Humanities desk
< October 25	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 27 >

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.

October 26

Jhalan and Lohoni

Which languages does the name Jhalan and Lohoni come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.59 (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably be better served on the Languages reference desk. I'm copying it there. Rojomoke (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Military and industrialization aid

I've been reading about the US military's role in enabling Rhee and Park's industrialization of South Korea, and I was wondering if the military is still in the economic development business. I've heard of some low-scale stuff in Afghanistan (building girls schools, mosques etc) but I was hoping we might be involved in larger projects, like in Korea. Thanks!

Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.201.217 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing a spouse: criteria

Sometimes a person compiles a list of criteria to be met by a potential spouse. (This is for the purpose of a lifelong marriage between one man and one woman.) Where can I find statistics about such lists, including information about

the number of criteria
the types of criteria
the specific expectations for those criteria, and
the percentage of instances where one ignores one's criterion list after one finds a harmonious rapport.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do people really do that? The only real person I can think of is Charles Darwin (his notes on marriage are hilarious, by the way). Otherwise it seems more like a sitcom plot (it was an episode of Friends, at least). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Adam. I can't think of a single instance where someone (outside of a television/movie plot) has actually sat down and made up a list. Sure, plenty of people have said that they want their future spouses to have X quality or that they won't put up with Y. But I've never heard of anyone actually writing out such a list. Dismas|^(talk) 03:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, according to my dad, he did write a list of ten things he wanted in his future wife (playing the piano well, for one), and my mother actually did meet his "criteria". :P That was one of his arguments that they were "made for each other". ;) Maybe his child doesn't agree, but whatever... Clementina talk 03:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several criteria presented in God's Word the Bible for a Christian marriage. The main criterion for marriage is Love.

...husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies...
— Ephesians, 5:28

A plague on mankind today is divorce. Jesus expresses at Matthew 5:32 that adultery or fornication are the only grounds for a divorce. Some more information on a scriptural marriage can be obtained in these two MP3 files found here and here.

A word of advice to follow would be to look at marriage as a gift rather than a mathematical formula, or as a means to an end of creating offspring. I am a product myself of this thought-process and it did not turn out well for the wed. Love is real and you must try to grasp it and never let go. schyler (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really allow this sort of blatant proselytising here?→ ROUX ₪ 04:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a valid reply to the question, with opinion appended, but opinions are not forbidden at the Help Desk. Other replies are possible. Dbfirs 06:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the guidelines: "The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions." and "Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers."--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schyler, I appreciate your interest in the spiritual and emotional aspects and not only the mental aspects of such decisions. However, I wish to explain the reasoning behind my question. If a marriage-seeker identifies all the important criteria to be met by a spouse, and finds a spouse who does meet all those criteria, then throughout the duration of the marriage, there they are fulfilled in one person. Otherwise, if one partner has a yearning for something not possessed by the other partner, attention might wander to other people, and threaten to de-stabilize the marriage.

Of course, one's marriage partner has two qualities which always trump (outweigh) any qualities which might be found in someone new. Firstly, one has exchanged marriage vows with one's spouse, and there is a commitment to continue defending the marriage (for better or worse). Secondly, one has invested n years of time in getting to know one's spouse and in sharing in mutual adjustment. (Switching partners involves re-learning and re-adjusting.) Forsaking all others involves forsaking one's yearning for qualities not possessed by one's spouse.

Thoughtful consideration in choosing a spouse can help to prevent heartbreak later. Sometimes, remaining single is a wise choice.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My searching (for statistics) led me to http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/all_internet_dating_statistics/index.html, but I did not find the statistics that I was seeking.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not about the list(s) you are asking about, you may also be interested in Factors in relationship duration. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WikiDao. The last part of that subsection (permanent link here) mentions "the top seven reasons for their success" but lists only six.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye, WL, that seems to have been there since June 18, 2006! But why didn't you change it yourself...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the cited reference, 'Til Death Do Us Part, and I left it for someone with access to provide the missing reason, if one was missing. From the premise that "the wives and the husbands produced identical lists of the top seven reasons for their success", without their order being specified, it does not necessarily follow that the top six were identical.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it necessarily follow based on this edit that the ref cites seven reasons, and not just the six that are actually listed. At least now the article is internally consistent. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. "There are two things you must do to be successful in business: one, never tell everything you know." A germane article for the question, but it could sure use some clean up. Matt Deres (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that quote from, Matt? I have only heard that advice given in the context of The Gateless Gate:

If you meet a fencing-master on the road, you may give him your sword,

If you meet a poet, you may offer him your poem.

When you meet others, say only a part of what you intend.

Never give the whole thing at once.

[1] WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a sitcom, but the particulars have slipped my mind; I must have had it rolling in my head for years as I haven't watched broadcast TV in nearly a decade. I don't think I've modified the phrasing, but since I'm drawing a blank on the source, I don't think my memory is going to pass muster as an WP:RS :). If it comes to me, I'll let you know. Matt Deres (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NP, Wavelength. :) Keep in mind though that making a perfect choice would require perfect information (and there's a lot that does not become clear until you have been in a relationship for years) and access to someone who perfectly matches all your criteria. In practice: there are going to be issues, there's just no way around it. There's a lot to be said, though, for just "listening to your heart" about this sort of thing – that's what it's there for! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There can be a thorough two-way interview process, by categories, with written questionnaires and field trips, and follow-up questionnaires and follow-up field trips, but (for believers in abstaining from extramarital sex, including premarital sex) no practice sessions of sex until after the wedding ceremony. There can be comments and questions from mutual acquaintances, and group activities and chaperones for the sake of chastity. Yes, there will be issues (we all are imperfect), but one can try to minimize their number and severity.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I do not mean to say that just because a perfect choice is not possible, just ignore all else and follow your hormones! A good choice is based on a variety of factors, some of which can be listed and reliably determined before a long-term commitment is made. Top-ten lists of what people look for in a prospective spouse are going to vary somewhat by cultural background etc.; I'm sure there are probably examples of such lists online somewhere, though. Good luck! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for top ten qualities spouse, I found the following article.

http://www.thirdage.com/dating/what-do-you-look-for-in-a-mate-make-a-list

—Wavelength (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that article, Neil Clark Warren sets a limit of ten positive qualities to seek, and a limit of ten negative qualities to avoid, because otherwise the criteria would be too limiting. It occurs to me that one might accept any ten out of twenty positive qualities, and avoid any ten out of twenty negative qualities, and thereby have a criterion system that is less limiting. This is related to the field of combinatorics.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys know about the saying, opposites attract? Get to know lots of people, and figure out who has an opposite personality. For example, strong personalities may be best friends, but they wouldn't live together, without potntially strangling eachother! 70.241.18.130 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something else I just thought of is that you should look for a shared personality trait between your potential spouse and your opposite gender parent. For example, my mom is a strong personality, but is also organized (never mind ADD), and because I'm a bit of a strong, sometimes outgoing personality, I'd look for a more relaxed persona, but who's organized (I'm not). You're parents act, consciously or unconsciously, as your yard sticks for the rest of the world. 70.241.18.130 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand's definition of "force"?

I couldn't find anything specific of Ayn Rand's definition of "force", i.e. the one power that government should be allowed to use to stop individuals from using it themselves. As that is a pretty central point in her philosophy, I would be interested in finding out about this. Thanks in advance :) -- 84.153.243.99 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in Non-aggression principle and discussed further in Objectivism. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every Man for Himself

Do you happen to know who came up with that phrase? It be not in the wikipedia.AdbMonkey (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a translation of the French phrase sauve qui peut, which means, roughly, "you're fucked."

84.153.201.252 (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or the French is a translation of the English. (ECX2)Wikipedia is not a dictionary of quotations, although sometimes editors argue for articles about favorite utterances of people they admire. I find in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 1919 edition, Robert Burton (1577-1640) quotation number 2166: "Every man for himself, his own ends, the Devil for all" attributed to "Anatomy of Melancholy," Part iii Sect 1, Memb. 3. It seems to be but part of a longer phrase of common use in the 17th century. I note "The proverbs, epigrams, and miscellanies of John Heywood " dating to 1562,(1906 edition) "Pray and shift each one for himself, as he can: Every man for himself, and God for us all." (Italics in the original). The words "every man for himself" have likely been used since the invention of language. The Bible says "For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself." Numbers Chapter 31, verse 53, King James version, 1684 printing. "A tretise of self denyall" (1680) by Richard Baxter, says "as if they were of the Profane Opinion "Every man for himself, and God for us all." Yet another familiar longer version is "Every man for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost." The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations is said to describe the latter as "an early 16th century proverb." Basically, it means if you stumble and turn your ankle and are limping along, then the enemy or the fire will get you, or you will go down with the sinking ship; the others and I will not stay and get killed by helping you. Maybe while the monster is eating you, the rest of us can escape. It is the very opposite of Ben Franklin's American Revolution maxim from 1776:"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall hang separately" and the Kentucky state motto "United we stand, divided we fall." It is contrary to the supposed sinking ship rule "Women and children first." "Every man for himself" is further discussed at "The Facts on File dictionary of proverbs," (2007) by Martin H. Manser (page 78.Edison (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expression also exists in German: Jeder für sich und Gott für uns alle means Every man for himself and God for us all. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

And in Dutch: Ieder voor zich en God voor ons allen means the same. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

It is not a translation of "Sauve qui peut", and "Sauve qui peut" does not mean you're fucked. --Lgriot (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Le capitaine crie: "Je suis le maître à bord! Sauve qui peut, le vin et le pastis d'abord," (Brassens). Itsmejudith (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer's "The Knight's Tale", lines 1181-2, has

And therfore, at the kynges court, my brother
Ech man for hymself, ther is noon oother.

But I imagine it was proverbial even then. Antiquary (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my family, the phrase was "Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost." This is referenced here . Bielle (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You'll never outrun that bear" — "I don't have to; I just have to outrun you." --Anonymous, 22:26 UTC, October 26, 2010.

To be serious, "sauve qui peut" literally means "save[,] who can" -- or in straightforward English, "If you can, save yourself". The "yourself" is implicit. --Anonymous, 22:25 UTC, October 26, 2010.

So it does basically mean "You're fucked"! 84.153.230.5 (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessarily. You won't be getting any help from me or anyone else, but you might still make it by yourself. Depending on the circumstances, you may well have a very good chance of making it by yourself. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@84.153.230.5, you have twice posted the obscene F-word here. Grow up. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CABTC = ___ Basic Training Camp?

Hi all, any idea what CABTC stands for, within the realm of WWII Canadian armed forces? I know that the end is Basic Training Camp, but what would the CA stand for? Canadian Army? (There's only 3 results on Google for that expansion of the abbreviation.) -- Zanimum (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually "Canadian Army Basic Training Centre". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Et voila! Food platter lid thing

Sometimes in movies/on television, you see a meal being served on a platter, perhaps it's the central part of the meal, and a butler removes the large hemispherical lid to reveal the food underneath. Is there a name for the lid and or the combination of lid and tray? ----Seans Potato Business 14:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is a surprise spoilage inhibitor. 84.153.201.252 (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, seriously, the name most used seems to be the uninspired "dome cover" [2], or "domed plate cover". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That name is incorrect. Nanonic is right; the cover for a plate of food is called a cloche. (See Larousse Gastronomique, 1977 edition, p 245). → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The question has been asked at other sites (Yahoo Answers, etc.) and the answer given is "chafer", though that's completely incorrect. I checked a couple of restaurant supply stores and they just referred to it as a lid or cover (though not many seem to stock this thing; I think it's mostly used in movies these days ;-). Matt Deres (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cloche. Nanonic (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian independence

Why didn't Canada declare independence along with England's other American colonies? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadians always were a very sensible people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.223.35.225 (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Canada didn't exist as such at the time (1776) of American independence. What existed were the separate colonies of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland were colonies with small populations dominated by recent immigrants from England and Scotland and more established settlers who remained loyal to the British crown. This loyalty had a lot to do with these colonies' economic dependence on trade with Great Britain. Quebec was in a somewhat different category. Most of its population were French speakers who had only recently (after the Seven Years' War) come under British control. The remainder of the colony's residents were recent arrivals from Great Britain, including administrators, merchants, and soldiers, with strong ties to their home country. The French-speaking majority were not especially loyal to Great Britain. However, Britain had guaranteed the Catholic, French-speaking Quebecois a number of cultural and religious rights. The Quebecois feared incorporation into an independent American state dominated by the English-speaking colonies to their south because anti-Catholic sentiment was widespread and they feared that their traditions and institutions would not be respected. Marco polo (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A digression, but over on the US side, they would have been happy to have had Canada join them; so much so that the US's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation of 1777, pre-approved Canada as a state if it had wanted to join. As for today, sorry, Canada, the Articles have been superseded by the US Constitution of 1787, which doesn't mention Canada; you had your chance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, damn. And here I always wanted to pay for my own health care for when I get shot by all the handguns. Aaronite (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The First Continental Congress invited all the (North American non-Caribbean) British colonies who hadn't sent representatives: Quebec, St. John's Island (later called Prince Edward Island), Nova Scotia, Georgia, East Florida and West Florida. See Letters to the inhabitants of Canada. They did manage to raise two regiments of Canadians to fight for the American army. Rmhermen (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I left out St. John's Island in my list above. I'm not as familiar with its history and the reasons why it chose to remain loyal. Marco polo (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Marco polo's points about Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, note that Ontario and New Brunswick were largely founded by United Empire Loyalist, who were the Americans that opposed the revolution and moved north to escape persecution for their beliefs. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Quebec Act was one of the intolerable acts that led to the Revolution; the Americans weren't very happy about Quebec, and as mentioned, Quebec was much better off with all the rights guaranteed to them by the British. Americans had tried to capture Quebec in 1690 and tried again during the revolution in 1775, so the Canadians weren't especially keen on joining them. As Marco Polo said, Nova Scotia was more dependent on Britain than the American colonies, and became a refuge for American loyalists. The boom in population led to the creation of New Brunswick out of Nova Scotia, and Upper Canada and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec) out of what was previously just Canada/Quebec. That turned out to be tough luck for Quebec though, since the Francophones began to be marginalized after the arrival of all those English-speaking loyalists. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few things I remember from my days as a law student more than thirty years ago is a statement from my International Law supervisor, that the only successful modern example of acquisition of territory by conquest was the British acquisition of Quebec; and he claimed that a major factor was that the British government offered free passage back to France for any French settlers who wanted it. He said that (IIRC) 80 000 took up the offer, but those who chose to stay remained loyal twenty years later. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your professor seems have forgotten the western conquests of the USA (from Mexico and the Indians). Another candidates are the eastern Polish territories (which were handed over to the USSR - later Russia) and the eastern German territories (which were handed over to Poland). Also succesful and way more recent than Quebec. I'm sure that there are some more. Flamarande (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karelia, Tibet, Northern Cyprus to name a few. Alansplodge (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two main population centers of what we now call "Canada" at the time of the American Revolution were Nova Scotia and Quebec. There was some pro-revolutionary sentiment in Nova Scotia at the time; however, the British military presence in the province, relative to the civilian population, was too strong as to allow any kind of real revolutionary activity.
Quebec was an interesting case. On one hand, as noted above, the colonists were not happy about Britain allowing a Catholic society to remain north of the border. Remember, a lot of the early American settlers were fiercely anti-Catholic. On the other hand, once the war got going, the rebels tried to get the Quebeckers on their side. However, the French-Canadians knew the British would respect their religion and culture to some degree, but they weren't so sure about the Puritan New Englanders, wartime wooing notwithstanding.
Also keep in mind that Quebec, unlike the colonies, did not have an elected colonial legislature that could side against the crown (as did the 13 Colonies), nor did it have an independent militia. Everything was run directly by the crown. The British had only won Quebec in 1763, so it was still largely a British military zone, not a century-old self-governing colony like its neighbors.
The Americans tried to take Quebec during the war and in fact held Montreal for a little bit, managing to alienate the local populace by paying for goods with worthless Continental paper currency. Even after the war, the Americans didn't give up hope that Canada would join the new republic. The Articles of Confederation had a provision to allow Canada, and only Canada, to join the country. In the War of 1812, the Americans invaded again, expecting to be welcomed as liberators. Unsurprisingly, the descendants of those forced to flee the 13 Colonies during the previous war due to their pro-British sentiments had other ideas. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- U.S/Canada tensions immediately post Revolutionary War continued for decades. See Origins of the War of 1812, while there were some tensions with European Britain which cannot be discounted in starting the War of 1812, much of the "trade" issues mentioned in the article dealt with trade along the U.S./Canada frontier areas, and British support of Native American military incursions occured via Canada. Several decades later, the Fenian raids threatened to flare up into full-fledged war again, indeed they were largely responsible for British support of the Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War. --Jayron32 05:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago I researched and posted some info about the various British colonies in North America other than "the thirteen" and why they did not join the thirteen in open rebellion. Notes about it toward the end of this section: Talk:Thirteen Colonies#Why are they important. I found there were some interesting points, especially regarding Nova Scotia, Canada (ie, Quebec), the West Indies, and, even more so, Bermuda & the Bahamas (yes, I realize these last examples are not Canada!) Pfly (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Why does the US, which claims to support religious freedom, actively fund Israel, which is a theocratic regime? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Israel-US relations, but the short answer is that it is because it is in the US's strategic interests to do so. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(And by the way, not that it would matter to the answer, but Israel is a democratic republic). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be true; Israel's legal and judicial systems are based on the Talmud! --J4\/4 <talk> 15:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is disputable whether it is in the strategic interest of the United States to fund Israel. Israel's democratic character is also disputable given that millions of adults under its control (Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank) lack the right to vote in Israeli elections and have no representation at all in Israel's government. Without going into the dispute over US strategic interests in the Middle East, I think that a stronger case can be made that the United States supports Israel because many groups and individuals inside the United States strongly support Israel for emotional and/or religious reasons. Because these people are voters and contribute to political campaigns, US politicians seek to win their votes and contributions by voting for financial support for Israel. Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it is really in their interest or not, they think that it is in their interest, that is why. J4V4, a theocracy is a political system where the rulers are named by the religious authorities. In Israel, the rulers are elected, Israel is therefore not a theocracy. --Lgriot (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, influential people in the US military establishment recognize that US support for Israel is a strategic liability. See, for example, this article. Marco polo (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is theocratic, who exactly is the religious leader? Aaronite (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are theocracy and democracy mutually exclusive? Aren't they rather complex designationss, so a state might have some characteristics of democracy but lack others, some characteristics of theocracy but lack others? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, they are not really mutually exclusive, and (almost) all forms of government may in practice have commonalities with other forms of government.

Our Theocracy article discusses further the case of Israel, which does have some "theocratic" aspects. It cites an argument, though, that "such attributes, while appearing somewhat theocratic, do not qualify the country as a theocracy..." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are Christian and Muslim members of the Knesset. Corvus cornix_talk 20:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran has Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian members of its Parliament, but that doesn't in itself mean it is not a theocracy. Warofdreams talk 09:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is simply not a "theocracy" according to any valid meaningful definition of the word, and the aspect of Israel which is most nearly quasi-theocratic -- the "millet" system -- was actually inherited from Muslim Ottoman Turks, and kept in place from 1917-1948 by Christian British imperialists. AnonMoos (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was part of divide and rule, but if I'm not mistaken it results in the odd situation now where agnostic Israelis can't get a civil marriage as they would be able to in North America or Europe. Another case of fairly recent quasi-theocracy was the Irish Republic until, when, the 1980s? Divorce, contraception illegal. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one can get civil marriage in Israel, regardless of religious belief or disbelief. If Europeans don't like that, then maybe they should have done something about it during the thirty years when Israel/Palestine was under European rule (Britain and League of Nations)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your second time asking this question? (Not logged in the first time, in any case, but the language is so similar it's hard to see them as being unrelated.) Did the previous answers not suffice, or are you just soap boxing? --Mr.98 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries have laws based (sometimes tenuously) on current of former religious beliefs and traditions of various flavours. This does not make them theocracies or any other "ocracies", it just reflects the cultural traditions of those who made the laws. Dbfirs 07:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is no more a theocracy than the U.K. is. The U.K., of course, has a state religion (the Church of England), just as Judaism is the officially recognized religion of Israel. Most (but not all) members of the elective assemblies of both countries are members, at least nominally, of the state religion. However, just as in the U.K., Israel guarantees freedom of conscience and freedom of religion for its residents and citizens. See Religion_in_Israel#Religion_and_citizenship, Israel guarantees religious freedom to its citizens, but grants special status to Jews who wish to apply for citizenship under the Law of Return. This doesn't grant these Jewish citizens any priviliged status over any non-Jewish citizens, merely a "fast track" to citizenship commensurate with Israels status as a Jewish homeland. Israels laws which guarantee freedom of religion are outlined here at the U.S. state department and here in Israel's Basic Laws, which serve as a Constitution of sorts. Israeli courts have repeatedly upheald that Israel's Basic Laws guarantee freedom of religion to all of its citizens. --Jayron32 07:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to nitpick on one of your statements there Jayron. The Church of England is the official church of England, not the UK. Jack forbes (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better one: Why does CNN get all excited over any mention of peace talks in the Middle East? They're quick to scream BREAKING NEWS, even though these peace talks always come to nothing. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concentration Camp Protocol

Without getting myself inculpated, am I allowed to ask about the UN with regards to North Korean human rights? Or is that too legally/debatey/inflammatory/not nice? Specifically, (and facty, not emotionally) I would like to ask if there is any "anti-concentration camp" doctrine that was drawn up after the liberation of the camps in WW2 to prevent any future occurance in the instance that the UN would find themselves facing the same issue again? 173.71.19.247 (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not mind questions on this desk even if they are difficult, as long as you are looking for factual information, and not trying to start a debate. I cannot help on UN concentration camp policies specifically. However the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clear: (article 9 and 10) you can only be detained if you have been proven guilty after due process of law. Prisoners in a concentration camp are not usually there after such process. Also the conditions of your detainment must be humane (article 3 and 5) so you cannot work someone to death like the Nazis did. --Lgriot (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may not jibe well with "no debate", but the same declaration applies to Camp X-ray as much as to North Korea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, legally it has been more complicated. The Bush Administration argued that the Guantanamo detainees were not "criminals" and thus don't fall under article 10. They would similarly argue that the detention was not "arbitrary" and did not fall under article 9. Now the argument also hinged on whether or not they were "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions definitions, or whether they were "unlawful combatants" (or "enemy combatants", as they phrased it.) All of which is really just an illustration of the ways in which the UDHR and the Geneva Conventions actually provide states with plenty of wiggle room when it comes to the definitions. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in North Korea certainly makes it clear that the UN has issued direct protests against North Korea's treatment of its own citizens. The 2005 UN resolution on the subject names a number of agreements/treaties/etc. that North Korea is party to but does not respect the terms of. But almost all humans rights aspects of the UN are fairly toothless by themselves. The UN can, if it votes to, intervene in various conflicts where it feels humans rights are being violated or genocide is occurring, and they have done so at times. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC

Ugh, why don't you ask the Karen people how that works out; they've been fighting genocide in Burma since (arguably) 1948. It'd be in everyone's interest there too, given the tremendous economic potential the Burmese and Karen lands have. The problem is, China and Russia block almost every attempt to intervene in these sorts of countries. The moment they relent is the moment they have to face their own serious ethnic issues, which they don't want to do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was very effective. I actually have a pretty dim view of the UN's ability to intervene in a meaningful way on human rights issues. The oldest problem with a UN-like organization is that if you want it to actually be a forum for deliberation, it has to be inclusive, but if it is inclusive, then you have a bunch of extremely unpleasant governments making important decisions, thus never wanting to do anything that would decrease their unpleasantness. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see perfect solution fallacy. We know the current situation is not perfect. But arguably it would be even worse without the UN. As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: I'll maintain that no matter how effective or ineffective it is in practice, it is important as a gesture. At least some of us tried to do the right thing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gestures are a good start, I suppose; in the case of Burma, Zoya Phan and the Burma Campaign UK were at least able to convince the British government to bring it up in front of the UN. But having met people who grew up in communist Albania and under the Shah in Iran, the gestures don't mean too much to the people in these places; they want to see action. The Karen (and Karenni, Yao, Mon... you get the picture) are still living on the edge in Burma, much the same way North Korea is still closed off despite numerous attempts. I'd pretty much agree with Mr.98; on human rights enforcement, the UN is pretty much paralyzed by its very nature. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stephan's point, but yes it would be nice to have a perfect world perfectly administered at every level of organization. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone on here is arguing that the UN is worthless — just that it is in many ways ineffective. I don't see anyone proposing an alternative. The UN is for many reasons just not an effective organization for enacting human rights within sovereign countries. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was trying to say; if I was unclear, I apologize. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UN does not have a military force. So basically, it can mandate, but it can't do anything to enforce its own stuff. I still like the UN, though. Even if its powerless. AdbMonkey (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nasserism vs. Baathism

Why do i have a feeling that Nasserism is more islamic than Baathism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.87 (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since a cursory glance at both articles (wikilinked above for convenience) indicates they are both secular rather than religious movements I doubt we can answer this as your feelings are internal and subjective. Exxolon (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nasser threw a large number of members of the Egyptian Islamic brotherhood into prison, while Saddam Hussein took an Islamic turn during his last dozen years in power, so I'm not sure you're correct. Rather bizarrely, there was an official propaganda story spread that Michel Aflaq supposedly converted to Islam on his deathbed -- apparently even in 1989 Iraq, some Baathists thought that you can't be a true Arab nationalist without also being a Muslim... AnonMoos (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch system in modern times

Does the Royal Navy and other navies keep to the four-hours-on, four-hours-off watch system? If so, isnt it bad to only allow people to sleep for four hours at a time, leading to sleepy inefficient personnel? 92.28.250.99 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant article section: Sleep#Optimal amount in humans. Napoleon was quoted as having said that a man only needs four hours of sleep. On the other hand, I'm going to call him not a sleep expert. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK military personnel are trained to be able to get by on less sleep through (a) learning to deal with the consequences and (b) because your body adapts to shorter sleep patterns if it is forced upon you. Would be interesting to see if there are any studies into the latter or if it's just my personal experience of military training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.8.232 (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They also take speed (amphetamines): "'It is the gold standard for anti-fatigue,' [said] Colonel Peter Demitry, chief of the US Air Force surgeon-general's science and technology division." The Age WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watchstanding#Duration says:

"Watch durations will vary between vessels due to a number of reasons and restrictions. The traditional three-watch system is from the days of sail, where the ships company was divided into three and the day divided into six watches of four-hours duration, such that an individual would keep two four-hour watches each day separated by an eight-hour time for sleep or recreation. Examples of other systems include 4 by 6-hour and 7's and 5's when a warship has half its ships company on watch at a time."

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if a sailor works two 4 hour watches, and gets an 8 hour rest period, what about the other 8 hours? More work, or more goofoff? When doing hard manual labor, a rest period after a four hour watch makes a lot of sense. It was not like sitting in a cubicle and typing on a computer. I've wondered if the "watch clock" got reset when a ship sailed many time zones east or west, which a ship could do in a few days. Edison (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional watch system and Ship's bell go further into the system in use in the Age of Sail, but don't seem to mention the practice of setting ~~the ship's clock~~ ship time to "eight bells in the forenoon watch" at the moment of local noon, whenever weather permitted observation of it (which I know mostly from having read Patrick O'Brian's excellent series of historical novels set in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current practice in the Royal Navy and other navies? 92.28.254.63 (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It varies according to ship, mission, etc., and they are still tweaking it (see eg. [3]). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, which country is the most progressive/liberal?

--75.33.217.61 (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define your terms please. That said, in really general terms the Scandinavian countries tend to get upheld as the most liberal. → ROUX ₪ 21:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find some of the indices listed at List of freedom indices informative. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading this recent question. It is probably somewhat connected to yours. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the Scandinavian countries, Holland is considered to be liberal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should also note that liberal tends to mean different things in the US and Europe. I've never heard any European associate "liberal" with a leftist leaning, for example, while in the US this seems fairly common. Jørgen (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the Liberal Party of Australia is the main conservative party there. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in the US we managed to thoroughly confuse the terminology in the 20th century. Advocates of big-government "progressivism" sometimes called themselves "liberals", despite being, in some ways, the opposite of classical liberals. Now "progressive" and "liberal" are often used as synonyms in the US, which is a bit odd. In the US, and presumably elsewhere, labels can get detached from their original meaning when applied to political parties, and end up meaning the opposite if the policies of the political party changes. During the Bush II administration, for example, his foreign policy was described as "conservative" or "reactionary", though arguably it was the opposite—the words had become unmoored from their literal meanings. —Kevin Myers 01:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Sweden. To me, it takes a very progressive/liberal place of mind to create the furniture that is designed by IKEA. AdbMonkey (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein, magnetism, and romance

The following information is found at Albert Einstein#Early life and education, paragraph 3 (permanent link here).

His father once showed him a pocket compass; Einstein realized that there must be something causing the needle to move, despite the apparent "empty space".

Albert Einstein#Marriages and children discusses two women who were successively married to Einstein. Is there any historical record of Einstein ever pondering the question of what it was about either of his wives that attracted him to her? Alternatively, did he marry either of them on the basis of predominantly mental decisions, with little or no emotional attraction?
—Wavelength (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he married the first one because he had already knocked her up... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He knocked her up" - nice to see we're still in the 21st century characterising a joyful cosmic merging of the spiritual and physical, as him doing something to her. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Einstein was not an analytical robot. Quite the opposite, he was a deeply emotional person, probably more so than average. He might have compared human attraction to magnetism as a joke (he certainly made similar jokes, like the one about the pretty girl and the hot stove), but he wouldn't have seriously held such a simplistic view of it. Isaac Newton, maybe; he was rather strange. But most physicists are perfectly ordinary people outside of their jobs, and Einstein was one of the ordinary ones. -- BenRG (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the connection you are trying to make between the quote about the pocket compass and his his two wives, OP? Could you elaborate? --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth item at 10 Things You Don't Know About Albert Einstein says that, for many years, Einstein was haunted by the question "What force exerted itself on the little needle to make it point in a single direction?" Was he similarly haunted by the question "What qualities in his wife affected him [Einstein] to make him love her romantically?"

—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different uses of the word attracted. Bus stop (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein was interested in physics and in the psychology of war, but I don't think he had any special interest in the psychology of romance. I've never seen anything about it in his published writings or sayings. (Anyway, it's an easier question than the one about the needle. People are, generally speaking, attracted to signs of reproductive fitness, and the reasons for that were already understood at the time of Einstein's childhood. It was much less clear why a piece of iron should bother to align itself to Earth's magnetic field. Even the magnetic force law, though it was known mathematically at the time, didn't make much sense prior to special relativity.) -- BenRG (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that Einstein was haunted by questions of why women loved him. I might suggest that people who are geniuses and know they are geniuses (Einstein wasn't exactly humble) don't spend a lot of time being haunted by the question of why people might like or envy them or whatever. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a guess, but wasn't he notorious for fathering several children out of wedlock, as well as was arrested for assaulting his wife? Wasn't he also unfaithful in his marriages? Wasn't he prone to flying into a rage for the slightest disturbances, such as if wife said "Good morning"? Given that Einstein's reputation seems to indicate that he was completely devoid of any regard for his spouses, I doubt very seriously that he spent much time reflecting upon the qualities that had most attracted him to his wives. It does seem much more probable that Einstein would have, with little or no emotional attachment, been forced into marriage, likely out of traditional and societal taboo to not bear an illegitimate child. AdbMonkey (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]