Humanities desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

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

February 13

monopoly of physical force in a state

why should monopoly of physical force be with a state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.249.227 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a Democracy, use of physical force is (in theory at least) by consent of the majority of the people who might be subject to that force, and, even for those who don't support it, the force is carefully regulated and controlled with the (mainly successful?) aim of preventing abuse. The alternative is unregulated and uncontrolled force by ad-hoc local militias (I almost wrote malitias), which most people would not be happy about. In most countries, parents retain a right to limited physical force within their family, and occasionally, physical force outside the control of the state is permitted elsewhere, though there is the risk that such lack of control might lead to anarchy. Dbfirs 11:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is often considered part of the definition of a state, so the reason is simply "by definition". --Tango (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Côte d’Ivoire Coat of Arms

The article about the Coat of arms of Côte d'Ivoire states that it was adopted in the current form in 2001. What did it look like before, and why was it changed? Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of the World
Sleigh (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a nice clear depiction of the ca. 1964-2000 arms in the book Guide to the Flags of the World by Mauro Talocci, revised and updated by Whitney Smith (ISBN 0-688-01141-1). -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was inspired by this to create image File:Coat of arms Ivory Coast ca 1964-2000.svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Burma

Since we're on the topic, the article about the Coat of arms of Burma states that it had a previous form with three chinthe. What did it look like before? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the govt-in-exile File:Ncgub-logo.png, but it doesn't sound similar. Anyone? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish law

I know the Jews have many laws and covenants, which for the most part are constants rather than variables, have no published exceptions. Some laws are variables, for instance, the laws which pertain to anything occurring on the Sabbath. Is there a list of exceptions published of not of Jewish laws and covenants that distinguish what constitutes theft or murder or other issues of concern? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional post-Biblical Judaism is more given to extended debates about the fine points of religious law (as in the Talmud etc.) than to formulating a definitive static ultra-detailed casuistic legal code, but there is the famous list of 613 Mitzvot... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...but how does anyone argue the fine points of anything without first categorizing the criteria? For instance if I want to argue the fine points of murder I must start with the role death plays, whether someone can be considered "murdered" if they are not dead. Next variable might be the cause, means and perpetrator such that all these thing need to be delineated before a proper discussion or argument can know where to begin. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the rabbis generally took as their starting point the words of the Old Testament, rather than postponing all discussion until fully satisfactory philosophical metaphysical definitions of concepts in the abstract were found. AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...that's great for historical reference but many synagogues are closing and one of the predominant reasons given by former Jews to join for instance the Seventh Day Adventist Church is failure to update the old to be understood or comprehended by the lay person of today. We see languages and cultures going extinct all of the time from failure to keep followers who find the lack of adaptation to modern life impossible to cope with in modern times. Surely Jewish clergy is not so self-centered or ignorant to fail to recognize the need to state the old in the context and means of the new. Someone must be updating the format of the law just as some Christians have done with the NIV (New International Version) of the Bible. Even secular law is being considered for publication in the form of a polychotomous key. Certainly there must be some clergy who recognize and responded to this opportunity to retain the fact of the laws while making them comprehensible for everyone in the modern age. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly is your question? "Clergy who recognize and respond to the fact that laws need to be comprehensible for everyone in the modern age" -- paraphrased from your post immediately above -- neither your position nor intent are easily discernible. If there is something you would actually like to know it can be provided by myself or another editor, but your comments seem to be ambiguous in the form of a run-on commentary comparing Judaism and Christianity. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Talmud says killing a gentile doesn't count as murder in the context of the 10 commandments. Peter jackson (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(See below) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. The Gentile would be a variable and Ten Commandments would be a variable and a Jew would be a variable (in the context of a perpetrator assuming a gentile killing a gentile might or might not be murder) such that if you asked the question was there a murder then you would have to answer "no" if the perpetrator was a Jew, if the context of the question was in reference to the Ten commandments and if the victim was a gentile. This makes the conditions and definition of murder more clear as it relates to Jewish law. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's at least part of the reason Jesus said, "You have been told to love your neighbor and hate your enemy; I say love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you." Obviously a dangerous thinker, who had to be done away with. And, sadly, words that have been ignored as much by Christians as by anyone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such a teaching may seem to be what a wine bibbler would say but the practice of such a rule has accomplished goals far greater than physically putting an enemy to death ever could. Consider Sam Walton (I almost called him Sam Walmart). His return policy when practiced correctly and with a joyful spirit has turned buyers that return big screen TV's they bought to watch the Superbowl into regular customers that have spent far more on cloths and food and hardware and things they don't even need. The Golden Rule is so powerful not only did it single handily make Walton a Billionaire and get him a Presidential Medal of Freedom but show me a retail business that can afford not to simulate the president he set. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Emulate the precedent' I think you mean. :) Vranak (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, it's a celebrity IP! Either Norm Crosby or Yogi Berra. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see who changing a system of religious laws based on "inspired" religious texts to a system based on a humanistic philosophical model can at all be compared to translating a group of Hebrew and Greek texts into modern English (NIV) instead of using an older translation of the same texts. Is there anyone besides you that thinks that the civil law is being or can be published as a polychotomous key? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a matter of changing. The New International Version did not change the King James Version and the New Testament did not change the Old Testament. Its a matter of putting rules and laws into a format which anyone can follow and obey. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you might want to consider that the Mason have secret rules they refuse to publish in any form much less a polychotomous key. Not wanting to publish in the form of a polychotomous key makes suspicious the legitimacy of rules. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are 30% more synagogues in the U.S. now than in 1936[1]. Does this count as a decline? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has the whole population been limited to a 30% increase? What about the percent increase of other religions? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see evidence that "The Talmud says killing a gentile doesn't count as murder in the context of the 10 commandments." This sounds like one of the antisemitic libels against the Talmud that floats around the Internet. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to killing a gentile, the Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 34 - v. I page 184-8) states that said violation is specifically for "one who murders of Yisroel," in reference to the seed of Jacob (1-hahoreig), to include slaves, which are partial converts. It then continues to state that "one who kills a gentile is not killed in return (i.e. given the death penalty) which is the normal punishment for such a transgression, and any prohibition of murdering gentiles is not included within this violation -- Maimonidies concurs, stating that punishment for murder of a gentile is not provided for in court, and the Kesef Mishna, based on the Mechilta, states that such punishment will be dealt "from Heaven." DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read this in Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine. One of the notes at the back of the book cites a source, which in turn presumably cites the original passage. I'll try to find time to look this up over the next few days. Peter jackson (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll do my best.

Traditional Jews would view all of the basic Jewish laws as constant since the major inconsistencies of Chinese Whispers of the Oral law were ironed out in Talmudic times. Since then, Rabbinic law generally has dealt with apparent gaps in the existing body of law, or where developments in technology etc leave question marks, or where the rabbis perceived a danger of laws being broken and therefore instituted a "Gezeira" to prevent the circumstance.

Laws pertaining to murder and theft have followed this pattern, with a need to respond to innovation, such as credit cards (re theft). However, as there has not been a country (including Israel) that operates under Torah law for some centuries, all of these issues are irrelevant, as there's an over-riding law called Dinah d'malchuta, in short, the law of the country takes precedence.

As all civilised states prohibit murder and theft under their own laws, these apply to the Jews living there. Where the country's laws are less stringent than Jewish law, the practising Jew will need to observe the Jewish law on top, for example, Jewish law is very strict on lost property, which can result in no issue according to secular law, but a Jewish perception of theft. --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that such analysis is "irrelevant" is highly erroneous, as dinah d'malchuta dinah only applies in a situation in which local government law is more strict than Jewish law. When government law is more lenient than Jewish law, the strictures of Jewish law remain -- and laws of murder are certainly a front runner in such overlap as Jewish and (US?) laws regarding murder. Congressional beginning-of-life and end-of-life debate has little effect on the observant Jew. Instances in which abortion, for example, are permitted by state and federal law have no bearing on the observant Jew if permissibility in said regulations violate the Jewish definition of murder (and the same would apply to euthenasia. On the flip side, if Jewish law mandates abortion (of course there are multiple things to take into account, but in general, such as when the mother's life in in mortal danger), performance of an abortion would be obligatory despite any federal or state law to the contrary -- and dinah d'malchuta dinah would not supersede. Even your closing remarks may be taken out of context, because every leniency possesses within it a stringency. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to break human religious views into programmatical concepts ("constant" & "variable") seems destined to fail. People don't act logically. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People act logically. There is internal logic and external logic. Internal logic is infallible. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British royal family

1) Queen Victoria is the great-great-grandmother of Queen Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth had sixteen great-great-grandparents. What was the nationality at birth of each of them? What country were they born in? 2) Prince Philip changed his name from the one he was born with: Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark. Lord Mountbatten also changed his name from the one he was born with: His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg. Have any other recent royals changed their name or nationality? 92.29.55.65 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) See Ancestry of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I note the Bowes-Lyon side doesn't list the nationality of the ancestors, possibly because they were commoners. However, it is safe to assume they were all British. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the information given in the links from the Wikipedia article, the places of birth are as far as I can tell 16. Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Germany, 17. Victoria of the United Kingdom Britain, 18. Christian IX of Denmark Germany, 19. Louise of Hesse-Kassel (or Hesse-Cassel) Germany, 20. Duke Alexander of Württemberg Germany, 21. Countess Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde Transylvania, 22. Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge Britain, 23. Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel (or Hesse-Kassel) Germany, 24. Thomas George Lyon-Bowes, Lord Glamis Britain, 25. Charlotte Grimstead Britain, 26. Oswald Smith British?, 27. Henrietta Hodgson Britain?, 28. Lord Charles Bentinck Britain, 29. Anne Wellesley, former Lady Abdy Ireland?, 30. Edwyn Burnaby Britain, 31. Anne Caroline Salisbury Britain?

So the Queen is 5/16 German, probably 8/16 British, 1/16 Transylvanian, and 2/16 Irish. 92.24.131.69 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that is only true if you decide to stop exactly at this particular generation, which a completely arbitrary choice. --Lgriot (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bowes-Lyons were Scottish peers, though many of them were born in England. Woogee (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site [2] appears to confirm this, with the possible exception of the Burnaby/Salisbury marriage. The places of birth of each of her great-great-grand parents is given on this site.--TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 92.29.55.65, from about 1688 to 1871 (the wedding year of Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll), the immediate members of the British royal family couldn't ordinarily marry Catholics (because of a long sequence of events culminating in the Succession Act of 1701) and it was disapproved of for them to marry non-royal subjects of the British crown (since this would be to show favoritism, and create possibly entangling relationships between non-royal families and the British royal family), so their only real remaining available marriage possibilities were members of Scandinavian and German royal families, and lesser German princely families, with an occasional eastern Orthodox royal family member thrown in. AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs often change their names when they assume the throne. Elizabeth II's father, George VI of the United Kingdom, was born Albert (George was one of his middle names). --Tango (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the British point of view Philip and Louis were already British nationals: Sophia Naturalization Act 1705. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Mountbatten was born in Berkshire, so a British subject by birth anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George VI wasn't so much a name change as a use of one of his other given names (he was christened Albert Frederick Arthur George). No British monarch has taken an entirely new name, afaik, upon accession; they're unlike popes in this respect. But his father George V did change the House name, from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, to Windsor. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but rather pedantic! House names are odd - they don't seem to actually be used for much. They aren't used as surnames (well, Windsor actually is sometimes now, but that's the Queen's decision rather than convention). --Tango (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic? We're getting into the minutiae of royal protocol here, so either everything in this discussion is pedantic, or none of it is. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No British monarch has taken an entirely new name, afaik, upon accession" Depends what you mean by British monarch. Robert III was christened John. Peter jackson (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter. I'm having that investigated as we speak. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debunking JFK conspiracy theory

A friend sent me the following, which claims that a book called Ultimate Sacrifice solves the JFK assassination by blaming it on the Mafia, who co-opted a JFK/RFK anti-Castro plot and used some of its players to get rid of Bobby Kennedy (their enemy) by killing JFK. What are the best arguments against it?:

JFK was killed by the Mafia, who in November 1963 attempted to kill him in Chicago, Tampa, and finally Dallas.

(Oswald -- who may or may not have been involved, so what? -- is a red herring. All the hand-wringing about the magic bullet, and so on, is BS. If the Mafia had succeeded in Chicago or Tampa, we would never have heard of Oswald; and if Oswald hadn't existed, the Mafia would still have succeeded in Dallas.)

It's simple:

1) After Castro came to power in 1959, some of the USA's plots to overthrow him involved the Mafia and Mafia hangers-on.

2) After JFK was inaugurated in 1961, Bobby Kennedy attacked the Mafia (including certain "godfathers" ... such as Carlos Marcello, whom the justice department enormously humiliated); the Mafia therefore wanted to get rid of RFK.

3) The Mafia understood they could get rid of RFK by killing JFK.

4) The Kennedys wanted to overthrow Castro, but decided to do so without the Mafia's help. They eventually implemented a plan to overthrow (without apparent USA involvement) Castro, scheduled for December 1, 1963.

5) But the anti-Castro plans dating from 1959 -- some involving the Mafia -- continued to roll along in other branches of intelligence and their chaotic off-shoots.

6) As a result, the Mafia learned enough of the Kennedys' 12/1/1963 anti-Castro plans to entangle themselves with them.

Here's the point:

7a) By entangling themselves with the Kennedys' plotted coup against Castro, AND UTILIZING OR IMPLICATING SOME OF THE PEOPLE ENTANGLED IN THAT PLAN, the Mafia could kill JFK (RFK by proxy) ...

7b) ... AND ensure that no government investigation would reveal the truth. Any investigation into the plot would necessarily (eventually) also reveal the fact that the USA had been about to overthrow Castro -- a revelation which would be a huge headache, or even (it was feared, after the Cuban missile crisis) the source of a nuclear war.

(Note, the Mafia hated Castro, too. They hoped Castro would get blamed for the assassination, but it didn't work.)

Apparently, the relevant Mafia leaders were Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante, plus the lower-level Johnny Roselli.

It's very simple: The Mafia, severely screwed with by RFK (but also involved in remnants of USA plots against Castro), co-opted a Kennedy Administration coup against Castro and entangled/implicated some of its Mafia-connected players in killing JFK (RFK by proxy) ... and thus stifled any further investigation -- AND, indeed, enlisted unwilling co-conspirators (such as "the government") in the cover-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.36.206 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about as coherent and as plausible as the alternative theory that the little green men did it to stop the Apollo program before the US hit onto their secret moon base... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castro existed, USA plots against Castro existed, JFK had invaded Cuba, the Mafia was heavily involved in anti-Castro USA intelligence operations, and RFK (whose power derived from JFK) was overwhelmingly active in attacking the Mafia and sometimes humiliating mafia leaders. So, Steve, you're right -- it's JUST like blaming "little green men" and a "secret moon base." Because there's no such thing! Are you with me, people? It's just plain nuts! Great debunking, Steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.36.206 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the moon exists, the Apollo program exists, and if you doubt the official story in public, someone highly trained by the US military will sock you in the face. What more proof do you need? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia#Plots_to_Assassinate_Fidel_Castro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.36.206 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debunking of such an argument is a matter of saying, "OK, so where is the evidence?" There's nothing inherently impossible about the accusation, but there's also nothing inherently impossible about saying that Jackie planned it. The only way you can sift out the silly speculation is through appeal to evidence... which is not an easy matter, even for people steeped in historical research. (Cf. the length of Vincent Bugiosi's book the JFK assassination, where he tries to debunk a number of theories... 1648 pages hardcover!) These conspiracy theories are "advanced" enough that the supporters of them will shove mountains of purported evidence in your face if asked, and then it will be your job to debunk every piece of it (or to show how it doesn't fit together to the whole they claim it to be). I don't know about you, but that's not actually how I want to spend my time.

I think we need to acknowledge, though, that unlike the Apollo moon landing theories, JFK ones are certainly within the realm of plausibility. The Mafia did hate RFK, they did come to hate JFK, they did hate Castro—these are all pretty easy to document from existing evidence. Were they able to pull off a complex assassination, or was it Osward the lone nut, or something else? Not the easiest questions to answer, not the sorts of questions that necessarily would have left behind evidence for us to check against. Debunking of such a thing is always going to be problematic, just as arguing for Oswald as the lone nut has always itself been problematic. I say this as an historian who finds this kind of stuff amusing when James Ellroy fictionalizes it, but as a professional I would prefer to stay pretty far away from it, because it seems like an endless black hole of work and speculation. (And I see no reason to a priori privilege the official account.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more complex the theory, the more difficult it is to analyze. That's why I prefer the theory that the mastermind was JFK. Paul Stansifer 14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My basic attitude to conspiracy theories is simply to observe closely how the world is run. It soon becomes rather painfully obvious that these people couldn't conspire their way out of a paper bag. Peter jackson (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is not as if a very brilliant plot would be needed to explain the JFK assassination. Indeed, even the official version recognizes this—Oswald was no mastermind. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedys had plenty of enemies and there were any number of those enemies who might have wanted JFK and/or RFK dead, thus providing fuel for endless and contradictory conspiracy theories. The idea that one lone nut could change the world is unacceptable to a lot of people. Yet there's plenty of evidence that Oswald was involved and was capable of doing it alone, as the official reports concluded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not honestly sure why people who don't "work" on this sort of thing feel compelled to either knee-jerk defend the Warren Commission conclusion or to knee-jerk attack it. The whole thing seems rather murky to me. Maybe Oswald acted alone. Maybe not. Maybe it was a mob thing. Maybe not. If you accept the possibility that there could be, say, murky FBI or CIA connections, then you get into a situation where the relevant evidence could easily have been destroyed, or falsified, or both. Personally I'm rather agnostic about the whole thing. A lot of things are plausible, and sorting out the actual truth from all of the strange evidence and individuals (Oswald, Jack Ruby, etc.) seems pretty difficult to me. I suspect it is not possible to have a full picture that one is fully confident in. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, while I'm going on and on... the reason I am agnostic about the JFK question, and not, say, the Apollo moon landings, is simply because 1. there actually were a good number of powerful people who would have benefitted from JFK being killed, 2. the number of people who would have to be involved in a potential assassination conspiracy is small, and 3. there is little way, after the fact, to get at the truth of the matter. By comparison, with Apollo the motivations for doing it are rather fleeting (yes, yes, Cold War space race, but things were already winding down a bit by then, and the chances of being found out a fake would have made it an extraordinarily risky gamble), the number of people involved would have to be massive, and there are various ways of confirming the moon landing long after the fact (which would make the chances of discovering the a hoax quite large, if it were one). All is just a way of saying, I don't think all conspiracy theories are anywhere nearly equal—almost all are quite loony and improbable and impossible—and the idea that the JFK assassination was more complicated than the Warren Commission report made it out to be is, in my judgment, perfectly possible by comparison.--Mr.98 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, Its best just to go with Occam's Razor I find. What's more likely, some convoluted plot involving the mafia and cuba, or that it was some lunatic?--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like the Warren Commission version is really all that more simple. Oswald is a left-wing weirdo who somehow manages to pull off an amazingly complicated shot on a President who is taking absolutely no precautions (no secret service next to the limo, no screening of nearby buildings, nothing), is then promptly caught, and is then almost immediately shot by another nut, who then himself is somewhat quickly convicted and put in a series of hospitals and jails until he himself conveniently dies a couple years later. I mean, it's all plausible—it certainly could have played that way. But it's certainly not the simplest case of affairs! There are ways in which a mafia plot is less convoluted in that it relies less on lucky nuts. I'm not sure how Occam's Razor is any more helpful, especially when we do know that, for example, there were intricate plots between the CIA and the mafia to kill Fidel Castro ([3]). Intricate conspiracies do sometimes exist—the Church Committee revelations are pretty impressive in that respect—assassinations, COINTELPRO, cooperation with the mafia, etc., all generally accepted as actually having occurred at this point. The sixties was a pretty nutty time by any account. Again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, and in general I find that most conspiracies regarding UFOs, international cabals, and so forth are pretty bonkers. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here—as I expressed above, I see no a priori reason to believe the Warren Commission results were 100% correct. I find it hard to sign on to any explanation wholeheartedly. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly Oswald was pretty good with a rifle, according to his military record. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

Actually,he wasn 't,he kept getting Maggie's Drawers.hotclaws 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)carrots→ 08:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those who weren't around during that weekend in November '63 don't really grasp what it was like. It was basically chaos, with people milling around all over the place. Jack Ruby has been spotted on kinescopes of the time, wandering around the police station freely - and probably packing heat the whole time. Then there was Oswald, emerging from an interrogation room and actually being interviewed by the press. When asked if he had killed the President, Oswald calmly and coolly remarked that he had not been accused of that (he was being held for the Tippitt murder), and claimed that he did not know about the President being killed until he was asked the question. Yet there was not a hint of being startled by that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless 63.17.36.206 has some specific, new and compelling evidence never before seen, his speculation is just a theory, and cannot be proven. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"New and compelling evidence," including the fact that the Kennedys planned to oust Castro on 12/1/63, is being released all the time. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3649371/Who-killed-JFK.html (note: when the link was written, the files had not yet been released that contradicted the reviewer's incorrect guess that Che Guevarra was the planned successor to Castro; in fact, it was Juan Almeida). The Congressional investigation in the mid-70s strongly supported a "mafia did it" conclusion, but, alas, the deponents kept getting whacked! (see e.g. Johnny Roselli); then it wasn't until the early 90s that the majority of the files began to be released, and more than a million files are still classified. "New and compelling evidence"? ... it comes out and is promptly ignored, because conspiracy theories are crazy, right? Some people are crazy enough to believe Julius Caesar and Abe Lincoln were killed by conspiracies ...

(sigh) So, how does Kennedy planning another attempted coup of Castro translate into evidence for a conspiracy? (Short answer: it doesn't.) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical data on career motivation

Are there any data quantifying what motivates people in the workplace (e.g., something like "36% of people list money as their biggest motivator, 20% list intellectual stimulation, etc.)? 71.161.49.106 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motivates people to do what? The primary motivation for working will almost certainly be money for most people (since most people can't live a comfortable life without a wage). The primary motivation for having a particular job as opposed to some other job is going to depend on the jobs. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the studies quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Employee_Motivation, you should be able to find their original statistics. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any citations or references pertaining to the statements in that section.71.161.49.106 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or even any studies quoted... --Tango (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but references 20 and 21 appear and these refer to textbooks. However, the Hawthorne effect does have some relevant references. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References 20 and 21 are cited in a completely different section... --Tango (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes you're right - the correct section link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Business and I apologise: I blame the hangover! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyMoet (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

children of prostitutes

How are the children of prostitutes characterized, as bastards if the mother is unmarried and not if the mother is married, even where prostitution is not legal? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characterized by whom? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By traditional 19th century Common Law, I assume... AnonMoos (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the State. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the mother is unmarried then the child is a bastard, by definition. Under UK law, a child of a married woman is assumed to be a child of her husband unless there is evidence otherwise (see Paternity (law) for some details). That she is a prostitute wouldn't be relevant. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, was Jesus a bastard? AFAIK his mother wasn't married. Flamarande (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time he was born she was (which was what counted under traditional Common Law). AnonMoos (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Bible, she wasn't married when she conceived, but was betrothed to Joseph and married him before giving birth. I think he was considered Joseph's son by most people. --Tango (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the usual disparagement attached to the term bastard (at least in that culture) implied shame in your mother having had sex out of wedlock, which in his case wouldn't really apply as an ultimately legitimate insult. —Akrabbim^talk 22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (Reworded, Akrabbim 00:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Was the mother the only dirty one? What about the father, or is it OK for men to play around but not for women? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... `

Generally speaking, yes. The slang term for a promiscuous woman is "slut"; the slang term for a promiscuous man is "stud". The two words have completely different connotations. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stigma is only really relevant at the time and at the time there were very few people that believed Jesus was the son of God. Also, whether sex out of marriage has stigma attached depends on the society you are talking about - mistresses were very common in the medieval aristocracy in Europe with very little stigma (at best they were open secrets, often they were entirely public). --Tango (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of who would be an intestate heir? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, at least, the husband is assumed to be the father for such purposes, unless someone contests it and has evidence (DNA evidence, usually). --Tango (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tango thinks that Jesus was considered Joseph's son by most people, and I think so too. In the King James Bible, I found this: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" (Joh 6:42) -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One way to look at it is that if Mary and Joseph had advertised that Jesus was actually God's soon, it's likely Jesus would have been done away with much sooner than he was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine as a Schedule I

I am wondering if the DEA has ever offically explained why nicotine is not a schedule 1 drug. It seems to fit the definition of a schedule 1 better than some of the others on list. I would think that this has been brought up to them at some point.--76.123.226.199 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they have ever given an official reason, but the real reason is very simple - it was in very widespread usage when drug prohibition laws started coming into force and a lot of people would have opposed it being banned. --Tango (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel thats the real reason too. I just think it would be amusing to hear their cock and bull reason.--76.123.226.199 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Controlled Substance Act article, we see that "The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986". You can hop over to Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for more information, or even check out Subtitle E itself to see how nicotine is regulated.

As an editorial comment, the nicotine article suggests that nicotine may have limited use in medicine, which would probably put it on schedule 2 or 3, rather than schedule 1 (although, under that rational, marijuana probably ought to go on schedule 2 or 3 as well). Nicotine has also historically been used as an insecticide. I'm not sure how the legitimate use of a substance outside of medicine affects its placement within the scheduling system. Buddy431 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess they would say that nicotine cannot be made illegal because it can't be considered a controlled substance becuase it has a tax and manufacturing regulation structure built around it?--76.123.226.199 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing for the prohibition of tobacco? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No,I am actually against the prohibition of all drugs. Its just that I feel if the government is going to decide what substances People can consume, they should look at all drugs equally. Nicotine seems to warrant being a schedule 1 substance more than marijuana, MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, mescaline,and bufotenin for example.--76.123.226.199 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congress can do whatever it likes with nicotine or with any other drugs. It's delegated some of that decision making authority to the Drug Enforcement Agency. To understand the dimensions of that authority, see that article, or the United States administrative law article. Shadowjams (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble: Congress can't do whatever it likes with drugs if "whatever it likes" is found to be unconstitutional. I can't point to an example. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but as far as drugs that have interstate commerce implications, that seems to be the situation. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate commerce is the wedge that seems to be used, and the Congress decides, by law, what's legal and what isn't. Alcohol and tobacco are legal but are regulated, as are prescription drugs. Philosophically I'm inclined to agree with what Drew Carey said: "I don't think the government has the right to limit the ways I can hurt myself." But the reality seems to be otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 -- speech by Indira Gandhi

Hello, reference deskers. I understand that Indira Gandhi made a speech on the evening of 3 December, 1971, declaring war on Pakistan, as part of the Bangladesh Liberation War. I find most of that speech here. But this link is full of elipses. I can't seem to find the entire speech listed anywhere at all. I would be happy to transcribe it myself, but I've looked at google video and youtube and can't find her speaking there, either. Could someone help me find the full text of this war declaration? Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text was published in the New York Times of December 4, 1971 in an article entitled "Mrs. Gandhi's Statement". A non-subscriber can buy the text from the NYT for four dollars but someone at the Resource Exchange might be able to provide it for you from a library etc.--Cam (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known. Thank you. I believe I can take it from here. Llamabr (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]