Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 23

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.

November 23

Graham

why do list the name Graham as irish? it is not it is Scotish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.45.180 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Graham is in Category:Scottish given names. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It must be understood that Gaelic as spoken in Scotland basically came from the Ulster Scots, who were actually from Ireland. There is more to it than that, but this question would be like asking 'why is Smith considered to be an American name?' --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Slight clarification: Gaelic in today's Scotland does have its roots in Ireland, but I don't think the Ulster Scots brought it over to Scotland. Somewhat the opposite--the Ulster Scots came from Scotland to Ireland (and stayed), and these Ulster Scots mostly spoke Lowland Scots, then standard English. Correct me if I'm wrong. . . --71.111.194.50 (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There has always been lots of movement across the Irish sea, especially between and within the pre-Saxon peoples of the British Isles. It would be unsurprising if the same last name appeared far enough back in both nations to be considered "Native" to both Ireland and Scotland. --Jayron32 03:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's a confusion of ethnonyms here. The Scoti were an ancient people of Ireland, who colonised Dalriada and brought the Gaelic language with them. From them we get the name 'Scotland' for the northern part of Great Britain. The Ulster Scots people were Presbyterians from Scotland who were encouraged to settle in Ulster in the North of Ireland, in the 17th Century. They certainly did not speak Gaelic. --ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) There's a host of names that are both Scottish and Irish, for all kinds of reasons (some of them obvious). Sometimes they have different spellings and sometimes not. (2) See Ulster Scots (or "Ullans", merging Ulster with Lallans, the name for Lowland Scots) for the Scottish dialect spoken by Ulster Scots which is now a minor official language of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [An article about Ullans that I read several years ago quoted one rural Ulster Protestant as saying that one of the local experts on (and preservationists for) the tongue was a Irish nationalist Gaelic-language enthusiast who supported Sinn Féin (which fits in with the official position of the IRA that they weren't anti-Protestant, just against British occupation).] It was years before I learned that Scottish or Scots is not the name for Scottish Gaelic, but for the variety of (or alternative to) English spoken in Scotland, and found, for example, in the poetry of Robert Burns. (3) There were, as said above, earlier smaller waves of settlers from England, Wales and Scotland while those nations were still Roman Catholic, whose descendants stayed Catholic and partly assimilated into the local Irish culture. See, for example, Old English. And the Irish Sea and St George's Channel were of course crossed by settlers in both directions before the arrival of Christianity. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics today

Are there any societies or places where eugenics/selective breeding of humans (i.e. pairing two humans to mate based on genetics/qualities/characteristics) is practiced today? 68.95.118.241 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics is a bit of a slippery term. It seems to me that "eugenic" programs today usually focus on discouraging/preventing certain groups of people from breeding instead of actively encouraging desirable pairings. This type of eugenics, if indeed one is to call it that, is all over the place. From relatively minor anti-incest laws to the sterilizations of people "undesirable for reproduction" in China under the maternal and infant health law. Pollinosisss (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Unification Church? Rev. Moon hand picks many of those who participate in mass weddings. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Unification Church mass weddings did cross my mind, but I'm not sure if that would count as eugenics per se - I don't think rev. Moon does this to "better the gene pool". Also, speaking of religious groupings, is anybody more familiar with Raelianism? They seem like the kind of people that might actively support eugenics. Can anyone confirm or deny this? --TomorrowTime (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

On Cyprus, there has been for a few decades now mandatory genetic screening for thalassemia in both parents and fetuses, with abortion being practically mandatory if the child is found to have the expressed condition (it is not, however, legally compulsory—but there are very strong social pressures). There have been some that have compared it to eugenics, and it is state-coordinated with a goal of reducing the overall expression in the population (and has been quite successful at that goal). Note that it does not and does not try to reduce the number of carriers (which would be a much more ambitious and troublesome eugenic plan, as it would affect even those who were themselves healthy but had the recessive trait on their genome). (This makes it somewhat different than, say, the routine abortion of fetuses with Down's syndrome in the West, which has eugenics-y overtones but is not state-coordinated at all and as such seems to fit into a different category.) If you Google "cyprus thalassemia eugenics" you can find some good academic articles. Whether one considers this to be "eugenics" (or whether any genetic screening is "eugenics") depends a lot on what you consider "eugenics" to mean, which is slippery. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Aborting Down's foetuses has nothing to do with eugenics - Down's suffers have dramatically reduced fertility (men are almost always completely infertile) so children of Down's suffers are very rare. While about half of children born to Down's sufferers have Downs, the vast majority of Down's suffers have it due to random chance, not inherited. Those that abort Down's foetuses usually justify it in terms of the quality of life of the child (this is not the place to debate the merit of that justification). --Tango (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that really the usual justification? I've usually heard the justification that it wasn't fair on the parents or society in general. Which is more despicable than your suggestion, but yours requires the justifiers to not have ever met anyone with Down's. 86.140.144.63 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that is the usual reason, but few people dare say it when they are discussing a specific abortion. What they say (ie. the justification) is that it is best for the child. I agree with you final point - the main thing I remember about a friend of mine's Down's sister is how happy she always was. --Tango (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends how you define "eugenics", as I said. There are a lot of articles debating just this point. See, e.g., Mary Mahowald, "Aren't we all eugenicists?" which argues that it is a eugenic practice. Personally, I tend to say no, it isn't "eugenics" per se, but my method of defining "eugenics" is rather limited to instances where you are trying to actively manipulate the state of an entire population, which is not what is going on in such cases. (That still doesn't mean it is a good idea, or ethical.) --Mr.98 (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable definition can include aborting foetuses with non-inherited diseases as a eugenic practise. Eugenics is about improving the "quality" of the population over the long term, aborting such a foetus only improves it for the potential life of that individual. --Tango (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether you are defining "eugenics" historically/descriptively or prescriptively. "Eugenics" was applied to quite a lot of things in its heyday. I tend to prefer a more limited definition myself, but again, it is an area of some dispute. When you poll people for why they abort for Down's, they are often using "eugenics-like" rhetoric, a rhetoric that equates social value with future possible economic achievement as limited by biology, for example. This is not the same thing as a population-fitness focus, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Some clients of sperm banks are arguably practicing eugenics, especially when the facility involved provides such information as the donors' IQ or achievement. PhGustaf (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As a consequence of religious regulations, members of the Jewish faith have been inbreeding for centuries. As such, there are a number of genetic disorders that have cropped up with startling incidence among them, such as factor XI deficiency, Tay-Sachs disease, etc. To combat this high occurrence, an organization called Dor Yesharim was created to anonymously test singles and assign them a code number. Prospective matches call the service, provide both code numbers and a response of "good" or "no good" is given -- only homozygous couples (so to speak) are declared "no good," but it's unknown which of the numerous disorders they are homozygous for, so that there is little to no stigma (because, generally, the only thing one will know about their potential match is their appropriateness for oneself, not his or her past inappropriateness for another). Still, some decry the eugenics of it all. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the most common genetic disorder that Jewish people who use Dor Yesharim service are being afraid of is Tay-Sachs (and also CF). This is a lethal disease, and the offspring is died within two years after the birth. CF patients are mostly infertile and so forth. So it's not that there is any element of Eugenics here more than in standard ultrasound scanning-people just want their baby to survive. If you think on it, in old times childrens with CF couldn't reach the life expectancy they have today. So, people who apply Dor Yesharim just want to have baby without a disease that would kill him/her. Also, these disorders are the by products of extreme isolation in small communities -meaning that they were promoted in what you may call "reverse eugenics"-so they only bring the balance back. It's not that they ask whether the child will be an elite athlete, university professor and etc.--Gilisa (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually? Not only did I mention Tay-Sachs, I included it in my short list of "A, B, etc." The air of superiority in your comment is unwarranted and unwelcome. And the fact that other disorders (namely the other one I happened to include in my short list as "A") do allow for viable offspring rejects your claim to eugenics not playing a role. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You took it a way too far. See my entire cooment on your talkpage.--Gilisa (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If by CF you mean Cystic fibrosis, only most male CF patients are infertile (although not sterile): female CF patients are as fertile as anyone else. And the life expectancy for CF has been increasing for decades: I'd be surprised if the median life expectancy has been lower than 34 years at any point when the Dor Yesharim service has been available, and children born now could be looking at the same life expectancy as the general population. 86.142.224.156 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

86, Still, it's far from being Eugenics. First, life expectancy with a median of 34 is yet much lower than the general population median. In modern times, not always even enough for one to have a family. Certainly not for a CF patient whose life quality is usually low and the difficulties he/she have to face on daily basis are huge. Also at adulthood many CF patients have to undergo lungs transplant -so, again, it's realy not about Eugenics. You are right that females with CF are fertile-but you probably understand that raising a child, having a pregnancy and finding a mate are all much much harder and even dangerous for her. Anyway, Dor Yesharim are more into diagnosing risky genetics in a couple, and not into selection of "good" or "bad" zygotes.--Gilisa (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I make no claim for whether it is or is not eugenics: I was merely pointing out where you were factually incorrect, since this is a reference desk and we are here to reduce misinformation, not increase it. I fail to see the relevance of lung transplants. I know several young people with cystic fibrosis, and their quality of life is pretty decent until the downward spiral starts. Even then: you develop routines. Taking (the right amount of) enzymes before eating for a week is a daily difficulty: taking enzymes before you eat for your entire life is just part of what you do, like laying the table. 86.142.224.156 (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rereading, I see you may have misunderstood what I said about life expectancy. 34 is the lowest the life expectancy has probably been during the entire existence of the Dor Yesharim. Right now, the median life in America is 37. That is, of all the people with CF currently alive, half are expected to be dead by age 37, and half are expected to live longer than that. But those people who die this year, age 37, were born 37 years ago (1972). And many will live much longer than that. We have been making progress since 1972 with physical therapy and infection control and so on. So children with CF today do not have a life expectancy of 34 or 37: rather, they have a good chance at matching the rest of the population. 86.142.224.156 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

86, tahnk you, I know what median is. Anyway, I can't see where I added misinformation to the RD.--Gilisa (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. "CF patients are mostly infertile": factually incorrect, hence misinformation.

"a CF patient whose life quality is usually low and the difficulties he/she have to face on daily basis are huge": no doubt there are some CF patients with low quality of life, but that is not the norm in developed countries: hence, misinformation.

"life expectancy with a median of 34 is yet much lower than the general population median", while true, suggests that you have misunderstood what I was saying. Children born with CF today have a much longer life expectancy than 34. Hence my explanation. And hence why I couldn't assume you knew what a median was, or how life expectancy works: I am glad you do.

It's not a big deal: people slip up here all the time. In the best cases, someone else catches the mistake and corrects it. Huzzah! 86.142.224.156 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

4 Island Groups

It says in Greater Antilles that they are 1 of 4 island groups. Which are these?174.3.102.6 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One apparent possibility -- The region consists of the Antilles, divided into the larger Greater Antilles which bound the sea on the north and the Lesser Antilles on the south and east (including the Leeward Antilles), and the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands, which are in fact in the Atlantic Ocean north of Cuba, not in the Caribbean Sea. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The article does seem particularly confusing here. Lesser Antilles says that there are three groupings - the Bahamas, including the Turks and Caicos, the Greater Antilles and the Lesser Antilles. Sounds like it would be a nice little project for someone to clean this up. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV analysis of US federal legislation

I am getting rather tired of hearing the Democrats lying about the Republican motions and the Republicans lying about the Democrat motions, and I really have no clue who to trust. Does anybody have knowledge of a good NPOV organization that condenses and summarized senate and house bills? Thanks, Falconus^{p t c} 03:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any entities out there that are really NPOV except Wikipedia? (slight attempt at humor)--71.111.194.50 (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that when humans are involved, there is no NPOV, but we can come a lot closer than "Obama's healthcare program is going to fail because he *gasp* bowed to world leaders" and "That didn't work because Bush is stupid." Falconus^{p t c} 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You can try FactCheck.org [1]. I don't know how good it is or if it has any bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, PolitiFact.com [2]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I checked them out, and they *seem* to be reasonable. Falconus^{p t c} 12:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also try ProCon.org. --Sean 14:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Congressional Quarterly and National Journal (as well as state and regional publications like California Journal) try to work from a non-partisan perspective. And while they've been subject from time to time from pressure from the legislative leadership of the day, the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly General Accounting Office) are also supposed to give dispassionate, non-partisan analyses (as are the California Legislative Analyst's Office and similar bodies in other states.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Inheritance for pets

Can a person donate his/her property after death to his/her pet in the US? Is there any country which has law which allow people to donate property to pets? --Fox hunter in wiki (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember this is not legal advice and we are not qualified to offer legal services. American law of wills, trusts, and estates varies of each state to the next. However, as a generalization, state law typically permits you to leave money to your pet after your death via a will or a trust. (See trust law.) The law governing such matters consists in large part of case law in which courts interpret common law principles or statutes as applicable and permit trustees or executors to use the money to care for the pet. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that such was permitted in France in 1914...at least according to Disney. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Leona Helmsley left $12 million in trust for her dog (which was more than she left to any of her grandchildren).[3] Oprah Winfrey supposedly plans to leave $30 million to her pets. This 2005 USA Today article says that Hawaii has joined 20 states in having "legally enforceable trust laws for pets". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, it might be wise to distinguish between money to a pet and money for a pet. I can't say any more without giving legal advice, but I don't think it's every come to court over enforcement. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pets have no right to own anything under US law. That's why the bucks are placed in trusts to care for the pets, rather than left to the pet per se. - Nunh-huh 01:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted US state laws?

Idaho claims copyright on its laws, as seen in § 9-350 of the Idaho Code. I was always under the impression that Wheaton v. Peters ruled that all laws were public domain in the USA; am I wrong, or is the state making an illegitimate claim? Please don't take this as a legal-advice request; I have no more reason to copy the Idaho Code than I do to copy my local telephone book. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Being not a lawyer, I have no specific insight other than to note that the best practice is to always assume that, unless you have direct proof to the contrary, that everything is copyright, and that the holder of that copyright has not given permission to use it. The U.S. government has released most federal works into the public domain, some stuff has "aged out" and is old enough to have passed into the public domain, and there are other well-publicized exceptions, but if it is not explicitly stated anywhere that something is free to use, best practice is to assume that it is not. --Jayron32 04:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that I thought all state laws were rendered uncopyrightable by this decision, and that it was thus the proof that you require. I'm not surprised that Idaho has decided to do differently than Minnesota, which apparently releases almost as much content into the public domain as does the federal government. Nyttend (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to try to help but can you explain a tad further how, as you see it, the Wheaton case would make Idaho's actions invalid? --71.111.194.50 (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is curious. Reading Wheaton v. Peters, I get the feeling our article on U.S. copyright law may be mistaken on this subject. Or at least it may be perpetuating a misreading of Wheaton. However, I am not a lawyer. I will take this up on the discusion page there.

As to the question itself, I would point out that the state of Idaho is, wisely, not here trying to prevent the free dissemination of the law, which it has no right to do, but only claiming the right to royalties if anyone publishes its statutes for commercial advantage. (That's obviously why they put the word "taxpayer" there.) Posting them on your personal website or handing out photocopies would then be OK (so long as you don't have paid advertisements on your website), maybe even publishing them as a book if you sold it at cost.

So while it seems to be pretty well established that no public body can prevent anyone from copying the law, doing so for profit might arguably be a different matter. Or then again it might not. As I said, IANAL.--Rallette (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I should have said Howell v Miller, which is discussed by the article Rallette cites. I always assumed that the Court had ruled that laws were unable to be copyrighted, and as there's no right to require a royalty for something in the public domain, my assumption would mean that Idaho was illegitimately making this claim; since I would be rather surprised to see a legislature make such an error, that's why I asked here in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

State legislatures make laws which are in direct conflict with federal laws all the time. Consider California's medical marijuana laws. They basically make legal what the federal government defines as illegal, and has (until a recent decision by the Obama administration) caused a major pissing contest between the Feds and the state of California. Its a jurisdictional issue; if it ever came before a court it would come down to whether or not the federal government had the right to tell the state if its laws were or were not copyright. So, the U.S. government may have passed a law or seen a court case which states that states could not copyright their laws, that would in no way prevent the state of Idaho from passing a conflicting law which said, essentially "Screw you feds, we'll do what we want". The states do this sort of stuff all the time. --Jayron32 21:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Victorian Revivals

Apart from the Gothic Revival, what other revivals occured in Victorian Britian that in some way relate to Literature, Art or Architecture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.32.162 (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a homework question? -- Dpr 71.111.194.50 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Literature, art and architecture. --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a kind mood. One revival begins with a "pre-". BrainyBabe (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You might take a look at Victorian architecture. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i didnt realise that i had to show evidence that id tryed to answer the question myself so far i have: Literature Oriental revival. Architecture Classical revival (continuation) a brief Greek Revival and the Queen Ann revival. In art the pre- Raphalites. I was only wondering if id missed anything major? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.35.57 (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As well as the Gothic Revival there was a wider revival of interest in medievalism.[4][5][6] Writers such as Tennyson and artists such as the Preraphaelites produced works based on Arthurian romance, for instance. There was renewed interest in Scottish history and culture, from Walter Scott in the early 19th century onwards (Tartan#Royal_patronage_and_the_tartan_craze has a little information). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Jacksonian mode of discourse"

What does Tyler Cowen mean by this phrase? [7] [8] Mahalo,  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If my semantic-fu is working correctly on your second link, he means by that phrase "excessively polemical political and economic [arguments]". FiggyBee (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but what's the reference, Andrew Jackson? In which articles might I find the context needed to understand the phrase more completely?  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, I'm thinking Jacksonian era = Jacksonian democracy, the period of President Jackson and the presidents immediately after. FiggyBee (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) He's referring to the Jacksonian era, e.g. politics in the U.S. from the 1820s to the 1840s. It's a rather obscure way to characterize a form of discourse, IMO. It seems like an idiosyncratic thing—easier to just say excessively polemical. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But a 19th century political reference makes him sound like he knows what he's talking about, dontcha think? FiggyBee (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been major books lately on what used to be called the "Age of Jackson", one by Sean Wilentz, another in the Oxford History of the United States series, and a popular work by Jon Meacham, American Lion, which recently won a Pulitzer. Cowen is an academic and a New York Times columnist; this is presumably not an obscure reference in his world. —Kevin Myers 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the fact that he wrote a blog-glossary is an admission that it's idiosyncratic. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please indulge my speculation for a moment (naturalistic view of monotheism)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Way too vague and asking for personal opinion. Try rephrasing as a specific question that can be answered with facts, rather than opinions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by my question, which is a bit long. I'm seeking a naturalistic explanation for the huge success of monotheism in the past two millenia, one that does not depend on its truth.

I have heard several explanations for the unparalleled success of the Abrahamic religions. It is easier to explain for the period since colonialism, in which superior technology made conflicts rather asymmetric. I am also much more ignorant of Islam, and will therefore focus primarily on Christianity.

First, monotheism is inherently less tolerant of rival philosophies. While a city-state supposedly protected by a pagan god will not wish for its enemies to pray to the same god, a kingdom under God cannot be happy with others praying to false gods--the success of the meme takes priority over that of its hosts! Similarly, while Pan followers would still pray to Athena on occasion, a Christian convert would no longer contribute to any temple, because God provides a one-stop shop for all your praying needs. Indeed, the Christian would be offended by the existence of all Roman temples.

Second, while the center of Roman worship took place in individual dwellings, early Christians began holding services in congregations. When the Roman empire declined, this social cohesion and organization gave them a significant advantage. Even today, religion thrives in America but not as much in western Europe partly because socialism provides a safety net that is lacking on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, a niche that religion has made its own. (For the same reason, I am alarmed by the expansion of faith-based initiatives by President Obama.)

Third, while Christianity and Buddhism preach a message of peace today, they are both evangelical offshoots of their predecessors, having achieved their geographic coverage through might and indoctrination. Persecution of infidels persisted for over a millenium in Europe, coinciding with a total retreat from scientific inquiry. The Romans loved their gods, too, but only for selfish reasons. Their lives were not as guided by religious principles.

Finally, while Romans easily abandoned their gods when their prayers were not answered, Christianity came up with two brilliant ideas--the ineffable will of their god precludes the question of unanswered prayers, while the promises of the afterlife replaced promises that would have had to be met in this one. Blame the user for product failure--the Church no longer had to solve any problems it did not wish to solve. 66.65.141.221 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And the question for the Ref Desk is . . .? Bielle (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone gets too far into this “speculation”, this is the same IP (though perhaps not the same OP) whose only other contributions are this and this. Bielle (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the history, but as those edits are 5 years old I figure the IP has probably been reallocated since then. :) I contemplated removing this question as a) it's not a question and b) wp:soap, but I thought I'd leave it for wiser heads to decide on. FiggyBee (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did you somehow get the idea that pagan Romans prayed only in "private dwellings"?? In Imperial times, huge temples were located on the Capitoline hill, and the Pantheon building is a Roman temple whose basic structure has survived to the present day. Almost all Roman public civic functions and ceremonies had some degree of religious involvement. Furthermore it's quite untrue that Christianity initially spread through "might" -- for about two and a half centuries before Constantine, Christianity gained most acceptance among the lower classes and slaves of the cities of the Roman empire, and certainly was not endorsed by the government of the empire. AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also "monotheism is inherently less tolerant of rival philosophies"? Based on what? It's hard to answer questions that start with false premises. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought it even harder when no question has been asked, but perhaps that's just me. Bielle (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems more intended to raise questions than to ask them. Although he might not have counted on the questions being, "Where are you getting this from?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about this. You may have heard the phrase, "Keep it simple, stupid". Well, monotheism keeps it as simple as possible. It's so much easier to appease one God than a whole pantheon. Vranak (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So-called monotheism also has lesser immortal beings doing work for the main God, so it's actually polytheism in disguise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Of all the things that could be said about religion, the notion that it is something in disguise is probably the most important. Essentially, it is the chatter of sick herd animals but it presents itself as something worth emulating. And why not? If everyone is sick, then no one is sick! Genius logic, but doomed to fail because truth is beauty, and lies are grotesque. Vranak (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP Staecker (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Monotheism would tend to include more of the quality of intolerance, regarding itself, than polytheism, due to the fact that when you have the "one true G-d" embodied in your religion it's hard to allow for any other (G-d). Polytheism on the other hand does not put all its eggs in one basket so to speak. Polytheists can allow for variations in the panoply of gods that another group may hold as supreme. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have forgotten to include one last sentence in my OP, namely, "What do you think?" And no, I have no interest in the Olsens, but thanks for the ad hominem. 66.65.141.221 (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a reference desk. You should ask a question. As it says at the top "Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." Dmcq (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

With a modicum of good faith, his question is readily discernible: I'm seeking a naturalistic explanation for the huge success of monotheism in the past two millenia. Vranak (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying I am not acting in good faith if I don't make up my own question from from this poster said but point them to what the guidelines say? Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that is was not difficult for me to glean the gist of the original poster's question. Perhaps I mispoke to suggest it could, should, or ought to be easy for anyone else... so I apologize. Vranak (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a request for your thoughts and information, not just your opinions. Wow, defensive much? 66.65.141.221 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Try something more fact based like is there a scientific explanation for the success of monotheistic religions compared to others? Asking for peoples thoughts or opinions is a no no. Dmcq (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Looking at the responses so far I think I've upset enough people. I thought Wikipedia was a place where people could ask questions. Guess not. 66.65.141.221 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You can generally get away with it, except if it's about religion or politics. Just like real life, it's considered impolite. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

naturalistic explanation for the huge success of monotheism in the past two millenia...focus primarily on Christianity--simply, Christianity happened to thrive in the region where myriad other factors came together to propel the region to global dominance (for more on that see Guns, Germs and Steel). Don't confuse causation with correlation. Christianity rode to dominance on the coat-tails of other factors. Pfly (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It didn't hurt that Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That was Theodosius. Constantine just decided to stop persecuting them. (And there was one emperor in between, Julian, who was still anti-Christian.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At which point the persecuted became the persecutors. And so it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How does special education use funding they receive from the gov?

I know for a fact that the government funds only 8-16% but what does the funding that special ed. receives go towards? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean to ask about the U.S. federal government funding only a small percentage of special education. Most K-12 education funding in the U.S. is provided by local property taxes, not federal grants. Local government but still government. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

no i mean i want too know what that funding is used for in special ed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly for training new Congressmen. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mostly paying for the staff required. Some small amount of money also goes into specialty supplies if needed, but in K-12 public education most of the special ed budget (and funds) goes right into paying for staff (who don't get paid enough as it is). 206.131.39.6 (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which funds cover transportation costs, but these can mount up and are essential for providing education. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Funds for transportation usually come out of a specific transportation budget regardless of any special status. This may vary based on school district though, and the yearly budget report the district releases should give you more specific information about your area as well as where your tax money is going. 206.131.39.6 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the best book on Alexander the great?

Is there one book that is considered the end all cap on the subject or are there several I should look for? I am particularly interested in his defeat of the Persian empire, his move to India, and how much Persian culture he brought with him. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Begin with Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (in paperback). Follow with the exhibition catalog The Search for Alexander (buy it on ebay).--Wetman (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Galileo's fingers

They were sold at auction recently. But what was the winning price?20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Information about the buyer and the sale price are being kept secret, according to CNN. Also, note that when the auction took place, it was not known that the fingers were Galileo's. --M@rēino 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Science-fiction novel with literary merit?

Are there any science-fiction novels that are good enough to be considered works of literature? 84.13.162.136 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dhalgren by Samuel Delany, The Dispossessed by Ursula K. LeGuin, The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael Chabon, The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick, A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller, Jr., and the novels of William Gibson and Neal Stephenson are among the best-recognised science fiction novels in literary circles. Are you looking for anything in particular?  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how you define science fiction, then one could possibly count novels like Utopia by Thomas More or Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (the latter almost certainly fits, there are definately "technological" and "futuristic" aspects of it) as science fiction. --Jayron32 21:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised anyone would consider BNW not to be science fiction. 92.24.40.108 (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never picked up anything by Frank Herbert myself, but after reading the article on Dune, it sounds like at least some people have held it in quite high regard. Vranak (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There also is Nineteen Eighty-Four, of course, Ender's Game, Solaris or most things by Lem, and the Canopus in Argos series by Literature Nobel Laureate Doris Lessing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four also crossed my mind, but in all honesty the technology in Oceania is not terribly futuristic. Vranak (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It was in 1948. Perry Rhodan was the first man on the moon, back in 1971 - that does not convert its genre from SF to a historical novel ;-). --22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken. However, for a young reader I would not classify 1984 as Sci-fi. Vranak (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It was futuristic when it was written, and that is the defining thing. As already said, SF does not turn into a historical novel with the passage of time. 92.27.169.45 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the definition of science fiction that means it has to be futuristic. Science fiction gets pigeon-holed with all sorts of ridiculous definitions (e.g., "It's about rockets and aliens" - rubbish). Some great Science fiction is set in the past, and has little to do with futuristic technologies or ideas: Harry Harrison's "A transatlantic tunnel, hurrah!" is one such example. Not that I'd class it as high literature. As to science fiction that is "high literature", sf tends to get a bad rap from the literati in general - a lot of it is fine writing that can be both entertaining and cerebral whilst simultaneously being writing of the highest calibre. How about "Brave New World"? Maybe even Le Guin's "Always Coming Home"? Or Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar"? I'd also class several of the novels of Gene Wolfe as being highly literate to the point where they could be classed as literature in this more academic sense. And, though she always profusely denies her work is science fiction with meaningless comments like (paraphrasing) "my work can't be science fiction, it doesn't feature alien flying squid", Margaret Atwood is regarded within science fictional circles as being clearly an author of sf literature - "The Handmaid's Tale" is a prime example of literate sf. As far as I know it's the only novel ever to be nominated for both the Nebula Award and the Booker Prize. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Last and First Men by Olaf Stapledon would probably also qualify. Nanonic (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything by Geoff Ryman (IMHO)) --ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you include 1984 and Brave New World, you have to include Zamyatin's We, which influenced them both heavily. If you count any dystopia as SF, then Nabokov's Bend Sinister would count. Also several works by Kurt Vonnegut could be described as science fiction. Slaughterhouse Five would be the main example. Staecker (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by works of literature. The Handmaid's Tale— not one of my favorites, but well regarded outside the SF community. Heinlein's Starship Troopers is on the reading list of all the U.S. military academies. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? Military academies want you to read Starship Troopers? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein is highly thought of as well. Dismas|^(talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jules Verne. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been wanting to read The Glass Bead Game, which is set in the 25th century and won its author the 1946 Nobel Prize in Literature. 67.117.145.149 (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein is a very famous novel. Wrad (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed no-one's mentioned JG Ballard, surely one of the most respected writers in the genre — or any genre, for that matter. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Solaris or any other sci-fi novel by Stanisław Lem. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone already mentioned that upthread. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, he did. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good film too. Vranak (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Day of the Triffids would be my top suggestion. I don't much care for Dracula myself, but it has its strong adherents. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Children of Men DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Classic:War with the Newts. What Karel Čapek wrote in 1936 continues to be timely (his future=our present?). And not a novel but a literary surprise: Primo Levi's story collection, The Sixth Day and Other Tales is truly SF, and masterful writing.-- Deborahjay (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• The above list is excellent. I'd add Gravity's Rainbow, which as far as I know is the only science-fiction book to win the National Book Award. --M@rēino 15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No one's mentioned Fahrenheit 451 yet? Ray Bradbury is well-respected in the sci-fi (and literary) world as far as I know, though not all of his work qualifies as science fiction. Maedin\^talk 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it would completely fit SciFi, but Alas Babylon might be one. Googlemeister (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Do any of these books appear in the various lists of the greatest ever novels please? That would mean they were definately regarded as literature rather than just being popular. My purely personal subjective feelings: I found Dune a long tedious slog. Similarly with A Canticle for Leibowitz. I don't know what people see in William Gibson, as he seems just average to me. Its a pity that The Master and Margarita cannot be considered science-fiction. 92.24.170.160 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein, often considered the first science fiction novel, is also a bit of a staple for college classes in Romantic literature. It is by all accounts a great work of literature. Wrad (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is not a novel, Aniara by Harry Martinson is often considered a major work of science fiction in Swedish. E.G. (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

V for Vendetta by Alan Moore and The Summer Isles by Ian R. Macleod also merit the literature tag, IMO. Steewi (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How could the US fine an overseas cartel?

In the Elpida Memory article, it is mentioned that the US fined an overseas cartel. How can it do this, since presumably the cartel occurred outside US territory? How can it in terms of international law, and how can it in terms of collecting the money? I've noticed that the US often seems to take action against overseas companies it does not like, even though they are outside US territory. I find this rather puzzling - how can the US apply its laws to entities in a different country that has its own laws? 84.13.162.136 (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Countries can decide for themselves when they do and do not have jurisdiction. Some countries claim jurisdiction over crimes committed absolutely anywhere (universal jurisdiction). The real issue is whether or not they can enforce their judgements. Elpida's website shows they have several offices in the US. Those assets could be seized if they refused to pay. The same is true of other multinationals - they will have assets in the US, which means US judgements can be effectively enforced against them. --Tango (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So some nation for example Ruritania could have a law saying that reading a book on the second thursday of the month was a crime with a mandatory death penalty, and then prosecute Joe Bloggs who is not a Ruritanian citizen and has never been to Ruritania for that crime. Great! 92.24.40.108 (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but provided that all other countries thought this stupid, the only consequence for Joe would be that he could never go to Ruritania, which he probably wouldn't want to anyway with those stupid laws. Though some countries snatch people from other countries to prosecute or judge them, the US does this with terrorists for example. Jørgen (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For suitably flexible definitions of "terrorist" that includes "people with funny names" and "prosecute or judge" that includes throwing them into a dark hole with no access to lawyers or judges for months, taking them out only for the occasional "enhanced interrogation" sessions and a bit of arbitrary abuse. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place... --Tango (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree, but for the record, no support for US policies should be implied by my comment above. The reason I did not put "terrorist" in quotes was precisely in order not to start a debate. Jørgen (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mossad's kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann is another famous example. Algebraist 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More controversial perhaps Mordechai Vanunu who was an Israeli citizen kidnapped in a foreign country for a crime originating from stuff he learnt while working in an Israeli government facilitiy. On the foreign citizen, crime committed overseas thing, there is the in/famous case of Dmitry Sklyarov. Of course a number of countries to prosecute their citizens for crimeds committed overseas notabily when it comes to child molestation/rape Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what happens regarding activities that are legal in one country but illegal in the US? For example online gambling - legal in the UK, illegal (as far as I understand) in the US. Will the US start prosecuting UK gambling companies? 92.24.170.160 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's already happened to some extent. See Online gambling#United States. AFAIK these have concentrated on people alleged to have allowed Americans to gamble rather then just any gambling company. Of course there's also the controversial SAFE Port Act which attempts to stop the flow of money. Since US residents banks, credit cards etc are usually in the US it's likely to be resonable effective and had a catastrophic effect on online gambling companies [9] Nil Einne (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To me it's seem very simple-if person/cartel or anything else have operate against certain country then it have all rights to operate against these people/organisations. The question whether other countries have the right to become involved is much coplex however.--Gilisa (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)