Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 25

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 25

Is there a link between conservatism and religion?

Basically, I noticed that the United States seems to have conservative tendencies. Abortion, same-sex marriage and the like are hot issues. They also don't have free healthcare and education (to my knowledge at least). On the other hand, Europe seems to be more liberal leaning; many European countries allow same-sex marriage, abortion is allowed in most countries, and in some countries, you can even keep a small amount of marijuana at home and the police won't arrest you, or at most will just fine you. Europeans also seem to have a high standard of living. And let's not even get started on Canada. What I noticed is that, in the United States, most people are religious, especially those living in the Bible Belt, while many people in Europe are atheists, agnostics, or people who don't go to church anymore (except maybe France). So basically, does religion play a major role in conservatism? I think there's an article about that, but it doesn't seem to elaborate on the reasons. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but France is actually one of the least religious countries in Europe and the world - about 50% are atheist or agnostic, by my understanding. Moreover, the US has free public education (up through the secondary level) and is theoretically going to have a convoluted form of universal (if not free) healthcare.

Now to your question: Religion (at least Christianity) is by nature a conservative institution, because it is based on dogma (aka "canon") rather than adaptation to the times. In many ways religious conservatism is linked to social conservatism, as the most literal readings of the Bible prohibit abortion (or even birth control, for that matter) and homosexuality, and prescribe Creationism as the answer to "how did we get here?" in opposition to Darwinian evolution.

However I would argue that religious conservatism is only a small part of why the United States tends to be more conservative than European countries. There is a significant economic aspect - the idea of the "welfare state" is stigmatized in the US, whereas in some countries it is seen as one of the most important social advances of the past century. There is also the glorification of the military culture that needs to be taken into account. And of course, correlation is not causation: generally those who are not educated tend to be more conservative and more religious, especially if they do not benefit directly from the government's social policies - they are more aptly "traditionalists" than conservatives, in that they don't support the older ways because they inherently work better, but because that's "just how it's always been". 24.92.74.238 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

When Christianity is described as conservative, I can never help thinking that Jesus certainly wasn't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My aunt is an Episcopal priest (ie a Christian), and as liberal as they come. She likes to say: "The 'Christian Right' is neither Christian nor right". Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly seem to reject many of the teachings of Jesus, like pacifism and caring for the poor, in favor of Old Testament values. As such, they don't seem entitled to claim to be "Christian", to me. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Say a group were to come in that wanted to repeal same-sex marriage and abortion in Europe. Would these people now be liberal or conservative? If the status quo is liberal ideology, then is conserving it still liberal? There is a corollary contraposition in the preceding sentences. Additionally, you may want to look at separation of church and state for more information about your question. 97.93.199.163 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wanting to restore things to how they used to be is "reactionary". StuRat (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what they call it, but sometimes it also comes under the heading of "damn good sense". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that "putting things back they way they were in the good old days" would include locking up homosexuals in prison or mental institutions, right ? StuRat (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I qualified my statement with "sometimes". If one were to argue that everything about today's world represents progress compared with yesterday's world, I would laugh in their face so long and hard I'd probably have a heart attack. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

StuRat apparently never noticed that the reactionary-conservative-liberal-radical rubric he was taught in high school is total and complete bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have left out moderates. What's your source which proves it to be BS ? StuRat (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See Friedrich Hayek's masterwork, The Road to Serfdom. --Trovatore (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying I have to read the entire book to make sense of your comment ? StuRat (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP means 'conservative' and 'liberal' in their political spectrum senses (i.e., right and left) and not in their most literal incarnations. 24.92.74.238 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, when I said conservative and liberal, I meant both interpretations. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think it works to generalize about the United States. I live in Massachusetts, which is quite liberal in the US sense of that word, is not very religious, and which has had gay marriage and universal healthcare for several years now. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The latter being Romneycare. StuRat (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The two concepts of Fiscal conservatism and Social conservatism are orthogonal. Hence we have Left-libertarianism, etc. Hcobb (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Relevant articles for further reading: Christian Left, Liberal Christianity, Liberal Islam, Oneness Pentecostalism, Liberation theology, Christianity and homosexuality, political Christianity, Book of James, Christianity and evolution and Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Both words have an i, an r, an o, an n, and an e in them. That spells irone. μηδείς (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that in the UK at least, the Labour movement grew out of the soil fertilised by Non-conformism, while the Church of England has been described as "The Conservative Party at prayer". Here Christianity has influenced both sides. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the American drift in this direction is the stronger link between conservatism and ignorance. Hence religious schools have declined as the neo-Know Nothings have taken over the churches.

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121125/A_NEWS/211250301/-1/A_NEWS04 It's a national issue, according to Sean Kennedy, a visiting fellow at the Lexington Institute who produced a report on Catholic education that was released in July. Kennedy reported that 167 Catholic schools across the nation closed in the past year, that national Catholic school enrollment has shrunk in the past few decades from 5.2 million to 2 million

Hcobb (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is one of my pet peeves... Too often, when people use the word "Christian" in political terms, they are really referring to the various Evangelical or Fundamentalist denominations. These denominations do tend to attract political conservatives (and do take an outspokenly conservative political stance in their dogmas)... but the membership of the older "mainstream" Christian denominations (Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) are far more mixed in their politics (with both conservatives, liberals, and moderates... in both clergy and laity).

Being religious has nothing to do with ones political stance... but one's political stance can influence the form that one's religiousness will take. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, the various Christian denominations tend to take a very liberal view of political issues such as spending on social benefits and immigration. The days of the Church of England being the Conservative Party at prayer departed decades ago - see Faith in the City; "An unnamed Conservative Cabinet Minister was reported as dismissing the report — before it was published — as 'pure Marxist theology' and another Conservative MP claimed the report proved that the Anglican Church was governed by a 'load of Communist clerics'". Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of overgeneralisation going on here: there are some regions in the US that allow same-sex marriage (even if it isn't always treated equally to opposite-sex marriage due to federal laws) and where abortion is widely available. There are places in Europe where abortion is strictly limited, like Ireland, where it is only allowed in life-threatening circumstances (and might not even be available in practice then). Some European countries, like Poland if I recall correctly, do not have universal healthcare, and the majority of countries in Europe do not allow same-sex marriage. According to Importance of religion by country, more people say that religion is important in their daily life in several major European countries, including Greece, Italy, Portugal, Poland and Romania, than they do in the US. Also, I suspect that for many devoutly religious people with strong political views, their religious and political views would have developed in tandem, and it would be hard to argue that one is responsible for the other. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Although there are many bible-thumpers-mostly in rural areas although California has its share of Born-Agains - the United States has never in its history, fought a war over religion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Philippines and plastic bag bans (yet again)

I'm very much aware that I've asked this question twice, but both times I asked them, results were inconclusive, usually because I did not choose the right words in asking the questions. Hopefully this time, I can finally get some good answers on the topic. My question is: Does the Philippines have a higher number of plastic bag bans than other Asian countries? (excluding Bangladesh) If so, what are the possible reasons why the Philippines does and other Asian countries don't? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well as I said in reply to your last question, per your own comments the Philippines does not have a greater level of plastic bag ban then Bangladesh, so your comment is apparently excluding Bangladesh even though this hasn't been stated for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll exclude Bangladesh. Besides, I'm referring to individual bans. A nationwide ban in Bangladesh still counts as a single ban. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the question you are trying to ask is: Excluding nations that have a national level ban, which Asian country has the most number of purely local/provincial level laws banning or restricting plastic bags? Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Except that it has to be compared to the Philippines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Does the Philippines have a national ban, or just a whole bunch of provincial/local ones? Blueboar (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Several, several, local bans, especially in Luzon. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK... my guess is that you will not get a good answer to your question here on Wikipedia. I doubt there are sources that compile statistics on local/provincial level plastic bag ordinances in a given country. The best you might get are guesses based on anecdotal evidence... ie someone saying: "well all the towns near where I live (in country X) have anti plastic bag ordinances... so country X is a contender." Blueboar (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-reliable source: List of plastic bag bans in the Philippines - Plastic Bag Ban Report (PBBR). Count 'em up. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 05:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why the op is soo concerned with this topic.GeeBIGS (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look at the OP's other contributions to get a clue. μηδείς (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I am so curious is because my city is one of the so-called "pioneers" in the boom of plastic bag bans in the Philippines; it was among the first cities to do so. I was wondering if a similar trend exists in other Asian countries. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article seems to be Phase-out of lightweight plastic bags (why not Plastic bag ban? but it needs Philippines info added.

Googling for lists so far I'm finding only very general lists of countries here and here and here. Plus the blog Plastic Bag Ban Report which has entries for China, India, Philippines, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam so may have more specific info.

One more possible lead; this article mentions cities in China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore and Taiwan. The author, Lilia Casanova, seems to write a lot on the topic. Her contact info here. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What are the current British laws on treason?

Is public expression of frustration that your mother might outlive you grounds for whatever the modern version of beheading is in the United Kingdom? What is? μηδείς (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a concise history of sedition and treason in the UK here, and of course we have an article: Treason. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What's worrying about that interview is that he wants to have time to "do things". British monarchs are not supposed to do things, other than they are what they are told to do by people who have been elected to do things. Charles already faces opposition to him becoming monarch - it may never happen even if his mother dies first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Having frustrated heirs to the throne is tradition in the UK, not treason. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, your last sentence is very contentious. Many people have their opinions on individual members of the Royal Family, but all that matters is the law, and the law says that Charles will succeed his mother as long as he doesn't die first or become a Roman Catholic or marry one. It would take an absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance for the parliament to change the law to exclude Charles from the succession. Not being as well-liked as William is most definitely not such a circumstance. There are these grumblings of his dabbling in matters some say he should not be dabbling in; but rest assured, they would never amount to such a circumstance either. He has desired the throne for far too long to seriously jeopardise it now. All the signs are that his desire is undiminished, hence his sense of frustration; there's no evidence he's contriving to make himself ineligible to accede. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hardly _unprecedented_ - James II and Edward VIII come immediately to mind. But I agree that Charles' behaviour isn't close to the level that would provoke a constitutional crisis. Tevildo (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Those two cases are about people who came to the throne, and some time later ceased to be monarch, for whatever reason. They are not comparable to a legitimate heir being deemed ineligible to ever accede in the first place. There are existing laws that would make Charles ineligible, such as becoming or marrying a Catholic. But I'm not aware of any case where a law was passed to specifically exclude an otherwise legitimate heir from the line of succession. That's what I mean by "an absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been a very long time since the eldest child and heir apparent of the British throne has been passed over; William I, Count of Boulogne is the most obvious example I can think of; on the death of his older brother Eustace, he should have been next in line and heir apparent to his father Stephen as King of \ngland. Stephen passed him over in favor of the heir to the Empress Mathilda in order to bring an end to the long civil war that marked his reign, see Treaty of Wallingford. Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales was also written out of legitimate succession when the House of York seized control of the monarchy during the War of the Roses, though he died less than a month after his father's final deposement. And, during the same war, there was the curious case of the Princes in the Tower. Since then, with the exceptions already noted with the removal of Catholics from the line of succession that resulted in the deposition of James II and the eventual inheritance of the House of Hanover, I can't think of any other clear English or British heirs apparent that were passed over. --Jayron32 06:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And regarding Charles being written out of the succession: it would require extraordinary means to do so; under the Statute of Westminster 1931, changes to the succession require the positive votes of all 16 countries where the British monarch reigns. Doing so is fairly unlikely. --Jayron32 06:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that I was being mischievous. But, the antipathy towards Charles is fairly strong, and currently masked by the positive views people have for his mother and his son. If he did become king and make clear his own personal views on controversial policy matters - as he has done in the past - the realisation that no-one has ever voted for his family to have that role may become politically significant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is still a very different scenario from his being passed over in favour of his son and never making it to the throne to begin with. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Medeis didn't so much have a question as much as she wanted to point out Charles's remarkable public statement that, interpreted uncharitably, can be read as saying he wishes his mother would hurry up and die. Though I have no great affection for royalism, I might suggest that, in this sort of situation, it's better to try to find the charitable interpretation, however strained it might be. --Trovatore (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually what shocked me was the logical implication of his words. Two interesting facts from Tammy's first source, is that prophesying the monarch's death by witchcraft was a capital offense because it might scare him to death, and that a 19th-century law that expressing support for the overthrow of the monarchy (even peaceful usurpation or republicanism) is punishable by a one-way lifetime trip to Australia. The US has no law of treason in regard to the President as President. Oswald might have had treason charges brought against him if it were proven he was working for or to aid a foreign enemy. McKinley's assassin Csolgosz was electrocuted for first degree murder, and no other charge.

The open questions as I see them are, what are the actual laws still in effect? And does Charles have any sort of immunity? However unlikely a prosecution would be, if he were to write a tract urging her to step down in his favor he would seem subject to lifetime transportation according to the 1848 Felony Treason Act. μηδείς (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Which, of course, could be effected by making him the next Governor General of Australia. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

On a sort of sidenote, it was brought up in the UK TV show QI (a fairly reputable source), that no form of capital punishment is used in the UK for any reason anymore (including treason). 80.254.147.164 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't quite explain how old laws come off the books, IP 80. Are they just ignored? An American sees your Parliament as making it up as you go along, a practice we've recently adopted as well. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And presumably that's why Medeis said "whatever the modern version of beheading". I'm pretty sure that Parliament abolished it wholesale. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But according to parliamentary sovereignty, they could simply reinstate it in a bill of attainder naming one person specifically, and off with his head. Would it get royal assent? --Trovatore (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That depends on how parliamentary sovereignty meshes with foreign treaties, since if I remember right, the EU membership treaty (whatever it is) prohibits signatories from permitting capital punishment. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of discussion on this at Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom, Human Rights Act 1998 and Constitution of the United Kingdom. The current opinion generally seems to be that parliamentary sovereignty remains (although not everyone agrees), and per the Human Rights Act, the courts are forbidden from striking down laws (they can can reinterpret them but if you clearly spell out the death penalty I'm not sure how that is going to be reintepreted to mean you don't actually have to kill the person) for incompatibility instead issuing a Declaration of incompatibility and waiting/hoping parliament does something. However I think it's a fair to say that such a case will definitely make it to the European Court of Human Rights and it's not entirely clear to me what will happen when the European Court of Human Rights finds it a clear cut violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Theoretically, the UK is supposed to abide by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights but it's possible parliament and the Government will resist and there will be some sort of constitutional crisis. (Although realisticly, it's hard to imagine such a bill getting Royal Assent so if there is any sort of constitutional crisis, it would likely arise earlier. But then again, it's hard to imagine such a situation at all so... I wonder whether presuming the Charles remains the Prince of Wales, an argument could be made Prince's Consent is required.) Of course depending on the mood of the country, it's possible the UK will just go ahead and ignore the ECHR which I think has happened before at least for other countries, but never in the case of the death penalty. I would note in the case of Russia, it has been suggested expulsion from the Council of Europe is likely, in fact it's not even clear if they will wait for a European Court of Human Rights decision. (In the case of the UK, expulsion from the European Union and all related European community bodies also seems likely.) See [1], [2], Capital punishment in Russia and [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible for people or their parents and grandparents not to have cousins or siblings? (A family of only children)

Is it possible for people or their parents and grandparents not to have cousins or siblings? (A family of only children) I've heard of the one child rule in China but are they families that exist with a Lineage of only children? Are there any famous people or families like that? Neptunekh94 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible? Sure it is. Have you looked on Google to see what is said, if anything, about the rest of your question? Like maybe "single children of single children", or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well... it depends on what you mean by "cousins"... it is certainly possible if you restrict the definition to first or second cousins (common grand parents or great-grand parents), but as you go back through the generations, it becomes highly unlikely that every generation of ancestors (both maternal and paternal) were single-child families. Sooner or later, there will be at least one ancestor that had a sibling who has living descendents. So you might not have any first cousins, but you probably do have at least one ninth cousin or tenth cousin out there... somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See Only child. Another interesting article is this one from TIME: The Only Child: Debunking the Myths that includes a gallery of famous onlies. That in turn gives you examples of famous onlies of onlies such as Jennifer Grant and Lisa Marie Presley. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What percent of the adult population over 18 has never been married nor ever been in romantic relationships?

What percent of the adult population over 18 has never been married nor ever been in romantic relationships? Neptunekh94 (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a precise definition for "romantic relationship"? HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And by adult population one must assume OP is talking about the adult population globally. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in perusing the truly massive study at [4], which unfortunately is specific to the United States. Anyway, according to that, 10% of unmarried Americans have never had sex by age 44, which is the highest age for which this really enormous survey goes. Amongst married Americans, only a little over 2% in that age group have never had sex. Since almost 100% of Americans get married at some point in their lives, 2-3% seems like a reasonable percentage of middle-aged Americans who have never had sex (or at least would never admit it, even in an anonymous survey). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"...almost 100% of Americans get married at some point in their lives..." Really? That seems extraordinary. Source? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it seems somewhat questionable. This source [5] for example says one in ten people 50 to 54 have never been married. (It also claims one in three never marry at all but I'm somewhat unclear how they determined that figure as it's supposed to come from census figures so I'm not going to quote it as reliable. Based on some other sources, I think they're actually talking about the percentage of adults who have not married yet, in which case the source is IMO using very poor wording.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

From the 2000 census data [6], 4.5% of people 60 and over have never been married. While some of these people may eventually marry, it's resonable to assume the percentage of people who never married is likely to be higher since some people will obviously die at a younger age when fewer of them are married (if we ignoring the complicating factor of marriage affecting death rates). Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Even these 4.5% of never married over 1960 seems strange to me. What about all the homosexuals and incorrigible single womanizers? They amount to more than 4.5% of the population. The data doesn't pass my bull-shit detecting plausibility test. Linenld (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the figures particularly unbelievable even if we ignore the possibly those who don't marry are more likely to die at a younger age. Historically, plenty of gay people married people of the opposite sex due to social pressure and other reasons. (And I think your overestimating the number of 'incorrigible single womanizers'.) Remember since it was the 2000 census, we're talking about people born in 1940 or earlier. If you're going by current marriage trends, you're likely to be mislead since all the trends suggest marriage is getting less popular which may mean 40 years from now there will be a much higher percentage of people over 60 who never married, but obviously can't have an effect on those already over 60 who married sometime during their life. (In fact the first source I linked to strongly suggests we should expect the percentage of people over 60 who never married to have increased likely by a fair amount in recent figures.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Someguy's post says "according to that [7], 10% of unmarried Americans have never had sex by age 44, which is the highest age for which this really enormous survey goes. Amongst married Americans, only a little over 2% in that age group have never had sex." But as far as I can see that study only includes women. And I can't find those statistics in that (long) article -- what page are they on? I find it a little surprising that supposedly over 2% of married 44-year-old (female) Americans have never had sex. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Page 71. I was also a teeny bit wrong, it was 1.6%, not "a little over 2%". To give the most accurate statement: According to the cited survey, 98.4% of married American women between the ages of 30 and 44 have had sex at least once in their lives. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's 1.6% of "all women", not "married women". There are columns for "all women" and columns for "never-married women"; there are no columns for "married women" per se. If you multiply out the percentages, that's 512,160 virgins among the never-married women 30-44, which makes 1.57% of the "all women" 30-44. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So how many married virgins are there? Roger (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

They're probably a non-null subset of people who got married today but have not had their wedding night yet. So technically they do exist. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Marriage of convenience sayeth not. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How would reliabilism justify knowledge?

We all know that reliabilism is under externalism. But my questions are, if knowledge is justified by an outside source then how is it going to relate to the person who would say that what he has is knowledge? and Would it not turn as another form of evidentialist claim if the external justification should relate to the person to assert that what he has is knowledge? Because it requires his/her cognitive skills so as to believe and recognize an external justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We all know that reliabilism is under externalism - Well, this little black duck doesn't know that, because he doesn't even know what either of those two things is. They have links but I don't have a week spare to read and absorb the concepts contained therein. But that aside, what would it mean for one -ism to be "under" another -ism? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's normal for externalists to claim that you don't need to know that you know x in order to know x. K(S, p) → K(S, K(S,p)) is false for many externalists (where K(z, y) means "Some person z knows some proposition y" and S is a person and p is a proposition). The K(S, p) speaks to the first- order knowledge of S, and the K(S, K(S , p)) speaks to the second-order knowledge of S.

That does not fully answer your question, I know, and I don't think I can because I don't know all the different externalist positions. One influential paper: Tyler Burge (1988), “Individualism and Self-Knowledge” in the Journal of Philosophy, 85, pp. 649–63. Burge says "Knowing one's thoughts no more requires separate investigation of the conditions that make the judgment possible than knowing what one perceives." His theory is that the mental event involved in K(S, K(S , p)) contains within it the mental event involved in K(S, p). And S need not recognize an external justification for K(S, p) in order for there to be K(S, K(S , p)) because the object of the mental event of K(S, K(S , p)), that is, the mental event of K(S, p), is already beheld by S. So take reliabilism. The reliability of the belief in p is the justification for K(S , p). The reliability of the belief in K(S , p) is the justification for K(S, K(S , p)), let's call that the second-order reliability in this case. The recognition that "the reliability of the belief in p is the justification for K(S, p)" is not the justification, but the second-order reliability itself is the justification. The second-order reliability is guaranteed by the first-order reliability, because the second-order knowledge content is merely the first-order knowledge which S does have as a mental event and which has its own reliability.

So really, he is calling out the line of thought you have advanced as a sort of category error: An epistemological theory says what it is for someone to know some proposition, including what it is for someone to have the relevant justification. You then turn around and say: "Well, for S to know p is for S to have that justification, so for S to know that S knows p is for S to know that S has that justification, ergo, externalism falls apart". Burge is turning around and saying: "No, it's externalism all the way down. For S to know p implies that S has that justification, but the knowledge itself is not merely that S has that justification. For S to know that S knows p is not for S to know the first-order justification, but is rather that S has the second-order justification."

I might have poorly put Burge's theory, but I encourage you to read the paper. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did the Southern states ratify the 13th amendment?

I was watching Spielberg's Lincoln movie yesterday, and I was wondering why the Southern states decided to ratify the 13th amendment abolishing slavery? According to the wiki page, states like Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, all ratified it, almost immediately after the war! Borisblue (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

'Cause they accepted the fact that they had just lost the war (a war fought. in part, to settle that exact issue)? Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a somewhat long story. The basic version is that after Johnson took power (after Lincoln's assassination), he largely halted many of the efforts of Reconstruction and scaled them back to, "if you ratify the 13th amendment, you can join the Union again." (Which was how Lincoln thought Reconstruction should start, not end.) At that point it was an expedient move to get out from under martial law, and by that point it was clear to all that they couldn't just re-institute slavery (nor did they really need to). Read the Reconstruction article if you want to get a better sense of the whole history. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. 98 is partly correct. Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas were partly or completely under Union control by the end of 1864, and those states formed Unionist state governments amenable to the abolition of slavery. These states typically had two rival governments, one loyal to the Confederacy and another loyal to the Union. See, for example, Louisiana in the American Civil War and Restored Government of Virginia. It was the Unionist governments of these states, not the secessionist governments, that ratified the 13th amendment. For the other Southern states that ratified the amendment during the 1860s, Mr. 98's explanation is correct. Johnson made ratification an implicit condition for readmission to the Union. See this account. Marco polo (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You may also find Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal and ratification interesting in this regard. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do humans enjoy fictional stories?

The question is not only why we like stories, but those that are invented.OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody really knows, but it is an interesting question, given how much of a role fiction plays in the lives of human beings. There's at least one book that speculates on the topic, but I view this kind of neuro-cultural speculation with some suspicion, personally, because we still really are grasping around in the dark when we are trying to talk about even how the brain works, much less how the brain evolved. But it's at least an attempt at a learned explanation. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fiction is certainly an early human invention... In a world where there is a great big hungry lion hiding in the bushes outside the cave, it's nice to imagine a world where someone in the tribe might actually be brave enough to face the great big hungry lion and drive it away (psst... hey Ogg... hint, hint). Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that, like dreaming, they give us an opportunity to think about how we might handle that situation, and thus prepare for a similar situation, in case it does occur. As such, life threatening situations in fiction are more desirable, since preparing for those is most important. (I always do that: "Get down on the ground, you idiot, can't you see they're shooting at you ?") StuRat (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are several psychological purposes of fiction. Some of the major ones include the validation of one's philosophical or social values (IE the "crime epic" in which the protagonist goes from a typical blue collar life into a life of crime, gets the girl, the money and the power, and ends up "taking a tour of the meadowlands" or otherwise tortured and killed for his deviance from social norms EG Scarface, The Godfather, The Sopranos, etc), explication of social taboos (in which an antagonist violates some grave social taboo and suffers most horribly, IE Hamlet) exploration of an ideal society (what Bruce Sterling called "the magical widget factory tour" in which the workings of a utopia are carefully explained to the captive audience), and many other roles. Fiction can illustrate values, as in a Passion Play or Morality Play, fiction can guide us along a mythological journey, as in the classic "Path of the Hero" as explained by Campbell, Et Al. Fiction can serve to both validate and challenge our values. Stories are where we boil our values down to basic units and can examine, challenge and explore their implications. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• As reading sources, I would strongly recommend the Novelist/Philosopher Ayn Rand's two works on fiction, The Romantic Manifesto, in which she writes various essays on aesthetics in general, and her The Art of Fiction which is a guide to writers that rests upon her aesthetic theories. Both books are great reads aimed at the layman and you don't have to agree with her politics or atheism to get a lot out of them. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Muslim meal times

My young daughter has a friend who is Muslim and, from what I can gather, the family originally came from Egypt. The parents seem like nice folks, though there's a sizable language barrier between us, hence my reason for asking here. One thing we've noticed is that the family seems to have (what seems to us) odd meal times. I'd like to learn more about this as the girls frequently visit either family's home, so it would be good to kind of know how everything is set up. I think it's pretty standard for people to eat a breakfast soon after rising, a lunch sometime around noon, and then a supper/dinner five to seven hours after that. Obviously there's a lot of variation, but I think that gives a rough average, yes? This family seems to eat their breakfast around noon, their midday meal sometime around two or three in the afternoon (or later) and then has supper very late, just before bed. At least, that's the impression I'm getting via the kids, who are not always the greatest informants! I've tried Googling about Muslim meal times, but everything I see is in regards to Ramadan and other fasting practices, which I don't think are at play here. Any help? Is this a standard Muslim meal schedule? An Egyptian thing? I'm quite aware it could just be an idiosyncrasy of the family, too. Matt Deres (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Frommers has a little Egyptian mealtime info. This report talks about restaurants closing at 2 am being a controversial curtailment of their normal hours. Given the climate, I'd expect this is the effect of a siesta rather than theology (and the Frommers link says things are different during Ramadan). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

and this (in the Egyption home cooking section) talks about dinner invitations for times as late as 1 am. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's likely to be just an idiosyncrasy of the family. There are plenty of families of all religions and ethnicities who like to get up late, have a leisurely breakfast and so on. --Viennese Waltz 18:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's wrong for sure. Philoknow (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Are you responding to Finlay McWalter? Because your indentation makes it seem you're responding to Viennese Waltz. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he is responding to me - and I don't see how he can be so sure that I'm wrong. --Viennese Waltz 18:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That was exactly my thought, hence my AGF query about it being "A Question of Indentation". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Normal" mealtimes vary across cultures.. Lunch provides more information. Lunch at 16:00 is "normal" for some cultures. Philoknow (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh, so it does. Thanks for the link; I guess I was looking from the wrong direction, going from Muslim -> lunch instead of lunch -> Muslim. Thank you also to Finlay; I'll check those links as well. Matt Deres (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Do either of the parents work an unusual shift ? This might explain the odd meal hours, if they are trying to have their meals together, despite the unusual shift. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a Muslim peculiarity, it's a cultural one. Different Muslim (or Arab) countries have different work schedules. In Egypt, typically, many businesses and government offices work from early morning until mid-afternoon without a break. People come home around 3:00-5:00 pm, have their lunch, take a nap, and then get back to business early evening (7:00 pm or so). The final meal of the day is taken in the middle of the night, before they turn in to bed. Other countires of the region (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan...) will also have their evening meal late, but not quite so much - restaurants begin to get busy around 9:30 pm or so, and it's not rare to see a family with young children show up for a meal at 10:30 pm). Yet other places have adopted the western work week and meal times differ little from what would be in Europe. However, in northern Morocco, for example, where there's a strong Spanish influence, breakfast is late (9:30-10 am), lunch is around 3 pm, tea time is around 7:00 pm, and the evening meal is taken near midnight. Generally, one of the key factors is that most of these countries have a climate with a oppressively hot middle of the day, which pushes people to take a mid-day nap and spent more of their waking hours at night, when the temperatures are more pleasant.

To add more complication, Ramadan with its restrictions on eating during daylight hours, also produces what to us are strange meal times, especially around now when it falls in the middle of summer (it was not as discernible when Ramadan fell in mid-winter a decade ago). All of this based on extensive travel around the region and is OR, although I'm sure it can be verified. --Xuxl (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, well that pretty much exactly mirrors the kind of thing we've seen. Thanks for the explanation! I think the family's been in Canada for less than ten years, so their schedule could easily be a holdover from the old country. If you have a reliable source, you should think about putting that info into an article somewhere. Matt Deres (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are my two cents: it depends on whether lunch or dinner is the main meal of the day. I too happen to come from a Muslim family, though a Bosnian one (and thus of Slavic origin), so I'm not sure if that is relevant. There might be some cultural similarities, though the same is true for Orthodox Christian Serbs and Roman Catholic Croats. In our culture, lunch is the main meal. Dinner is, in fact, a sort of a nighttime breakfast. The meal times of that family correspond almost perfectly to meal times in Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

World War II and the suicide of most Nazi members

Why?, did it come about out of guilt for what they had done over the years of war or just fear of getting caught? Keeeith (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Each case would be different. It's not possible to generalize as you suggest. --Viennese Waltz 18:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, 'most' is an overstatement. "The list includes eight out of 41 NSDAP regional leaders who held office between 1926 and 1945, seven out of 47 higher SS and police leaders, 53 out of 554 Army generals, 14 out of 98 Luftwaffe generals [and] 11 out of 53 admirals in the Kriegsmarine." However, it is true that many Germans took their own lives following the end of the war. Our article Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany states that "[t]he reasons for these waves of suicides were numerous and include the effects of Nazi propaganda, the example of the suicide of Adolf Hitler, victims' attachment to the ideals of the Nazi party, and a reaction to the loss of the war and, consequently, the anticipated Allied occupation of Nazi Germany." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What's a "Nazi member"? A Nazi party member? Answering your question, the alternative fate of falling into Russian hands or facing the death penalty was not very attractive either. I do not believe in a general feeling of guilt, given the reactions at the Nuremberg by some leaders or trying to bury the past by the general German and moving on. Philoknow (talk)

See also this previous question. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all! Keeeith (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Who is educated?

Who can claim, at least in the Western civilization, to be educated? Do you need a degree? Read the news regularly? Speak foreign languages? Recite poetry? Correctly spell without spell checker? Standard accent? Eat with your mouth shut and say please and thank you? Know the bible by heart or better be an atheist? Where's the valid canon? Linenld (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

One criterion by which readers decide if a writer is "educated" is his ability to avoid using a different word than the one he intended, such as writing "cannon" when he means canon. In speech, someone might be regarded as "uneducated" (or perhaps an autodidact if he mispronounced a word, such as pronouncing "chaos" beginning with a "chay" sound rather than a hard "c" sound as I once did when as a child I had only read the word and never heard anyone say it. "Proper" grammar and spelling are an initial hurdle in presenting oneself as "educated." Eating habits and saying "Thank you" might be indicators of a "proper upbringing" more than of "education." I don't see Americans expecting an educated person to recite poetry and speak a foreign language. I found several descriptions which have been written of what makes a person "educated." Some were more like what makes a person relate to God and others well, but one which seems more mainstream is [8]. Edison (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The author of that essay (K P Mohann) knows nothing about physics or punctuation... Tevildo (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 ??? I didn't read Mohanan's whole essay, but I didn't find a single error in punctuation in the extracts I did read. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"We expect a physicist to know that in the quark theory, the only elementary particles are quarks and leptons, but it is hardly necessary for a lawyer, doctor, or sociologist to have this information, and hence we would treat it as specialized knowledge." Justify the commas after "theory" and "information" and you will rise even further in my estimation. :) Tevildo (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That was something I hadn't read. "In the quark theory" could be regarded as parenthetical and hence deserving of two commas. Or not, in which case it gets none. But not just the one, as written. I don't have a problem with the comma after "information", but it's not essential. I still think it's a bit of an overkill to say he "knows nothing" about punctuation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening this out as it might be relevant to the discussion. "Nothing" was admittedly excessive - Mohanan's punctuation isn't as dreadful as many pieces of text that one reads on the Internet, but he does not appear to have studied any formal rules of punctuation in great detail, choosing instead the "bung a comma in every now and then when it looks OK" approach. This reminded me, indirectly, of a very interesting programme on the radio a couple of weeks ago about E D Hirsch and cultural literacy. Mohanan takes the opposite position, in that his essay considers the goal of education to be the development of appropriate thinking techniques and methods for processing information - this is important, true, but it might be regarded as placing too little emphasis on the acquisition of actual _facts_. Although nobody today would regard the full-blown Gradgrindian approach as acceptable, I would still argue that knowledge of facts themselves in addition to methods of obtaining them is an important component of "educatedness". Tevildo (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well the examples listed are really couple different things: being educated (formal education), having good etiquette, and learned (bilingual, recite poetry, etc acquired by formal education and/or experience) . For Canada and US, the relevant articles would be Educational attainment in the United States & Education in Canada (or look at this under Educational attainment). One can "claim" to be educated at any level, however in my opinion the very bare minimum would be completing high school but it'll be a more reasonable claim if one complete some sort of post-secondary level of education (College Associate degree and up). Royor (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Linenld -- I don't think that either being an atheist or memorizing the Bible has much to do with it, but to be "educated" in a Western sense, you do have to know in a general way about certain Biblical episodes or incidents (the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Calf, etc.), even if you don't believe in them. By the way, Muslims place greater emphasis on personal scripture memorization than either Christians or Jews do... AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There a lot of good points above; I would only like to stress how important the context is for answering this question. There are situations where only those people who have completed a doctorate would be called "educated". Likewise, there are instances where completing any formal education at all would be considered so. My opinion is that for the average person in urban North America, obtaining a post secondary degree would probably be a minimum requirement to have people refer to you as "an educated person." It's not that others are uneducated, it's just that there's a rising standard in what it means to have a formal education; with so many people having bachelor degrees, it would be difficult to be called "educated" without one.

Context comes into it further when you talk about what your degree is in. For some people, only individuals who have completed a course of study in something highfalutin like medicine or English literature would be considered "educated", while the folks that only got, say, a business degree would not. Matt Deres (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think perfect punctuation is required for a person to be considered "educated". In fact, few people other than professional editors (not all of whom are highly educated) manage perfect punctuation. This is OR based on my experience as a professional editor who has at times had to edit the punctuation of highly educated persons. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As Mark Twain said: "I have never let my learning get in the way of my education." There are lots of forms of education... an auto mechanic may not have completed high school, but he can be quite educated on the topic of automobiles. Blueboar (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Educated is too broad a term to attack usefully. An elementary education is the ability to read, use a library, do arithmetic and write a paragraph in full sentences. A proper education is the ability to do algebra (including exponents), to write a report and a formal letter, to find yourself on a map and the way to your destination, to follow and participate in politics, to run a household, and to earn a living. A liberal education requires some knowledge of world and classical history, the scientific method, the arts, familiarity with logic, the use of a foreign language, the ability to write an essay and a lab report, and to have a good notion of the extent of your own ignorance. A doctorate requires mastery of a classical and fluency in a foreign language, authoritative expertise in some technical area, the ability to do independent research, to write a thesis, and to defend it and yourself in a dissertation. Approximately. See the trivium, the quadrivium, and paideia. μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Medeis. My only quibble is that, even at the most exalted universities, a doctorate (except in the classics) today no longer requires mastery of a classical language. The other requirements still apply at the best universities. Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Here I was hoping if I didn't mention that the language standard has largely been abandoned it might catch back on, and you had to go and ruin it for me! μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In the sciences, at least in the United States, the defense is typically a formality. Your adviser will generally not allow you to schedule a defense unless you're going to pass, and you're lucky if your other committee members even read your dissertation. I was actually asked whether I wanted to do a defense at all (I did — it's a lovely rite of passage but not much more than that). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Educated" requires context. Those who excel in some areas, fall behind in other areas, oftentimes. Also, if I particularly value language skills, I am probably going to be impressed by someone who uses language well. If I am seeking to understand the mysteries of the universe I might consider a cosmologist the most educated person I have ever met. Thus my own personal preferences will determine who I consider educated and conversely uneducated. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Turning into a market maker (not in the stock market)

Is it by any mean illegal to take part in a market as a bigger player and buy all offered products at a specific price and only sell them back into the same market with a margin of profit? It would mean that you indeed are the market maker and decides for all (smaller) players that the prices have to go up. It would only work if you have considerable more means than others, or when other similar players are doing the same. As a concrete example, imagine that you buy all offered offices in a district, which normally trade for $500/sq ft, and try to re-sell for $600/sq ft. You do it systematically, and each time an office get offered by less than $600/sq ft you go there and buy it. Linenld (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See monopoly, in many countries it's illegal - see competition law. Royor (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that strategy would work. Nobody would want to buy in an area where such real estate manipulation occurs, so you would end up with property worth less than what you paid for it. Real estate agents would also figure out your strategy, and only sell to you for $599 per square foot. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually after re-reading the question price fixing would be the more relevant article (it might work depending on the country and local laws). Of course when the government does this it's now a price floor Royor (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's called buying low and selling high which is called investment when the big guys do it and scalping when the little guys do it. It's neither monopoly which requires government force to make people buy from you and only you or price fixing which is competitors getting together and colluding to charge the same amount. In either of those cases there might be a temporary swing one way or the other, but so long as the government doesn't prevent it market forces will cause a correction. What it sounds like your big guy is trying to do is corner the market. Again, that's never been accomplished without government backing, as people catch on and react as StuRat indicated. Again, for a great read and the go-to resource on free market economics rationally explained go to George Reisman's http://www.capitalism.net/ and download his college textbook for free as a pdf on the left of the page. μηδείς (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Hunt brothers tried to corner the market in silver in 1980, but ended up losing a ton of money. It's not an easy thing to pull off. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, precisely the example I was thinking of! There are others as well. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

symbols of France, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Spain

Canada is known for its maple leaf, USA is known for its stars and strips and UK is known for its Union Jack. What about France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Germany and Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We have a list of National emblems you may wish to peruse. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For the flags themselves, there are the French drapeau tricolore or pavillon tricolore, Italian il tricolore, and Spanish la rojigualda. Don't know about the Netherlands. Germany's colors are referred to as Schwarz-Rot-Gold" (black, red, gold), and sport sailors apparently call the Flag of Germany the "Adenauer", but it doesn't have a special name beyond that, as far as I can think of right now, which isn't terribly far, I admit. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Dutch call their flag "het rood-wit-blauw" or "the red-white-blue". Marco polo (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And then they go and use orange for their sporting colour, just to confuse us all. (As an Australian, I actually love it, because we do pretty much the same thing - a flag that's predominantly blue, with some white and red, but green and gold for sport.) HiLo48 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The original Dutch flag was orange-white-blue, but somehow the orange changed to red. Orange of course refers to the House of Orange. - Lindert (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See Flag of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

One of France's oldest national symbols is the Fleur-de-lis, though it is considered somewhat monarchical. There's Marianne, which is something like the "Uncle Sam" symbol is for the U.S., a personification of the nation; France's equivalent of the U.S. Bald Eagle is le coq gaulois. --Jayron32 03:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As for Germany: We have our Bundesadler. The Oak is also used as a national symbol, for example in coinage. --Abracus (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oak is a symbol of England too, although we more usually use a rose Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In traditional European quasi-heraldic symbolism, the lion was the noblest animal, the eagle the noblest bird, and the oak the noblest tree. Thus many countries have eagle or lion emblems, and it doesn't surprise me that multiple nations have the oak as a symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Certain buildings can symbolize a nation... the Eiffel Tower for France, the Leaning Tower of Pisa for Italy... A Windmill for the Netherlands... "Big Ben" for England (yes, I know... Big Ben is the bell, not the building. You know what I mean)... etc. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That problem has finally been addressed, by renaming the building "Elizabeth Tower". They could have at least gone for "Big Lizzie".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Music

What is the difference between a Symphony Orchestra and a Philharmonic one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.111.117 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is - no, there isn't. They're just different ways of naming orchestral organizations. So while Edmonton's orchestra is called the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, and Calgary's is named the Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra, the nomenclature doesn't point to any difference in the makeup of the orchestra, or the way they are governed, or their mandates in their respective communities. In some larger centres, where there may be several orchestras, you find both names being used - like the London Symphony and the London Philharmonic - or the Vienna Symphony and the Vienna Philharmonic. And some orchestras don't use either, like the Philadelphia Orchestra or the Cleveland Orchestra. However both names do carry the connotation of a full, well proportioned orchestra that includes winds and strings, as opposed to a Wind Orchestra or a Chamber Orchestra. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What he said. Also, I hope this doesn't confuse, but all Philharmonic Orchestras and Symphony Orchestras are symphonic orchestras, but not all symphonic orchestras are Philharmonic Orchestras or Symphony Orchestras. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are also a few Philharmonic Symphony Orchestras, which are equally symphonic orchestras. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Separatists winning the Scottish Parliament elections.

Is the Scottish parliament election not a local election? When is the last time Scottish separatist parties won a 60% majority, or anything like that? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the Scottish Parliament is not a local election; local government in Scotland is a different layer of government. The SNP has never won 60% in a Scottish Parliament election - all four are shown in Scottish parliament#Elections. I don't believe the SNP has ever enjoyed a majority of votes, Scottish seats at the Westminster parliament, Scottish seats in the European parliament, or Scottish local authorities. In the last general election the SNP polled 20% of the vote in Scotland. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Scottish Parliament was conceived as part of a system of regional government (English regional assemblies and the Welsh Assembly were created the same year) and has powers devolved from Westminster. It's a creation of Westminster, very like a local authority, and for now in theory it could be abolished quite quickly there, though there would be a political backlash which might well cause many more Scots to vote for independence. Moonraker (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears a lot up. Almost as if they had created three US state legislatures where before there had only been local and national government. I had thought the Scottish parliament was separate from and equal to the Westminster parliament. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Scottish MPs still sit at Westminster. While they are there, they get to dabble in purely English domestic legislation, whereas the equivelent Scottish legislation has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, where English MPs don't get a say in it. As a majority of Scottish MPs are from the Labour Party, it annoys the hell out of Conservative MPs. The issue is called the West Lothian Question. Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To clear up the confusion here, the Scottish Parliament is made up of MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament), while the Parliament of the United Kingdom contains MP (Members of Parliament). The Scottish Parliament is more or less on a par with the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly, but it has certain devolved powers that the two Assemblies don't. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Apologies if I muddied the water. Alansplodge (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

When Tam Dalyell first coined the term "West Lothian question", though, he was talking about a different situation - obviously, since the Scottish Parliament didn't exist back then. He was talking specifically about Scottish local government and the fact that certain matters had been devolved to local authorities which meant that he as a Scottish MP had no control over them, although he could vote on similar matters affecting England. --Viennese Waltz 03:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Did Churchill say something like this?

When asked about the French, he answered I don't have an opinion about them, since I haven't met all of them. Comploose (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To me that doesn't sound like Churchill at all, too trite and silly. Moonraker (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on Google, but then he did make an awful lot of witty remarks. Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds more like Mark Twain or Will Rogers than Churchill Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The expression "I haven't met all of them" is all over google from a variety of sources and contexts, but so far I'm not seeing any attribution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not mentioned at q:Winston Churchill. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 01:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)