Humanities desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

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.

September 28

Math

What is the difference between USAMO and USAJMO beside the obvious fact that USAJMO is for 10 grade or below and USAMO is for anyone who capable of doing it. The USAMO and USAJMO I'm talking are the American Mathematic Contests. I know the top 6 smartest scorer in the USAMO will get to represent the USA in International Mathematical Olympiad. So what do top 6 in USAJMO get? What is the point of doing USAJMO? Just for the sake of practice for USAMO or something?65.128.190.136 (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those strange people who need spoon-feeding, USAMO is United States of America Mathematical Olympiad. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of winning the World Junior Chess Championship? It's not like it gives you the right to challenge for the World Chess Championships? Just for the sake of practice for the World Champs or something?

I'll answer your question and mine: see our articles on prestige and (loosely) sport. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency dispatchers

So twice now I have called a local police department and both times the dispatcher has seemed to get off the phone as quickly as possible. The first time I called 911 (UK's ~~112~~ 999, Canada's 112) to report a funnel cloud and the second time the non-emergency line to report possible drug activity. The first time basically the moment I told the dispatcher about the funnel cloud I got a response of "We are aware of it and have people monitoring the situation" and a prompt end of the call. The second time I reported my suspicions and the dispatcher said they would have someone check it out then promptly said "Alright, I have to go" and hung up. I was under the impression that generally the dispatchers would want to be more thorough in collecting details than that (with the first case asking if I was a spotter, etc, and in the second collecting information about the people involved), so why would they rush to get off the line? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 911 is the US's 112 not the UK's which is 999. You will have to ask the local authorities or local politicians who set the priorities for the service. Here in UK we get the same complaints and one reason given is the increase in 'emergency' calls being made as a result of people carrying mobile phones. Sussexonian (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yeah, my bad. I don't know why I remembered 112 for the UK, it's Canada's. 999 for the UK. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

112 is European, of course, and is an alternative to 999 in the UK. In my only experience of using the emergency number, the operator remained on the line much longer than I expected, in fact, until the police arrived. I think it all depends on the content of your call and an estimate of the danger someone might be in. Dbfirs 07:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Canadian, and this is the first I've ever heard of "112". The 112 (emergency telephone number) article even claims that 112 redirects to 911, so i would hardly call 112 a Canadian number. We are decidedly a 911 country. Mingmingla (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like they were overloaded with calls, so, as soon as they determined that nobody's life was in danger, they went on to the next call. StuRat (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sussexonion & StuRat are right IMO. There seem to be quite a lot of negligence calls, usually because the 9 button of the phone is jammed against some object while the phone is in a pocket or backpack (so the owner doesn't even notice). Holding 9 down for 2 seconds will cause a 911 on many mobiles. On the local radio I've heard that these calls are more frequent than real emergency calls. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, it might simply be the case that the funnel cloud may have already been reported to the very same operator, possibly by multiple callers. Same possibly with the drug users. Just a guess though. It might be as well that you actually beat others to the call, and the operator saw his call queue fill up, so he hurried through your report in case there was a more severe emergency among the queued callers, - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some refs back up the above re the need to work quickly and the decision-making process: This article gives some interesting statistics on the volume and nature of 911 calls in a small U.S. county (pop. 21062). Dispatchers field 911, numerous other calls. See also What does a 911 dispatcher do. Taknaran (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify why you were calling 911 about "possible drug activity"? Was someone being forced to buy drugs against his will? What made you suspect immanent physical danger? μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can call 911 when a felony is being committed, even a victimless one. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like embezzlement? Yeah.... My understanding of the emergency responder line is that it is for emergency responses. Last time (and only) I called 911 was when I heard my neighbor's wife shoot him. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean immanent before? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, no, for the funnel cloud (imminent threat to life/property from the weather if it were to touch down) I called 911, but for the suspected drug activity (not much urgent, just a group of people which appeared to be dealing/using drugs in a parking lot right my my university's residence halls) I called the non-emergency line since there was not imminent threat of damage or injury. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 911 is supposed to be for emergencies only. Call your local police department or sheriff's office to report possible illegal activity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case there remains any confusion, the OP clealy specified from the first post ([1] in case there's any suggestion it was modified), they called the non emergency number to report the possible drug activity: "the second time the non-emergency line to report possible drug activity". Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I missed the non-, sorry for the confusion. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, when my neighbor was shot, and I called 911, I said "I'm at XXX MY Avenue, fourth floor, someone's been shot" they said "it's already been reported, stay in your apartment" and hung up, five seconds or less. The police were there within 30 seconds. The response was breathtaking, impressive, and though I have been very critical of the NYPD, very reassuring. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've called 911 twice to report medical emergencies (never a police emergency) and I never was left with the impression that they were trying to get me off the line quickly. I was the first reporter in both cases. I suspect in your case, and the case just above, that it's about whether they already know about something and don't want to clog up the line redundantly. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it was both obvious nothing more needed to be communicated and they probably still had calls coming in since there were around 100 apartments in that building. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Property Rights Question

I have a question--if hypothetically, say, someone had an expensive autographed baseball that was his property which he accidentally threw past his neighbor's fence, and the neighbor refuses to give the autographed baseball back, does the owner of the baseball have a right to demand and even take legal action to get his baseball/property back? Has there ever been any similar scenario to this and is there any knowledge or speculation about how courts might rule in such a situation? Futurist110 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Doubtless this will turn into a ~~squabble~~ debate about legal advice, despite the use of "hypothetically", but a non-advisory answer is possible. And that answer, as usual, is it depends on the jurisdiction. As an example of a similar scenario, under the law of England and Wales, deliberately keeping someone else's property that has accidentally ended up on your land when the undisputed owner has requested its return is theft, and here is a newspaper article showing how the police handle such situations when a complaint is received. For other jurisdictions you would have to check what the applicable law says. As for speculation about how the courts might rule, this would be inappropriate on the RefDesk and not a whole lot of practical use in the real world, either. I'm hoping we can, between us, demonstrate how to handle this question per policy without provoking a removal or a hatting, but I'm not holding my breath. - Ka renjc 08:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... it depends on the Jurisdiction... consider the situation where someone's cow wanders off and ends up in someone else's field. Who owns the cow? The answer has been different in different places (and even in the same place at different times in history). Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of a cow on someone else's field usually arises because one can identify the field, but not the cow. That's not the case if the cattle are branded. This is not some generic ball. I would love to see a reference to a legal case where a uniquely identifiable item was deemed someone else's property because it was inadvertently misplced on someone else's land. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detinue, Replevin, Trover and Conversion (law) are all relevant to the question to an extent, and make interesting reading for the historical perspective. - Ka renjc 21:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson's grossest foods

Hello L.H. ! . I am trying to add on the § « Références culturelles » of the french version of The Food Wife , & I see that among the grossest foods Bart boasts in his blogs of having tasted are : "leech cheeks, bear oysters, charlie’s trotters, duck butter, krustyburgers" . For "bear oysters", I discard Acanthus mollis, & rather think of testicle (food) , since they are a lot of bears in the Rockies. For "charlie’s trotters", I think of Viet Cong hams (certainly not too fat…) …. For ""duck butter"", I can’t find anything on WP, but I remember in june 2009 I read somewhere that a widely known just-deceased star had the expression « duck butter » ready as an explanation for the young ones he was so fond of when they questionned him. But I can’t find the reference. Can you help me ? . Thanks a lot beforehand. T.Y; Arapaima (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Charlie's Trotters" may be a reference to Charlie Trotter, according to a quick search. Would duck butter be foie gras? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I think they're just joke names. Guessing what the scriptwriters intended (if anything) is always going to be WP:OR unless you have a source. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're so surreal you might as well go for the direct equivalents. Joues de sangsue, huitres d'ours, pieds de Charlot, beurre de canard, krustyburgers. Makes absolutely no sense at all, but then it doesn't in English. The hunches about oysters and Charlie Trotter could well be right, but you can't capture everything in translation. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trotter would usually be pig's feet. Rmhermen (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arapaima, have these episodes aired in French yet? You could just use the translated terms. There are transcriptions of most of the French episodes at SimpsonsPark (although not this episode, not yet). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find assorted definitions of "duck butter" by entering those words in double quotes plus "urban dictionary" in your search engine of choice. It's something particularly vulgar and might be a regional term rather than "urban" per se. Remember that "Bart Simpson" is a cartoon character in a series written by - and, arguably, for - adults. There's a long tradition among scriptwriters and their ilk of slipping stuff past the editors and/or over the heads of the intended audience. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks awfully to all ! Of course, as we say here, "tout est pur aux purs" ("everything looks pure to the pure ones") , but I maintain that, if you really look for it (slow motion, image freezing) , you’ll find The Simpsons are a most unexpected outlook on US culture. Especially if you read the titles of the books on the shelves, the shop posters, scrutinize the pictures hanging from the walls and the "things to do" lists etc… Listen, for exemple, in Wacking Day, to Marge asking Homer, in her hoarse voice, how he is going to use this new bludgeon he is taking out of its sheath. And in The Food Wife , we see Homer about to sniff meth from a properly heaten glass balloon in a lab the Spuckler family ( parents and their whole dozen of children) patrons… T.y.Arapaima (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handly's Lessee v. Anthony

Where is the peninsula in question in Handly's Lessee v. Anthony? From the description given in the article, I can't figure it out, because there are many places that fit the general description, and I don't myself know about any meanders that have streams as described here. I've tried Google but found nothing. Anyway, a modern map might not help, because dams built for the Ohio River canalization process have raised the water levels in many places and changed the shorelines accordingly. 2001:18E8:2:1020:60FB:F516:1E7C:B1D3 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green River Island.—eric 14:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States electoral college system

As a citizen of the United Kingdom I don't claim to know much about the American electoral system. What I do understand is that states are granted electoral college votes based on their population, and that when a democrat or repubican candidate gets a majority all of the electoral college votes are awarded to that candidate. What I dont understand is in states like California, New York and Florida, where there are a lot of electoral college votes to be obtained, why are the votes not evenly distributed between the two nominees. For instance, lets assume theres 50 million people in California; if 26 million people voted democrat and then 24 million voted republican, why would the democrat candidate get all of the 55 available votes? Surely it should be averaged out between the two candidates. Doesn't make much sense to me but it doesn't seem particularly democratic. --Toryroxy (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can read more about it at "Electoral College (United States)", specifically the "Criticism" and "Support" sections. Gabbe (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, you are perfectly correct. It does not make much sense and it is far from democratic. Many Americans realize how antiqued and broken the system is and are working towards fixing it. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will effectively abolish the electoral college and it's already 49% to its goal despite being only 5 years old. A8875 (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan answers aside, the reason that it works that way is that the Constitution permits each state to decide how its electoral votes are cast, and most state legislatures have chosen to use a winner-take-all format. Note that all interstate compacts require the approval of Congress in order to become law. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This American is disgusted that the NPVIC would hand a landslide to a plurality winner, not only to a majority winner. —Tamfang (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the standard argument is that splitting the seats like that would reduce the influence of the state, since most of their seats would just cancel each other out (looking at the 2008 results, apart from DC and a few states with only 3 or 4 seats, the largest majority was 65%, which means only 30% of that state's seats would actually count for anything, and it's far less for most states). The only way to implement a more democratic system without weakening your own position is if everyone else (or, at least, a very large proportion) goes along with it too, which is the point of the interstate pact mentioned above. --Tango (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The system may not be perfect, but it was a lot more democratic than having a King and a Parliament dominated by the House of Lords determine things... which was how things ran back in England before the Americans declared their Independence. It is also important to remember that, in 1787 (when this was all set up), each State was essentially an independent nation... and they did not fully trust each other. New York, for example, was not about to agree to something that might give more political clout to Virginia. So each State insisted that it set its own rules on how to choose Electors. And it was in each State's interest to have all its Electors form a solid block (all voting for same Presidential candidate), rather than a a divided slate that was split proportionally between more than one candidate. Thus, the preference for "Winner-take-all" in most states. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely now though its time to rethink that as it happened two and a bit centuries ago and now the United States is a more stable political entity. Also the explanation you provided seems to refer mostly to historic states choosing the winner takes all system, I don't see why the western states would adopt this policy. I think it would be better if in the US election you forgot about all the states and the nation voted as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toryroxy (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except, you came here to ask why it is the way it is - which we have answered. Not to argue for why it should be changed - which would be a debate, which we cannot accommodate. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree 100% with Nyttend, Tango, Blueboar, and 141.59% with JackofOz, whose pretty yellow signatures I miss. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't happening. You'll survive. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The notes are missing. Has the music died? :(

OK, every time a U.S. Presidential election comes around, a few folks here and there will question the somewhat bizarre setup we call the Electoral College. It may be "undemocratic" in some sense, but there's no serious move to change it. It would require a constitutional amendment, and it is extremely unlikely any of the "red states" (Republican) would go for it, so, to coin a phrase, "It ain't happening." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "compact" thing actually has a chance of working. I'm almost sure it's constitutional, without any need for an amendment. I'm almost equally sure it's not enforceable without an amendment — if some state decides to back out after the election, things could get entertaining. --Trovatore (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the Electoral College is that it certainly isn't any less democratic than how other recognized democratic governments elect their leaders. In the UK, the voters have no direct control over who gets to be in The Government. They elect their MPs, who in tern put forward a Prime Minister nominee who the Monarch rubber stamps. That Prime Minister then selects everyone else in The Government, who the Queen then rubber stamps. The British Electorate has no more say in who gets to be Prime Minister than the U.S. electorate does in who gets to be President. In many ways, the U.S. system is more direct, as people at least choose the slate of electors who is pledged to vote for the President. It's a step removed from selecting the President directly, but not nearly as removed as the British system is. At the British system still allows people to directly elect their legislator who represents their single-member district. Other western democracies use proportional representation systems, whereby people vote for the parties primarily, and have little say over which candidate directly represents them. It doesn't make one system or another better, or one system or another more or less democratic. They all have their benefits and their faults, different does not equal worse. --Jayron32 05:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't arguing against the Electoral College. I was just saying that the compact idea is probably constitutional (at least, with the consent of Congress, but that's easier to get than an amendment), but probably not enforceable. --Trovatore (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I indented one too many. I hadn't meant that as a response to you. My answer was meant to be a response to Bugs's assertion that the Electoral College (because it isn't "direct democracy") was, in his words "may be "undemocratic" in some sense". I was just trying to correct that misconception by showing it as being as democratic as any other system used to elect leaders. --Jayron32 06:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "undemocratic" in the sense that we don't vote directly for the President. But it's the system the founding fathers devised, that states elect the President, and there's no serious move to change it. With a very short list of exceptions, the President has usually been the one the majority (or at least the plurality) voted for anyway. Although it would be interesting to see which party would gain the advantage if the electoral votes were apportioned in every state instead of being winner-take-all in most states. I suspect the results would be worse than the current system, i.e. that the popular vote minority would be more likely to win consistently. And that would certainly not be "democratic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Federalist No. 39 (text here) James Madison describes at length how certain parts of the government under the Constitution have a "national" character and others a "federal" character. Congress, he says, has both—the lower House is "national", that is it represents the people rather than the states, while the upper Senate is "federal", with each state having equal power (2 senators each) regardless of population. The election of the president, he argues, also has mixed national and federal aspects. Although he doesn't explicitly mention the Electoral College in this essay it is clear that that is what he is talking about with regard to the "federal" aspect of the election of the president. Throughout this essay he tries to explain why it is important for the government to have a mixed national/federal character. It is interesting to contrast with Federalist No. 68 ([2]), in which Alexander Hamilton explains the Electoral College as essentially a buffer from the "heats and ferments" of the people at large. This argument of Hamilton's would not convince many people today. Madison's thoughts, on the other hand, I have always found interesting and fairly convincing. Pfly (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also may be worth pointing out that, originally, electors were not intended to be rubber stamps, committed to a particular candidate. They were to be chosen by the state legislatures (who in turn were chosen by the people), and then to vote as they thought best. Hamilton's idea, whether you agree with it or not, is at least coherent in that context.

Today, electors' individual judgment counts for (almost) nothing, legislatures do not choose electors (though they still could if they wanted to), and so what we have is not so much indirect election as it is a form of direct popular election, just with a complicated way of deciding who won. In that context, it's hard to see how it provides any significant buffer against popular ferment. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hamilton's argument was certainly coherent at the time, and yes, things have changed since he wrote that essay. Also at the time there was some fear that too much democracy would lead to mob rule and tyranny of the majority. No one knew how much "buffer" was needed (if any), nor how "dangerous" democracy would turn out to be. Hamilton is known for having been concerned about this, but Madison (and others) were too. An example I found interesting was how Madison advocated that new states be created with little regard for natural or social terrain. Unlike Jefferson who wanted new states to be small and more or less culturally cohesive, Madison wanted new states to be "large and rectangular" and take in disperate social and cultural patterns if possible—arguing that forcing differing interests/factions to work together helped avoid the tyranny of the majority—a "checks and balances" kind of thing. Looking at a map of the US today it is obvious that Madison's idea was the one adopted.

In any case, yes, things have changed and Hamilton's writing about the Electoral College doesn't apply so well to the system today. Madison's writing still does, I think, even though things have changed. When he wrote of the Senate being "federal" rather than "national" he was not only thinking of there being equal representation among the states in the Senate, but also that, at the time, state legislatures, not the people, elected or appointed senators. That, and the changed nature of the Electoral College, undermines his arguments somewhat, but the general logic of a hybrid national/federal system still holds. Other than in Maine and Nebraska all electors in a state vote for the same candidate even if that candidate only won by a small margin. So the president is still chosen through a mixed national/federal system. I'm not personally arguing that this is for the best, just that it seems to be what Madison was arguing for: The "national" (the people but also the mob) checked and balanced against the "federal" (the states). Pfly (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember that the electoral votes are not automatically cast. There are actual people voting in the Electoral College. They are almost always loyal party members, who are certain to vote for their party's candidate. However, once in a while one of these electors bucks the system and votes for someone else. See the article on "faithless electors". → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One very basic consideration was that given the geographical scope of the U.S. and the state of transportation and communication ca. 1787, some were worried that people in one state simply wouldn't know enough about politicians from other states to have a truly informed opinion. As late as the United States presidential election of 1824, there were several regional candidates for president, but no real national candidate. Also, each state set its own voting qualifications. It would have required much more federal-government-imposed standardization and uniformity than most people would have been willing to accept at that time in order to make it feasible to lump votes from different states into one big vote pool... AnonMoos (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting reason for indirect elections is hidden in the wording of the (original) procedure of the Electoral College: "The electors shall ... vote by ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves." This provision, intended to dilute local preferences in favor of candidates with wider appeal, would be harder to enforce with direct elections. (I suspect this rule is why the office of Vice President exists at all!) —Tamfang (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose for having a Vice President is so that there is someone theoretically able to take over the job immediately if something happens to the President. As regards the different states, it would be easy to enforce: If a Presidential candidate selects a VP candidate from the same state, he's not allowed to be elected, no matter how the popular vote turns out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even when there's no Vice President, there is a list of officers designated to take over the Presidency. Note by the way that even with Amendment XII the Constitution does not formally recognize that candidates for President and Vice-President run jointly. —Tamfang (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought it would have been fun in 2000 if Dick Cheney's slightly iffy claim to have re-established Wyoming residency had been rejected by the courts, meaning that Texas's electors could not have voted for both Bush and Cheney. If they had stuck with Bush (he needed them all, I think, or at least almost all), and picked someone else for veep, then the VP election would have been decided in the Senate, which I think was Democratic at the time. Can you say Bush–Lieberman administration? I knew you could. --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic religiosity

Can anyone explain to me the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity? What does it mean 'to be religious to an end'? Psychologically speaking, why is intrinsic religiosity better than extrinsic religiosity or irreligiosity? How does a person become religious? Are some people just born that way? What does that say about apostates (people who leave the faith) and religious converts (people who enter the faith)? My former psychology textbook talked something about intrinsic religiosity vs. extrinsic religiosity. My impression was that being intrinsically religious was better than extrinsically religious or religious to an end. No idea what that meant. If an atheist who embraces secular humanism disguises himself or herself as, say, a Christian and attends a traditional Christian church, then would that count as extrinsic religiosity? What happens if that atheist uses Jesus's teachings to the philosophy of religious humanism? Meanwhile, the Christian who is so-called "born-again" is intrinsically religious, even though he may be explicitly hateful and bigoted and arrogant and selfish and greedy? That does not make sense. 140.254.226.242 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that the answer to your initial question is: how heartfelt is it? Are you convinced of the religious principles that you hold, or are you just claiming to hold them in hopes that it will further your nonreligious goals? Imagine that you're an atheist in Saudi Arabia — you're still going to be extrinsically religious (i.e. you go through the rituals, even though you reject them at heart), because you'll face severe penalties for abandoning Islam. You're "religious to an end" here, because your end is survival. Note that this use of "end" does not mean "finish"; this is a sense for "end" in which the OED's definition of "An intended result of an action; an aim, purpose" applies. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using these terms intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on your own, or is this coming from some source or article? I'd like to see how the terms are being used. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British royals and languages

Has any British royal ever master or attempt to master all the languages of the British Isles? That is Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, and English (I skipped Lowland Scottish because it is just English with an accent in my own opinion). The Tudors spoke some Welsh but not Gaelic; has any monarch since Elizabeth I of England learn or attempt to learn this language (this part is restricted to actual reigning monarchs sense I now know Prince Charles speaks Welsh)? James IV of Scotland was the last Scottish king to speak Gaelic; has any royal since learn or attempt to learn this language? Also has any British monarch learn or attempt to learn Irish?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Old Man of Lochnagar "He (Prince Charles) has also read it in Welsh and Scottish Gaelic translations on television; he is not fully fluent in either language." He does take an active interest in Scottish Gaelic according to BBC: Prince Charles comments on row over Gaelic in Caithness. You forgot to mention Cornish, Manx Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Ulster Scots, Guernésiais, Jèrriais and Sercquiais for traditional languages, and British Sign Language. I would imagine that these minority languages are far exceeded numerically by those who speak Urdu and other languages of immigrant communities. Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an answer to your question, but Karen Blixen reported Edward VIII speaking Swahili to some Kikuyu Chiefs (in Shadows on the Grasss). Our article doesn't seem to mention much about his linguistic ability, other than learning a few words of Welsh. Zoonoses (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an Englishman who lived in Lowland Scotland for several years (and who thus unconsciously acquired a Scottish accent, though my use of Scots language idioms when in Scotland was partially deliberate) I have to take issue with your opinion, Spy, that "Lowland Scottish . . . is just English with an accent."

Scots is, in my extended experience, a similar but nontheless distinct language from English – the two are sisters that diverged from their common roots many centuries ago, though in the modern era Scots is becoming more Anglicised. To be sure most Scots can, and when speaking to – or in the presence of – a non-Scot usually do, speak Scots-accented English, perhaps larded with a few Scots idioms. When not consciously or unconsciously doing so (as a form of register-adjustment) however, their vocabulary and grammar differs from standard English a lot more than one might realise if one has not oneself become, as I did, an "apparent Scot", to the extent that a listener with only native or acquired standard English would be unable to follow much of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scots has indeed acquired the kudos of a "separate language", though, in reality, there is a continuum of dialects of northern English from the Midlands to the Lallands. Scots shares most of its vocabulary with neighbouring dialects of English, some of which are closer to Scots than to standard English. This is not surprising, because they all developed from Northern Middle English. Dbfirs 15:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant fluent not knowing a few words.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly rigorous Google search suggests that the Prince of Wales is the most linguistically capable member of the House of Windsor in terms of Celtic languages, and that in a rather limited way. Note that appreciation of the merits of Celtic languages by Anglophones is really a 20th century phenomenon, if you exclude enthusiasts like George Borrow. Whether the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are using their time in Ynys Môn to acquire a smattering of Welsh, I don't know, Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed Prince Williams learns Welsh and Duchess Kate Learning Welsh. Another report says Prince William learns Swahili, a useful language in some parts of London. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]