Humanities desk
< December 2	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 4 >

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.

December 3

A few questions about 1000 push-ups (press-ups)

About doing 1,000 push-ups non-stop. Please put whether it's been verified or not.

1. Other than Jack Lalanne, are there any famous people who have been able to do 1000 pushups? Possibly martial artists like Bruce Lee or Jet Li? I know Herchel Walker and Bo Jackson did lots of push-ups, but don't know how many they could do consecutive.

2. What's the youngest anybody has been able to do 1,000 pushups? Oldest?

3. When was the earliest (reasonably believeable) claim of being able to do 1000 pushups?

4. Have any women been able to do 1000 pushups? What's the record for consecutive pushups for a woman?

5. Are there any rough estimates of how many people can do 1000 pushups? Even a ballpark figure... dozens? Hundreds? 1 in a million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.79.251 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this list of records, Minoru Yoshida did 10,507 non-stop. Various other entries on the list suggest it's not all that hard (for some guys) to exceed 1000. It also claims that one woman did 190 in 3 minutes, while another female managed 450 in 10 minutes. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four-year-old boy, 40 minutes: 1482 pushups. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Lalanne may be the first to verifiably do 1000; according to his article, he set a record with 1033 on TV in 23 minutes in 1956. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is this "Jewish-only roads" in Israel thing?

why do people say there are Jewish-only roads in Israel? Is it true? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "jewish-only roads in Israel". You probably refer to some roads on the occupied West Bank, off limits to the Palestinian population. See http://www.btselem.org/english/publications/summaries/200408_forbidden_roads.asp . --Soman (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Jewish-only roads. In effect. LANTZY ^TALK 11:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er—no. Anybody who is not a Palestinian citizen is entitled to use them. So that would include Israel's Muslim citizens, Israel's Christian citizens, Israel's athiest citizens, foreign Muslim tourists, foreign Christian tourists etc. Don't say such stupid things. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 13:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty funny. Like claiming that folks with other than African ancestry who were dark skinned were welcome to sit in "White only" seating areas of the old segregated US South, so all was hunky dory and freedom and equality reigned. "Palestinians stay off our road" is as appalling as "Irish and dogs not admitted" or "Nigger don't let the sun set on you", however you parse it and justify it.Edison (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if Christians, Muslims and whoever, living in Israel, are able to use these roads. From the link above, it seems it's the case, so they are not "Jewish-only". People might prefer the expression "Jewish-only" because it sounds like "white only" which makes Israel look like the Apartheid. Mr.K. (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to call them what they are: roads that Palestinians are excluded from. That's accurate and characterizes the situation more accurately. Incidentally I do think there is an apartheid-like system going on in Israel with regards to the Palestinians, but that is clear enough from being truthful, rather than being misleading. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are eager to compare Israel with South Africa, perhaps because most people dislike South Africa's old system. However, Israel is a different system, even if you consider it unfair, or even violent, its form of being unfair or violent is different from the old South Africa. Mr.K. (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing broad similarities between unfair systems that are unfair for similar reasons is common enough. Saying "Israel is not literally the same thing as South Africa" misses the point. Whether the comparison is apt is a separate question, but I think "apartheid-like" (the term I used) is a worthwhile comparison. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this possibly related to a rumour I heard about muslim-only roads in Saudi Arabia? There's a photo of a road sign at Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia#Restrictions on religious freedom, but it's a road to Mecca, which makes it seem marginally more reasonable. 213.122.16.186 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "Christian bypass Saudi" turns up plenty of results... AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your policy is to be on par with Saudi Arabia on treatment of religious minorities, you do set your standards quite low.... --Soman (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet some Saudis are among those screaming the loudest about alleged Israeli "bigotry" -- with no particular observable sense of irony or consciously-embraced hypocrisy on their part... AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In public yes, in reality the Saudis do nothing (or at least microscoptically little) to help the Palestinian cause. Oil from the Gulf is exported to Israel. If the Saudis put their money where their mouth is, that would not occur. And moreover, what's the point of the Saudi analogy? The KCNA can sometimes rightly criticize violations of civil and political rights abroad, does that mean that we have to set the standard for press freedom with that of North Korea? --Soman (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather unfortunate that in the political/international spheres a large number of Arabs seem to consistently feel that moral standards and ethical requirements only apply to their opponents and enemies, but can never be relevant to how their own side acts. I'm sure that on the individual and personal level, many of these people are gentle souls who treat their spouses and children etc. kindly -- but when their political opinions are aggregated to form the consensus of the so-called "Arab street", the collective personality of the "Arab street" is pretty much that of an obnoxious hypocrite. AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the notion of "a colletive personality". The truth is that Arabs are human beings just like any other, and are not remote-controlled by an alien mother ship. The hold different views on politics, religion and society. As per the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Arabs generally know the conflict and its history more in detail that most Europeans and Americans. Furthermore, Arab media tend not to airbrush the realities of life under occupation the way Western media does. If Europeans or Americans knew the situation in Palestine better, their views on the conflict would not be much different from the general Arab opinion. --Soman (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they have their strongly marked individual particularities, but in every country with an even semi-functioning political system, there's a process which averages out personalistic characteristics to form an overall general "climate of public opinion" -- and it's a rather notable feature of Arab political culture that the process of forming a "climate of public opinion" (usually called "the street" in Arab countries) seems to bring out the worst in people — on some issues, at least — as compared with the climates of public opinion in many other parts of the world. As for your last sentence, it's the main thesis of the group If Americans Knew, which does not seem to have achieved anything very tangible as a result... AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoo's is a reasonable observation, though, that may apply just as well to some among the Zionist camp, too. There's plenty of mud to sling around this issue. The truth, the reality as it exists today, is less than praise-worthy on all sides. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I for one find AnonMoos' comment deeply racist and offensive. It seems to be built primarily from prejudices. Perhaps AnonMoos likes to dehumanise or alienate certain groups of people who are different to him or her. The reference desk is not the appropriate place to espouse such hateful views. I will focus on the trivial. AnonMoos seems to believe that certain countries that meet his approval have a "climate of public opinion" whereas "Arab countries" have "the street". I would like to see a cite that 1) this is a term actually used in "Arab countries" and 2) it is not used elsewhere. Having experienced a few different communities around the world (but no "Arab countries"), the only place where "the street" (or rather, "the Street") is used to mean the "climate" of local public opinion is amongst the investment banking community in New York. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism is the belief that people have immutable biological characteristics which make them inherently inferior, not pointing out that certain countries have a somewhat dysfunctional political culture which does not seem to lead to the constructive resolution of issues -- if that's "racist", then the United Nations is "racist", since it pointed out pretty much the same thing... AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "Arab street" is a common and "neutral" expression. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but I don't think a wiktionary entry, using a neo-neocon blog as a source is any evidence for the claim Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Found some better sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] although I note several of those sources suggest the Arab street is largely a dead phenomenon. Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to dig out an OED link or something, too. But it's the same with WP articles: I try to point to our (or our sister projects') article at the RD: even though WP articles are not considered RS's for WP articles, linking to them preferentially in answers at the RD helps motivate improvement of those articles (if necessary) and also helps "popularize" WP as a first-line online resource, which in part is what we ought to be doing here. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are, incidentally, some roads in Israel which the more strictly conservative/orthodox Jews are effectively 'barred' from (and are signposted as such), insamuch as the said roads cross old burial grounds and their beliefs preclude crossing over grave sites. I can't recall the relevant name for this circumstance (which I read about in, I think, Haaretz online when following up an archaeological story), or think of an appropriate search term - does anybody else have a cite? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reposting a comment of RolandR from Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/Archive 30: "For instance at the Adumim/Az-Zaim crossing at 31°46'59"N 35°15'50"E in the occupied West Bank, between Jerusalem and the illegal settlement of Ma'ale Adumim. There is an article with a photo in Haaretz of the sign at this crossing. The words on the sign translate as "Welcome to the Az-Za'ayyem / Adumim crossing-point. The crossing-point is intended for use by Israelis only. It is prohibited for a non-Israeli person to cross or to be transported across this crossing-point!! “Israeli” – a resident of Israel, whose place of residence is in the region and is an Israeli citizen, or a person who is entitled to immigrate to Israel pursuant to the Law of Return – 1950 as it is applied in Israel, or a person who is not a resident of the region but holds a valid entry permit to Israel.” That is, reading beyond the legalistic verbiage, the crossing point is for Israeli citizens, for Jews, and for tourists to Israel -- and most definitely not for the inhabitants of the area, who have lost their land to the encroaching settlements, the apartheid wall, the roads and the military checkpoints, and who live unbder military occupation. They are neither Israelis, nor Jews, nor tourists. They simply live where they were born and brought up, and are barred from the roads. RolandR (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)" --Soman (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a far cry from the Apartheid. I am not saying that the above settlement might be legal (which indeed, is disputed by many). But simply treating people differently doesn't make you an Apartheid-like state. Specially if you do not differentiate between citizens who might be Muslims, Christians or Jews. In the example above, you just have a bypass road, build for security purposes, not to exclude any non-Israeli Palestinian. In other countries, when crossing a border, you also get different treatment. You'll see a passport control for citizens and other for foreigners. Is that also Apartheid? 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that there is a road in to which your access is based on ethnicity/religion (the reference is made to the Law of Return). That is pretty close to having special toilets for whites and non-whites. --Soman (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that some people want to compare Israel with the old Apartheid system at any price. The access is not based on ethnicity or religion. You can be entitle to go to Israel under the Law of Return, but there are many others circumstances which will allow you to reside in Israel and drive this road. Any citizen of Israel or visitor to Israel may drive through this road. Israeli Arabs, Israeli Christians are allowed to use this road, which is there for security reasons, not to discriminate against non-citizens. Non-whites were not allowed to use services for whites, no matter what.80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Palestinians into 'non-Citizens' in their own land is pretty apartheidish. But I'd say that there are people who wish to avoid seeing the similarities with Apartheid rule in South Africa at any price. --Soman (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inhabitants of east Jerusalem were offered the chance to become Israeli citizens over 40 years ago, but hardly any accepted (whereas I never heard of the South African government offering an opportunity to blacks to be accepted as white). AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job neither of those two hypothetical kinds of people are present, isn't it! 81.131.6.177 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the SA gov't also did try to create divisions between people in SA, by differentiating between Blacks and Coloureds. The offer of citizenship to E Jerusalem residents was a ploy to create division between Palestinians, by treating a section of them more favourably. Classical colonial tactics. The reasonable demand would be to demand equal citizenship rights for all inhabitants. Or that Israel leaves the occupied territories once and for all. You can't have the cake and eat, so to speak. --Soman (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason these roads exist is because Israeli drivers have been attacked and killed on the old roads. It's a safety measure. I'm sure the Israelis would rather not have to spend millions of dollars building expensive bypass roads and tunnels to avoid the Palestinian areas, just as I'm sure they'd rather not have to spend all that money building the separation barrier. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless Israel certainly has gone out of its way to extent its borders into Palestinian territory, both in actual military conquests as well as ongoing "settlements". No part in this conflict is free from the responsibility of the current situation. Hypothetically though, it would be interesting to see how many expensive secured roads would be necessary if Israel withdrew its military and settlements to the 1948 borders. But I guess it is too late for that now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i look for notable/famous examples of parents doing child abuse

where the child had physical disabled or special needs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.38 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can be they neglect or abandon the child —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.38 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of orphans and foundlings. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Kings

What is the term for a junior co-monarch that ruled alongside a sole monarch? Examples Henry the Young King, Hugh Magnus of France, or Haakon Haakonsson the Young. It's suppose to be a Latin term. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Norwegian the term appears to be samkonge, and this seems to be quite a common term. In Swedish the term is medkung, and in German Mitkönig or Mitregent, terms frequently encountered in discussions of the Holy Roman Empire. In fact, in this particular context, Mitkönig it is sometimes used in English as well. If you're looking for a non-hyphenated English word, I'd suggest coregent, which seems to be particularly popular in discussions of Ancient Egyptian rulers. However, none of these terms necessarily specifies a junior, subordinate king. A good, self-explanatory neologism would be "underking", but that appears to already be a term particular to fantasy role-playing games. LANTZY ^TALK 11:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OED has "under-king, a prince or ruler subordinate to a chief king", with citations back to AD950, so it's hardly a neologism! DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I for one would use that. Its meaning is certainly transparent enough, and it's definitely more precise than "co-king". There are plenty of analogous terms: under-butler, under-waiter, under-chef, etc. LANTZY ^TALK 15:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation was very common among the Emperors of the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire. The two co-emperors are often described in the literature as the "junior co-emperor" and the "senior co-emperor". According to the Autokrator article, it seems that the senior emperor could be described in Greek as the basileus kai autokrator ("emperor and autocrat"), and the junior, as the symbasileus ("co-emperor"). It looks like at least occasionally, the term "caesar" was used for the junior co-emperor as well, although generally there was a semantic distinction. -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think it is rex fillius, but I can't find any sources that actually call this European junior kings by that. So I'm not to sure. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of the Latin word for son would actually be "filius"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the French term is "sous-roi", like "sous-chef", but I don't know how common the term is. LANTZY ^TALK 15:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry the Young King was called "rex junior" by the contemporary chroniclers. Philip Augustus was crowned in the same way a few years later but I don't know what his title was specifically...I can poke around for it, if you'd like. But Henry was definitely "rex junior". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not finding any specific "junior title" for Philip; but in this case, Philip and Louis VII were simply both the legitimate king (since Louis was expected to die soon anyway), he already had a nickname (Augustus), and he didn't need to be distinguished from his father (unlike the two Henrys in England). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Commandments in Islam

Does Islam also have the ten commandments, as Christianity does? Thanks 92.29.114.35 (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, already answered at Ten_Commandments#Islam. 92.29.114.35 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moral equivalents of the commandments are found, but Islam does not treat any Jewish or Christian scriptures as authoritative... AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complicated than that. See Islamic view of the Bible. Buddy431 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a little complicated, but not in any way which really affects the validity of my original statement. A common Muslim view is that Jewish and Christian scriptures can be interesting supplemental reading, but everything necessary to be a good Muslim is contained in Islamic writings, and Jewish and Christian scriptures do not create any obligations for Muslims beyond those already imposed by Islamic teachings -- and if Jewish or Christian scriptures contradict the Qur'an in any possible way (including the most trivial and inessential details) then such Jewish or Christian scriptures are necessarily ipso facto "corrupted" (a firmly-held belief which is usually not up for any meaningful debate or revision). AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not be arrogant in one's claims or beliefs: And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). (17:36) Nor walk on the earth with insolence: for thou canst not rend the earth asunder, nor reach the mountains in height. (17:35)"

I'd not seen this before. A sensible suggestion, even for an infidel like me. Should probably quoted at the top of every Wikipedia edit page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also means that you shouldnt take a risk, strive, innovate, or show enterprise - perhaps that's why we have more technology and a higher standard of living in the West despite Islam scholars being further ahead in the past. 92.15.20.70 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's getting into a very long, very speculative discussion. I will only say this; a substantial number of these Muslim scholars, notably Ibn Rushd (commonly known as Averroes), lived in Spain, so they had a very direct influence on Europe because they were, well, living in it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And of course nobody could possibly accuse the West of 'walking on the earth with insolence'? Wise words (and unwise ones) can be found anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the kettle black inevitably leads to the other party being reminded that they are, in fact, a pot. Always. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old flag

[7]Does anyone knows what is that 2nd flag from left? I have seen it couple times but I don't know what is it... Some American revolution-flag?-Henswick (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Confederate flag#The Confederate Flag. --Viennese Waltz 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How terribly upsetting - someone wants to kill me! DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's Macbeth. And it seems more likely to be about a a mass-murdering sex offender. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has to do with Joseph Edward Duncan III. What that has to do with White Power is anybody's guess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just another example of how ignorant people's sense of reality and priorities are distorted by what they happen to see on TV and what they happen to have heard at the dinner table from their equally ignorant family members. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the convict in this case looks like the kind of guy whose garage that could be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I have to add that the first flag on the right is also a historical American flag. See Gadsden_flag for that. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the black thing on the wall on the left - is it a high letterbox or a gun port? 92.15.20.70 (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a vent of some kind... AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a vent for the dryer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a Confederate flag next to a Union flag in the same garage is an interesting political statement. Maybe what he's really saying is "We should celebrate the unity and diversity of the United States!" --Jayron32 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Ed.: or maybe not. --Jayron32 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I know a few people who have Confederate flags (I'm in New England), and they aren't at all racist, so by itself it doesn't mean much. However, this particular case is pretty obvious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The licence plate indicates this is in Idaho (example), which is not typically where there's a ton of nostalgia for the confederate south. It is likely, therefore, that the confederate flag is being used as a general anti-federal government or pro-state rights emblem (especially when coupled with the Gadsden flag). Given the Stormfront (website) flag, it's possible that the Confederate flag is conveying an overt racist message, though in my experience, it's becoming less common to use it in that manner. I wish I could make out the bumper stickers on the car. The no-trespassing sign, flags, and the fact that this is Idaho certainly feeds the stereotype of this being a member of some sort of Militia movement. Buddy431 (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe; there's always the chance that it's some southerner who ended up moving out there, too. But sometimes, you just can't explain things rationally; after once seeing Ukrainian Nazi sympathizers, I can't completely close my mind to the possibility that it's just some random racist and/or anti-government crazy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blade, that reminds me of something else I could never explain rationally - in my high school there was a clique of Polish kids who dressed in Nazi-esque clothes and had pictures of Hitler in their lockers. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "white pride worldwide" flag might be a clue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random as in someone who's alone in their community believing that bullshit; it happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Aryan Nations was headquartered in Idaho, and that Hayden Lake, Idaho is a former (and maybe current? I don't know) White Power center, it's not at all unlikely to encounter White Supremacists in Idaho. Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language

I'm in high school and beginning to look at colleges. Most "good" colleges and colleges that emphasizes globalism and language (those that I'm interested in) require or "strongly recommend" (in Harvard's case) at least three or four years of the same language in high school. Unfortunately for me I took French for 9th and 10th grade, and planned to take it through senior year, but due to budget cuts my school cut the entire French program and made me take Spanish for the remaining two years. Will this limit my choices of college? How can I communicate this circumstance to colleges when on their application forms they only have short lines to indicate what languages you've had and how much? Thanks 169.227.254.124 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I applied to college, both for undergraduate and graduate acceptance, I had to write a letter. I do not see how it would be difficult to include that information in a letter. -- kainaw ™ 18:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also take French lessons outside your school and include that in your letter. That will make even a better impression than complaining about your school cutting costs. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. That is exactly what I did. My high school didn't have fancy things like calculus or computers. So, I took trigonometry and calculus outside of high school. I didn't take computer classes because I was already working as a programmer. I explained that in my letter for undergrad and I was accepted on the condition that I pass a trigonometry and a computer programming test before classes began. Similarly, when I applied for my PhD, I tried to skip over the master's program. I was accepted on the condition that I take and make an A in three specific courses in the first year - otherwise I would have to complete the master's program. So, putting effort into your own education and writing a good letter should be a priority. -- kainaw ™ 18:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Application letters or essays are very tricky things, and they can play a key role in an acceptance decision at the most selective universities. I do not recommend using any part of your letter or essay to make excuses for your failure to meet requirements. As 80.58... said, the best thing you could do would be to enroll ASAP in a French class outside of your school, perhaps at a local community college or Alliance française. Then in your letter or essay, you can make the much more positive and impressive statement that, despite your school's budget cuts, your commitment to globalism and multilingualism impelled you to continue your study of French privately. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Harvard in particular requires that prospective undergraduates schedule an interview with a Harvard alumnus. If you make it to that stage, explain the circumstances of your education to your interviewer; and explain how you overcame the challenges you faced. If you intend to succeed at a school like Harvard, you will need to demonstrate considerable resourcefulness, self-motivation, and ability to overcome adversity on your own; "excelling at the things your school taught you" is a necessary, but insufficient, criterion for these top-tier schools. Nimur (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I applied for university, I applied to do Chinese and Japanese. I had not studied either of these languages at school (there simply wasn't a demand for either - available languages were French, Spanish and German, and supposedly Latin, but the teacher was absent for almost a year) and studied in my own time at home. When it came to applying for university, we were asked to go for an interview - during the interview I displayed my knowledge of Chinese (the guy interviewing me was a professor in Chinese) and I was given an unconditional. Maybe you'll have an interview, too. Alternatively, you could just get in contact with the teachers there, show them what you can do. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who are some people with disengeniuous careers? (having admitted it)

who are some people with disingenuous careers who have come clean about it? I mean, where they became famous riling people up, but did it just for the he'll of doing just that (like an Internet troll) and afterwards come clean about it. (or were caught boasting about just that.). I've phrased my question this time to be quite neutral, specific, and refernce-oriented, so hopefully you won't remove it this time. Please note that I do not condone the activity I am asking about, on or off the computer screen! 82.234.207.120 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think probably many comedians started out like that, for example Trigger Happy TV or Candid Camera which are all about riling people up for laughs. Many celebrities have admitted to doing prank calls, too many people to list. You might also find Usenet celebrity interesting which lists some famous "trolls" 82.44.55.25 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this question. It mentions "careers", then talks about Internet trolling. I didn't think that was a career, but if I can be paid for it, bring it on! I reckon I'd be really good at it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the word career can simply refer to something one does with their life, regardless of whether they get paid for it or not. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my comment from the thread that got deleted: :Buck Henry and the Society for Indecency to Naked Animals? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with AnonMoos) List of hoaxes, although many of those were not people deliberately trying to rile people up. I find parodies like Landover Baptist Church [8] particularly funny. It's obvious (to me) that they're just trolling, but some people seem to think that they're genuine nuts (read some of the hate mail they get: [9]). Buddy431 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A recent This American Life show discussed Jim Greer, chairman of the Republican Party in Florida. Greer had been the person who expressed outrage over President Obama addressing the nation's students over a TV link; Greer was indignant that Obama was going to be spreading a message of socialism to the nation's children. This meme spread around conservative TV, radio, and the Drudge Report like wildfire. After Greer was convicted of several felonies and saw his political career was over, he admitted that the outrage was fabricated, he knew his claims were false when he made them, and that he was falsely raising hell to pander to the right wing of the party. It is very unusual in politics to hear an admission or an apology for having knowingly made false claims. Granted, the admission was about an episode rather than a career. Second related topic is of course Sacha Baron Cohen. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks has gotten pretty outrageous lately, so one could say Julian Assange has made a "career" out of troublemaking (motivated by the noblest principles and according to the highest standards of integrity, I'm sure, but still...;). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that Assange is just doing this to piss people off. Yes, he is tweaking his nose a bit at the U.S. but it seems that he really does believe that he's doing a service to people. A Troll (Internet) is characterized by primarily being motivated in getting an emotional reaction out of people. Assange doesn't fit this, unless he's being a pretty good actor about it. It's interesting to consider someone like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Ostensibly, they are trying to get people to repent and find God. However, many of their tactics include doing things for little reason other than getting an emotional response out of people (and they tend to be quite good at it: see Snyder v. Phelps, and all the associated fallout). Mr. Phelps may not see himself as a real life troll, but he engages in what is in many ways very trollish behavior. Buddy431 (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I agree. And according to our article, Assange now says this about his hacker past:

"It's a bit annoying, actually. Because I cowrote a book about [being a hacker], there are documentaries about that, people talk about that a lot. They can cut and paste. But that was 20 years ago. It's very annoying to see modern day articles calling me a computer hacker. I'm not ashamed of it, I'm quite proud of it. But I understand the reason they suggest I'm a computer hacker now. There's a very specific reason."

Fred Phelps seems like a good example, but saying that makes me begin to think about WP:BLP issues... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was was a time when people thought wrestling was real. That's a whole mess of actors/stuntmen/dancers/whatever-they-are with fake careers. Which intersects with Andy Kaufman, who deserves special mention here. 67.162.90.113 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes wrestling is real. Rasslin' usually, however, isn't. --Jayron32 07:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered some very stubborn folks who think pro-wrestling is real here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

future respondents read this elaboration carefully

So far Greer is the only one offered up here who fits the answer. I'm surprised at all of you for getting so hung up on the term "troll" and coming up with things which obviously don't fit the OP's request. (Part of what I see as a deliberate or accidental decline in answerers' willingness to actual read the questions given and take them seriously before responding with the first thought in their heads.) What the OP is after is who takes what is apparently an earnest position but later admits to having being disingenuous about it. Which is not the same thing as being a troublemaker, is not the same thing as being controversial, and is not the same thing as being a spoof or actor. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OP here). Thank you! Maybe some people don't know what a troll actually is, but you've nailed it. 'That's exactly what I'm looking for.' I've emphasized your response as such! 82.98.48.252 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About 10 years ago, people found a ton of tapes of Lyndon Johnson during his presidency saying that he believed the Vietnam War was a hopeless prospect; not exactly what he was saying in public. I'm not sure what (if anything) he said about it in public after his presidency, but he didn't personally feel the same way he claimed to. It's somewhat strange, too, given his insistence on other fronts, most notably enforcing the "all deliberate speed" part of Brown vs. Board of Ed. Is that the sort of thing you're getting at? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Léo Taxil and the Taxil hoax would interest you.--Wetman (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]