik Yerbouti, Adrian Belew sings lead on "City of Tiny Lites" and a couple others, and Terry Bozzio sings the lead on "Broken Hearts Are for Assholes". On Joe's Garage, Ike Willis sings the parts by the eponymous "Joe". In the 1980s, Ike Willis, Ray White, and Bobby Martin sing a lot of the lead vocals, but FZ is still singing as well. I'm not really an expert in his earlier work, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember he had Flo & Eddie working with him for a while, too. (The Mothers doing Happy Together is a prime moment in music history.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia vandalism a computer crime?

Obviously it depends on the jurisdiction. But it's an interesting question. Personally, I would say that if Wikipedia vandalism can be construed to be a computer crime, it would fall towards the very lowest end of the scale of what is considered important in law enforcement. More likely it would constitute at the most a violation of the ISP's terms and conditions. But the way that a lot of laws are written (i.e. Computer Misuse Act 1990) a critical part of them is that the access must be unauthorised. Wikipedia provides the means for vandalism to take place - it is against Wikipedia's policies, but it is not unauthorised access in the same way that password cracking and hacking would be. To someone who knows more than the layman about computers, the distinction between Wikipedia vandalism and true hacking would be very clear. Also, this is not asking for legal advice just wanting some opinions.

Also, even if Wikipedia vandalism is de facto legal, there could be other ways in which it could be illegal (i.e. if it involved harrassment, stalking, etcetera).--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia vandalism" is NOT a crime and NOT an illegal activity of any kind because members of the public are invited to make the Wikipedia Article better. Since "better" is in the eye of the beholder, any changes is better than the previous version of the article in the mind of the "vandal". Signed - The Vandal. 122.107.203.230 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is a crime, we still won't need law enforcement. We have pretty efficient means of dealing with vandals. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Conservapedia, which is based on the same software and model as Wikipedia, asserts that vandalism is a crime, but I believe that they have had no success in attempting to prosecute vandals. Warofdreams talk 10:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with that. The truth is we have no real way to deal with persistent vandals or trolls at the moment which doesn't involve a lot of wasted time. We can and do try to get their ISP involved but that's not always effective. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's clear policies on what constitutes vandalism and people are directed to the guidelines for editing. Whether it is a crime, a misdemeanour or a civil offence I don't know. Nothing is going to happen to anybody in the real world, but you're free to virtually punish them. How about setting up a virtual hell prison in second life complete with devils to poke avatars with sashes carrying the ip numbers of vandals on them? Or they could sit around recanting their sins to one another and be shown good edits? Dmcq (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say it depends on the level of vandalism. Just as a kid writing hop-scotch squares on a public sidewalk with chalk isn't going to be charged with vandalism, someone writing "chicken butt" in a Wikipedia article won't rise to the legal threshold for a crime. But, if the same kid smashes a window or breaks into the Wikipedia servers and deletes all the files, then it does become a crime. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Hopscotch - I wouldn't be so sure... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"One mother said that she was also advised that one child was not dressed warmly enough." And I thought law enforcers in the U.S. overexerted their powers for small offenses. The Brits appear to be more uptight about it. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Chalk one up for police over-reaction. Did they draw a square on the pavement and make the children stand inside as punishment ? :-) StuRat (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear precisely what happened, the officers claim they simply spoken to the children after a report and that it wasn't a crime, the newspaper claims they warned the children/parents. Newspapers like to make a big fuss over nothing so it's easily possible that the police story is far closer to the truth. When the police receive a report of vandalism in progress it is surely intrinsic on them to act on them if they have the resources, graffiti is I believe a big problem in the UK as it is in NZ. They obviously can't magically know what's really going on. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But the police also tend to minimize the disruption they caused, when they talk to the press. If both the press and police have an interest in lying, how do we know which ones to believe ? StuRat (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(Not sure why we're all whispering in this subthread...) I agree with Nil Einne that these "political correctness gone mad" stories often turn out to have little substance to them when the facts are known (and usually aren't anything to do with Political correctness anyway); it's just that StuRat's mention of hopscotch triggered a memory of the story in my mind and I thought it would raise a fleeting smile. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (But then, nobody does.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The whispering is because this thread isn't a direct answer to the Q. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My gut feeling is persistent vandalism particularly by people who have already been blocked would be a crime in numerous jurisdictions. However I don't see it being prosecuted any time soon. Even though wikipedia is open access, it's questionable whether someone who has been repeatedly blocked could be construed as having authority to access IMHO. The fact that there is no login doesn't necessarily change that. Indeed the login bit is mostly irrelevant IMHO. What's more important is that there is defacto authority by policy for anyone to edit (but that authority is revokable). To use an example, if someone doesn't secure their network, it remains unclear whether access would be construed as authorised. I personally suspect that it won't be particularly if it's unresonable to expect that you do have authority (for example accessing a directory named private). Of course I doubt you'd actually be prosecuted unless you do it repeatedly. This is the case in real life too. If you enter a shop during opening hours, no one is going to say you are trespassing (unless you've been banned). But if you enter a person's home or even an office without reason, even if there aren't signs saying private property or no trespass and the doors are unlocked, I wish you luck trying to convince a judge you weren't trespassing. More so if it was quite late at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia vandalism is easily revertable, unlike IRL vandalism, though, remember?--Bak Dat Up (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But this has nothing to do with whether it's revertable. In fact, I didn't compare it to real life vandalism in any way. And persistent vandalism can take more time and money to deal with then simply writing your name on the fence anyway Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A tribe called the "Sunderlanders" that was like 8000 years old?

I dunno, maybe he was talking about the Sumerians, but he said that they had agriculture and used plastics and everything, this guy I was talking to... he also said that Atlantis was a civilisation that actually existed... was this guy just talking nonsense? I said that people thought that Crete was Atlantis but he said that this was just brainwashing used by the history books. Was this guy just talking utter nonsense?--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...probably, IMO. The earliest thing that could be called "civilization" was a village that was built somewhere in Turkey (I forgot the name of the village). Then came Mesopotamia's time with the Akkadians and the Sumerians; this was followed by Egypt, the Minoans, Assyria and Greece, I think (something like that). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That village is Çatalhöyük. And yes that guy was talking nonsense. Was he from Sunderland? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That village goes back some 9500 years, so the 8000 year figure isn't unreasonable. If we go closer to where Sumerians lived, ancient Samarra goes back some 7500 years, which your friend could easily have rounded to 8000. There are also many who believe that the myth of Atlantis is based on some small grain of truth, similar to how the Iliad does seem to be based on a real war (the Trojan War). There were some small Greek islands destroyed by volcanoes that could be candidates, for example. The Biblical Philistines may have come from there. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic plastics only go back about 150 years. If you include rubber, that's further but that was only present in the Americas until Columbus Nil Einne (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a garbled version of the Black Sea deluge theory (which is a somewhat respectable scientific hypothesis, though still rather speculative, and by no means proven), together with a pseudo-Tolkienesque phrase "the Sundered Lands" (which sounds like it might refer to the Atlantis-esque aspects of Tolkien's cosmology -- Numenor, Aman, etc. -- but actually comes from D&D, as far as I can tell from Google). 8,000 years ago, agriculture was pretty much confined to the Fertile Crescent, the Nile Valley, Anatolia, and maybe the Aegean. AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP's informant was saying "Sundaland", not "Sunderland". See Location hypotheses of Atlantis#Indonesia/Sundaland. Deor (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So help me God.

Can an atheist, muslim or whatever -provided he doesn't believe in the Bible - become American president? Mr.K. (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As long as you are 35 years old and a natural-born American citizen, you can be elected to be president. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're worried about the swearing in, then you can relax. The bible is strictly optional, and "So help me god" is not part of the official oath. It's just something that presidents decide to add on.

The court system has procedures for swearing in witnesses and such that aren't christian. Presumably they'd probably go with that. APL (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the candidates in the 1952 presidential election was lawyer Vincent Hallinan, an atheist who "once sued the Roman Catholic Church for fraud, demanding that it prove the existence of heaven and hell" (New York Times obituary). Gandalf61 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And he won 0.2% of the popular vote. So, that approach wasn't exactly successful. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two different questions here, whether it's legal (which it is) and whether they would be a politically viable candidate. Unfortunately, I'd have to say no to the second part (with the possible exception of Jews). I'm not aware of any athiest or Muslim (or believer in a non-Abrahamic religion) ever being the candidate for either major party, much less winning. A Jewish President might be possible, though, as we almost had a Jewish VP 8 years ago (Joe Lieberman). A Buddhist might do well with California voters, but I'm not sure if they could carry any other states. Of course, I'm assuming they are honest about their religion, but, these being politicians, perhaps that's a bad assumption. A candidate could always "find Jesus" a few years before the election and listen to "Praise Je-ah-sus" for the prerequisite number of times at the local church, and thus fool everyone into voting for them. Also note that religious attitudes of American voters tend to become more liberal as time passes. At one point, a Catholic President seemed impossible, but, since JFK, that's no longer the case. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are a couple of Buddhists in Congress and neither of them is from California. Polls seem to show that being Jewish is probably not a big disadvantage when running for office but atheism would be a heavy cross to carry.[4] It's not all about worshiping Christ - a hypothetical Mormon does a lot worse than a hypothetical Jew. Haukur (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I rather suspect that there have been several agnostic presidents, and probably one or two atheist presidents, but that they had the political nous to pretend otherwise. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We were also a heartbeat away from having the anti-Christ as President for the last 8 years, but I suppose even he believes in the Bible. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny how often liberals put ad hominem crap on wikipedia, disguised as humor. I'm laughing. truly. ha ha. lulz. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when one argues against a position not by advancing an argument, but by attacking the proponent of the position. Since StuRat is not arguing for or against anything, his comment is simply an insult. Algebraist 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Algebraist - LOL. Thank you very much for that clarification. :) 216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't anyone here take a joke? That was a common joke on many blogs. You people need to lighten up. Besides, wouldn't a liberal not post something insulting Obama?  Buffered Input Output 17:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Who was "a heartbeat away" from the Presidency "for the last 8 years"? Stu's "anti-Christ" is Cheney, not Obama. —Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What is this, Beat up on StuRat Day? Seriously, don't you think you're overreacting just a bit, Ling.Nut and Algebraist? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I don't take the statement by Algebraist to be negative, either, just a clarification on the meaning of ad hominem. Incidentally, I don't consider myself liberal, at least not fiscally, as I believe in fiscal responsibility, not in a rapidly ballooning national debt. StuRat (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever makes you think I'm opposed to insulting Dick Cheney? Algebraist 13:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I failed Algebra(ist)? And me a math major. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I remember when Bill Maher was on the Daily Show before the election. Jon Stewart was talking about political figures and religion, and Maher replied: "First of all, I don’t know if Barack Obama is a very religous person. Of course, he has to say he is, because he’s running for president in United Stupid of America. So he’s got to say this. But I hope he’s lying." Regardless of whether he's right about Obama's religious convictions -- or lack thereof -- I think he's right; I don't think anyone should draw too many conclusions from what an American high-level politician says in public, particularly in a purely ceremonial context: to get to those position, you're either you're (or pretend to be) a Christian, or you can pretty much kiss those chances of getting elected goodbye. Political statements and reasons given in support or opposition of specific policies are probably going to be a lot more telling than generic rhetoric. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Abraham Lincoln and religion, his beliefs are rather murky. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just on JFK, I've always wondered why it was widely considered virtually impossible for a Catholic to become president, given that Catholics make up the largest single bloc of Christian voters. True, the non-Catholic Christians are happy to be lumped together as Protestants in some contexts, and together they trump Catholicism. But they still maintain their separate identities and theologies, generally speaking, and the presidential election isn't even about religion anyway - or shouldn't be - because there's a constitutional separation of church and state. Anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What should not be an issue, and what actually is, are quite different in an American election (and Canadian, for that matter). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just in case and for the record: a type of fabric would be constitutionally ineligible for the U.S. Presidency, no matter what it was mixed with [5]. Also note, the "so help me god" heard at the end of the most recent oath of office was added on to the end (by Roberts? Obama?) and is not constitutionally required. - Azi Like a Fox (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What if the piece of cloth were made in the USA over 35 years ago? —Tamfang (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It was believed that the President would answer directly to the Pope and the government would become a tool of the Church, etc. Here is a link for further reading: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-290793_ITM —Livewireo (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack, Catholic make up about 25% of the electorate, and are by far the single largest religious denomination, though they're not robots. The theoretically monolithic structure of parish/diocese/Vatican troubled some (and might have made some Protestant figures envious). The 1960 election was very close, but like that of Obama dispelled the myth that the voters would never do what they did. But prior to that, there was a tendency (and I emphasize tendency) for Catholics, especially earlier in the 20th century, to have separate and parallel structures. In the 50s and 60s, roughly one-third of Detroit (Michigan) school children went to Catholic school; similar figures were true for many cities: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles -- places where large numbers of Catholic immigrants had landed or settled earlier. That's gone, along with the tens of thousands of nuns who largely made that possible. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I'd forgotten about the Australian experience of Cardinal Mannix, who was a force to be reckoned with for over 50 years, and who virtually told Catholics how to vote (or strongly suggested that if they didn't vote for the DLP, a nasty surprise would await them later. At least, that's how his words were interpreted by many.) (PS. Not that that had anything to do with whether a Catholic would have difficulties becoming Prime Minister, which happened as far back as James Scullin in 1929.)-- JackofOz (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've read about a openly atheist congressman in the US congress... I think the house. And the oath reads "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This "so help me god" I presume is the same deal as with "under god" in the pledge of allegiance and on the money. Added later — CHANDLER^#10 — 14:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume if you were denied public office for failure to say "so help" you could challenge it under the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution and very likely win. You'd make a big stink and lose a lot of friends in the process, though, and neither elected nor appointed officials really want to do that, so they mumble through it. The invocations and such in public life are often regarded as meaningless ceremony for the sake of tradition without any religious implications anyway. SDY (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that the so help bit is not part of the oath. Indeed someone challenged because he/she argued that the moderator (or whatever you call him/her) is supposed to say the oath exactly. It failed but some people have argued that Roberts may have been influenced to say "so help you god?" as a question, to make it clear it was not compulsary. Of course if someone really doesn't want to say that bit, they're liable to arrange it first so the question isn't even asked. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the presidential oath, no, but there are similar oaths that do by default include the phrase. SDY (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That would look pretty fun though... Just answer "No" if it indeed is more of a question. Oh what sweet outrage there would be, if s/he had campaigned, at least not openly irreligious... The atheist parts of these internets would go crazy (as they did when it was found out that Obama didn't use a bible on the second swearing in) — CHANDLER^#10 — 04:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. A muslin can become president!91.109.235.99 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A fabric president? Now I've seen everything! — CHANDLER^#10 — 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ivan IV.

Hallo. I remember watching a program on the History Channel a few years ago that claimed that Ivan IV isn't called "the Terrible" for his atrocities, rather his victories in battle (at one point I believe the "Russian" border advanced several miles per day, eventually culminating with the defeat of the Tartars at Kazan). However, I can't find any sources to back this up, only my memory... anyone know anything about this? · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems to agree with our article, which notes that 'Ivan the Fearsome' or 'Ivan the Formidable' would be a better translation of the Russian. Algebraist 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks Algebraist... next time I'll read through it more carefully... · AndonicO ^Engage. 21:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ivan the Awesome is pretty amusing. ("El Duderino for short") --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it hyas been tradition since George Washington —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

link to franken/coleman documents

Where can I find a list of "wrongly rejected absentee ballots" in the Minnesota US Senate election by precinct and also a list of the ballots the two sides agreed to open and count? Thanks 63.231.164.232 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination and abuse of Native Hawiians

I have read through the various wiki articles on Hawaii but can not seem to find anything specifically about how Native Hawiians were treated by European and Continential Americans. More specifically, did the Native Hawiian peoples experience the same levels of discrimination and (systemic) abuse as did their North American and Austrialian counterparts? What influenced how Natives were treated? My "Wikipedia Widow" wife will confirm that this is not a homework question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.185.91 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Aloha!
it's not really possible to abuse a native Hawaiian (note spelling). Here, have a lei...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look at our articles on Native Hawaiians and on History of Hawaii you find that the Native Hawaiians suffered from the same sorts of lack of immunity to Western disseases that killed much of the Native American populations. However, Hawaii was an independant for much of its history, it was never really a "colony" of the U.S. or any other western nation, which probably greatly influenced how its people were treated. I am certain that there was probably bigotry and prejudice present in the non-Native population of the islands. It wasn't all peace and freedom, however. In 1887, a group of (mostly white) cabinent ministers forced the Hawaiian King to sign into law a new Constitution which was friendly to their interests. From then until the 1898 annexxation by the U.S., the white business interests essentially ruled Hawaii and the King was reduced to mere firgurehead status. Hawaiians were not exactly treated as equals to the whites, but in comparison to how other natives were treated around the world by white peoples, they came out somewhat better. So the Hawaiians were treated like shit, but less shitty than other native peoples... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it is possible to compare the historical experiences of any set of peoples with any precision. Certainly the experience of Native Hawaiians (decimation by disease, dispossession of land, conquest, political and economic discrimination, the large-scale destruction of indigenous culture) was similar in many ways to that of other colonized peoples. It isn't clear to me that it differed much from that of many indigenous North Americans or Australians, though the Hawaiians did not face the same kind of genocidal war of conquest that virtually wiped out some North American and Australian peoples. Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon and Syria

Are Lebanon and Syria the only Arab nations with Maronite Christians population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.194 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Our article on Maronite Church lists most of the major nations with sizable maronite populations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon and Syria part 2

Which governorate of Lebanon do the Druze people predominantly live? Which governorate of Lebanon do the Alawite people predominantly live? Which governorate of Lebanon do the Maronite people predominantly live? Which governorate of Lebanon do the Sunni Muslims predominantly live? Which governorate of Lebanon do the Shi'ite Muslims predominantly live? Which governorate of Syria do the Druze people predominantly live? Which governorate of Syria do the Alawite people predominantly live? Which governorate of Syria do the Maronite people predominantly live? Which governorate of Syria do the Sunni Muslims predominantly live? Which governorate of Syria do the Shi'ite Muslims predominantly live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.194 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked in our articles on:

• Druze
• ‘Alawi
• Maronite Church
• Sunni Islam
• Shia Islam
• Religion in Lebanon
• Religion in Syria

That could give you a start... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The area in Syria where the majority of Druze live is known as the Jabal Druze. Historically the majority of Alawites lived in the northwest of Syria.

The areas in Lebanon where the majority of Maronites and Druze originally lived were sometimes collectively known as "Mount Lebanon", especially in the 19th century, when they were under partial French protection while still within the Ottoman empire. It's been claimed that most of the political difficulties in Lebanon from 1958 onwards can be traced back pretty directly to the French decision in the 1920's to expand the territory of Lebanon from the core Mount Lebanon area to include outlying predominantly Muslim areas... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They don't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.235 (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to explain what you're looking for, then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 06:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Maronite article, it is says that Syrian population are in Aleppo, Damascus and Latakia.