Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 9

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 9

Do Canadians do anything?

Why is Canada mentioned so rarely in the American media? Canada is the world's 10th wealthiest country, one of America's neighbors, its biggest trading partner, and its biggest supplier of energy. It's the closest thing to an economic and financial powerhouse within several thousand kilometers, yet I very rarely hear any mention of Canada in American news. Why is this the case? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Because in Canada you don't have shootings like in Columbine, millions being evicted, bombing of third nations and an active pop culture industry. Honestly, to report something there must be something to report. Is there a Canadian Paris Hilton?. Add on the top of that that Americans really don't care much about foreign affairs. Wikiweek (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Is there a Canadian <that woman whose name I refuse ever to utter>?" - No other country would dare produce such a creature. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Celine Dion, Justin Bieber? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course. The Canadian versions of Dion and Bieber are Dion and Bieber themselves. I suspect Jack is talking about that American women who might be a distant in-law of one of the members of Monty Python, but maybe not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the USA pretends that everything revolves around themselves. →Στc. 00:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, that comment reveals a nearsighted viewpoint. Or perhaps asigmatism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On what basis is the OP making the claim that Canada is underrepresented in the American media? Could the answer be "it isn't being underrepresented" or "before we can answer your question, could you at least present some evidence before making outrageous and unproven statements?" Answering a question which is itself completely wrong doesn't make any sense. Before we answer the question, can we at least fact-check the premise? Have you stopped beating your wife? I'm not absolutely saying that the OP is incorrect, but we also cannot assume that they are without evidence... --Jayron32 00:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass media has no duty to equally represent news, their business is only to attract viewers which they sell to advertisers. Sooo, what gets coverage in the media is based on what gets viewers, see Missing white woman syndrome for a well known major distortion. Public awareness (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop putting words into my mouth? I never claimed Canada was "underrepresented". In fact, I never claimed anything aside from easily-verifiable facts--that Canada is the world's tenth largest economy, that it's a U.S. neighbor, and so on. My question, for those who couldn't be bothered to read it, was "why is Canada mentioned so rarely in the American media?" That's my personal impression, and you're free to disagree with it. In addition, my not-entirely-serious title was "do Canadians do anything?" suggests that one reason is that Canada has minimal impact on the world, aka that it's NOT underrepresented.

Even if I was claiming that Canada is underrepresented--which I wasn't--I feel sorry for you for considering such a statement outrageous. If you're so insulted by a neutral and non-judgmental statement, why are you on Wikipedia in the first place, and how do you deal with edit wars? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Jayron32 meant anything personal by it, and it is very easy to connect "underrepresented" and "mentioned so rarely". Please try to keep your tone calm, even if someone was being a jerk, it's best to keep calm. Public awareness (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with your premise, and like Jayron I agree you have asked a complex question. Mentioned rarely? A Google News search for just the last 24 hours comes up with stories in the Washington Post, CNN, Bloomberg, Fox, USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, and hundreds of other smaller outlets; stories include the Keystone Pipeline, the Canadian dollar vs other world currencies, a falling satellite (German), labor data, a jobs boost (in Canada, not in the US), and other things. Plenty of coverage. Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Americans were grateful for Canadian efforts to rescue American diplomats during the Iran hostage crisis.

The last actual news out of Canada was their helping to smuggle a bunch of our hostages out of Iran. The operation is known as Yo, Canada!. But plenty of things happen in the US that are news in Canada, like premier Danny Williams flying to the US for heart surgery [1] while his compatriots wait months and die before being allowed to use either of the two MRI's rationed per province under their free national healthcare system. But what does any of this have to do with the reference desk? μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you claim an event that happened over 30 years ago (!) was the last actual news out of Canada, that doesn't say much for your interest in references. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You, know, Jack, it was your claim that I was "in hot water" in the last thread without specifying what it was that I was in hot water for that reminded me of my total lack of respect for you as a racist ni99er joke maker with no sense of irony or self awareness, and, in contrast to myself and others here, very little to say on topics, and all too much to say on personality. Now, if you want to post some news out of Canada that matters to you, feel free. I stand by my assertion that the resscue of the Iranian-held US hostages is the biggest story in the US regarding Canada for the last 35 years if not more. I provided links. What have you provided? But if you intend to continue with these WP:personal attacks I'll simply provide links to your racist nonsense, and maybe file an RfC, but otherwise ignore you. Stick to the topics. No one is impressed by your baseless opinions and personal insults. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant to this thread or even this desk, but I specified exactly what the hot water was about. Quote from the Miscellaneous desk: "You got into hot water when you made the question only about the USA, though it never had any such territorial limitation. That argument was opposed, and you have not defended it. End of issue." But frankly, there's no point carrying on that conversation here, when you haven't done so there. So much for sticking to the topic.

You call me "a racist ni99er joke maker", and say you have no respect for me, yet accuse me of personal attacks and personal insults. Do you see something wrong here?

I responded to your claim that the Iran hostage thing was the "last" news out of Canada, clearly an absurd proposition. Now you're saying it's "the biggest" story in the past 35 years. That is one huge backtrack. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Plus it is absurd and not true. Operation Yellow Ribbon was a pretty big deal. 207.81.30.213 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be surprised to see that that made the front page anywhere, although there is no downplaying the goodlifullness of the assistance. But the rescue of the hostages was the top story for days. Not until the escape of Bambi Bembenek would Canada reappear so in the headlines. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Because Canada is a peaceful, prosperous, democratic country that's always more or less friendly to the United States. Mexico is known for drug wars, assassinations and millions of illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S., so of course it's going to be in the news a lot. Europe has a debt crisis that could wreck the world economy. The Middle East is full of conflict and revolution. But Canada? Do you think it really makes a difference to American viewers who wins the election in Ontario? It's not as if it could lead to a war or communist takeover or something. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That is, basically, the correct answer. It is not like Nebraska or North Dakota or Alabama makes the news either. There was the Trial of Mark Steyn and the last time the Toronto Bluejays or the Montreal Canadiens made the playoffs. Or when John Candy or the naturalized US citizen and 9/11 collateral victim Peter Jennings died. But those events occurred in the US, eh? μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Canada is overrepresented in American news, mentioned more often than other similar places than one would expect given the general criteria that results in news coverage, probably because of its proximity, friendship, and similarity of language and culture. What are those criteria? In broad strokes, conflict. We write more about angst than we do about anything else. We will always write more about beheadings taking place than we will about some peaceful thing happening. Canada, as a relatively stable, peaceful, law abiding, war free place gets far more coverage than other similar conflict free places. Murder, death, violence, war, drugs is bigger news than peaceful topics.--108.54.26.7 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Having lived most of my life in Buffalo and Seattle, I've gotten lots of news out of Canada. Currently an issue that comes up often in the Seattle area is controversy over various pipeline proposals for getting Alberta petroleum products to ports in BC—probably near Vancouver, which would increase tanker traffic in the shared waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Also a coal export terminal proposed to be built near Bellingham, WA, is often compared to a similar BC coal terminal at Westshore Terminals, just barely north of the international border. The coal unit trains that haul coal to Westshore go via Portland, OR, and north through Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, and Bellingham. I can't speak for US news in general, but regionally, Canadian news is certainly important for US regions near Canada--especially economic news that would effect transnational regions. Canadian political news doesn't tend to be paid as much attention. But even there, the fall of the Liberal party and various votes of no confidence and other crises have made some newsfall down here ("newsfall"?). Pfly (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Due to the fact that we haven't been at war with Canada since they were a British colony and when The Star-Spangled Banner was written, there's not a whole lot of reason for Canada to be in the news all the time. We think of them as harmless, or mostly harmless. There was a bit of a tiff over them harboring draft dodgers in the 1960s, but that was awhile back. One answer would be one time on Whose Line Is It Anyway? where host Drew Carey said that the points awarded to the performers on the show "mean nothing. They're like spy planes over Canada." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I happen to know from very reliable sources that Canadians with their small beady eyes are planning to invade America and warp the fragile little minds of the children!-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting responses, everyone. It looks like my original impression that Canada isn't in the news very much is inaccurate, especially for regions near the border.

@Jayron: sorry if my previous post seemed like a personal attack. I was very surprised that anyone would consider a question like "why is Canada rarely in the news?" to be outrageous. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken here. I didn't say the question was outrageous; I even allowed that the supposition may have actually been correct.(read my post again, and pay special attention to the words which say "I'm not absolutely saying that the OP is incorrect". What I meant by that was that I was not absolutely saying that you were incorrect). However, what you have not done is presented any studies or data which show that the number of Canadian stories in the newsmedia is less than one should expect given their size and proximity to the U.S. You have made the supposition in your question; it may be a true supposition or it may be a false supposition, but so far we have not yet established it one way or another. We cannot answer why a supposition is true if, in fact, it has not been shown to be true in the first place! That's all I am asking; it is not outrage that I express, just healthy skepticisim in the face of an utter lack of evidence to support the idea. Again, I have not said you were wrong, I have just said that you have not established that you are right. Without establishing that first, the rest of the discussion takes on no meaning; people could just as well be arguing to justify a "fact" which, it may turn out, isn't true to begin with. What would THAT mean? --Jayron32 23:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Was this actually spam? I demand an answer. Dualus (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Study strategies for history

What are some helpful strategies for studying history at a pre-college level? What approach should the student take when studying a topic, e.g. a historic culture or historical period? What would be helpful for the student to pay attention to or keep in mind?

For test taking, are there general categories that history questions can be put into? If the answer is yes, what would be some strategies for dealing with the different types of questions?

Any help will be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.148.216 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's memorization of facts, like dates, for which flash cards are good. For the more detailed understanding of the relationships between different historical forces, perhaps doing study questions is best. If the test is all multiple choice, true/false, matching and fill in the blank, then it's likely to be mostly about facts. If it's an essay, then it's more about historic forces (although you should sprinkle a few facts in, too). StuRat (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I knew my world history 1400-1900 and all world cities by age 16 by playing video games like Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun and Europa Universalis II. But thats just a personal thing and it doesn't teach specifics of actual battles, but if you asked me I could draw you a detailed map of Europe during any period during those centuries. Details come easier once you know the big picture I think, I mean, what's the point of knowing all about the Battle of Austerlitz if you don't know the map of Europe and who the great powers were at the time. And of course the main benefit is that it's passive learning that's enjoyable. Public awareness (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty of pre-college history is that it is really an area dominated by history buffs rather than historians. Hence the emphasis is on memorization and (frankly) trivia, rather than deep historical understanding, period awareness, or historical empathy. (I say this as an historian, one who hated history before college.)

My recommendations, as an historian and a teacher, follow:

1. Visualization helps a lot. Going through lists of vocabulary and dates doesn't work well for most people. (If it does for you, you probably wouldn't have asked.) When I need to learn about something, I try to find out what it looked like, because I find I can remember images a lot better than words. (This is not a new, or original, observation — see Art of memory.) So if I've got to memorize something about a person, I find out what he or she looked like. I can usually remember the visual later, and work backwards to other facts from there.

2. History has a form and a structure on which the facts hang. Focus on the "skeleton" of history first — big movements, big changes, big shifts. Learn the big picture first and primarily. Focus on the major movements. Once you know those, filling in the little details — the exact proclamations, battles, books, what have you — comes a lot easier. If you focus on the details (as the buffs would do it), you will miss the big picture. If you have lost the big picture, you will easily commit stupid gaffes like putting the wrong ideas in the wrong century and things of that nature. If you know the big picture, you can often work backwards to infer the probable details, as well. In any case, once you have a scaffold of a big picture, the little facts — the specific years and dates — are a lot easier to "hang" onto them. It saves you from memorizing what feels like a lot of unconnected things — find the connections first, then work backwards for the details.

3. Writing will teaching you more than reading. Reading is important! But writing is what makes us really learn things. If you spend time reading and understanding something and then re-writing it in your own words, or with your own conclusions, and really put thought into what you write (not just parroting a book), you will really understand it better. It forces you to synthesize rather than memorize. It keeps the information from just going in one ear and out the other. Neurologically it probably involves creating a new little network of memories connected to other parts of the brain, I don't know. But if I write something down, I generally know it for a huge amount of time, and deeply. If I just read it, I can forget it within a week.

I don't know if these will help with you, but they do reflect my own approach to this, and I've done this for a long time now. I'm not any better at memorizing things than the average person — probably worse. I was horrible with flash cards and high school history. People are often very impressed with how many facts and dates I remember now — but that's not because I sat down with the idea of memorizing them, it's because I've worked to set up a framework in my head that holds it all together, and keeps the really important things fresh and interesting to me. Whether this approach will work in a buff-like atmosphere, I don't know. I'd love to believe it would, but I don't know. It's a more worthwhile way to approach the study of history, though, in my opinion. One of the reasons I started editing Wikipedia was because it gave me a chance to write about topics of interest, without the barrier of coming up with something new each time as is required by an academic setting. What I write, I know. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a historian, but unlike Mr.98, I'm not (yet) a teacher. Mr.98's advice is excellent. I'd just like to point out that some high school syllabus (NSW HSC, for example) is focused on real history. Here Mr.98's point 2 is even more important, the story, theory, structure and process of history is the key. As an aside, the UK university system publishes some quite nice 100 page primers aimed at final year high school / first year university students. These combine narrative, major analyses, documents and questions together. If you can get your hand on text books that combine primary and secondary source analysis, with guided theoretical questions, and the narrative you'll have something worth (perhaps even exciting) enough to read. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(and a good thing I'm choosing to answer this question, and not the one above it ... <looking for right emoticon :)>) I can only add to these excellent answers by saying that I'm not a historian, but as an ex history student, the main thing I regret was not focusing hard enough on primary sources, and the debates surrounding them. Somehow they seem to crystallise a lot of knowledge, and gather it around an intense focal point, especially as one goes back further in history, and source material generally becomes scarcer. Writing is indeed important, and if you are working on an essay, start drafting early (another regret of mine; do as I say, not as I do JJ). Another thing that has helped me to get more value is looking over past essays with a critical eye, as a wiser editor, with some emotional distance from the dubious generalisations I wrote in my youth. And don't be afraid to memorise a few core facts that keep popping up in your reading. And finally, at least read a chapter of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall - you'll thank me later. Generally speaking, eloquent writing is worth something in this field, because it keeps you enthralled for page after page. It's been emotional (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Even at that level, noticing and briefly commenting on any bias in sources, will always be appreciated by examiners. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, the Military trivia publisher "Osprey" publishes an "Essential Histories" series—I can only speak for the fact that their Korean War one was a decent primer. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Cult leader

How to become a famous and influential cult leader? --Tyour (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Like Joseph Stalin? →Στc. 05:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Or Jim Jones? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Like Lyndon LaRouche --Tyour (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer would seem to be to find a cause that you think some people will identify with, and then advertise - which should be easy on the internet. It also helps to have unshakeable confidence that you're in the right. The question might be, how large a cult do you want? If you're in the USA, running for some political office might work, especially if your views stand out from the crowd somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Although perhaps not exactly the thing you are looking for, I find it close enough. Timothy Leary wrote a small book called How to start your own religion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone is influential, does that disqualify them from being "cult" leaders? For example, Jones and LaRouche were famous, or maybe "infamous" would be the better term, but how influential were they, beyond selling newspapers? And if Leary was significantly influential, does it really count as a "cult"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Be a very good liar. So good, you'll end up believing yourself.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Another way to put it is, learn to be a salesman. A salesman has to not only lie, but to believe the lie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really hang together, Bugs. A lie is a statement made by someone who knows it is untrue. If I truly believe Henry VIII was Mexican and I say so, I am not lying, just making a false statement. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you truly believe in it you start seeing evidence everywhere. You write a book about it, start a meme, get into debates, and pretty soon you'll have a small rabid following of HenryVIIIisMexican-ites. You'll move them to tears with rousing speeches of suppression of the truth by the anti-HenryVIIIisMexican-ites. You'll acquire a logo, a secret code, grandmothers will give you all their money for the cause. You give some of it back in save-the-Henry-VIII-Mexican-memorabilia charities. You establish a HenryVIIIisMexican-ite cathedral and buy a fleet of limos, a helicopter, a private yacht, and a lear jet with the rest. Politicians will start respecting your voting block, you'll get political clout and get exempted from taxes. You acquire a radio station, then a TV station. You start filming your rousing speeches and more and more people join your cause. And more grandmas give you money. By the time you die hooked to the latest medical equipment in your palatial private mansion attended by the best doctors in your giant bed, you're now a saint.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

See our article, Cult, and also Charismatic authority, which our Cult article invokes religiously. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You need three things: Charisma, heavies, and lots of money, honey.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Этика

Чем отличается этика от нравственности и морали? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.186.94.59 (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, the section title is "Ethics" and the question is "What distinguishes ethics from morality?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess one might link directly to ru:Этика and ru:Мораль to help answer this homework question . --ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

188.186.94.59: Смотрите также ru:Мораль#Мораль и нравственность и ru:Нравственность#Нравственность и мораль. --Theurgist (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The first word is Greek and the second is Latin. There is no consensus distinction, and I am not aware of any major thinker who opposes the terms. It does seem that in English morality, the less learned word, is more commonly used in conjunction with religious viewpoints and ethics, the less common word among laymen, is more used in technical philosophy. But this is a matter of usage, not a fundamental distinction in meaning. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For those who can't readily understand the original question in Russian, here is what the person asks as literally as possible: "By what does этика differ from нравственность and мораль?" Three terms are included in the poster's question, not just two. --Theurgist (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The third term translates to Sittlichkeit which is an obscure concept of Hegel's apparently. (I had noticed the third word but assumed it was being used as a synonym for morals. The comparison of two such broad concepts with such an esoteric one seems to imply some unstated context.) I have only read Hegel third hand so cannot comment. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on Hegel which tries to explain the concept. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/ μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The saying is something along the lines of the ethical man knowing the difference between right and wrong and the moral man doing what is right. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gov. Brown

Is there some website where I can see a listing of all the California State Legislature bills that Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed or signed into law (for the batch from the most recent session, that is)? Today (Oct. 9) is the last day for the governor to sign some 600 bills sent to him by the Legislature during that session: Is there some place where I can see a listing of all of these and the action taken upon each? Neutrality^talk 09:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The California State Legislature Information page allows you to search for bills from as far back as 1993. It does not provide a neat listing of all of the bills that Brown has signed or vetoed, but you can see which bills have had status changes each day of the month. Looking at today's Assembly updates, for instance, shows which he has signed and vetoed today. It's easy to see which he has vetoed, because there is a link to the veto message with each. For those that he hasn't vetoed, you will need to view the bill history to see if it has been approved. Unfortunately, the website does not provide links to each day's activities as far as I can find; you will have to manually edit the URL to change the date. There are also different updates for both the Assembly and the Senate, so you would have to look through both. Another option is to use their search function and perform a keyword search on "Vetoed by Governor" and "Approved by the Governor", which are the two lines added into the text of the bills after the Governor takes action. I've tested this method, however, and I've found that the text of the bills are not updated on a daily basis, so the information is not as complete.

The Legislature is beta testing a new site which will hopefully have improved functionality, but as of right now, there doesn't seem to be a place to find a neat, concise list like you would like.

I hope this helps answer your question. Below are citations to the websites mentioned. This question was answered by a library-in-training as part of the monthly Slam the Boards! event. 64.189.89.246 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Official California Legislative Information". Retrieved October 9, 2011.

"Beta Site for California Legislative Information". Retrieved October 9, 2011.

Thank you. It's rather unfortunate that the Legislature (or the Governor's Office) doesn't compile this info in neater form! Neutrality^talk 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would most non-religious people tend to be liberals on non-social issues and why would religious people tend to be conservatives on non-social issues?

Most of the atheists I’ve heard or come across with who are into American politics said that they were either Democrats or just liberals. Some of the atheists I know used to be Christians & while they were Christians, they were not only social conservatives, but fiscal & national defense conservatives too. I decided to do some research to see what surveys, polls, & studies have to say about this. Sure enough, the surveys, polls, & studies confirm that if you’re either an atheist or just believe in evolution; most likely you would likely be a Democrat &/or a liberal. [2] [3] [4] [5] I noticed as well, based some of the links that follows, that it looks like most in scientific community are definitely not conservatives nor Republicans. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

I can see why many secular people are opened about the following issues that Democrats &/or liberals support or are at least opened to do so & which Christian conservatives &/or Republicans don’t support nor are opened to do so: Abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, man-made global warming, big bang, extraterrestrial life, separation of church & state, etc. What I don’t understand is this: It also seems that those people who have other politically left-leaning views such as: those who support taxing the rich, social security, for more government control over small businesses, giving amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S, more gun control; & those who are against the death penalty, the Iraq &/or Afghanistan wars, the Tea Party, the phrase “Drill baby drill,” etc. are also more likely to either be atheists or believe in evolution, & those who are against these things are likely not to be. Why does all this seem to be the case? What are the secular or religious connections to views on fiscal, national defense issues, & the death penalty? Also, since there’s a decline in Christian fundamentalism & Christianity in general in the U.S; does that mean that there’s a decline of Republicans & Republican influence in the U.S too? Willminator (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Because Jesus taught us that forgiveness, sharing, acceptance, unconditional kindness and love are all evil sinful things. Oh wait... -- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You are starting with a major flawed assumption. Please do not equate religiousness with fundamentalism. Not all religious Christians are fundamentalists, nor are they all conservative in their politics. Indeed, there are many extremely religious Christians who are liberal in their politics precisely because their interpretation of Christ's message guides them to support the liberal viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the other way around (to the original assertion) in the UK. Most famously in 1983, the Church of England published a report called Faith in the City which "created a large amount of controversy when it was published, as one of its conclusions was that much of the blame for growing spiritual and economic poverty in British inner cities was due to Thatcherite policies." Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You have lumped together all the stereotypical Republican Party platform stances, and lumped together all the stereotypical Democratic Party platform stances. You have not provided any references that show that your assertions about religion and these stances are true. Do you have any references? They might point the way to an answer (if your assertions are indeed true and not just assumptions). Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Even so, religionists in general emphasize living the straight-and-narrow in hopes of a better hereafter; whereas non-religionists don't believe in a hereafter, so they tend to emphasize the here-and-now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

, Bugs. Atheists have children, too, and if our original poster is correct, it's the howling atheists who are more inclined to attempt to take care of the Earth, which is not a here-and-now proposition. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The belief or non-belief in an afterlife is central to the answer to the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there some relevant Reference Desk question here? If this is just to be yet another debate based on stereotypes it needs to be closed. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your suspicion may well be correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is indeed based on "stereotypes", but the OP is asking for an explanation of those stereotypes, which can be answered completely objectively. Additionally, a stereotype is not necessarily invalid. I've found the OP's impressions to be very accurate for US politics, even if, as Alansplodge said, it doesn't necessarily hold for other countries. Even if the OP's stereotype is invalid, suppressing discussion of its origins and/or validity is hardly the best way to enlighten the OP or other readers of the reference desks.

Finally, I'm also interested in the OP's question, and would appreciate further responses. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To equate "religious" with "conservative" is simply inaccurate (not to mention being quite offensive to many religious liberals)... even in the US. Now, if you narrow the question to "why do many Christian fundamentalists hold conservative political views?" we might be able to answer the question. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is in U.S. politics these days, where invective has replaced debate, is hardly indicative of much, unfortunately. The common thread I do see is that people like people like themselves—and so, extremists attract extremists, based mainly on self-appointed high-ground against an immoral enemy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I feel this thread should have been left closed but I would note that whatever misconceptions and inaccuracies the OP has expressed, they never seemed to suggest all religious people in the US hold conservative views etc. Rather they used a lot of WP:weasel words like many, most, most likely, more likely, tend to etc which ultimately suggest they're saying a majority of religious people have conservative views etc. I'm not of course saying that these statements are any more accurate. (And there's still the problem of lumping all the views together.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don’t feel like explaining again what I was intending to ask as that will be too energy-draining and time consuming for me. You know what I mean? However, I will say a few things: My intention was not to stereotype anyone. Now, read the whole entire articles (sources): 1, 2, 3, and 4. After that, read the these whole entire articles (sources): 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Now go back and carefully reread my question above and hopefully, you’ll understand at least the idea of what I’m trying to ask. I apologize if my question has ended up being too controversial or confusing. Regards to all of you. Willminator (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a brilliant and well-researched question, tidily expressed and sincerely asked. Please continue to do things like this, and ignore some of the bizarre comments that spring up. In advance of finding the time to look at your references (which I will certainly bookmark at the very least) I can only say that I will take your point on trust, and answer on hypothetical grounds, that is, assuming the facts stated are true. You are asking a very deep "why" question, and it will involve some speculation. Since you have received a reasonable and intelligent reply to the effect that it is quite the reverse in the UK, you can certainly take it that the experience is not universal, and therefore not the result of large-scale political forces tending towards conservatism or liberalism. I suspect it is more about division and the self-interested nature of politics in practice, that is, in most countries there would seem to be two major political parties, aligned with two major divisions, roughly, status quo vs. anti-status quo. When a new issue arises, it can either be shuffled off to the side if it doesn't fit these debates (concerns about tv and video game violence don't seem to follow political divisions) or it can be incorporated somehow. The manner of incorporation depends on circumstances, as far as I can tell, so whether your party likes freedom of speech or not will be unpredictable from a theoretical standpoint. But there is a tendency to the bipartite division, apparently because there just isn't room in people's heads for confusing alignments along multiple axes. The divisions occur because people in debates tend to force them - in Iran, the moment someone talks about freedom, the government simply says that they are just being American, and they want to be like the West, and the people can't talk about it anymore. By using existing divisions, and recasting a debate along those lines, they can force a new and sensible discussion into the pattern caused by existing hatred.

I cannot provide a researched answer at this time, but the very interesting observation about the UK says that we have a way of using examples to show the manner of division in politics and how it occurs (I have given a less valid, but reasonable, example about Iran to advance the discussion also). I hope we can do better than the chaos above. It's been emotional (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, to respond to one point in the above odd response, TV and video game violence does follow partisan lines unfortunately in the US; the Democratic Party is the one that is typically concerned, while the Republican Party doesn't care nearly as much, because of the "less government in all things" mantra. Change the subject to "sex on TV" and "sex in video games" and it flips back the other way. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In the US, at least, most people who call themselves "Christians" really aren't, in that they don't believe in the teachings of Christ, which include pacifism, caring for the poor, avoiding the accumulation of wealth, etc. What they actually believe is the Old Testament, which is more about killing and/or enslaving your enemies and taking all their stuff. In that context "Christians" being for the rich keeping all their money makes more sense. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not logical to claim that believing in the Old Testament is contrary to Christianity. Jesus not only believed in the Old Testament, his teachings claimed it as the supreme authority for all religious matters. Of course, his other teachings are not necessarily consistent with (his) Scripture, just like how Christians today don't necessarily behave in accordance to the Bible, and just like how the Bible itself is not internally consistent. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If by "not necessarily consistent" you mean the polar opposite, then I agree. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

140, if you are interested in the original question, I suggest you leave off-topic remarks to themselves. I am trying to answer the question constructively, but I cannot do so on my own. Comet Tuttle has made a valid and interesting point, but I have come across several references that disagree quite strongly, though none of them would be reliable sources. [11] mentions a Republican campaigner against video game violence, [12] refers (at the bottom of the article) to several Republican initiatives (although it also acknowledges the Republican aversion to government intervention at the same time), and this same article talks about a Republican campaigner who is against regulation, but seems to suggest he is fine with sex. In the context of the OP's question, it only means there is a case where something doesn't follow party lines, seemingly (unless Comet Tuttle can give a reference, which I would be keen to read). It is a rare case of an issue that is publicly significant, but not politically fixed.

This story quotes the then-president of the Entertainment Software Association as saying that the 2004 wave of attempts to restrict video game sales and content as being mostly initiated by Democrats; he attributed this to the Democrats having lost the 2004 elections on values, and attacking the relatively non-powerful video game industry was a calculated political move to try to appeal to "values" voters. Certainly Democrat Hillary Clinton and mostly-Democrat Joe Lieberman are the two headliners in this type of crusade that come to mind for me. Of course if this 2004 wave was politically motivated it would presumably decrease over time, and I'm not aware of a long term survey of which political party has tried to lean on video games more over the years. The Video Game Voters Network should be keeping track. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for getting back to me. I'll check out those sources more fully some time, but I have read in the past that it doesn't strictly follow party lines. Not to suggest there aren't party concerns relevant to this issue, as you have pointed out. It's been emotional (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, having read the OP's sources (and having checked the archives to make sure they were attached with the original question), I can say they fully back up the assertions made, and that anyone can read where he says in his second paragraph that it seems those who have other politically left-leaning views (etc.) are more likely to be atheists. The list of views is not deeply critical to the question; we know that Republicans/Democrats tend to be aligned on many issues (unless someone wishes to prove to the contrary), and we can see some kind of link between those views and the ideologies of those parties. The question was about atheism in this context. I can only say that in Australia, instead of being one way or the other, it is something the major parties avoid discussing publicly. I even once saw Julie Bishop on Q&A go out of her way to say nothing when the question was put to her. I think it has nothing to do with left and right per se, so someone in the US might want to show what the particular considerations are. It's been emotional (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

StuRat made a comment, which I criticized as inaccurate. I fail to see how my remark was any more off-topic than StuRat's. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add previously that whenever there's a discussion about politics or about Obama on Christian radio and TV here in the U.S, almost always there's a politically conservative slant not just on the scientific, social, and cultural issues, whch are more understandable from a religiously conservative point of view, but on economic, national defense, and other issues as well that don't seem to have anything to do with religion. I have heard Christian radio and have watched Christian TV enough to know that's the case. Willminator (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you've followed this up. I think there's some kind of pattern here, and that is, there are plenty of left-wing religious people, who don't wear their faith on their sleeve. Those who do tend to be more conservative, especially when they argue for teaching their religious beliefs as fact (or anything similar). Religion per se is not a left vs. right issue, but opposing the separation of church and state is very much a conservative belief. I don't mean to say this holds universally, only that I think your point is correct, and it has something to do with a tendency among religious people to be more public about their beliefs when they are conservative, and hold to some idea of connecting religion directly with politics. I don't know how this works in practice in America, and as you suggest, there would appear to be fewer left-wing than right-wing Christians, whether they are open about it or not. Perhaps Christianity in America has simply become identified with the right, and therefore lost appeal with the left, having had its image tarnished. I hope I've been at least slightly helpful, but I too was looking for some kind of historical discussion, perhaps relating it to educational standards - I've heard that Christians in the US decided to forgo the task of educating ministers in order to attract more priests, leading to a de-intellectualisation of Christianity. Perhaps this has some bearing on the political situation?? It's been emotional (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Having checked a few sources, I should just admit that any claim about low educational standards of ministers in the US at the moment is definitely false, but what I read (only in a book review at Amazon) concerned the historical development of American Christianity. Feel free to enlighten me, anyone, but I might do some reading then ask it as my own question. Sorry if I misled anyone. It's been emotional (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

---

quibbling over whether this is a valid question stays above this line; potential answer below. thank you for respecting this dividing line.

To answer the OP's question (loosely, because it's very broad), what you are seeing is two different loci of fear that are pretty much endemic in free societies:

1. The fear that other members of society (left uncontrolled) will destroy the social and moral fabric of the community. This is an intrinsically conservative fear, and you can see it in almost every conservative talking point: abortion, birth control, marijuana (creates 'loose' women and dissipated youth); taxes and 'big government' (takes resources away from tight-knit communities to benefit distant and untrustworthy strangers); evolution and other forms of intellectualism (draws youth away from traditional values); death penalty, strong laws, pro-war attitudes (active defense against any threat to the established 'good' society)
2. The fear that other members of society (left uncontrolled) will do vast harm to people outside of their tight-knit communities. This is an intrinsically liberal fear, and you can see it in almost every liberal talking point: civil rights, opposition to warfare, opposition to abuses of power (causes harm to 'outsiders' in unsavory ways); environmentalism (destruction of collective properties like water, air and forest for the benefit of a greedy few); anti-corporatism (poor treatment of workers, poor management of public resources).

In short, conservatives live in a world in which they feel they need to protect themselves and those close to them from the influences of unsavory outsiders, while liberals live in a world in which they feel the need to protect everyone from the the willful abuses of powerful factions. As far as I'm concerned they both have a point, but that may be because I don't have a lot of fear on either account. it takes an extraordinary effort to step past your fears to see the broader perspective. --Ludwigs2 16:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

American conservatism (at least since the Regan era) is essentially an uneasy alliance between social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and small government libertarians. Fundamentalist Christians do tend to be social conservatives, and so Fundamentalist TV and Radio broadcasts will reflect that uneasy alliance. However, Fundamentalists TV is primarily about promoting a particular brand of religious dogma... and so they will put a religious spin on everything they talk about. Even fiscal matters. Conservatives who are not Fundamentalists will not do this. Note... the Religious Left will also talk about fiscal issues in religious terms. For the extremely religious, no matter what their political viewpoint, everything is viewed through a religious lens. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple responses. A general thesis on capitalist society holds that ideology, or structured political beliefs, governs the accumulation of power. A particularly useful conception here is Gramsci's concepts of hegemony and counter-hegemony. For Gramsci, hegemony is the structure of bourgeois beliefs that cement the structure of society as it is—a key example of this is conservative religion. Counter-hegemonies, on the other hand, mobilise a structured resistance to bourgeois rule, as lead by the proletariat. If we look at organised proletarian institutions that oppose the current social structure, such as some labour parties or revolutionary political parties, trade unions and community organisations, there is a high degree of correlation between opposition to the culture of society and opposition to the economic organisation of society. If we look at disorganised proletarian institutions, like working class culture in areas of long term working class resistance there is often a high degree of religious non-observance, or personally chosen observance in opposition to religious hierarchies, there is often a greater toleration of de facto sexual freedom. So there is a correlation between capitalism and bourgeois culture, and between anti-capitalism and proletarian culture. There's also a significant correlation between authoritarian religion and bourgeois culture, and between militant atheism atheism non-observant religion and personally decided observance and proletarian culture. We can understand that working class atheists would be beguiled by US liberalism, much like workers with conservative religions are beguiled by conservatism—this is precisely the function of hegemony. This is all well and good, but it doesn't explain why US liberalism, which is very much an element of bourgeois hegemony in the US, supports a kind of liberal episcopalian / liberal dissent / liberal atheism. Herbert Marcuse would argue that secular culture in the US provides an equivalent socially cohering function to religion, and that television replaces the church in hegemony. This could be compared to the co-aligned fights, where British Liberals and British Chartists in the 19th century both fought against British Tories for parliamentary reform—that the culture of the "left" of bourgeois politics shared much with the culture of the proletarian movement. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers that have been provided here so far. I also forgot to talk about American conservative websites like Conservapedia that is politically conservative. Yet, it talks about Christianity a lot from religiously conservative point of view. This is another source that goes with my previous previous posts above. Anyway, thanks again for you're answers. I see that progress is now being made here. Willminator (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

US Constitutional Convention

Which Constitution amendments have been proposed by Lawrence Lessig? 208.54.38.162 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In the time it took you to type that out, you could have Google "lawrence lessig constitutional amendment" and hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button and found this article by Lessig which explains his position. If you have more questions, don't hesitate to ask on here, but do a little Googling yourself, first. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That links to http://action.change-congress.org/page/s/amendpetition which appears to be dead. Where is the text of the amendment? Which ones at http://convention.idea.informer.com/ are Lessig's? 64.134.157.164 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Found it!

"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power to limit, though not to ban, campaign expenditures of non-citizens of the United States during the last 60 days before an election."[13]

Can someone explain how that would get corporate money out of politics? 64.134.157.164 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think if it would get it out. Did someone suggest it would? The reason some want it is related to the decision at Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, there is extensive discussion in the article on the concerns relating to the ruling. BTW this appears to be the original full text [14] Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It is aimed at corporations and PACs, which are both non-citizens. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why 60 days? Why not forever? 208.54.38.211 (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps the first amendment ought to still mean something, irregardless of how people are assembled. In any case, this isn't the place to have a forum about stuff. Shadowjams (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

L'Hemingway

I was having a discussion with a coworker last night who is also a student of foreign language. I posited that English is a terrible language. She related what her linguistics professor once said about Hemingway. In one Hemingway's shorter works is beautiful and fulfilling, while being a quick read. When translated into French, however, the work is at least twice as thick and very boring. Does this story strike a chord with anyone? Thanks Wikipedians! Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 19:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's simply because translations are necessarily worse than the original —technically that doesn't have to be true, but in my experience even great translations fail to convey the original meaning with 100% fidelity. --Belchman (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure one could easily find another great work of French literature that becomes unwieldy and unimpressive when translated into English. —Akrabbim^talk 21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For more pondering than most people would ever want or need on the topic of translation, I recommend Le Ton beau de Marot by Douglas Hofstadter. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting article [15] that finds that translations (at least English-Portugeuse ones) are indeed longer than the source text, on average. Somewhat less related, here's an interesting article about the formatting issues with translations. We also have a very detailed translation article, though I'm not seeing much discussion about the length of text changing. Buddy431 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the quality of the work, but in general French is a wordier language than English. I'm not surprised that translating a work from English to French would make it considerably longer; I would expect (though cannot prove), that a work translated the other way would be considerably shorter. --Jayron32 23:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think by "twice as thick", the original poster didn't mean the length, but meant that the short stories are difficult to struggle through because of their boring prose. I've read Hemingway in Spanish but not in French so can't express an opinion on the original question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not literally twice as thick but it is almost surely longer in the French translation. I've seen many programming courses advise that you leave plenty of extra space in your original English if you're expecting your program to be translated into French or Spanish, and my personal experience seems to confirm this. I don't know if it's entirely because of the nature of the language or because translations tend to be wordier as they struggle to catch the original meaning. --Belchman (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

English sentence structure tends to have more "optional" parts than the Romance languages: if you do a word-for-word translation from one of those languages (especially if you're translating instructions), you'll find that you can drop about 20% of the words and get something that feels like "natural" English. --Carnildo (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I managed to read the Silmarillion in French translation in the summer between high school and college. (I bough that and Dune in German in Switzerland on my senior trip.) The effect was entirely different, much more aetherial, less earthy. Dwarves are not at all the same when you call them nains. Especially since that sounds like "nah" (meaning the opposite of yeah) in English. I have found many French and Russian novels ruined (by which I mean unreadble past 20 pages) by stilted or affected translation. I was unable to read Hugo's '93 (Quatrevingt-treize) until I got the edition with Ayn Rand's introduction. Not having read the French I can't speak for the fidelity, but that translation was a transparent delight. There was no sense of it being forced or false. Back to the Silmarillion, that book is generally considered difficult in English. I think a native French speaker might actually have found the French less difficult than the English for a native speaker, given that Tolkien's archaicisms just come accross as the normal French conventions in literature like the use of the passé simple. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I read about this in Le Ton beau de Marot, but the English translation of La Disparition is in some ways more impressive than the original. Pfly (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" is significantly longer (and more difficult to read) in English than in French. Mostly this is because concepts that just make sense to French readers need to be explained to English readers. This is typical of any translation: sophisticated works that use the full power of a given language will run into troubles in different languages where the linguistic powers are different. As I understand it, English is a particularly good technical language (the syntax in English, like German, is primed for constructing fine details in noun phrases), while romance languages like French are better at conveying nuances of emotion. Other languages have their own strengths and weaknesses: Chinese, for instance, is a lousy language for expressing conditionality or time (it has a weak tense system that relies on the context of the discussion), but is one of the more efficient languages in terms of conventional conversation. If you're dealing with art-literature specifically, any language except the original is terrible: art-literature relies on so much more than just the words and grammar of the language that translating it is major problem. --Ludwigs2 03:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The primary issue is having someone who (a) has superior command of both languages to understand and communicate all the nuances and (b) has the creative talent to be an author in either language. There are very few who meet that criteria in any pairing of languages. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In general I observe that many foreign translations are wordier or just plain longer than the English. However, I think it depends on the work and how the translation has been done. I have a (rather old) translation of Dante's Inferno which has the original Italian on the left and the English translation on the right. The translator has retained (for the most part) the meter of the original and therefore both languages have the same length. I have also read an English translation of Faiza Guene's Kiffe Kiffe Demain in which the translator has translated some of the French verlan (street slang) into similar English street slang terms; the English translation also has slightly fewer pages according to Amazon, though I don't know if that is due to there being fewer words or just the translator introduction. Astronaut (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I read Being and Nothingness in English, and Huis clos in French, and thought both works by Sartre were in the original. μηδείς (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)