Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 10

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.

November 10

Was Amenhotep IV Nefertiti 's cousin? And were they related through adoption or blood? Why did they Egyptians marry their relatives anyway?

Was Amenhotep IV Nefertiti 's cousin? And were they related through adoption or blood? Why did they Egyptians marry their relatives anyway? Neptunekh94 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In Inbreeding#Royalty and nobility it has a small bit: Pharaohs married their sisters to keep the inheritance within the same family. Apparently, the tradition developed whereby the heir to the Pharaoh's throne passed through his eldest daughter, and was inherited by her husband. So to "keep the throne" in the family, it was common for the eldest daughter to marry her brother. It was particularly commonplace during the Ptolemaic Dynasty. this page also has a little bit on the topic. This page also has some information. Neither is strictly a "reliable source", so take it with a grain of salt, but the information looks sound based on my understanding. --Jayron32 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And more generally, some royals actually bought into the idea that they were special, even gods. As such, it wouldn't make sense for them to marry mere mortals. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

People believing their own rhetoric is one of our most cherished traditions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party in US

I noticed a contradiction: Red states are growing in population faster than blue states, and thus gaining electoral seats. Meanwhile, the percentage of minorities, who tend to vote Democratic, is increasing nationwide. Does this mean that the percentage of minorities is also increasing in red states, and does that mean Republican control of those states is waning ? StuRat (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Two things are happening: 1) People from Northeastern "Blue" states are moving south into states like North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Texas, etc. When people move, they don't suddenly adopt the political affiliations of their new state; they bring their politics with them. Look at the articles on the 2000 United States Census and 2010 United States Census. Look at what states have lost, and what states have gained, congressional seats/electoral college votes. Those people are largely moving south, and as such, the South is getting "bluer". This is especially pronounced in places like Virginia and North Carolina, which have gone from "Solidly red" to "Swing states" in the past decade or so. 2) The Republican Party's stance on immigration has alienated many Hispanic citizens who's politics would otherwise match the Republican Party closely (being largely socially conservative, more religious, and generally distrusting of big government as Republicans are) and driving them away from the Republican party. See [1] and [2]. If both Fox News and the Huffington Post are running with the same story, it's a pretty good sign that there's some truth to it. What parts of the country have seen the largest growth in people of a Hispanic background? The red states: See [3], which shows that the following states saw a greater than 100% growth in Hispanic population between 2000-2010: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee. Check what color nearly all of those have been colored for the past 4-5 Presidential elections. --Jayron32 02:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we have any evidence of red states becoming less red ? StuRat (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Colorado would be good examples of this. Futurist110 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There may be a sudden collapse of the Republican party unless they reform, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what the experts were saying 4 years ago, too. Then 2010 happened ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "sudden" is correct, but there are long-term demographic changes which mean being the party of rich, white, heterosexual, protestant men won't work for much longer. They will need to broaden the tent, at some point. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe re-broaden it would be a better term. The teabaggers managed to scare away most of the moderate or liberal-leaning Republicans (of which, ironically, George Romney was one). This is why we're hearing more loose (and potentially treasonous) talk from the far right about some kind of military revolution, since they can no longer win "fairly". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time. The parties don't have any long-term political ideologies to speak of. That is, there is no historically universal set of "Republican" or "Democratic" party values which one can say is consistent across history. The parties rejigger their ideals every 30 years or so, and are likely very much due to do so again. At one time, the Democratic Party was the party of exactly the demographic make up that StuRat describes (see Solid South), while the Republican party was the party of social progressives (see Theodore Roosevelt etc.) The parties started to reshape their political ideology in the 1940s, for example the Dixiecrat movement represented a time when the Southern white protestant racists bolted from the Democratic party; they stayed alienated from the party throughout the 1950 and 1960s when the Democratic Party nationally became a proponent of civil rights, while in 1968 Nixon's Southern strategy specifically targeted these voters and helped reshape the party dynamics in America. As late as 1972, there was still a serious socially progressive wing to the Republican party (see Pete McCloskey) but those voters bolted for the Democratic Party during the same time as Southern Whites moved into the Republican Party. The party reshuffling was completed in the early 1980s when socially conservative Northern working class voters left the Democratic party (which had formerly had solid control of the "labor" vote in America) and became the Reagan Democrats that became a major force in giving him one of the biggest electoral landslide victories ever in 1984. Throughout the 1980s, these voters still continued to vote Democrat in local elections, which is why Reagan governed during a time of divided government (The two houses of Congress were staunchly democrat during the 1980s). Even today, many southern states still have strong local connections to the historic Democratic Party. North Carolina, where I live, continued to elect Democratic Governors, for example, throughout this time period (See Governor of North Carolina). This also partly explains the "Republican Revolution" of Newt Gingrich during the Clinton years: Local candidates and party structure takes longer to catch up with national trends, so there's always a "lag" when state offices and, say, the House of Representatives to "catch up" with national trends. That may also be why the House and state Governors, on one hand, and the Senate and Electoral College, on the other, have in the past decade or so moved in opposite directions, to partly answer a question asked a few days ago. --Jayron32 21:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the Republican economic policy has generally stayed very similar between the 1920s and the present, with the exception of the 1950s and 1970s. Likewise, the Democratic economic policy has stayed very similar since the days of FDR in the 1930s. It's the social issues and foreign policy where the parties have changed their positions over the last century. The Republicans used to be the more isolationist party (getting us out of Korea and Vietnam, et cetera), even as recently as 2000 with George W. Bush's opposition to nation-building. Of course, 9/11 changed all of that. Futurist110 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, economically both parties are nearly identical in outlook, and have always been. Neither has ever offered any real distinct economic plan, aside from small distinctions between how government money is spent, and how taxes are collected, but neither presents anything like a truly different economic model. They're both working within the same economic model, and offer very slightly differing views on spending and taxation. But very small difference. --Jayron32 22:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because there is no other viable economic model than free-market capitalism with reasonable government regulation -- and countries that experimented with a truly different economic model have paid dearly for their experiments. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. Both parties give lipservice to free-market capitalism, though neither actually supports economic policies that practice it. What the parties both do is subcontract various governmental functions with corporations in exchange for establishing laws and a system which benefits those large corporations at the expense of actual open exchange of ideas and products and services. The current system isn't so much free market as it is corporatist, and both parties have supported a fully corporatist model of economy for a very long time. Both parties act to enact laws that benefit the corporations that fund their maintenance of power. There are other ways to run an economy than command-economy-by-government and command-economy-by-coprorations. It is also possible to maintain a free market whereby the government doesn't directly act to stifle competition by anyone except large corporations with the money to buy laws friendly to themselves. --Jayron32 01:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, quite a few nations are more liberal than US Democrats, and some European socialist governments have done fairly well for themselves. On the other extreme, China now seems more conservative than the US Republican Party, letting rich businessmen do as they please, with little effective regulation. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- there's no absolute consistency in political positions over long periods, but in some respects modern Republican party positions resemble those of the "Hamiltonians" in early U.S. history, and modern Democratic party positions those of the "Jeffersonians" in early U.S. history... AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Kinda-sorta, and only today. As noted above, you could have swapped those labels 100 years ago. And that implies that those political labels have meaning today; it would be a stretch to say that they do, but if you remove the definitions from their unique historical contexts (never really wise to do), I would buy it, but I'm still not sure its a useful analogy to draw. There is not a straight line following the political ideologies from late 17th century politics to today. There is no way to do that through the history of American political parties. --Jayron32 02:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it is more likely that the two-party system will stay in place due to the various issues mentioned on Two-party system#Causes; the Republican party will continue to exist in some form as the primary opposition party to the Democrats, but realign to some other political ideology; and we will eventually add a "Sixth Party System" to Political parties in the United States#History. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That assumes that 2008 was a realigning election leading to a period of Democratic dominance. Too early to argue about that, and continued Republican control of the House of Representatives makes it a far from simple question.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the Republicans need to eject the Tea Party, who make it so a candidate moderate enough to win national office can't win the primary. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much how the Republican Party formed in the first place. The Whig Party became divided over the issue of Slavery; anti-slavery Whigs bolted to form the Republican party. In a free-society it is hard to "Force" people to leave the Republican Party, but one could envisiona voluntary realignment: either the moderate Republicans leaving to form/join another party (there was some movement in this direction when the Reform party was created, but it proved to not be lasting, or if the Tea Party bolts to their own party and/or joins a third party. But they can't "force" anything. The party platform is negotiated from within, and the Tea Party has afforded itself a voice at the table given its support. The moderates have the option to leave or deal with it. --Jayron32 00:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Galen

Statement from the article: "Galen’s principal interest was in human anatomy, but Roman law had prohibited the dissection of human cadavers since about 150 BC." Why did the Roman prohibited the dissection of ceased human bodies? There must be a reason but I don't think the article has it.174.20.101.190 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It may have been religious. Roman funerals and burial states "In Greco-Roman antiquity, the bodies of the dead were regarded as polluting." It may have been some sort of "ritual uncleanliness" similar to that which exists in Judaic law. --Jayron32 03:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how when someone dissect a dead body is more polluting than a dead body itself.174.20.101.190 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, people weren't supposed to handle dead bodies at all. It "polluted" them. So dissecting would have been right out. The Romans also had a reverence for their dead, so it may have been seen as desecration. The article I linked above has some information which may help solve the conundrum. --Jayron32 05:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of knowledge about microbes, wouldn't there in fact be a danger of "pollution" of those handling the dead? Although I wonder how they did burials without touching the bodies at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Many ancient religious practices have a small basis in real benefits. There are many studies, for example, that show how Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu dietary practices may have had real health benefits for those populations at that time in that location. Just to pick one paper at random: [4] states "laws of kashrut (keeping to a kosher diet), the Torah advances spiritual health, holiness, and purity, rather than physical health as a reason for kosher. It is, of course, quite feasible that physical health, al- though not a reason for kashrut, might be one of the benefits of a Kosher diet." That is, when codified religious laws about "spiritual uncleanliness" aren't primarily concerned with physical well being, but in many cases modern science has shows that they have that benefit as well (i.e. the microbe issue you note). --Jayron32 21:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. One Jewish tradition is to wash one's hands when leaving the graveyard after a burial. I don't know how old that tradition is, but it certainly would have a practical basis even though microbes were unknown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire volume IV, chapter XLIV (see here) contains a discussion of Roman law. Some aspects of their religion can be read here. Zoonoses (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that the dissection of human bodies was illegal in England (with a few exceptions) until the Anatomy Act 1832. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A "Book Thief" quote?

By Markus Zusak.

In the context of Max becoming sick without evident reason and slowly seems to slip away from life, Liesel tends to his bed:

"For hours, she sat with him as he shivered and slept.

'Don’t die,' she whispered. 'Please, Max, just don’t die.'

He was the second snowman to be melting away before her eyes, only this one was different. It was a paradox.

The colder he became, the more he melted."

I feel this quote really has a lot of hidden meaning behind it but I can't seem to place my finger upon it. Especially the bit: "Only this one was different. It was a paradox." Anyone care to share their opinion/enlighten me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.20.37 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article Paradox is fairly confusing, being full of jargon. An easier definition is here; something that contradicts itself and is true anyway. If a snowman gets colder, the snow in it should stay frozen. The snow can only melt if the snowman gets warmer. But because Liesel is thinking of Max metaphorically, she can think of him as both a snowman (figuratively, i.e. he is cold) who is getting colder (literally) and is nevertheless melting (figuratively, is dying). I don't think it's hidden meaning but a way of trying to express her inability to believe Max is so sick. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Is capital punishment truly effective in lowering crime rates?

From a statistical point of view, is capital punishment truly effective in preventing crime? As in, around the world, in countries where capital punishment was implemented, were crime rates low? Conversely, in countries which abolished capital punishment, did crime rates go up? And have there ever been non-biased studies on the effects of capital punishment on crime and crime rates? I'm asking this because there appear to be countries with relatively low crime rates that have abolished the death penalty and countries with relatively high crime rates despite retaining it (European countries and the United States respectively come to mind), but of course there are countries which are the other way around (high crime rate and no death penalty and low crime rate with death penalty), like Colombia and Singapore respectively. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We have a section on this at Capital_punishment_debate#Deterrence. Long story short, the experts can't agree on whether there is a deterrent effect. Numerous studies are linked to from that section, but I believe they mostly regard the United States. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If I recall criminology class, and if theory hasn't evolved much since then, ever since like the French Revolution the basic axiom has been that crime is deterred by the inevitability of being caught and the swiftness of punishment; while the severity of punishment has comparatively much less or even no effect. A quick survey of my own motivators would seem to confirm that. So that the current system of having a trial a year or two down the road, followed by several appeals, a few decades on death row, followed by death would seem to be not particularly effective; which in fact it doesn't seem to be. And ironically, it's been suggested that prisoners may in fact survive longer on death row than they would in the prison's general population. Presumably, being executed on the spot by the arresting officer, Judge Dredd style, would be more of a deterrent; but presumably having him/her merely break a finger or two would be pretty much as effective, according to the theory above.

None of this addresses the question of ensuring the innocent are not punished, of course, which tends to fight both the inevitability and the swiftness. Those who hold that the occasional execution of an innocent is excused by the fact that it presumably saves a larger number of lives by deterring other murders miss the logical extension that, were that the case, then it would be morally required to deliberately frame and execute some random shmuck for every unsolved crime, rather than pasively allowing many more to die as a result of the lost deterrent. Ethics doesn't lend itself to calculus very well. Gzuckier (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. For capital punishment to actually have a statistical effect on crime, you'd need to execute a statistically significant number of criminals. In the US, criminals have like a 1 in a million chance overall of being executed (although it's much higher for certain crimes in certain places). StuRat (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The effect certainly isn't clear or obvious so I suppose one should discount it as a major reason to do it. I'm not certain it saves any money either with all the court cases and appeals though I suppose it could in a poorer country where justice can be more summary. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The premise is off. The question being asked here is analogous to, "Does wearing clean underwear really prevent car accidents?" μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why. As to your example casting ridicule is not a substitute to a proper answer. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The question presumes that lowering the crime rate is the purpose of the death penalty. You'll find very few death penalty supporters making that argument, and none as their main argument. As for the example, that's what's called an analogy. (I assume you are familiar with mothers ask their sons, "Are you wearing a clean pair? What if you got in a car accident?") I could just as well have mentioned Lisa Simpson's tiger-repelling rock. Your concern is noted, but I most certainly did not ridicule the OP, and I am quite sure I didn't hurt the argument's feelings. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that it's reasonable to think that execution of criminals might prevent crime, but completely unreasonable to think that clean underwear prevents accidents. From a science POV, the first is a reasonable hypothesis, worthy of testing, while the 2nd is not. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, clearly execution prevents the executed criminals from committing more crimes, so, unless there is some mechanism to counter this effect, it should reduce crime. However, there could be exceptions:

1) If we are comparing it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, then neither should be able to commit many crimes. (Although those in jail can still commit crimes against other prisoners, guards, and visitors or can commit crimes outside by escaping, or using the phone or mail. They could also be a mastermind behind crimes committed by others outside).

2) In some cases, other people will become criminals when one criminal is removed from society. For example, if a drug dealer is removed, a new drug dealer often quickly appears in the same location to sell to the same customers. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there are essentially infinite ways capital punishment could contribute to an increase in murders. For one, it may lead to people who commit a murder in a fit of passion, or by something of an accident, or in some sort of self-defense, to decide to eliminate all witnesses; whereas without the threat of death they might resign themselves to the wheels of justice, rather than dig themselves a bigger hole, or violate their basic revulsion against deliberate murder. Or the more vague suggestion that, by endorsing the idea that certain people "need killing", the government thereby perpetuates that idea among the general public. The US is, after all, a nation which endorses the idea that people should do for themselves rather than rely on the government to do it.

In tune with that, those on the "right" (to overgeneralize), who are the most likely to demand the death penalty are also the people most likely to talk about unplanned consequences of government laws and regulations, the unreliability of government laws and regulations, etc. etc.; but only in a different context from the government actually putting citizens to death. Apparently in that arena, the government is infallible. That, and of course in the arena of killing foreigners en masse.

And on a different tangent, one must point out that the "lenient" systems, such as most of Europe, which not only do not have capital punishment but tend to hand out sentences of maybe 25 years where the US would hand out life terms, tend to have lower rates of murder, and (arguably) violent crime in general. Which is, at least, consistent with the notion that the severity of the punishment is not the most important deterrent. Gzuckier (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons between different nations are problematic, since so many other factors vary, like the distribution of wealth and availability of guns. StuRat (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Capital "punishment" isn't exactly punishment, it's permanent and irreversible removal from society. Prisoners can escape their confines. Corpses can't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We should probably put all felons to death then. I'm pretty sure the chance of a released or escaped felon (not including murderers) committing murder is higher than the population in general. After all, there is a reason we don't let them have guns. And probably, misdemeanors too. And those accused, but found not guilty, as well, I bet. And I bet even those who get traffic tickets are more likely to go on to commit murders. And certainly, males are more likely to commit murder. (I'm not going to touch on the third rail of race here). Permanent and irreversible removal from society on the grounds of murderous propensities could do a lot to keep us safe, we shouldn't limit it to the small number of convicted murderers. Gzuckier (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The list of capital crimes is fairly narrow, at least in the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

But if we correctly understand that we can reduce the murder rate by eliminating all those with greater than average propenisty to murder, even with the deaths of many innocents, we would see a net gain. Thus, it only makes esne to increase the number of crimes with capital punishment; even mandatory.

Tangentially, the newspaper today had an article regarding the philosophical/moral question, is it ethical to push an innocent person into the path of a moving vehicle, if it would stop that vehicle from plowing into a crowd of many people? The old deliberately sacrifice one innocent (who hasn't volunteered), in order to save many more innocents dilemma. What the article said (haven't checked it myself) is that psychopaths don't even see why there should be any question; of course whatever results in the lowest net death rate would be the most moral, regardless of what it may be, what other possibility is there? Interesting to tie a certain type of person to that point of view. Gzuckier (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside the immorality of executing people for minor crimes, it would also have a negative effect on crime. If anyone who commits a traffic violation is executed, you could expect them to open fire on any policemen who approaches them, in an effort to save their lives, or perhaps only bribe the policeman. You could also expect the collapse of the automobile industry, as you'd be crazy to take the risk of driving a car, since there are so many driving laws, that anyone who drives is sure to break several laws a day. In any case, you make things much worse this way. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And on another tangent, for those who are interested one way or another with the Old Testament's tendency to prescribe death by stoning as a punishment for all sorts of things but who are not familiar with this relatively well-known quote from Mishnah Makkot 1:10, "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death.". An illustration that capital punishment may serve a largely symbolic purpose, to indicate the severity of a crime without necessarily being imposed in every or even in any case. Capital and corporal punishment in Judaism Gzuckier (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Parental Consent Abortion Laws Enforcement

How do laws which require parental consent for minors to get abortions get enforced? What would stop someone from faking parental consent or a doctor from doing an abortion on a minor without parental consent and then keeping it a secret? Futurist110 (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The only law I could easily find the text of is West Virginia's. It's not a parental consent law, but a parental notification law. It is not specified how the doctor is to determine that notification was actually given to the correct persons, but he is only punished under law if he knew that proper notification did not reach the minor's parent or legal guardian. There is nothing in the law to stop a minor from scamming a doctor. The law doesn't mention anything about the doctor's requirements for ascertaining the correct identity/location/etc of the minor's parents. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I was asking specifically about parental consent, but in cases of parental notification couldn't the doctor simply avoid putting the abortion for the minor in his records or something like that to avoid notifying the parents? If there's no record that the minor got an abortion, how can the doctor get prosecuted/punished? Futurist110 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, businesses have been known to do things off the books, and sometimes they don't get caught. But the doctor would be taking a big risk to his career, that the minor might end up letting it slip to her parents, who then might go to the police. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a valid point about that. Many doctors probably wouldn't want to risk that. However, there might be a couple doctors who would. However, if the doctor does the abortion off the books, then he probably won't be able to get prosecuted for anything due to a lack of evidence. Of course, the allegations (and possibly resulting investigation) themselves could prove to be damaging to the doctor, even without enough proof for prosecution or a conviction. Futurist110 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Communism and capital punishment

Why do communist states seem to like capital punishment? All of today's communist nations have capital punishment, and China (probably the world's only country to officially keep exact execution statistics a state secret) executes more people yearly than the rest of the world combined. And let's not forget the Soviet Union and the various other communist states throughout history, which purged and executed people who fell out of favor with the ruling party. The question is, why? Does it have to do with the Communist Party of those countries trying to remain in power, or is there something in Marxist writings that encouraged executing individuals? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would ask this: at various points in history, has capital punishment been more popular with dictatorships of any stripe than with non-dictatorships? My hypothesis would be yes, since dictatorships like to be in control. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And, of course, most "communist" governments haven't actually been interested in equality for all, but rather only used this as a way to gain power, and then used severe repression, including executions, to maintain power. In many cases, if the threat of violence was removed, those "communist" nations would soon be overthrown (perhaps in favor of real equality). StuRat (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Because, of course, they are greatly impressed by the science of Sunstein et al, and they are morally driven to protect their citizens to the utmost. Gzuckier (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Irene Adler

Who is Irene Adler? Bennielove (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Bennie

Irene Adler. See also the other links at the top there. Staecker (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Titanic's stewards and their responsibility

I read about Sid Daniels, last surviving crewmember of the RMS Titanic. My question is, was he ever queried about his responsibility on locking the gates and leaving hundreds to die on the lower decks?. American Civil War veteran Isidor Strauss died in the disaster and plenty of other innocents also died because of the locked gates. What about that? Watterwalk (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Isidor Strauss died because he followed the "women and children first" rule, and our article on Sid Daniels says nothing about the locking of any gates. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the gates below decks were kept locked in order to comply with US immigration rules. To quote from our article Sinking of the RMS Titanic, which you would do well to read, "This segregation was not simply for social reasons, but was a requirement of United States immigration laws, which mandated that third-class passengers be segregated to control immigration and prevent the spread of infectious diseases.". DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan for your fast answer, I know that the article on Sid Daniels doesn't say anything about that but he was a steward and stewards are to blame for the locking of the gates, I wanted to know whether or not he was queried about that. Thank you. Isidor's death is moving for me because he was a veteran of the American Civil War, just like my grandfather. Watterwalk (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd rather the stewards had ignored the laws of the USA? As pointed out in the article, the locked gates were a requirement of US law. You would be better off going after US Congressmen and immigration officials, who, in their desire to reduce the spread of infectious diseases, imposed the rule. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Duncan. I just couldn't believe that an American Civil War veteran was left to die on board the ship. Watterwalk (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they went around asking passengers their life-histories before assigning places in the (too few) lifeboats. Perhaps this is something that maritime safety authorities could be encouraged to require in future. DuncanHill (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why would an American civil war veteran be any more deserving than anyone else? Please explain. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I don't mean he was more than anybody else, but American Civil War veterans were highly respected at the time. Watterwalk (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

American Civil War veterans were common. One in ten of the entire population enlisted during the war, so with soldiers being mainly male and mainly of younger ages, you would expect one of every 3 or 4 men old enough to have been in the war (and not a later immigrant) to have actually been veterans. Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, Civil War vets may have been highly respected in the United States... but the Titanic was a British shipping company (White Star)... the British did not have the same attitude towards vets (of any war... even their own). Rank was more important to them than mere service (ie former officers were respected... "other ranks"? much less so). Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a broad brush statement that misinterprets a more complex reality. Yes it's true that the British armed forces had a "lions led by donkeys" problem in the First World War, and probably some similar problems in the second, but the USA selected their officers by rather similar means in that period. Focusing more on what you actually said, "the British" have always been respectful and grateful to those who serve in the armed forces (hence the huge popular regard for the actions of Florence Nightingale even at the time), and indeed (in WWI and to a much lesser extent WWII) had a tendency towards open disrespect for those whom they thought did not (see Order of the White Feather).

The USA has a larger proportion of its population in the armed forces, and thus respect for "veterans" is more widespread, but in the UK there is no shortage of parades to honour veterans (of all ranks), nor monuments to them (which exist in almost every village, and again, honour all ranks). Obviously those monuments were far fewer in the year the Titanic sank, but that didn't mean the respect wasn't there. On the other hand, combatants in a different country's civil war may indeed not have received any natural sense of special respect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you call Isidor Straus an American Civil War veteran? His biography gives no clue. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

True. Seems the closest he came was to volunteer, but was rejected. That he offered his services shows a fine civic spirit, but it hardly qualifies him as a veteran in any common understanding of that word. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your entire premise is full of half-truths, urban legends, and melodramatic nonsense derived from fiction of dubious quality. There are many reasons why most third-class passengers didn't escape, but "locked gates" was really not an issue, and the stewards weren't even responsible for them. Much more serious problems include: the architecture of the ship, which deliberately made it difficult for third-class passengers to even find passages up to the Boat Deck let alone negotiate them (google "Scotland Road"); the mindset of the entire transportation community of the time, which was that accidents were a "thing of the past" and there would never actually be a good reason to evacuate the ship, so drills, adequate lifeboats, etc. were a waste of time and money; the dozens of languages spoken by the immigrants, most of whom did not understand a word of English and could not have found out how to get up to the boat deck even if they tried to learn; and the logistics of trying to get an entire family of five or more small children up, dressed, and out in the time they had. Even the locked gates were there specifically because of US government law - keep in mind that the crew members in charge of the gates, at the time the ship was taking on water? Had no idea of the seriousness of the matter. They weren't thinking that the decision that they were making was between life and death for the third class passengers; they were thinking that the decision was between keeping their jobs or being unemployed and watching their own kids starve to death. We know that the Titanic sank; they didn't have our hindsight. Also, Isidor Straus? CHOSE, voluntarily, to stay behind.--NellieBly (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you just look at the percentages saved then the 2nd Class males faired the worse of anybody on the ship (8.3%), compared with 16% of 3rd class males. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Researching Supreme Court Justice Opinions

I need some help with trying to do topical research on opinions of specific U.S. Supreme Court Justices. I am trying to get 4 or 5 opinions written by Scalia in the field of Commerce Clause, but I am having a hard time finding a way to search opinions in that way. Can anyone recommend a good way to search for them online? Thanks. Rabuve (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried the official U.S. Supreme Court website, in addition to full opinions they also have a collection going back a number of decades of all oral arguments on audio files. "Google Scholar" I also know has only rulings and opinions of most every county, state and federal district appeals and supreme court in the U.S. going back at least to the early 2000s and sometimes further. Also Cornell U. has a treasure trove of all things judiciary and I was able to find a huge collection of just Scalia opinions on their website.Marketdiamond (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is another resource. Zoonoses (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Armies capturing each other's main city

Has there ever been a war in which each army ended up simultaneously in control of the other's principal city or heartland? A hypothetical example which did not occur would be if in World War II Russia had gotten control of Berlin or most of Germany while on the Western Front the Germans wiped out the Allies and retained control of France. Or again in WWII suppose MacArthur had invaded Japan successfully while the Japanese army on the mainland retained control of eastern China. Or in a simpler two-country war, army A could stretch its supply lines in taking over territory B's heartland, and army B circles around and severs army A's supply lines, and then finds it easier to wipe out the thinned part of A's army on territory A than to retake its own territory. Any actual historical examples? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is common during a short, 2-party war, as each side is likely to devote more resources to defense of their capital than the attack on the enemy, and they also have the "home court advantage" (short supply lines, lots of civilian help, etc.). However, over the long term, perhaps generations, a single power can be driven to a new location by their enemies, thus giving up their capital, and perhaps taking over the capital of their weakest enemy. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

How about the Normans? After the Conquest they would go on to lose Normandy to the Franks. I don't think this particularly fits your requirements though, since the events took place over centuries, by which time the Normans were thinking of themselves as English and the Franks as French. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe not completely this but in history Poland smooshed around so much in time-lapse that it looked like an ameoba and it's center moved a good portion of it's diameter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

During the War of the Austrian Succession, the Austrians captured Munich at the same time as Charles Albert of Bavaria (whose capital it was) was being crowned Emperor in Frankfurt. Frankfurt was not the Austrians' own capital (that was Vienna), but they felt that the imperial title, dignity and coronation ought to have gone to their own candidate, Francis Stephen of Lorraine (as indeed it later did). The Empire had no capital, but Frankfurt was one of its principal cities. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In the Second Punic War, Hannibal's forces were occupying much of Italy when Rome attacked and took Carthage itself. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite - Hannibal came back from Italy to Africa before Carthage fell (he commanded at the Battle of Zama for example), and he brought many of his most experienced soldiers back with him. Although he had indeed succeeded in moving at will through the Italian countryside, wiping out several armies sent against him, and capturing numerous major towns, I don't think there was ever a point where his forces were in direct control of the majority of Italy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's true, if I recall correctly the occupation had not ended completely when Carthage fell. It probably comes close but does not exactly meet the OP's criteria.

Battle fronts in Europe on 1 May 1945 (left) and 15 May 1945 (right)

Something similar to your first scenario did happen at the end of World War II in Europe: the Soviets captured Berlin (by 2 May) before "liberating" Prague (the Prague Offensive wouldn't start until 6 May). Copenhagen and Oslo were also liberated after the fall of Berlin. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

How many US Americans have German surnames?

majority ethnicity by county

Comploose (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be incredibly difficult to calculate since it's nearly impossible to accurately define what's an authentically German surname. In the period before the Civil War (and, to a lesser extent, right up until WWII) immigrants to the US were encouraged to Anglicise their names - thus Schmidt becomes Smith and Müller becomes Miller. But not all Smiths are Schmidts - some may be original English Smiths, others could be Hungarian Kovacs, for example. And what about someone with a German surname whose ancestors moved to Russia centuries before the emigration to America? Are they to be counted?

The best data might be to use the 50 million German Americans, unless you have a particular reason otherwise. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, many US Jews have Germanic surnames but it is quite difficult to say if a name like 'Stein' is from German or Yiddish. --Soman (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Subtract of these 50 million the many descendants of Germans who do not have German names. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

See also, this map. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow up question about the map: what do American readers understand by the "American" label in that map? Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic, native American, generally caucasian, or is it a non-ethnicity spcific catch-all for people who did not identify their actual places of ancestral origin? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the last one, more or less, except that they might disagree with your term "non-ethnicity specific". While some people don't know their ancestry, and while some have such a diverse ancestry that it's impossible to pick out one as the main one, there are also a lot of people who actively dislike terms like "Italian-American" etc., saying "I'm not a hyphenated American". They believe strongly in the idea that America is a melting pot, where people from various places merge together into a distinct American form. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, note that the summary below the map says "Areas with the largest "American" ancestry populations were mostly settled by Germans, English, French, Welsh, Scottish and Irish." Duoduoduo (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A story that relates... When a friend of mine joined the US Navy (back in the 80s), they had a form that asked about "national heritage". My friend wrote down "American". The recruiter came back and told him this was not an acceptable option... "we are all Americans," the recruiter said, "where did your parents come from?" My friend replied "New York". "OK," said the recruiter, "What about your Grand Parents, where did they come from?" My friend replied, "New York". "What about their parents?" "New York"... this continued for a few more generations... until my friend finally explained that the first of his ancestors to come to America arrived in the 1630s (His dad's oldest branch was English, settling on Cape Cod... his mom's oldest branch was Dutch, settling in New Amsterdam) and that by the time of the American Revolution, both branches had been infused with various European strains... French, Irish, Scottish, German, Spanish (via Cuba), etc. My friend asked... how far back must I go?... How many generations does a family have to live in America before before you can simply call yourself "American"? The recruiter grunted, and wrote down "English".

There does come a point where hyphens become meaningless, but statisticians and bureaucrats like it when people fit into predetermined boxes. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is taking us pretty far afield from the original question, but I'll note that the hyphens are even more meaningless than one might expect based on one's notional, nominal family tree. Genetic testing reveals that a not-insignificant fraction of children aren't actually the offspring of the putative father (see non-paternity event). There's a pretty wide range of numbers in the published literature, but the lowest estimate is about 0.8% of births, and the median across several studies is 3.7%. The odds are pretty good that there is an unaccounted for branch somewhere in the last four to six generations of any given person's family tree. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of Americans don't like to admit that they are mainly of English blood - that or they don't think of "English" as an actual ethnicity. (I've noticed that Americans seem to see Englishness as they do the base of latex paint - not really there or important in comparison to the "pigment" of Irish, German, etc. ethnicity.) --NellieBly (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Which years of the Senate election cycle favor each party? (USA)

There has to be some bias, if only because most elections are impossible to split evenly. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see two possible questions here:

A) What is the distribution, by party, of US Senators elected in 2012, 2010, and 2008 (or possibly back further). I think this is what you're actually asking.

No, I just wanted to know which of the 33 or 34-state senate classes are more Dem-biased and Rep-biased than the 50 states as a whole without having to look up hundreds of data points. Maybe it's already out there somewhere. According to the article, each class was decided by lot, so I doubt the Senate classes have no bias at all. In fact, 2 senate classes are 33 seats so if you call all the states red or blue one side has to have the advantage. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

B) Does a Senate election year which coincides with the presidential election favor one party over another ? If this is what you meant, I'd expect that to favor Democrats, versus Republicans in mid-term elections. The reason is that many Democratic voters are poorer, and thus it takes more of an effort to get to the polls (taking public transportation, for example), so they are less likely to vote. In mid-term elections, when less is at stake, they aren't as likely to make that effort. There's also a coattails effect, where, if a President of one party is elected, Senators of the same party are also likely to be elected. This, obviously, only applies to years when the two elections are coincident. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not what I asked, but interesting, I hadn't thought of that before. Inherant off-year Republican bias.. (Most polls are under half a mile away here, I once tried to time a vote with a commercial break (well, a few minutes of voting and 4 minutes of walking isn't bad)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Democratic voters are poorer" - I'm sorry, but do you have a source for that? Royor (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Jayron32 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Royor (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron. I thought this was common knowledge. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it is more based on whether its a presidential election year, with the coattail effect, or a midterm election. Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's party. If you take a look at United States midterm election#Historical record of midterm elections, there is a recent average trend where the the party of the president looses seats, regardless if it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

One variant of the OP's question is this: In each of the three sequential senatorial election years, which party has the most seats up for reelection and hence vulnerable? For example, this year if my memory serves me correctly (sorry no citation) 23 of the 33 seats up for election were Democratic seats. That means the Democrats were at a disadvantage, because there were more seats for them to lose than for the Republicans to lose. Simplistic, of course, since it doesn't take into account how many of each party's seats are "safe" and how many are not. So another version of the question would be: of the 33 or 34 seats coming up for election in each of the three cohorts, how many of them are in states that (a) are solid red; (b) lean red; (c) are absolutely borderline; (d) lean blue; (e) are solid blue? Of course, this still doesn't take into account the incumbency advantage, so you'd have to subdivide all five categories into (i) Democratic incumbent, (ii) Republican incumbent, (iii) no incumbent running; then you'd have to further subdivide into first-term (hence vulnerable) incumbents and more entrenched incumbents. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Every state has two senators from different classes (i.e., years of election). Our excellent article Classes of United States Senators shows a 21/10 Democratic/Republican split in Class 1 (elected in 2012; there are also two Democratic-leaning Class 1 senators, for an effective 23/10 split), a 20/13 split in Class 2 (2008) and a 10/24 split in Class 3 (2010). DOR (HK) (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did the Nazis persecute the homosexual?

What was the threat? Watterwalk (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll get a better answer by reading Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, but the short answer is they were seen as a threat to the family. In the Nazi ideal, men were workers and soldiers and women were child producing, cooking and cleaning machines. The duty of the family was to create and support legions of blond-haired, blue eyed 'perfect' children. Homosexuals were seen as a threat to the ideal family. The arguments used today by those opposed to gay marriage are unsettlingly close to those of 70 years ago. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice article to read, thank you Mike. And did it carry, or meant, a mandatory death sentence if a homosexual was caught? Watterwalk (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Some use those arguments, like the infamous Westboro Baptist church, but many others would find much objectionable in the Nazi's viewpoint. Implying some major argumental connections between people who oppose SSM and Nazis is not exactly going to go over well. Vidtharr (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a difficult question. In legal terms I do not believe that homosexuality carried the death penalty. It is not listed in our article Capital punishment in Germany. But, as that article says, "no law even of the Nazis allowed extermination through work, and genocidal mass murder, as in the case of the Holocaust." Many of the Nazis' measures against undesirables had no particular legal basis. However, it would be true to say that, if a homosexual was discovered, and refused to change their ways (as the first article says, there were efforts to "force them into sexual and social conformity") then they could expect to be sent to a concentration camp, which was, as we now know, an effective death sentence. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Being sent to a concentration camp was in no way an effective death sentence. You're thinking of extermination camps, which had nearly 100% death rates. Camps like Dachau, Buchenwald,and Auschwitz (except Auschwitz II), which were grade I, II, and III respectively, had death rates of 18-50%, according on our articles on those camps. The average inmate was more likely to survive than not. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That death rate refers to what time span? Does it refer to one year? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Osman, the Dachau article says official records record 206,206 prisoners and 31,951 deaths (15%) over the 12 years the Nazis ran it. Buchenwald says 238,380 prisoners with 56,000 deaths (23%) over 7 years. Auschwitz combines the numbers for the concentration camp and the extermination camp, so it's hard to say. But the numbers given above are the total death rate for entire time the camp was open. Certainly horrible, but not an automatic death sentence like the extermination camps.Tobyc75 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A very good book for you to read would be The Men With the Pink Triangle, by Heinz Heger, a gay man who survived the Concentration Camps. DuncanHill (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Nazis persecuted all enemies, real or imaginary, of their social model. That includes homosexuals, but also less known victims like esperantists and Jehovah's witnesses. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

One fascinating chapter in the history of Nazi Germany is the brownshirts, where homosexuality was widespread among the leadership. Early on, Hitler needed them, so turned a blind eye. Then, when his power base was secure, he purged them. So, in this sense, homosexuality was just an excuse to get rid of people he wanted to get rid of anyway. StuRat (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It could equally be the case that he had moral objections to their homosexuality all along, but did not act on his objections earlier because (as you say) he needed them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, but in either case, it demonstrates that their objection to homosexuality wasn't all that strong, if they could tolerate it at all. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"Brown people"?

Hello. I have recently heard an upsurge in the term "brown people" to refer to persons of Indian and Arab ancestry, and even more broadly to refer to anyone with darker skin (such as East Asians, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders) except African Americans. What intrigues me is that this is not coming in anywhere near a racist context - I have heard it from some of the most politically correct / culturally sensitive people I know, and in the company of the referred-to "brown people." My question is: Has this term become the new PC word for nonwhite? It doesn't seem OK to my ears, and your article does not address this phenomenon. I am in the midwestern United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.74.238 (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If the brown skinned people in question feel comfortable with the term, then it's OK. However, I would prefer "brown skinned people" instead of "brown people." And both are preferable to brownie or mulatto. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As always, context is very important. A Jewish person calling himself a Jew doesn't mean the same thing as a Neonazi calling them a Jew. The same word can be positive, neutral, or negative depending on context. There are no rules which apply to every social situation. --Jayron32 23:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, take care, if two gangsta are calling each other "nigga", that doesn't mean you can call any one of them the same. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not as annoying as "people of color", implying that Caucasians are as white as a piece of chalk. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't "white" a color? A8875 (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, and neither is black, although, of course, "white" and "black" people aren't actually white and black. StuRat (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are colors. Just not hues. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm brown and I don't find it offensive. But yeah, I can't understand why anybody would want to use it. "Brown people" is so ambiguous it's basically meaningless. The only people it actually excludes are very pale-skinned northern Europeans or East Asians. Speaking of pale-skinned, I find "red skin" or "yellow people" about as offensive as calling someone "paleface". Outwardly harmless. Historically offensive. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Generalising on the basis of skin colour seems pretty dumb to me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

then you should get rid of that box or just strike out the ngamudji.GeeBIGS (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

dumb. Practical. Whatever.GeeBIGS (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

seems its simply a necessity of our ever shrinking world. Why is white or black ok but brown ,red or yellow not? If someone that was not "the same color as me" was trying to be PC and referred to me as a whatever-skinned " person" I would be odd-stricken. Lets see he's white, she's black, he's Indian I mean Asian I mean .... , he's Indian I mean Native American I mean.... A red skinned person indigenous to north america, She's Asian but not Indian or Russian, you know asian-asian. It's just awkward and incongruent. Using brown or yellow avoids the slippery pc slope.GeeBIGS (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Missed my point completely. maybe it was too simple. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would "generalize" (make a general assumption )that you live in a rather homogeneous community. Having to ask people to self-id on a daily basis for gmi I have found that people are proud of whatever they are and barely bat an eye before answering whether they are "white" or "black OR African American" or "OTHER Pacific Islander". Being white I also played on a football team with black and brown people where we all called each other nigga. Both dumb but practicalGeeBIGS (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you have no idea what generalising means. You basically seem to be talking garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(For the clarification of other readers, GeeBIGS has just made considerable changes to his previous post. Part of what I was referring to is no longer there. At both that fine level, and on a broader scale, we are clearly not discussing the same thing. I shall move on, unless wiser posts are made here.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

and what you said at 550 wasn't ?GeeBIGS (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find the strikethrough featureGeeBIGS (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want you to strike out next time, so, type <s>to strike out text</s>, like so. StuRat (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, who cares. See brown bagging. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes use the term "brown people" to describe South Asian people like Indians, Pakistanis, Bagladeshis, and Sri Lankans. I haven't heard anyone get offended by me using this term yet, though to be safe it's probably better to use South Asian. I don't see the point in calling Latinos, Arabs, or Pacific Islanders brown. That would just confuse things. Futurist110 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A Scandal in Bohemia

The statement in the article confused me: "Adler herself is threatening to reveal the relationship upon the announcement of the King's betrothal by sending a photograph of the King (then the Crown Prince) and Adler together to the newspapers." Adler herself is threatening by who to reveal the photograph? It would make more sense that she is the one that does the action of threat.174.20.101.190 (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The English is perfectly straightforward. She's not threatening "by" anyone (and that "threatening by someone" constuction doesn't even make sense in English). She's made a threat. The threat is that she intends to send a photo to the newspapers. The photo is of the King and her. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

ok I see it now but "herself" indicate a reflexive verb which makes the sentence confusing. It could be interpret as she is threatening herself. My English is not so great so not sure if I'm right but I don't think it is necessary to include herself in the sentence. It just made it more confusing.174.20.101.190 (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the preceding sentence:

• It transpires that the King is to become engaged to Clotilde Lothman von Saxe-Meiningen, a young Scandinavian princess, but the King's in-laws-to-be would not allow the marriage should any evidence of his former liaison with an American opera singer, Irene Adler, be revealed to them.

That reads to me that the in-laws-to-be are aware that there was this former liaison with Adler, but they refuse to voluntarily become familiar with the details, and if anyone does inadvertently tell them or if somehow the details come to be known to them, the wedding's off. That's a very odd premise, because it punishes the King for something that might happen over which he has no control. But maybe it's just a poorly written paraphrase of the actual story. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The king would, in that case, be punished for something that was in his control - an 'inappropriate' relationship. The revelation of that would be out of his control. No, you don't need to suppose they know about it from the sentence - it's forecasting how they would react if something [anything, really!] scandalous emerged. --Dweller (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The revelation of that would be out of his control - that's what I'm saying. I think it should be split up and re-written as follows: It transpires that the King is to become engaged to Clotilde Lothman von Saxe-Meiningen, a young Scandinavian princess. However, he had earlier had a liaison with an American opera singer, Irene Adler, and if the King's in-laws-to-be discover this, they would not allow the marriage. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you should edit the article and re-written the sentence as what you did. I think the goal here is to make it as easy understand as possible considering the fact that there are a lot of non-native English speakers in the world that are using English. Plus you got to consider English Wikipedia has by far the most abundant information about most topics. Many people won't find as much information in their native languages as they do in English Wikipedia.174.20.101.190 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd normally be a little reluctant to make it say whatever I think it's trying to say, because Sherlock Holmes stories are known for their peculiar plot lines, and I haven't read the original story. But my first reading of this passage calls for an outlandish interpretation, so I'll let Occam's Razor apply here and change it as you suggest. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

He'd be punished for getting caught. Nothing odd about that. —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

@174.20.101.190: Herself in that sentence is used intensively, not reflexively. It can be a confusing distinction for nonnative English speakers. Deor (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In the Jeremy Brett TV series of the 1980's, the photo of Irene Adler and the future king was an unremarkable one of him seated in an ornate chair, likely a throne, with her standing next to him, with an arm around his shoulders. and holding his hand with her other hand. They were not kissing or embracing. It would not prove they had a sexual affair. Was part of the scandal that "Adler" is often a Jewish surname, so he had been involved in some unspecified way with a Jewish woman, which the Saxe-whatever Scandahoovians (was there a "King of Scandanavia in 1891?) would find more objectionable than if she had had some other surname, or is Adler just a random name Doyle chose, with no association for his 1891 readers? Edison (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, there wasn't a "king of Scandinavia" in 1891, there wasn't even a "king of Bohemia", since at that time Germany had formed. And holding the hand of an unmarried woman on a photograph in 1891 would be enough for contemporary readers to know that the relationship was more serious than just casual friendship. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Phew, I hope Franz Joseph I of Austria didn't hear that somehow. Of course there was a king of Bohemia in 1891. The Kingdom of Bohemia had nothing to do with the German Empire. It was a sovereign nation. It just so happened that the king of Bohemia and the emperor of Austria and the king of Hungary (etc) happened to be one person. Surtsicna (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a pre-1806 analysis? The Austrian emperors did claim the style King of Bohemia (among many others) but, at the time in question, maps would show Bohemia as a province of Cisleithania. Even the concept of dual monarchy (Austria in mere personal union with Hungary) was invented, or revived, in 1867. —Tamfang (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't a "king of Scandinavia" but Sweden and Norway were in personal union from 1814 to 1905. It's a bit surprising that Doyle didn't go all the way and use wholly fictional states, like Ruritania. —Tamfang (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree; but it seems that for the purposes of this story we are in a parallel world where the Kalmar Union did not collapse, but the Austrian Empire did - or something like that. Saxe-Meiningen was a genuine Saxon duchy with ties to the British royal family; I have no idea why Conan Doyle decided they should be the ruling house of Scandinavia, but the prominence of the related house of Saxe-Coburg at the time might have been influential. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I once read an essay (I forget where) whose author argued that the description of the photograph as a 'cabinet' is a double entendre; it conveys an overt meaning 'picture taken by a cheap photo studio', but also has a suggestive meaning 'picture taken by a concealed camera'. But I agree with Saddhiyama that a photograph such as that portrayed in the TV series would at least be sufficient to call the King's conduct into question, if not to be regarded as conclusive evidence of an affair.

Addendum about the fictional dynasties: although we are led to believe that Bohemia in this universe is an independent kingdom ruled by the (fictive) von Ormstein family, the King is nevertheless described as possessing the Habsburg lip. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The structure of the sentences in question is actually proper English, just not the form we're used to in modern writing. And, yes, the issue is that Adler is threatening to expose her relationship with the King (whatever that may be) to the world, thus scandalizing him and causing the proposed marriage to be called off. The scandal simply being that she was "lower class" than he, nothing to do with her ethnicity (which is never mentioned). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)