Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 20

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

October 20

Japanese crime fiction writers works into English

How many writers have had their works translated into English like Keigo Higashino?--70.31.16.144 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

Do you want a number, or a list of some (or all) of their names? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. I was hoping you would do it for me.--70.31.17.229 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

Do what? Provide you with a bare number? Or provide you with a list of names? I doubt we could do either, accurately. We could probably come up with some names, but it wouldn't be a comprehensive list. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Translate them? —Tamfang (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to browse Category:Japanese crime fiction writers.Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Biased ads?

I just saw an ads on youtube and that ads is on this website. This is pure propaganda and perhaps anti-Americans. It looked like a movie at first glance but it is plainly just an ads about bad future for America. I'm wondering if this kind of ads is acceptable within America's laws.184.97.240.247 (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course that is allowed. What's so shocking about a website or a Youtube film propagating a (political) message? I don't think you have really grasped the concept of 'freedom of expression'. - Lindert (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is allowed. However, it also is a very very stupid and quite racist movie, so people should use the same right to free expression to point that out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What's racist about it? --Tango (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Presenting "the Chinese" in a 19th century Yellow Peril manner, including schadenfroh collective laughter at the end?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Laughing at Americans is hardly a stereotypical Chinese trait... the whole world does that... ;) --Tango (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the whole world would laugh at Americans. It would more like the whole world admire Americans on how Americans are the leading motivation in technology and science. 184.97.240.247 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention stand-up comedy! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it really counts as propaganda, it's just a political ad. And it isn't anti-American, it is just against the current government. You can be opposed to a government without being opposed to the country - that's a fundamental principle of democracy. (The UK describes the main opposition party as "Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" to emphasise the fact that they are opposing the government but are loyal to the Queen and country.)--Tango (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying this ads is supposed to be an ads that anti-Obama and pro-Romney? Then whoever did this ads did a bad job. I think this ads isn't just anti-Obama but also anti-Americans overall and an insult to Americans. It clearly depicts the future of all Americans being enslaved (that's the same thing as working for them just to pay of the debt) by China.184.97.240.247 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As a patriotic American myself, I don't see it as anti-American. It's a cautionary reminder that we've become too dependent on other countries, and this is just one example extrapolated to an extreme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as "racist". Now, if they had the guy talking with a fake Charlie Chan type accent, that could be racist. It's just an anti-Obama ad that plays on fears - as do some of the pro-Obama ads. The general theme of all these ads is: "If you don't vote for our guy, America will collapse." The irony is that the creators of this ad seem to have forgotten that it's Romney's buddies in the business community that outsourced so many jobs to China, helping fuel China's economy and helping to allow China to acquire so many American bonds. There's now a term for that kind of forgetfullness: "Romnesia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 16:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And Nixon started it all by recognizing China. If Americans can't recognize America on the map, why should they recognize China ? :-)StuRat (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Mike Royko wrote a funny piece in 1972 as if he were a time traveler visiting Nixon in 1950 and telling him in vague terms what the future would hold. And of course Nixon was shocked beyond belief that the (unnamed) sitting President would actually be buddying up to Red China. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@Bugs: How do you remember a Mike Royko column from 1972 and do you have a link?  :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I remember something I saw once in 1972 and haven't seen since? It's a curse, what can I say? I just now googled the subject, and here it is. See if you can get to it.[1] If not, then google something like [mike royko nixon china 1972] as I did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Their biggest problem is that they don't realise China doesn't actually own that much US debt. Most US public debt is owned by Americans. Less than 10% by China. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's another conveniently-left-out fact. "Romnesia" is reaching epidemic proportions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

An even bigger problem, I think, is the failure to realize that this hurts China more than it does us. China relies on being able to sell things to the US -- having huge amounts of our currency is just a nuisance to them. It's true that they could do us some damage, but if they did, they would be devastating their own economy at the same time. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! China should afraid about this than so do Americans. I can't believe the laws actually allow some stupid, wrong-fact, insult ads like this.184.97.240.247 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Whenever it is illegal to be wrong about something, that means the government has a monopoly on truth. A very dangerous thing. -Lindert (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup... in a democracy, you have the right to be wrong... and Freedom of Speech means you have the right to clearly demonstrate to everyone else just how wrong you are. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I can sorta see what the OP's concern is. In most developed countries there are laws against misleading and deceptive advertising. But they apply only to businesses. A political machine, although it seeks to manage not just other businesses but an entire state or nation, is the furthest thing from a properly run business one can possibly imagine. They're above such tawdry concerns; they're all about principles and rights and truth. (Cough) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

However, in the UK, TV advertising by political parties is banned - they get free Party political broadcasts instead. This has broad public support."UK advertising rules save us from the climate lobbying mess in the US" However, in old-fashioned print, there's a bit of a free-for-all. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of soapboaxing in this thread, not that I'm surprised. To directly answer the OP: the ad criticizes the Obama administration. It came out years ago, far before the current presidential race. The right to criticize the government is the most sacred principle of democracy; without it, informed voting is impossible. In the US, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, and it's unconstitutional for either the government or the states to enact laws prohibiting it (see hate speech#United States). Of course, even if hate speech were illegal, that's not what the ad is. Anyone who thinks the Chinese wouldn't be glad to see the world's hyperpower collapse knows nothing about realpolitik. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's it in a nutshell. There's a lot of slack cut for advertising in general, and political advertising is practically anarchy. I've seen more bad lies this past year than in my golf game. But it's part of the blessing of free speech. Once we stop seeing those kinds of ads, we'll know we're screwed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Succesful troll is succesful. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a total load of crap this thread is with outright politicking and not a single encyclopedic question or answer! This is yet another good bit of evidence for the ANI that will eventually shut down the ref desk. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

On what basis? The OP asked a reasonable question and he got answers. Executive summary of the answers: "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey hold your mouth dude. There is no reason to talk crap. I don't know where you live but at where I live Politic is part of encyclopedia. And I don't care if one day someone shuts this ref down. None of any of us business. It is open now, that all it matters.184.97.240.247 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is US a founding member of the League of Nations?

This map on WP[2] shows United States as a founding member of the League of Nations. And yet the US senate never ratified the admission treaty. The map has been there for 5 years now and has gone through dozens of revisions under various editors, so I assume the majority voice, and hence the map, is correct and I'm the one having a serious misunderstanding somewhere.A8875 (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm colour-blind, but the map you refer to shows the US in the "never members" category. The big country in North America is Canada ;-).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I see too, and not being able to distinguish grey from blue would be an usual form of colour-blindness, so I doubt we both have it! I think the OP is getting a little confused geographically. --Tango (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That map needs serious work. How Occupied France can be considered a "founding state" that stayed (!) to the end, while Vichy France is portrayed as a "founding member" (!) that left is beyond my mortal mind's comprehension. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a messy situation. The Vichy government withdrew from the League on April 18th, 1941. At that time, it was recognised as the legitimate government of France by many states, including the US and Canada. In 1944, the Provisional Government of the French Republic took over and was widely recognised at least by the Allies. It retroactively declared most of the acts of the Vichy government invalid. So in 1942, France was not a member. But in 1945, it had been a member all along. Time travel will have been going to have made grammar more complicated - even if it's only political. Maybe the best way to represent this on the map by having a separate colour for France. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Last inmate executed by hanging in the U.S.?

Can anybody help me? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See Capital punishment in the United States#Methods. There is a table showing the date, name and location of the last executions by various methods, including hanging. --Tango (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. --Tango (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Provide Wife's Means of Subsistence

Are there European countries in which, according to marriage laws, a husband is obliged to provide his wife's means of subsistence, even though the wife has an income of her own? Is it in common law, in statute law, or in canon law? Any comment would be appreciated.--Omidinist(talk) 15:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See Abandonment#Abandonment_of_family. That one paragraph seems to be all we have on the subject, though... If anyone can find some good sources, we should expand it. --Tango (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Moon

Hi! I was wondering what the regulations on owing the Moon are. Is it ,like Antarctica, devoted to research and that no country is allowed to own any land on it? Thanks, B. Jakob T. (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Regulating the kind of thing you're on about was the subject of the Moon Treaty. But that's not been ratified, so isn't much real use. TheOuter Space Treaty should apply, which is a start. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Moon Treaty has indeed been ratified, and by 13 nations that are REALLY BIG when it comes to lunar exploration - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, and Uruguay. I bet you're just aching to know who was the first Lebanese lunonaut.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That is all well and good for the legal status... but culturally the moon is American... after all, it has an abandoned car in the front yard! :>) Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"If you've had an abandoned car in your yard for 40 years, you might be a redneck." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As others have said, the legal situation is very vague at the moment. That is because it hasn't been in anyone's interests to get it sorted out. Once people start putting permanent bases on the moon, and particularly once they start mining its resources, then ownership of land and mineral rights will become and issue and will probably get sorted out. At the moment, it is purely academic. There is so much moon to go around that it probably won't be particularly controversial, although things like peaks of eternal light may be rare enough and valuable enough for people to want to argue over.--Tango (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Supposing gold was discovered on the moon, it would be an interesting fantasy to try and go get it before anyone else does. But until such time as it would take less money to get there and back than the value of whatever has been mined, it's impractical. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

American Christians and Bible Study

Why do American Christians often attend Bible Study sessions on Wednesdays? What's up with Wednesdays?75.185.79.52 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not difficult to find counter-examples; Monday Night Bible Study,Tuesday Bible Studies (TBS),Thursday Men’s Bible Studies, Night Bible Study and Saturday Night Bible Study. Alansplodge(talk) 19:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, in a lot of places where I've lived in the US lots of people go to their churches on specifically Wednesday, and there are many more cars in the church lot on Wednesday evening then any other evening. So the question is a good one -- why specifically Wednesdays?Duoduoduo (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Because Wednesday evening is halfway between two Sunday mornings, perhaps. Pais (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Wednesday sermons are a tradition that dates back to at least the time of the Reformation. This book mentions the practice in 16th century Germany and the Netherlands. I don't think there is a definite answer to the why-question though, other than it being roughly in the middle of the week (note that Thursdays are just as nearly in-between Sundays as Wednesdays). -Lindert (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the crew of the Mary Celeste?

I read the article but couldn't sort out what really happened to them. What a mystery. Is it true there was hot tea served? Thank you.Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The article says "Popular stories of untouched breakfasts with still-warm cups of tea on the cabin table are untrue..." and has a list of theories. -- BenRG (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

TOEFL test

There is a question regarding this test which I couldn't find. An answer from someone who has taken this test before on computer-version is very appreciated, otherwise point out to me the answer with confirmed source. On the "speaking section", according to my Princeton Review TOEFL book. I have to read a passage then listen to an audio then answer some questions about it. So first of all, do I suppose to read out loud when I read the passage or just in my head? I know that when I'm answering the questions I must say them out loud because it is speaking section. And am I doing this with a supervisor? If not then how the heck the computer can grade my level of speaking? I don't understand how the speaking section going to be like.184.97.240.247 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For the second part of your question, this might be helpful. It explains: Your recorded responses are sent to the ETS Scoring Network, where three to six certified human raters score them holistically on a scale of 0 to 4. The average score on the six tasks is converted to a scaled score of 0 to 30. So the computer doesn't grade your answers; people do.

For the first part of the question, I couldn't find a definitive answer. The instructions just say you have a short time to "read" a passage, then listen to an audio clip on the same subject, then answer a question that requires you to synthesize the information from both. It doesn't state explicitly that the "reading" has to be out loud, but I have found several sites that say you should take notes while you are reading, eghere (see questions 3 & 4). It would be quite difficult to take notes while concentrating on reading something aloud, all in only 45 seconds. A Google search suggests you are not the only person asking this question, and there are contradictory answers out there. However, I cannot find any site that says you are marked on your reading of the passage, or any criteria for marking. On the other hand, I can find many that say you are marked on the response you provide to the questions, andhere are the marking criteria for this. Therefore my instinct is that in this part of the test you are not being assessed on your ability to read out loud in addition to your ability to discuss material you have read and heard, and reading aloud is not required, which is why the wording does not specify it. But I cannot give you an absolute reference to confirm this, and if anyone else can provide one it would be good. - Karenjc 11:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm very appreciated your effort on searching this up. Your reasons are very good so by using logic I can almost certain that I don't need to read out loud. It wouldn't make any sense if I have to take note in read out loud in 45 seconds. Either way I will be ready on the test day.184.97.240.247 (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best of luck with the test. - Karenjc 16:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the TOEFL twice before; you are NOT supposed to read the text aloud. You will have to read it normally, and you will only "speak up" when you answer the questions afterwards. Your voice will not be recorded when you read the text.

In order to get comfortable before your test date, I suggest you download the sample test from the ETS website. This will help clear any doubts you have and make you more familiar with the test's structure. _{Hisham1987 (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)}

Bermuda Triangle

Currently to this date, I wonder how often airplanes or boats going through this triangle area?184.97.240.247(talk) 20:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it named "Bermuda Triangle", I especially concerned about Bermuda, what does that area has to do with Bermuda? I can understand the triangle part but not the Bermuda? Who was the first to name it "Bermuda Triangle". The name couldn't just pop up from nowhere.184.97.240.247 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's one corner of a triangle drawn on the map whose purpose is to contain the allegedly "mysterious disappearances" in the area. The other two corners are basically Puerto Rico and Florida, which don't sound quite as exotic. According to the article, the term first turned up around 1964. It was a big deal for a while, and then the 1975 book came out and demolished the claims, and the term has since passed into popular culture as one of those joke-myths that everyone knows about but has never actually seen, like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or the Great Pumpkin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So do people still crossing this triangle often even in today?184.97.240.247 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Define "often". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 02:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Often probably means several hundred boats and planes per day traverse at least part of the Bermuda Triangle. Considering that the ports and airports around Miami are busy, and that The Bahamas lies pretty much entirely within the Triangle, I imagine at any one point in time there are dozens if not hundreds of air and sea vessels within the space defined by the triangle. --Jayron32 03:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a video of the total number of airplane flights in one 24-hour period, worldwide. There's a significant number passing over the Triangle every day. And that doesn't count boats. --Jayron32 04:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The OP can also go to any number of online sites like Marinetraffic.com, which display in real time all sorts of pleasure and cargo vessels sailing in those waters. It will also show you pictures (not real time) of many of those ships, including some kick-ass megayachts. A pleasant time-waster. Textorus (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Execution by gas

What is the problem with lethal gas executions? It seems less painful, comparing itb to the electric chair, hanging or shooting, and maybe even comparing it to the lethal injection. Gorgeop (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You would prefer choking to death over simply falling asleep? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to choke to death, depending on the gas. Aspiring some gases can make you fall asleep and die. Not even heavy breathing.Gorgeop (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Let's interview people who have been through each, and compare their experiences.

More seriously, cyanide poisioning, from all indications we can see from the outside, is a dreadful way to go. The morituri go through convulsions that deeply disturb witnesses. You can tell yourself, if it makes you feel better, that they are not really conscious of suffering during these, but as far as I know there is no evidence for that position. --Trovatore (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And where does it say that someone has to witness a death sentence? Gorgeop (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

In many state laws. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

But are they forces to watch all the execution? Gorgeop (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I second that question. It strikes me as unusual at best that there would be laws actually forcing anyone to watch. (But then, it strikes me as odd enough that there are audiences at executions in the first place, it seems so... morbid.) 164.71.1.221(talk) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Imagine it would be difficult to execute somebody with nobody in the room. And what you're suggesting to me sounds just like a gas based version of the injection, I can see a lot more things that would go wrong with gas vs liquid's, easier to leak out etc--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What does it have to do with anything whether there are witnesses or not? I mentioned the witnesses as evidence of suffering; the witnesses are disturbed because of what they think the person is going through. I wasn't talking about the effect on the witnesses as a consideration in itself.--Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The gas doesn't have to be poisonous, helium would kill you if you breadth enough of it, and there are no convulsions either.Gorgeop (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nitrogen works too, and is much cheaper. —Tamfang (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (1949-53) (Cmd. 8932) examined alternative methods to hanging. It assessed them against the requirement of humanity, which it defined as being that the act of execution be quick and free from any additional 'poignancy', and also that it produce instantaneous unconsciousness passing quickly into death. They concluded that hanging was far quicker than the gas chamber, and that the requirement to remove almost all the prisoner's clothes to prevent pockets of gas lodging in them was unwelcome (para 727). They also mentioned that "while hanging is tainted by the memory of its barbarous history, 'gassing' is tainted by more recent but not less barbarous associations" (para 732). The British Medical Association put forward the idea of using Carbon Monoxide as a lethal gas, which would not necessarily require a gas chamber, but the commission found that forcibly applying a mask to a conscious prisoner would involve a distressing and unseemly struggle (para 736). The Commission did not recommend a change in method. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The idea that hanging causes "instant unconsciousness" is rather dubious. If the spinal cord is severed, the victim cannot move his body, so this may look like unconsciousness to observers, but severing the spinal cord in itself does not in general cause unconsciousness.--Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Commission based its view on a memorandum from HM Coroner for North London Bentley Purchase (a fascinating character, incidentally) who had conducted post-mortem examinations on prisoners hanged at Pentonville. Purchase said that in all 58 examinations, the immediate cause of death was fracture dislocation of cervical vertebrae and the report does not doubt that it caused instantaneous unconsciousness. The fact that the heart may continue to beat for up to 20 minutes afterwards is described as "a purely automatic function" (para 714). Not being medically trained I don't have any base to enter this discussion but thought it worth mentioning why the Royal Commission came to its decision to endorse long drop hanging as humane. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. And how would they know, exactly, that it caused instant unconsciousness? I call bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If the brainstem is violently separated from the midbrain, disrupting the latter, unconsciousness would be instantaneous. Not that I am saying such separation always happens. But that is the purpose of the long drop. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that the purpose? I thought it was to subluxate the cervical vertebrae and so cause the spinal cord to be severed. But severing the spinal cord does not in general cause instant unconsciousness, which makes me suspicious. The fact that there is an incentive for the executioners to claim instant unconsciousness, combined with the difficulty of determining that, makes me suspicious too. --Trovatore (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Same goes for injection: one of the drugs used causes paralysis, so that witnesses cannot see if the victim suffers. Presumably that's also why the occupant of the gas chamber was (is?) gagged. —Tamfang (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not very accurate. He is first made unconscious with sodium pentathol, then killed with various paralyzing agents that stop the heart. He's not paralyzed while conscious for the benefit of the audience. I can tell you that you don't feel having four wisdom teeth extracted under sodium pentathol. So you aren't exactly suffering from a mere paralytic while under from SP already. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sodium pentothal is an "ultra short-acting" thiobarbiturate. There is debate over whether the convict might regain consciousness in time to experience not being able to breathe.

I doubt you had four wisdom teeth extracted using just pentothal. Pentothal is used for quick induction of anesthesia, but then another anesthetic is used to maintain it. --Trovatore (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

They had some trouble reviving me (I had no detectable pulse for a minute) and I was told that it was a reaction to the sodium pentathol. But it's surely a technical matter of getting the prootcol right. They can certainly knock you out and kill you by the time you wake up.μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but this is not really known. If they actually cared, they wouldn't use an ultra-short-acting one at all. You may havereacted to the pentathol, but I'm virtually certain it was not the only anesthetic they used on you; it just isn't done.--Trovatore (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Killing with helium would be an unusual punishment, therefore not constitutional in the US. Other countries simply don't care much about humane executions (what's the point after all. You are executing people, it will always be horrible). I personally believe that the lethal injection is maybe the 'cleanest.' No blood, no kicking, no screaming (well maybe before the execution a little). OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice bit of OR, but the punishment is not breathing helium, but execution, which itself is not unusual in capital cases. As for any random person dying, by helium is hardly more unusual than by cyanide, as compared to car accident or lightning strike. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The first use of gas, Old Sparky or injection was "unusual" too. The point of the Eighth Amendment, as I understand it, is to forbid sentencing judges to say: "And because the victim was especially popular and hanging is too good for you, we're gonna kill you in a special way."—Tamfang (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. You could just as well argue that no one should be imprisoned in a newly built prison because, no one ever having been imprisoned there before, it would be unusual for someone to be imprisoned on the site. Unusual is simply meant as a broadening synonym of cruel. Torturing someone to death in some slow strange way would fall under the prohibition. Killing them with a new technology, like a firing squad, instead of an old one, like a gallows, would not be. μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, if you mean my paragraph above (or some part of it) is utter nonsense, where's your disagreement? —Tamfang (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your use of what might be scare quotes makes it hard for me to interpret whether we are agreeing here or not. In any case, what would be nonsense would be a literal argument that because a certain tool was first being used for an execution that it would be "unusual" in the forbidden sense. Just like I argued, if no one had ever been imprisoned in Smithville before because there was never a prison there before, it would be unusual in a trivial sense for someone to be imprisoned in Smithville. The same with claiming that execution by firing squad with a machinegun would be unusual, or asphyxiation by gas instead of rope. That is what would be utter nonsense, a total confusion of the method with the result. I do agree that a method chosen because it was intentionally torturous would be problematic, since not just death, but disproportionate suffering might be the intent. But "cruel" covers that. My guess is that what was meant by including "unusual" was in part to hedge against people who would say that hanging itself was cruel. The case of the perjurer Titus Oates as mentioned in Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution would seem to be relevant. Once again, in his case it was the punishment, not the tool, that was viewed as unusual. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Might be scare quotes, might not, I can't decide either. – My suspicion is that cruel and unusual was a set phrase in judicial jargon.—Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course WHAAOE: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had given (and have just added) this link http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment in my last response--it explains the origin of the term in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 in regards to the Titus Oates case. What was unusual was the prescribed punishment, not the means used to carry it out. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion and links at Gas chamber#United states will answer the original question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The BBC had a programme not so long ago, presented by Michael Portillo, examining the most humane way of judicially killing someone. His conclusion was the use of nitrogen. He also concluded that it is not used because, just before they die, people become really, really happy - and executing a happy person does not fit with concepts of justice and revenge. (As an aside, there are people in the UK who are not happy they brought him out of the nitrogen intoxication...) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no shortage of morbid humor connected with death and executions. To have the guy literally die laughing might be a bit much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See also Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, Part VII, scene 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

ObWHAAOE: Nitrogen asphyxiation. Marnanel (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Main Factors for Anti-Semitism

I was wondering, but are the large presence of Jews and/or Muslims in a particular country or area the main causes of anti-Semitism? I mean, most of the countries that have more anti-Semitism are the ones with either a lot of Jews and/or with a lot of Muslims. In countries where they are very few Jews or Muslims (many countries in South America, China, Japan, etc.) there is almost no anti-Semitism. Here's another example--it appears that Hungary has more anti-Semitism than any of the other former Warsaw Pact countries (excluding the former USSR), as evidenced by the strong showing of Jobbikin the polls there. Hungary also has the most Jews as a % of the population right now out of any of those former Warsaw Pact countries.Futurist110 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

First off, anti-semitism has a particular meaning that does not include prejudice against Islam or semitic speakers (like e.g. Arabs) in general. Secondly, I don't think your anecdotal evidence is very useful. Jobbik is generally xenophobic, not specifically anti-semitic, for example. In general, conditions where there is a notable presence of a minority (to act as a nucleus for fear and resentment), but not a strong presence (which leads to familiarisation) are most conductive to prejudice. However, there are plenty of historical circumstances that lead deviation from the general rule. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, I don't think Futurist110 was saying anti-Semitism applies to Arabs, I think he was saying that in an area with a lot of Arabs, anti-Semitism is more common.

Futurist, that is tough to say, as tough as it is to assign a "factor" for any form of irrational hatred, be it anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, white supremacism, etc. Certainly, Europe in the Medieval Ages had hardly any Arabs but was the most anti-Semitic place of its time. A reason for a surge in such hatred could be economic reasons, as it's easy to scapegoat and blame others rather than yourself (consider whether Adolf Hitler would've been elected in Germany had there not been such huge inflation, or whether he would've just been viewed as a nut). In Greece, where the economy sucks, the far-right Golden Dawn party has been elected, which is anti everyone who isn't "pure Greek," the whole shebang. --Jethro B 22:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that a lot of Muslims nowadays are anti-Semitic due to the whole Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus places with a lot of Muslims often have more anti-Semitism (even if there are virtually no Jews left in them right now, such as in most of the Arab and Muslim worlds). Likewise, if there are a lot of Jews in an area, then resentment and hatred against them often tends to be created, especially if the population is uneducated, as was the case in Europe in the Middle Ages and even in the 19th and early 20th centuries, since in a lot of cases Jews tend to become wealthier and more successful than their non-Jewish neighbours. Hitler was viewed as a nut before the Great Depression by many Germans, but a good number of Germans probably did share his anti-Semitic views, just not to the genocidal extent that Hitler had them. As for Jobbik, it is not exclusively anti-Semitic, but it is still pretty anti-Semitic, considering how Csanad Szegedi had to leave the party after it was discovered that his mother was ethnically Jewish. Futurist110 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how true the part about Jews tending to be wealther and more successfull... I mean, surely that was claimed by many anti-Semites, but until recent times, most European Jewry tended to be poor and live in a shtetl. Now, with religious freedom and some better mobility and rights, the situation has progressed. --Jethro B 00:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh. Futurist, if there's a significant presence of Jews in a certain place, that means there's a lot of people to hate * I F *you're anti-semitically inclined. But it could never be said that the presence of the Jews is the cause of anti-semitism, as per your opening question. That would legitimate anti-semitism by making Jews inherently hate-worthy, and making it their own fault for being Jews. That's not even remotely acceptable as a good faith question, in my book.

Unless, of course, you have great difficulty in expressing yourself in English. But given all the questions you've asked here, that is far from my impression of you. I recommend you have a cold shower and think more clearly even about whether you really need to ask a question at all, before launching into such an ill-considered utterance. There's a lot to be read about such subjects, and you need to do some reading and googling and your own research first. Not just pose uncritically the first question that happens to pop into your head each morning. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? Of course the presence of Jews is one of the causes of anti-Semitism. It's hard to hate "the people o'er yonder" with a passion if those people are 5000 km away and have little impact on your life. That's just human nature. On the other hand, if Jews are living within your own country, and you believe that them to be greedy God-killing infidels who deliberately sabotaged your country's last war effort, and that they're taking all the good jobs, controlling all the banks, inciting Communist revolutions, etc., you'd be more likely to be anti-Semitic. The naive view that you seem to have about anti-Semitism is that a bunch of hateful people magically gathered somewhere and decided to hate a randomly picked group of people. You seem to ignore the religious, economic, historical, and cultural reasons behind anti-Semitism, as well as the human psychology of hatred.

Jack's answer is not in good faith, but the answers above his answer Futurist's questions insightfully. It's easy to scapegoat other people when your economy is in the dumps, and it helps that Jews historically controlled a disproportionate percentage of the economy. Jobbik is not necessarily anti-Semitic; it's simply xenophobic, so the fact that Hungary has a lot of Jews makes Jews a target. Anti-semitism is mainly Islamic nowadays primarily due to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unlike many other cases of ethnic hatred--between Irish Catholics and Protestants, between Serbs and Croats/Bosniaks, between Basque separatists and the Spanish, etc--Islamic anti-Semitism of the type seen today has no deep historical roots. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

My answer was most certainly in good faith. What would you make of any suggestion that the cause of rape is the presence of women? Or the cause of fraud is the existence of money? Suggesting that Jews are the cause of the hatred visited upon them is redolent of classic "blame the victim" mentality. Words have meaning. Use them with caution, or accept the consequences. -- Jack of Oz^[Talk] 01:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack, I'm inclined to believe that Futurist's question is well-intentioned but phrased extremely awkwardly. His userpage identifies him as an ethnic Jew (although not religious) from Ashkenazi Jewry, a member of Wikiproject Israel, and from my interactions with him, he isn't a self-hater. --Jethro B 00:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case I reiterate my comments about thinking first and asking questions here only when other avenues of enquiry have been exhausted. - Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

IP guy, I'm inclined to disagree somewhat. Europeans in the 19th century had an inferior view of Africans, despite the fact that most didn't visit Africa or have large African populations. Irrational hatred doesn't need a motive or a factor. A surge in such irrational hatred can sometimes have a motive or factor, such as scapegoating someone... But the origins of such irrational hatred is often different. To a certain extent though, you are correct. Many far-right parties in Europe now focus on Arabs, rather than Jews, since although Jews have historically always been a tiny percentage of the world and Europe, in the past few decades there have been many Arabs coming to Europe, thus becoming a new target for these parties, who set a "higher priority" for them. That doesn't reduce their feelings towards Jews though (except perhaps in the case of Marine Le Pen, although even that's debatable).

Also, while I agree that anti-Semitism in the Arab world became prominent from the Arab-Israeli conflict (which certainly isn't any reason to hate a religion), there are certainly historical roots. Jews under Arab rule had good times and bad times. In Spain, during the time of the Moors, the Jews were lucky and had a better life than in most European countries. At other times, it was not such. Consider what Saudi Arabian King Ibn Saud told a British official in 1937 as his reasoning for anti-Semitism, "Our hatred for the Jews dates from God’s condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet." The Arab-Israeli conflict is not mentioend here as a reason. He even says that it'd be better for England to control the Mandate of Palestine for hundred years, which would contradict the current attempts of Palestinian/Arab statehood! (source - [[3]]) The Banu Qurayza in the 600's are another example. So again, while keeping in mind that Jews generally fared better under Araab rule than Christian rule historically, there are deep historic anti-Semitic roots in the Arab world. --Jethro B01:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

19th century Britons mostly regarded Africans as an inferior people whose interests can be neglected, much like how supposedly enlightened people regard animals today. They didn't hate the Africans in the same sense that Hitler hated the Jews. Nobody accused the Africans of engaging in a worldwide conspiracy, or killing their God, or taking over their economy.

With regard to Arabs, I should clarify. Obviously Arabic societies never treated Jews with anything that could be called "equality" today. However, I stand by my point that the history of Jews in Arabic societies prior to the 20th century, unlike the history of Jews in Europe, was not defined by hatred and persecution. Your Saudi example is unfair because Wahhabism is essentially a nutjob movement that was considered the fringe of the fringe, both today and in 1937. The Banu Qurayza massacre was the result of a military conflict. Saying that Muhammad killed the men and enslaved the women because of antisemitism is like saying that Agamemnon killed the Trojan men and enslaved the Trojan women because he didn't like Anatolian gods. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed in books on the subject. Historic evidence is that antisemitism flowers without this type of logic. You'll find it endemic in societies where Jewish are a sizable minority and where Jews are a tiny minority or barely existent. You'll find it where Jews are comparatively rich and poor and neither in particular, where Jews are influential or not influential, visible or invisible, where there are political factors and where there are none, where there are religious factors and where there are none.

A particularly good analysis of this can be found in Why the Jews?, for one example. TheAmazon page for the book includes an excerpt from Chapter one, from which here's a brief quote:

How are the universality, depth, and permanence of antisemitism to be explained? Why such hatred and fear of a people who never constituted more than a small minority among those who most hated and feared them? Why, nearly always and nearly everywhere, the Jews? Many answers have been offered by scholars. These include, most commonly, economic factors, the need for scapegoats, ethnic hatred, xenophobia, resentment of Jewish affluence and professional success, and religious bigotry. But ultimately these answers do not explain antisemitism; they only explain what factors have exacerbated it and caused it to erupt in a given circumstance.

Hope that helps, --Dweller (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, great quote! --Jethro B 05:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor above said "It's hard to hate "the people o'er yonder" with a passion if those people are 5000 km away and have little impact on your life." Well, back in the 1960 Australians (and, I suspect, Americans) became convinced that those gooks, slopes and chinks were worth making our enemies in Vietnam. Hardly anybody here had even met a Vietnamese person, but for several years government had support in sending our troops to kill Vietnamese people. Yes, I know it was complicated, but proximity certainly isn't required to establish "hate". HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The key phrase is "have little impact on your life". The Americans didn't believe that communism had little impact on their lives; in fact, they believed it was the greatest and most imminent existential threat they've ever faced. The 5000 km thing doesn't apply when your opponent can launch weapons into Earth orbit and have them reenter at any point on the globe. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, the average Jew living in Germany in the 1930's was utterly incapable of launching weapons into the orbit and attacking Germany. That, however, didn't prevent Hitler from his famous "stab in the back" conspiracy theory. --Jethro B06:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Vietnamese couldn't "launch weapons into Earth orbit and have them reenter at any point on the globe", but they were the ones who were vilified. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings... and I hate people like that." - Tom Lehrer Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And in the same song, as I recall: "Oh, the Catholics hate the Protestants / And the Protestants hate the Catholics / And the Hindus hate the Moslems / And everybody hates the Jews. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 02:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Pistols in USA Movies

Why are these often held horizontally? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Because some adolescent gangsta thought it looked cool, and/or because it's less likely to obscure an actor's face. Certainly not to improve shooting accuracy. —Tamfang (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

We have an article about this: side grip. Looie496 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There was a joke about it in a Simpsons episode... AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There was also a skit about it (SNL ?), where somebody had to show them how to fire a gun properly, so they could start hitting each other instead of random bystanders. Between not aiming their guns properly and baggy pants that make running away difficult, they seem to have a death wish. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Mythbusters did an episode about various pistol grips shown in movies... and came to the conclusion that the "gangsta" sideways grip was veryinaccurate (although more accurate than the "shoot from the waist" style favored by movie "gangsters" of an earlier era). Blueboar(talk) 19:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wild speculation: in a drive by shooting, if you only want to lower your window a little bit (because it's tinted or bulletproof, for example) then you might want to turn a gun that way to get it out the window, especially if it has a banana clip or something. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)