Humanities desk
< April 18	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 20 >

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

April 19

Where In The World

[1]

Where is this?174.3.123.220 (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The green logo in the foreground is for Early Learning Centre. Millets, according to our article, only has shops in the UK. So, you can narrow it down a bit. Dismas|^(talk) 01:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely a British high street, but I have no idea which one. TinEye finds it used as a generic picture of a high street on a few websites, but none of them identify it. --Tango (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The third sign appears to be Ellis Brigham Mountain Sports: [2]. Here's a map of their UK locations for cross-referencing with the other two stores: [3]. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Found it ! 130 Deansgate, Manchester, UK.~~ StuRat (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Kensington High Street to me [4] meltBanana 01:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't know, Stu. I put the address from Ellis Brigham's Manchester store into Google Maps Streetview and, while there is a Millets just down the road, I can't see any Ellis Brigham. Nor any ELC. Dismas|^(talk) 01:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's Kensington High Street. In fact, you can see the stores from the OP's photo in our own image of KHS. They're on the left of the photo. Dismas|^(talk) 02:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm late to the party, but the No. 27 bus's destination board reading 'Turnham Green' would have narrowed it down to the London area from the get-go~~. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except the bus isn't in the picture linked to by the original questioner, it's in a different picture linked to by someone answering. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry. Missed the initial link and leapt to the wrong assumption. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts of America and Evolution

Has the Boy Scouts of America ever issues an official policy on teaching evolution? It wouldn't surprise me based on the BSA's other absurd policies.

--71.98.64.15 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a Scout years ago and I don't remember any specific mention of it. I don't know why they would have any position on it. There are certain religions that allow for a belief in evolution, so I don't know how they would be able to reconcile religious freedom with a stance against evolution. Also, going over the requirements for Environmental Science merit badge, it asks for the Scout to "Conduct an experiment to find out how living things respond to changes in their environments" which suggests the possibility of evolution. And then Geology merit badge has a requirement that involves discussion of various eras including ancient life and fossils. Again, not a direct endorsement of the idea of evolution but they're certainly not young Earth creationists about it. Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really about evolution, it's about adaptability. In any case, I don't think the average creationist has a problem with the idea of "natural selection". What they have a problem with is the idea of one species evolving into another species. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a few years since i was in Boy Scouts (made it to eagle) and i wasn't sure if they either had a policy and i never heard about it or if they started a new policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BSA has no policies on evolution. Other than the merit badges noted above, I can't think of anywhere it would come up. The BSA is a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement, and they have nothing on evolution. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Marciano

Did Rocky Marciano appear in any films? If so what were they? Thank you.

Yes, see IMDB: [5]. Also, this would have been a good question for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wittelsbach heir of the Kingdom of Greece

After King Otto's death he made Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria his heir as pretender and because Luitpold's son Louis III renounced his claim to Greece it passed to Luitpold's second son Prince Leopold of Bavaria. But after Leopold wikipedia doesn't list who comes next. I can only guess that it passed to his son Prince Georg than his other son Prince Konrad and finally his grandson Prince Eugen. Does anybody know for sure if this is correct and who wpuld come after Eugen?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the pretender title claim did pass to Prince_Konrad_of_Bavaria and onto Eugen. At his death, his rights were passed to a third cousin once removed, a certain Prince Fernando of Bavaria. The current claimant is Prince Leopold. --Kvasir (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

economic growth

this project that the government will be doing in the article...will it ensure economic growth? 41.145.87.150 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What project that what government will be doing in what article? Regardless, I doubt any government can ensure economic growth, they can just increase the likelihood of it. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Governments tend not to generate economic growth because the taxes they need to impose to pay for the project cause as much (or more) drag on the economy as the project creates expansion. It is analogous to sitting in a sailboat and directing a fan at the sail. Wikiant (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government can create the infrastructure required for economic growth, like roads, airports, schools, police & fire departments, etc. StuRat (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can change when economic growth happens (or does not happen), though, by funding projects through borrowing (or spending savings for those rare governments that aren't in debt). A good government can invest in a way that produces more economic growth than their taxes destroy, anyway - it's not easy, but it is certainly possible. --Tango (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do Atheists swear to in court?

A guy next to me was wondering this. Any help? Buggie111 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled ["swearing in" atheist] and found a number of possibly useful answers or theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Bible is used to accomodate the different Christian religions? After all a Catholic wouldn't swear an oath on the King James Bible nor would a Protestant swear on the Catholic Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those sources in google say that Bibles often are not used anymore, and where they are, the witness can choose their own particular holy book, e.g. a Jew might take the Jewish Bible (i.e. the Old Testament) and a Muslim might take the Quran (hence the right-wing flap over Keith Ellison's swearing in). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Boleyn, when I (a Catholic) was on Jury Duty (in the UK) they used a copy of the New Testament. That way there isn't any worry about the different number of books (since those are seven in the Old Testament). I didn't know what translation it was but I personally wasn't fussed - the important part was that it was a book containing the Gospel of Jesus and the teachings of the early Church. Joe^Talk_Work 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of jurisdictions offer the possibility of an affirmation for those that for some reason are unwilling to swear an oath. This can potentially include both atheists as well as those of various and sundry religious persuasions objecting to oaths. Gabbe (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Adams covers this here : The Straight Dope : How do courts swear in atheists? APL (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I offer a personal answer? I would not describe myself as an athiest, but post-religious. In any event, if a judge wanted my assurances of honesty, I would tell him that I understand that lying is counter-productive to my interests as well as everybody else's. I believe that would satisfy even the most cynical of magistrates. Vranak (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is not only atheists who object to taking oaths. As our article Affirmation in law makes clear, the exception to taking the oath was introduced to allow Quakers (a notably devout denomination) to act according to their conscience and beliefs. Some other Christian denominations also prohibit the taking of oaths, as do some traditions in Islam. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bible isn't a honest book & it may be missing a few pages or might be in a foreign languauge (maybe even brail). IMHO, one should swear on a mallard duck. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a half eaten fig? Or a margarita? Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either will do. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could swear before who or whatever you consider to be a supreme being. In your case, I would imagine you would also sing a "ducksology". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why a duck? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any judge or magistrate would accept that. There are procedures to follow and they will follow those procedures. That includes getting you to swear or affirm using the standard words for that jurisdiction. --Tango (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vranak, what makes you believe that a judge would accept that? Besides the fact that the judge will almost certainly have a protocol he has to follow, (You wouldn't be the first atheist ever to be sworn into court!) You're also dodging the point of the exercise. (You haven't promised to tell the truth, you've just explained that it would be a good idea for you to do so.) And furthermore it may, in fact, not be counter-productive to your interests to lie. That's certainly not self-evident at all! APL (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the judge believes that I value honesty as much as he does, then plainly I will be regarded as honest. (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I think he's much more likely to believe that he doesn't have time for this crap, why won't this guy just say the affirmation like all the other atheists, and that he hasn't found these sorts of dodges clever since his first week on the job. APL (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Vranak (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would use the form of words prescribed by law. In the UK it is given by the Oaths Act 1978. [6] DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to swear to something a while back (for a US federal document). They had me hold up my right hand while they asked me "do you swear or affirm blah blah blah", from which I inferred that swearing and affirmation were considered equivalent. I think I was supposed to say "I do", but I instead said "yes sir", which was accepted. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall hearing that some prominant atheist or other (Dawkins? Hitchins?) said he preferred to be sworn in using a copy of the constitution. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins is British and we don't have a single written constitution, so I very much doubt it's him. --Tango (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreigners can't take the stand in the US? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if someone happened to be a Satanist? Would he or she have to swear on the Satanic Bible?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In UK courts, there is the standard General Oath "I swear by Almighty God...", an Affirmation, "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that..." and a number of Other Oaths for members of other mainstream faiths or Christisn denominations that eschew the swearing of oaths (ie Quakers and Moravians)[7]. Full details here[8]; I'm afraid Satanists don't get a mention. More contentious here is the oath or affirmation that Members of Parliament have to take before they can take their seat[9], because they both require "allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law." Some MPs who support republicanism take the oath with their fingers crossed, while others, notably members of Sinn Féin, don't take their seats at all[10]. Alansplodge (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 603 (to use a federal example in the U.S.), there's no requirement that any oath be on a bible or religious text, only that there is an "oath". It says:

Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so.

In practice, there is often not a bible at all and the oath is generally agnostic. There is not (again, federal) a specific text under FRE 603. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just got off jury duty in Massachusetts, and saw a lot of people taking oaths, but there were no Bibles/other books, just standing with right hand raised. 65.96.208.10 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for anti-immigration?

OK I completely understand anti-immigration sentiment in many countries at the moment, there are already so many unemployed people during this economic downturn that immigrants are only going to add to that and be a complete drain on my money.

But, during the boomtime before all that Lehman Brother's crap there was still a lot of anti-immgrationism. Unemployment was quite low and if you really tried you could find a job. Why was this?--92.251.238.63 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out xenophobia, which is a recurrent theme in connection with immigration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from xenophobia, there is also the issue of foreigners keeping nationals from getting jobs, one way or another. For example, it used to be the case, and maybe still is, that in Switzerland you had to "prove" that no Swiss citizen could do a specific job before bringing a foreigner into that job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the major reason behind anti-immigration rhetoric (and similar rhetoric that has been leveled in the past against welfare recipients, single mothers, and certain disempowered groups like African Americans in the US, migrant Turks in Germany, and gays everywhere) is that the groups have negligible political clout and can be made to look like they are a drain on the rights and resources of 'solid citizens'. That makes them ripe political targets for any person or group looking to gain political power by inflaming public tempers. sad, really... --Ludwigs2 21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See our articles Immigration to the United States, Immigration to the United Kingdom, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to be careful to differentiate between those who are anti-immigration, and those who are anti-illegal-immigration. While one may see illegal immigrants in a bad light, the same might not be true for legal immigrants. The trick is distinguishing which is which. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a secondary issue. People (like the minutemen groups in the US) who actively advocate tougher measures against illegal immigrantion do so on basis of racist arguments, the same type of prejudice that affect legal immigrants as well. --Soman (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are assuming a static economy. Labor is a resource. The more resources a country has, the more it can produce. Look, for example, to the 170,000 (as of 2008) jobs created in the US by just five immigrants: Grove (founded Intel), Khosla (founded Sun), Yang (founded Yahoo), Brin (founded Google), and Omidyar (founded eBay). Wikiant (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a natural instinct in humans. As Enoch Powell said: "...we have an identity of our own, as we have a territory of our own, and that the instinct to preserve that identity, as to defend that territory, is one of the deepest and strongest implanted in mankind. I happen also to believe that the instinct is good and that its beneficent effects are not exhausted...In our time that identity has been threatened more than once. In the past it was threatened by violence and aggression from without. It is now threatened from within by the forseeable consequences of a massive but unpremeditated and, in substantial measure, reversible immigration."--Britannicus (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages of immigration, other than causing unemployment:

1) Leads to an increase in population. Of course, if your country has a low population and plenty of room for more, this is less of a problem, but not many countries fall into this category any more (although many "colonies" did 200-300 years ago).

2) If the immigrants are poor, this can lead to lowering the wage base, especially for menial jobs. This, however, is an advantage to business owners, who tend to be pro-immigration, but also want to keep it illegal, so the workers don't get any legal rights.

3) If the immigrants are from another culture, this can change the existing culture, sometimes in rather severe ways, like wanting to implement Sharia law.

4) If the immigrants speak another language, this can cause problems for government, which now must provide both translations and translators. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, every one of StuRat's 4 "disadvantages" may not be a disadvantage or has a flip side that's an advantage; and additionally, although the very poor will consume some state resources, depending on where we're talking about, even the very poor are consumers, which boosts local business. It's a very complicated issue. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Applications of involuntary sterilization in the United States in the 1900's, including cases of coerced sterilization.

I am trying to do a report on the history of applications of sterilization in the United States in the 1900's. My instructor requires me to locate print materials, which I have already located, as well as audio-visual materials and web based resources. I was hoping someone would be able to help direct me towards web based materials, idealy archives or websites that focus on involuntary sterilization, which are repuitable enough for me to include in a bibliography. I know they have to exist but I'm having difficulty locating them and my librarian told me to consult wikipedia.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.37.16 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just suggest some categories of people who are sterilized against their will, to help in the keyword searches:

1) The mentally retarded.

2) The mentally ill.

3) Male rapists. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that male rapists were sterilized in any great numbers. By the 20th century, sterilization as a form of punishment had been largely discontinued in the US on account of its probable violation of the 8th and 14th amendments. In any case a search for "eugenic sterilization" is probably going to be more helpful than the specifics of the populations sterilized. (And I note you use the word are—compulsory sterilizations by and large have discontinued in the USA; that ought to have been a were.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about changing that, myself. However, I do believe some male rapists are currently given the choice of prison or sterilization, and I don't consider that to be "free choice". StuRat (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be chemical castration, Stu, not the same thing as sterilisation at all. FiggyBee (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the distinction. They can't reproduce while on the chemicals, just like a man who has had a vasectomy. Yes, it does reverse itself once the drugs are stopped, but a vasectomy may also be reversed. StuRat (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of chemical castration is to reduce sexual desire, not to reduce fertility. The two are completely unrelated (men who have vasectomies retain their sex drive). FiggyBee (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the original intent, but the result is the same, both are incapable of reproduction. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Compulsory sterilization. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, specifically: Compulsory_sterilization#United_States. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best web-based resource on the history of eugenics is the Image Archive of the American Eugenics Movement. It has a lot about the sterilization laws and their use on it. They are a reputable source, run by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. BuckvBell.com is the website for a book by a well-respected historian of sterilization, Paul Lombardo, and has a number of documents on it in a small archive, as well as an excellent bibliography of eugenics and a links page. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DeJarnette, Racial Integrity Act of 1924, Buck v. Bell and Category:Eugenics. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could also look at the more recent controversy over "voluntary" sterilization of Native Americans. Rmhermen (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name of this psychological phenomenon?

i ws talking to a friend the other day who said that he "can't see part of something," his brain can only take in the whole thing, instead of compartmentalizing. So, for instance, he said when he would hear a tune, he couldn't play just part of it, if his instrument only played part; he would have to play the whole song. Is there a term for this manner of processing information? Thanks.209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something related to Gestalt psychology? Warning: the article is not particularly well-written. It needs a good cleaning with an effective de-turgid. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your friend can otherwise function normally in the world, that kind of thing would just be taken as part of normal human behavior, and wouldn't have a specific name. If it is severe enough that it begins to interfere with his life in a significant way (e.g. he finds himself incapable of stopping himself from completing wholes so that he can't engage in normal human interaction, puts himself and others at risk when he operates a car or other machinery, or etc), then it might be diagnosed somewhere in the obsessive/compulsive spectrum of disorders or as a mild form of autism. or something else entirely - a lot more information would be required for a clinical diagnose. but that's probably not the case. --Ludwigs2 13:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]