Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 6

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

December 6

Political Science is always misconceived as law or legalistic in nature.

I am a political science student and my instructor in political science minor subject happens to be an LLB. in law, thus he defined political science as the study of state and government. Luckily I have a professor PhD. in political science who said that political science is not so. This definition is what I argue against, first and foremost with that definition political science appears to be in a legalistic and traditionalistic fashion. I responded that politics does not only refer to the state and government and we should also utilize the modern approaches to the subject such as behaviorism. Because "state and government" will only adhere to the laws, principles, government of the state. It is inadequate in answering all other problems. I argued that political science is a social science different form law, thus political science focuses on the political activity which is not only confined to the state and government such as, international organizations and international relations. Political science does not study law or if it does it is in a social perspective. After this I offered a better definition, that given by David Easton- A study of the authoritative distribution of power, this is the safest and one of the most suitable definition ever made. I also offered a revision to his response by adding the term politics which refers to the social activity related to authority.

I really want to know additional arguments to support my assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to Political_science#Behavioral_revolution_and_new_institutionalism. Ultimately, political science is what you define it to be. Words and phrases have the meaning we assign to them. In the case of political science, some researchers, especially in the past, really did define it as nothing more than the study of state and government by looking at institutions and laws. Other researchers, especially recently, take your sort of broader view of political science. But to say that one of these definitions is "wrong" is plain stupid. Saying that coke is a drug not wrong just because it's also a soft drink. You might reasonably call the simple definition of political science unpopular, inferior, or archaic - but not wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You might do well to also look into Political anthropology. Though sadly our article isn't as good as it could be, some of the sources cited might be of benefit - and your definition "a study of the authoritative distribution of power" would fit in well with the remit of political anthropology too - especially given its forays into contexts where there was apparently no 'state', 'government' or 'law' (or at least, not in the sense that such terms are commonly used). In this context, 'political science' arguably resides somewhere between the social sciences and the humanities as an academic field - and certainly has little to do with any legalistic definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Political science means a lot of things--the article political science gives an overview. The part about descriptively studying behaviors of populations includes rational choice theory and behavioral economics among other things. There are also some normative theories involving psychodynamics. It goes all over the place. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Political science" (πολιτικῆ ἐπιστήμη) was a term used by Plato in his Statesman. Aristotle takes it up (and some of the material there) more famously in his Politics. It referred to what is best called political philosophy now. And "political science" was largely within the mold of Plato and Aristotle (see Cicero's De re publica, Augustine's City of God, and Aquinas' Treatise on Law) until Machiavelli. David Easton's definition accurately describes what Machiavelli started to do: describe the ways political power is and can be distributed. Machiavelli is commonly considered the father of modern political science (you see this emphasized by Strauss and his followers, for example); so then insofar as contemporary political science still follows Machiavelli, Easton's definition would seem to be fine. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss your instructor's definition. He may have meant more by "state" and "government" then you might realize. He also may never have meant his definition to be comprehensive; he may have just been describing one part of political science -- the part he was intending to lecture on. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

List of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century

That will redirect to this Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century but I don't see any "list" and I couldn't able to find a list of 100 most influential of the 20th century from Time 100 website. First there is a problem with the redirect since there is no list in the article so it is a wrong redirect. Second, can someone show me a list of 100 most influential people of the 20th century in a "trusted website"? Thanks!174.20.99.196 (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the redirect is ok. The article is not actually a list, so the redirect sends people looking for a list to the non-list article. The time.com link is in the external links section[1] but it is a paywalled article, so non-subscribers can only see a subset of the names. You could probably go to the library and look at the magazine there. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... this is an article about the Time magazine list... however, I think that is appropriate. If someone wants to see the list itself, they can follow the links to Time Magazine's website (although they will have to pay to read the entire list) or go to the library and find it for free.

I am not sure if it would be legal for Wikipedia to present the entire list ourselves, as doing so might violate Time Magazine's copyright. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Years ago, Wikipedia did routinely reproduce such lists (hottest swimsuit models, most eligible bachelors, bravest dogs, hottest milfs). But with reflection the community has decided, in a range of discussions, that such lists aren't like lists of postcodes in Stuttgart or highest points in Albania - that they're creative works (however arbitrary and uninformative) of the editorial staff of various organs, and so we can only quote from them ("Vanity Fair said George Clooney was the hunkiest actor of 2003") but not reproduce the whole list outright. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To my inexpert legal intuition, that argument seems fairly weak. I might be tempted to argue the point if I thought there were any actual encyclopedic value in these things. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is I'm sure there are many curious people who want to see the entire list. I think the purpose of Wikipedia is to serve the readers, as many as possible. It is arguable that the list is informative or not.174.20.99.196 (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What justifies providing for-pay information gratis merely because someone (or many people) express a want or need for it? Wikipedia does its job by explaining the nature of this information and indicating where it can be obtained. WP does not include all possible information within its virtual covers. ergo, I totally agree with User:Finlay McWalter remark (above). -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

174,20: there are a number of things that people come here looking for (or wanting to create) which Wikipedia is not; business directories, articles on their local bands or their favourite websites, for example. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with policies on what is appropriate for inclusion. --ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

<copyrighedt list removed> - 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I would think that it's okay to share this info since someone might use it for Wikipedia research later on, but I'm not a legal expert, so if I did something wrong, please feel free to remove this list. Futurist110 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the copyrighted list. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you genuinely think that it needed to be removed, fine. Futurist110 (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

online payment methods

I am looking into potential methods of sending and recieving money online for my company, looking into such things as google, amazon, popmoney, serve and so on, a wide variety of options. However their websites still leave me uncertain on some details, making a direct comparison difficult, so I am wondering if people with experience in this matter can offer some advice.

I need a service that will allow customers to send me money from all around the world, and for that money to be collected together in my account and sent as a bulk payment to the manufacturer to cover costs of making and shipping the items paid for, any ideas on a service that can provide this, to a company based in the UK?

86.15.83.223 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You can offer several venues. Most methods don't ask for a monthly fee. I think you'll be OK accepting Paypal and credit cards. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like you're looking for PayPal. EIN (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well actually that's the problem, I have been using paypal and they don't like my system of buying items from the supplier after recieving payment, since it means I don't always have proof of purchase and shipping at any time they choose to demand it, hence why I was looking for somewhere else. 86.15.83.223 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Was Amenhotep IV Nefertiti 's cousin?

Was Amenhotep IV Nefertiti 's cousin? Venustar84 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears uncertain; her ancestry is not well known. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

for a debut novelist

a) can an author of [sci]fiction novel (debut) seek two or more literary agents (or agencies) for a better deal in domestic (best domestic agent) and international markets (best international agent)? b) is it a wise idea to focus first on domestic market, holding foreign publication rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.141.254 (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

While investigating options, expect the agent to present the author with proposed terms and conditions that relate to the domestic/international markets, to be included in a - possibly exclusive - contract the two parties would then sign and fulfill. Perhaps a more productive query here would be: what are the terms and conditions an author can expect a literary agent (independent or publisher's) to fulfill? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A novelist with no publications will be very lucky to find any agent at all. Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Scranton

Where is Scranton, New Jersey? Yes, New Jersey! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If google doesn't know it, it doesn't exist. - Lindert (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Scranton (NJT station).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is located in Scranton, Pennsylvania... - Lindert (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

nj.com, an agglomeration of New Jersey media sites, returns a reference to Scranton, NJ in zip code 07032. Google returns a map of part of Kearny, NJ for that zip code, so presumably Scranton is a neighborhood there or the like. — Lomn 14:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's spurious. The only such address is a listing for J Cafferty at 431 Tenth Ave, Scranton, NJ 07032. Doing an advanced search that excludes any results with "431" will not return any hits for Scranton, NJ at all. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's a fake, to trap copyright violators. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Aside from pragmatism what other philosophic tradition criticize the usefulness of formal logic?

Continental tradition doesn't directly dismiss formal logic unlike pragmatism, thus it cannot be the same with pragmatism. And if there is Perestroika movement for social sciences perhaps there are also philosophies which criticize mathematical/formal logic like pragmatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your assertion that pragmatists' position on formal logic? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it wrong to think that the candidate who wins California will likely be the next President?

Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of other information, yes, it's an under-informed opinion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel like digging through all the past elections for the data, but the answer boils down to 'it won't hurt, but it's not necessary'. The candidate who won California won the election in 2012 and 2008 (Obama); lost in 2004 or 2000 (Bush Jr.); won in 1996 and 1992 (Clinton); won in 1988 (Bush Sr.); won in 1984 and 1980 (Reagan — but everyone voted for Reagan and he was also a California candidate); lost in 1976 (Carter); won in 1972 and 1968 (Nixon)....

To win the necessary majority of the (current) electoral college – 50 percent plus one, or at least 270 of the 538 votes – a prospective candidate either wants to get the 10 percent (55 votes) from California, or needs to have a solid plan to make up for that shortfall. In the last several election cycles, California hasn't been seen as a swing state; neither party has campaigned seriously there, assuming that it would go firmly Democrat. It's also not tagged as a bellwether state; while California probably ends up aligned with the successful candidate more often than not, its 'hit rate' isn't anywhere close to 100%.

As always, past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This xkcd comic explains it well. Matt Deres (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• California is so Democratic now that it is uninformative about national elections. Every state official and over two thirds of the legislature are Democrats. The chances that California will vote for a Republican are slim. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but times change. Remember that until 1992, California tended to go heavily Republican: It went for Nixon twice, Ford in 76, Reagan twice, and Bush Sr. The trend for California to vote Democratic is relatively recent, only the last 20 years or so. For the 20 preceding, it went the other way. 20 years from now, who knows? --Jayron32 03:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

    Pete Wilson awakened and radicalized the Latino vote in the 90s with California Proposition 187 (1994). It's really hard to see how the GOP comes back in the near future. It's true that California elected a (very moderate) Republican governor in 2003, but that was a sort of perfect storm. Maybe when there's a new entrepreneurial generation (Latino or otherwise) it'll get a bit more skeptical about the overweening state. --Trovatore (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

    • • It's also worth noting that even California Republicans are historically known to be very "liberal", i.e. Pete McCloskey, Pete Wilson, etc. many of whom are quite a ways to the left on many "social" issues on the American political spectrum. Many (not all, but many) of former "liberal" Republican California voters and politicians have switch party affiliations. McCloskey, a non-interventionist Republican, himself changed his affiliation citing the neocon movement within the party that strongly favored military action abroad. That kind of changing political landscape is probably why California tends to vote Democratic when it used to vote Republican: it isn't necessarily completely the Latino vote; it is also former liberal Republicans that have changed affiliation, as a kind of a reverse of what happened when conservative northern Democrats changed their affiliation in the 80s and 90s (the Reagan Democrats). --Jayron32 06:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • There's an interesting paradox here: while California's Electoral Votes (unlike, say, New Mexico's) often differed from the Electoral College as a whole, the percentages of the popular vote, or the percentage margins between the two major candidates, were often until recent years very close to those of the national electorate as a whole. But the Golden State hasn't been a reliable bellwether state for decades, because for the last sixty years (since 1952) she has stayed with one party and then with the other, regardless of the national result. For no fewer than nine out of the ten elections from 1952 to 1988, she supported the Republican ticket, the only exception being Goldwater-Miller in 1964. But since then, California's voted for six straight Democratic tickets in a row. This means that California's supported the losing tickets of Nixon-Lodge (R) in 1960, Ford-Dole (R) in 1976 and Kerry-Edwards (D) in 2004, in addition to Gore-Lieberman (D) which won the national popular vote but not the Electoral College in 2000. So far as I can tell, however, the only candidate since New Mexico's admission in 1912 to carry the state without carrying the national popular vote is Gerald Ford in 1976. To see national and state percentages, see Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. As for size being essential to a winning combination, remember that Texas has voted Republican in most recent elections including those won by Democrats, such as 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012, while New York has voted Democratic after 1984, including elections won by Republicans such as 1988, 2000 and 2004. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Another interpretation of the question is wondering how important California is in the absence of any other information about which candidates are likely to do well in which states. Suppose there are two candidates, and all the states are on a knife-edge, so each candidate is equally likely to win in each state. Suppose also that in the event of a tie, each candidate is equally likely to win in the House of Representatives. Of course, in this scenario, both candidates are equally likely to win the election. Now imagine that the scenario is exactly the same, except we know that candidate A will win California for some reason (maybe B is running on a platform that involves carrying out nuclear tests in Los Angeles). Then A has about a 74% chance of winning (from Monte Carlo simulations, and assuming the current distribution of electoral votes). In contrast, handing them Wyoming only boosts their overall chance of winning to about 51%. So winning California, in principle, gives you a pretty hefty advantage. Of course, this is a fairly recent phenomenon - in 1968, California still had fewer electoral votes than New York, while in 1900 it had fewer than Iowa or Alabama. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

i live in poop stick vile

Can someone be a Zionist if he's not a Jew?

I am a Protestant American who strongly supports Israel and its right to exist in God's chosen land for them. Is that considered Zionism?, is there Zionism outside of Judaism? Keeeith (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See Christian Zionism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why not. After all, there are also quite a few male feminists. - Lindert (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Anyone who is in favor of a Jewish state in the Southern Levant is, by definition, a Zionist. Neither ethnicity nor religion is a requirement. Note the difference between ethnic Jewry and the religion of Judaism. EIN (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I believe that would be Zionism. I hope that's as opposed to the Protestant American sects [2] that want Israel to wage a nuclear war so God's will on Earth is accomplished and the Rapture comes. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic and turning into a debate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, I am not that kind of Protestant. I just want a Jewish state in all that part of the Middle East, including the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and that the Palestinians be sent to Jordan and Syria, where they came from. Keeeith (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC) See also Orde Wingate, and the man who set the Zionist ball rolling, Arthur Balfour. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC) When, exactly, do you think Palestinians came from Jordan or Syria? Who was living in the southern Levant, say, a thousand years ago? Five hundred? (If you prefer not to answer this question, you might also decide not to brandish inflammatory political statements on the RD.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC) There were Jewish settlers from thousand years ago, when the Egyptians took the People of Israel as slaves, the Arabs came in and occupied the Jewish land. That's what's told in the Church. Keeeith (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Hmmm... you probably want to read our article, Palestine and also the Siege of Jerusalem (70), which is when the resident Jews were either killed or evicted. Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Seconded very much. Even according to the Bible, the Israelites under Joshua very much took the land by force and genocide. If that is the base for a valid claim, then so is the claim of Muslim Palestinians, whose families have been living there for longer than Israel existed (where the existence of David's Israel and later Juda as significant kingdoms is very much open to historical debate) from the initial conquest (which is very much open to historical debate, too) to the second diaspora (which is the first thing well-established in this sentence ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Has it occurred to you to learn history from history books - ideally representing several different points of view - rather than from your church? It is important to distinguish between different time periods, such as the captivity in Egypt (~1400BC), the captivity in Babylon (~600BC), the exile after the Roman invasion (70 & 130 AD), and the Arab invasions much later in the 1st millennium AD. An inability to tell these things apart may lead to people not taking your views on the Middle East seriously.AlexTiefling (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC) The pastor of my Church has a degree in theology Keeeith (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC) He's still just another man, and the idea of pastoral infallibility isn't usually a Protestant trait. You should always feel free to do your own research. If it's something you really care about, you should feel obligated to do so. The history of the region is more complicated than your pastor seems to know or seems to be telling you. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Whether one goes by theology or history/archaeology... there were people living in Israel/Palistine/Outremer/The Holy Land before Abraham brought his family out of Ur. Sodomites arise... take back your land! Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I commend Keeeith for asking his questions here. They do, at times, seem to be based on some less than completely accurate premises, but as he reads and thinks about more of the answers, his knowledge can only improve. HiLo48 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you pulling my leg? Or you're serious. Keeeith (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that HiLo48 is serious. For the record, I would agree with him. However, no offense, but I do want to point out that forcibly deporting millions of people against their will based on what a 2,000+ year old religious book says is a very poor argument, not to mention that Israel will get sued and get crippling sanctions put on it if it even attempts such a move. Futurist110 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Of relevance. Some non-Abrahamic Canaanites were Zionists, and the Bible doesn't mention them being wiped out (even in the period of Judges). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you be? If you support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, then you are a Zionist regardless of your religion or ethnicity. Futurist110 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me basically like that section of the nationalists in Northern Ireland that wanted to boot out the English and return the land to the Irish. On the other hand the current Irish also invaded Ireland so really we should find the descendants of the Tuatha Dé Danann or perhaps the Fir Bolg, anyway Britain should be restored to the Britons and America to the Native Americans. If you want to go by the Bible I think that anything that happened prior to seven generations ago is absolutely and totally irrelevant. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to apply all the cheap mockery and low humor you deem appropriate; however, that doesn't change the seriousness of the situation out of which Zionism arose. Somehow, I haven't heard of the Fir Bolg being an oppressed ethnic minority living across a number of countries, with a tendency to be rejected by the nationalism of the majority groups in many of those countries, and so effectively having a status of a de facto nationality without a national territory... AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not denying the Jews have been treated very badly. However that doesn't give them the right to exterminate Palestinians like the OP was talking about. Their entitlement I see to their control of Israel is force of arms and the years of occupation. After another hundred years they will have full rights like the inhabitants of any other country and the Palestinians will have totally lost their rights, but not yet. What I was saying was that if someone steals a painting from you then your son can claim it back from their son. However after the Biblical seven generations nobody in your family have even the faintest trace of a right and I don't believe that the Jews having lived there two thousand years ago gives them any rights over people currently there. Dmcq (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Israel certainly has a funny way of "exterminat[ing] Palestinians"[sic] when their population has actually increased by about ten-fold over a century, and your habit of throwing around such loose and sloppy rhetoric does not add any force to the arguments you seem to wish to make. AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP was talking about exterminating the Palestinians and even he never said they were being exterminated. Please engage your reading skills instead of acting like an eejit. Dmcq (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Lanihau: Sources on Kauaian History

Who should I contact on the subject of Lanihau, an obscure chiefess from the 1800s, who was the Governess of Kauai from 1886 to 1888. Her name is mentioned in a few newspaper article, which gives nothing about her, and only one sentence in a few books. I have already email the Kauai Historical Society, who else (history professors, authors, museums, etc) is a good source in this subject area (Kauaian history)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll start: Noenoe Silva is the University of Hawaii's expert on Hawaiian history. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bible as inerrant/infallible/authoritative/etc.?

OK. I have a couple of questions.

• How many people in the world view the Bible as the inerrant word of God?
• How many people in the world view the Bible as the infallible word of God?
• How many people in the world view the Bible as the authoritative word of God?
• How many people in the world view the Bible as a written record, based on thousand-year traditions and cultural memories, of ancient literature, daily life, and prophecies that still carries a significant impact in people's lives today, without divine intervention?

140.254.226.183 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You asked this just over a month ago. It is unlikely that new scholarship has emerged in the meantime, and the problems with nonspecificity in the language of your questions are still there. — Lomn 19:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Weren't Nazi party members forced to have at least four children?

Then why such senior Nazi officers like Philipp Bouhler and his wife didn't have any child by 1945 when they both committed suicide and made the World a better place? Keeeith (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe your assumption is quite right. Maybe they motivated ethnic Germans to have more children, but how would they (yes, even the Nazi Germany would have a difficult task here) force them to have at least four children? They granted the Cross of Honor of the German Mother to mothers of four or more children, but I don't see any reference of any force or drawback for those who didn't cooperated with the German effort of populating the world with pure Germans. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)ac

See this article, Motherhood in Nazi Germany, which says that the Nazi regime encouraged large families by means of propaganda, tax breaks and support programmes. Birth control advice and contraception were controlled by law and eventually banned altogether. Wikipedia has an article on the Cross of Honor of the German Mother, for "mothers who exhibited probity, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent". Curiously, France has a similar award which is still in use, La Médaille de la Famille française. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

crazy babbling

There is someone near my building (maybe next door) who is angrily ranting about something I can't make any sense of. It's in unaccented English, has some profanity sprinkled in but mostly seems to be about some specific topic, and yet I can't make out more than a few words here or there. There are very few pauses. The person is just babbling nonstop and not making any sense, and (from my nonprofessional perspective) sounds mentally ill. I've seen similar behavior from streetpeople multiple times in the past.

Is there a particular illness associated with this symptom/behavior, or a name for the behavior itself?

Not looking for medical advice as I have no intention of going anywhere near the person. Just wondering if the situation has a name.

66.127.54.40 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You might like to read Tic. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This may be duplicative since I haven't read Tic, but see also Tourette syndrome. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is schizophrenia, with a high degree of probability. It is not a tic, and it is not Tourette syndrome. Looie496 (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do some people say Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East?

Isn't Turkey a democracy or isn't it in the Middle East? OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that Turkey is now considered part of Europe. Keeeith (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really. But to the OP: See No true Scotsman for the answer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

On the Turkey point specifically Accession of Turkey to the European Union and Middle East (the section that has the 'traditional middle east' and 'greater middle east'). In general see Democracy in the Middle East ny156uk (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Because they don't know facts. If there would be a universal definition of democracy, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and/or Yemen might be included in this category. Someone already found the No True Scotsman fallacy, which pertains to this issue. Futurist110 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Lebanon, Egypt, and Yemen are not democracies under any reasonable definition, especially not after Morsi's recent power grab. Yemen's politics has been completely dominated by one party since unification. Lebanon has a confessionalist constitution, which is hardly democratic if democracy is taken to include any kind of equality amongst religions. Of course Israel is only democratic within Israel proper--no matter what you think of its control of Palestine, it isn't democratic. --140.180.249.232 (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Morsy's recent power grab is supposed to be temporary and he was democratically elected. In regards to Yemen, let me double-check, but is there genuinely no viable political opposition there right now? As for Lebanon, despite the mandatory sectarian balance in the govt., aren't a lot of the politicians still democratically elected? I notice that you did not criticize my statement calling Iraq as a democracy. Does that mean that you agree with this statement? Also, the Palestinian Authority/Palestine is also a democracy, or is supposed to be a democracy and had free and fair elections in 2006. Futurist110 (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Egypt is in Africa. Roger (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's also part of the Middle East. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

By your standards, I don't see how the UK could be considered to be democratic given the Church of England's representation in the House of Lords. Some other countries that are generally considered to be democracies, such as Belgium and Bosnia and Herzegovina, have consociational political systems much like Lebanon does (though based on ethnic rather than religious lines). A few others, like India and New Zealand, reserve seats in their parliaments for certain ethnic minorities. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Other than the requirement that the monarchy has to be non-Catholic, what legal restrictions are there on religious freedon in the U.K.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

People who use the argument 'Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East' use 'democracy' as an euphemism for 'Western'. The argument does not lie in electoral formalities nor human rights record, but an appeal to stress that Israel is 'one of us' (and thus have to be supported against the hordes of non-Western peoples surrounding it). --Soman (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

<edit conflict>How democratic a country is is subjective. One man's democracy is another man's flawed political system. Some people regard democratic monarchies like the UK, Netherlands and Denmark to be undemocratic. Others rail against things like hanging chads in the US democratic system. I've heard China apologists argue that the Chinese system is exceptionally democratic. I'd say that when you hear people say that about Israel it's because the Israeli democratic system resembles a western idea of what a democracy looks like, while the others don't come close. But to someone living under an authoritarian regime, many of Israel's neighbours would appear to have attractively democratic systems. See perception bias. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Some Islamists have said that democracy is incompatible with Islam. (That's what appears to be starting to play out in Egypt, for examle.) Have some Jews ever said that democracy is incompatible with Judaism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I recall having seen that, some ultra-settler talking on camera about resurrecting a kingdom in Israel. Notably the Islamist mainstream (like Muslim Brotherhood) is not saying Islam and democracy are incompatible. --Soman (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a secular state, albeit it makes some notable concessions to Orthodox Jewish practice. If you're asking what the traditional Jewish take on democracy is, it's hard to answer because the question is an anachronism - the last "Jewish state" in the proper meaning ceased to exist a long time before western-style democracies evolved. Judaism itself has elements of democracy in it - in rabbinic arguments, opinion follows the majority, but it's not a popular vote, the ones with a voice are a meritocracy. The religion is unclear on whether the Biblical commands about having a king reflect what is desirable or a response to something that the people would desire. Equally, while Chabad terminology about the messiah typically includes the word "king", this is not something all strands of Judaism agree on. While I think you could probably find someone who'd argue that democracy is incompatible with Judasim, I don't think there's strong grounds for arguing it. The one exception would be to say that religious law cannot be voted on by the hoi polloi - something that's in common with what we understand of democracies anyway, but Judaism has a strong view on many aspects of ordinary life that liberal Christian society would not understand as being subject to "religious law", such as (see 613_commandments#Maimonides.27_list how to wage war (no. 602), legislation on health and safety (no. 494), hunting (no. 207), ecology (no. 604) and so on. --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Dweller and Soman here. I also question the usefulness of random contributors opinions of a country's democracy. For example, the suggestion that Yemen's is not democractic because it has been dominated by a single party seems questionable. While countries with a Dominant-party system may often be questionable, this is usually because of some additional factors like media or campaigning limitations on other parties, gerry-mandering, legislative or other restrictions on other parties, voter or candidate intimidation, corrupt or questionable practices like bribing voters or election winners, other forms of questionable election management, etc etc. In other words, while the countries are nominally multi party democracies, they have some aspects of Single-party state. Japan is a notable example of a country with a single party which has dominated thorough much of recent history but, where the aforementioned issues have generally been limited and there is a fair degree of intraparty factions and voting. But as I said, I'm not asking you to take my word from it, take for example this ranking from 2006 (when the LDP remained in power in both houses) [3] which shows Japan falling in to the 'full democracies' category and scoring higher than the UK and France. Note South Africa which just falls in to the 'flawed democracy' is relative high, higher in fact than India and Israel despite the dominant party nature of South Africa in recent times. To be clear, I'm not saying Yemen should be called a democracy, they score very low in that ranking and despite the recent changes it's perhaps too soon to be clear where they stand. I'm simply illustrating the point that domination by one party is no guarantee a country is not democractic. The Democracy Index is perhaps the most well known democracy ranking, but there are plenty of others, [4] [5] [6], also see [7]. Of course this sort of thing is highly subjective and may reflect the biases of the producer of the ranking but at least by using such rankings people are actually discussing referenced ideas and rankings produced by people who hopefully at least have considered the problems in greater depth than 'dominated by one party, can't be democractic'. P.S. Without defending Morsi, I think it's an interesting question (but not one for the RD) if the response from the Western media and governments would be the same if instead of Morsi a secular like Ahmed Shafik had been doing more or less the exact same things. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

2 counterexamples don't disprove a trend. You said yourself that Yemen scores very low on the democracy ranking, and that dominant-party systems may often be questionable. I never intended to give a comprehensive list of reasons, just one that I consider significant. Also, I find it unfair that you're attacking me when I was responding to another "random contributors opinions of a country's democracy", and when the question itself requires a reasonable definition of democracy. --140.180.252.134 (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've always been taught that Israel, along with Egypt and Turkey are in the Near East. Anyways, there's no line you can draw between a democracy and not, so it's up to people with agenda to make whatever interpretation they want, hence such assertions as this. 86.15.83.223 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure there's a line. If you have the opportunity for a choice in how you're governed, then your country could qualify as a democracy. If you don't, then it don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda in schools

Do we have an article about a type of propaganda where the state uses the public education to influence the students? For example, by making them study from biased textbooks, or by making them study topics that promote the ruling party (for example, if children had to study "the advantages of communism" in a communist state) Cambalachero (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bias in education. Although it is very short. Searching Wikipedia for "biased textbooks" I also found many specifric articles along these lines: Japanese history textbook controversies, Pakistani textbooks controversy, Views_on_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict#Biased_text_books, Saudi Arabian textbook controversy, California textbook controversy over Hindu history, etc. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that governments have tried to do this in Australia. A read of History wars and National Curriculum (Australia) will give some details. This is mostly to do with the issue of whether the arrival of the British in 1788, and subsequent events, should be described as an invasion or a benevolent colonisation. (OK, so those are the extreme positions.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist historiography... AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There are currently 19 articles in Category:Textbook controversies --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In the area of Social Studies, especially, there is always going to be some degree of bias. When I was a kid, Columbus was a good guy. Now he's a bad guy. And when people stop and realize where they'd be without Columbus, he'll be a good guy again. Other historical figures have been taken on this rollercoaster by revisionists. We all knew about the Boston Massacre. But until some historians started to change their emphasis, we didn't know that (1) the incident may have been deliberately provoked by the colonists, i.e. they weren't entirely innocent victims; and (2) the first victim was a black or mixed-race man, a good metaphor for the near-invisibility of blacks in prior history books. However, math is math, so the amount of bias is probably less than in the history subjects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

See racist math tests. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. Somebody's copying from somebody. One of Rodney Dangerfield's old jokes was that he grew up in a tough neighborhood. Like teachers would get notes saying, "Please excuse Johnny for the next 5 to 10 years." And arithmetic: "If Billy has 2 apples, and then steals 3 more, how many will he have?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of us probably don't know about the Boston Massacre. I had never heard of it until just now. Not everyone lives in the USA. For those who don't live in the USA, or do but didn't get to enjoy history lessons, see Boston Massacre. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know much about history... --Jayron32 12:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dweller, Bugs' we was clearly referring to the context of his school years ("when I was a kid"), and I'm fairly certain that everyone he went to school with lived in the USA. Your lecture was unnecessary. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Schooling totally in the American midwest. Sorry about the vagueness. A Brit might know about it if he had studied the American Revolution (or "Rebellion" if you will) in some depth, but I expect the average British history class doesn't get into too much detail about that. With a thousand years or more of English history to cover, the loss of the American colonies is probably little more than a blip on the radar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right Bugs. Even at the time, the UK was much more interested and concerned in our ancient and ongoing rivalry with France (and to some extent Spain); and the really important part of the British Empire was India. When the American colonies were lost, their future potential wasn't understood at all. (That potential was greatly enhanced, coincidentally, by later problems that the aforementioned French and Spanish had with the British.)

At school I learned about "Causes of the American War of Independence" (not "rebellion" - it's analogous to Greek, Mexican, and so on wars of independence) but from what I remember we covered the tea party but not the massacre. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- Crispus Attucks has gained and lost historical prominence several times over the centuries; it's not just in the past few decades. AnonMoos (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not surprising. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

School history is propaganda by itself. Because the aim of school history education is not to tell neutrally (is it possible at all?) about the past but to cultivate loyal and patriotic citizens. And historical science can not be neutral as well, as it is a pluralistic science like philosophy or literature, it is always biased in one way or another.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A Kipling short story

Hello Learned Ones ! I'm looking for the title of that short story about a German policeman in the Weimar republic, he tries to enforce law in the social turmoil of those years & I think he is killed ...Thanks beforehand for your help. T;y. Arapaima (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)