Humanities desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

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.

February 20

9/11

I read in a scientific article that when the CIA was created had the special privileges over other agencies in the particular did not need to inform the public or others about their activities. After several scandals that came to public knowing they had to also include not assassinate foreign leaders, had to report their activities to the state etc. They, however, were later removed several of these restiktioner after 9/11. My, question is what restrictions were removed and the extra privileges CIA was after 9/11? --89.249.2.53 (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what science journal did you read such an article? Doesn't sound like science to me. --Jayron32 13:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ACLU site discusses your question in the context of the USA-PATRIOT Act. Also Patriot Act#Title IX: Improved Intelligence and Patriot Act, Title IX may be of interest. Oddly, our article CIA seems to contain nothing about restrictions Duoduoduo (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Central Intelligence Agency#Abuses of CIA authority, 1970s–1990s for an account of some restrictions that were put in place, including a prohibition on assassinating foreign leaders. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One issue that comes up before Congress is their funding bills. A normal funding bill lists how much is spent on each project, in extraordinary detail. This reveals what they are doing. The CIA, and other secret agencies, tend not to give this level of detail when they send funding requests. This is problematic, as this lack of oversight can lead to embezzlement, as well as programs the Congress would not fund, if they knew they existed, like the Iran-Contra affair or CIA drug trafficking. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read it in history, a sub magazine by the publishers behind Science Illustrated. Is it serious enough for you Duo? I actually asked here because I figured I could get an answer without being generalized as paranoid just because I generally critical of governments. What you have just disproved. But, thank you because StuRat and Looie bothered to reply. --109.232.72.49 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me confused with someone else. Read the signature of the person whose comment you're objecting to. I used up a lot of my time tracking down the references that I gave you. You're welcome. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Im, really sory bro. I was self a little bit confused --89.249.2.53 (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Pistorius trial

I have found the answer to my own question, sorry if anyone was inconvenienced. Richard Avery (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to list the Q, the answer you found, and mark the Q resolved. This allows anyone who read the Q and was researching it to know the answer too, or, if the answer they found conflicts with yours, they can bring this to your attention. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. My question was why was so much evidence being made available through witnesses and the accused at such an early stage. It seems that South Africa has more open rules than the UK with regard to court access. More importantly verdicts are reached by judges because they have no juries in their courts and thus no decision-making members of the public will be influenced by the welter of information. This is explained on the BBC website which I initially consulted but didn't dig deep enough. Richard Avery (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Understanding GDP by example

I am trying to improve my understanding of "GDP" by thinking about what kinds of activity get counted towards it. For instance in the following three scenarios:

construction of new house
purchase of existing house
renovation of old house

I believe that in the construction case, the money I spend on materials, construction contractors (and architects, legal fees for planning etc) will all count towards GDP. However the total value of the new house, which with luck/judgement should be higher than my outlay, does not count. When I purchase an existing house, I believe that the money I spend on the house doesn't count towards GDP, but legal fees and real-estate agent fees will count. (And in general a buoyant property market might support GDP in other ways e.g. if the guy I pay all the money to, then goes and uses the money for consumption.)

In the case of renovation I guess that the expenditure on materials, designers, contractors etc counts towards GDP, but the total increase in value of the house (hopefully higher than my costs) doesn't count. Have I got this correct? What about if I use a mortgage to fund construction, acquisition or improvement of a property? That involves a financial service which presumably counts towards GDP in some way, but I am not sure what feature of the mortgage gets counted? Presumably not the entire mortgage payment. ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said is correct. As for the interest payments, the last paragraph in GDP#Examples of GDP component variables says

Services (such as chequeing-account maintenance and services to borrowers) provided by banks and other financial institutions without charge or for a fee that does not reflect their full value have a value imputed to them by the compilers and are included. The financial institutions provide these services by giving the customer a less advantageous interest rate than they would if the services were absent; the value imputed to these services by the compilers is the difference between the interest rate of the account with the services and the interest rate of a similar account that does not have the services. According to the United States Bureau for Economic Analysis, this is one of the largest imputed items in the GDP

I interpret this to mean that the "compiler" (mortgage lender? government statistics bureau?) decides (imputes) how much of your interest payment is purely the cost of borrowing (not in GDP) and how much is expenditures on your part for services rendered (processing your payments, etc.; included in GDP). The part of the mortgage payment that goes to repayment of principal is not included. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure everything you say is quite correct, actually. GDP is also the sum of value added in an economy per year. Thus, if you construct or renovate your house then sell it, the difference between the price of the house/raw materials before and after should count towards GDP at time of sale, at least theoretically (in practice it would be difficult to separate out the inflation effect from the real effect). Though admittedly this was always on of the parts of the economics course I understood least well. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 16:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The value added is added by the contractor and by the producer of the materials he used. This will be the amount you pay the contractor for the work, and is counted at that time and the time the materials were produced only. The increased market value of the house (regardless of when you sell it) will consist of two components: the amount you paid the contractor, and any (positive or negative) excess over and above that, which is due to market conditions (not just inflation). The increase due to market conditions is not part of GDP, and the increase due to the renovations is not counted at the time of sale; the renovations themselves are counted at the time the contractor does the work. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The value added for GDP purposes is the amount paid to the contractor. The "value added" from the developer's point of view is the total increase in the resale value of the property, which may be more or less than what was paid to the contractor. Is there a better term to use than "value added" in this perspective, since this seems to be where the confusion creeps in? ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a developer rather than a homeowner who pays the contractor, then (I'm guessing here) I think that the developer itself has done some value added by planning and organizing the efforts, so I would think the developer's value added would be computed at the time of sale as the amount charged by the developer above and beyond its payments to the contractor. It strikes me that the asymmetry here -- the developer's efforts count as value added for GDP, but a private homeowner's efforts don't -- is analogous to the well-known asymmetry that a homemaker's efforts don't count in GDP but a paid housekeeper's efforts do count. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to practice Chinese folk religion?

How does a person who live in the Western hemisphere practice Chinese folk religion without parental or familial guidance? How does a person get started? 140.254.226.246 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember a Chinese family on Postcards from Buster PBS TV show that practices a form of Chinese folk religion and lives in Chinatown somewhere in the United States. I wonder how might a person would assimilate into the culture and practice the religion. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to assimilate into the culture and learn the religion would be to live in a Chinese community for a period. You would have to learn the Chinese language spoken by that community, since there are no texts or other media that fully teach the concepts and rituals of Chinese folk religion in non-Chinese languages. It would be much easier to do this in China, since the easiest way to learn a language (and culture) is through immersion. It's hard to imagine how you would do it in the United States. Maybe if you asked around in a neighborhood with a concentration of Chinese immigrants, you could offer to pay someone to teach you about that religion. Perhaps you could start at a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine, since some of the concepts of that medical system are connected with Chinese folk religion. Beforehand, you might take a course in ethnography, since you would need to adopt something like an ethnographic method. Marco polo (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese medicine is a dangerous pseudoscience that harms hundreds of millions of people by turning them away from treatments which actually work. Your suggestion is therefore medical advice of the most alarming kind. I highly recommend that you remove both it and my post. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. TCM is no better or worse than Western medicine, provided it is used properly by someone who knows what he or she is doing. Several governments, including Hong Kong, recognize it for purposes of regulation and healthcare provision.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea what its efficacy is, but I've noticed that it seems to have a voracious appetite for dubious ingredients, destroying a large number of early Chinese historical documents (oracle bones) in the past, and currently playing a significant role in driving rhinos to extinction, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The FDA officially approves homeopathic remedies. Does that mean homeopathy is effective? No, it just means that the FDA is too lazy, too corrupt, or too stupid (take your pick) to go after people selling pure water as medicine. Do you seriously believe that a folk remedy that relies on no scientific knowledge, takes Qi seriously a century after science has disproved vitalism, and is supported by no empirical evidence is as effective as a modern vaccine or surgical procedure? You might as well pray to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and you'll get the same benefits. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qi isn't the same as vitalism. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have read on a Wikipedia article that modern-day Chinese have revived Confucianism. If it's possible to revive a religion, then perhaps it's also possible to learn and practice a religion within one generation. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it ever went away, as such. Rather, it was discouraged in the PRC (especially during the cultural revolution) until recent decades, but was still openly adhered to by many outside the PRC. Anyway, it's doubtful whether Confucianism by itself is really a "religion" as those in Christian/Jewish/Muslim societies would understand it... AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could also take a look at Zen Buddhism, which is originally from China, but has a significant number of Western followers. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it family-oriented? I was expecting a religious ritual that a whole family could do together to worship. Maybe set something at the family shrine or altar to worship the ancestors or spirits. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search, and apparently Zen Buddhism is said to serve as a "spiritual retreat" for some Westerners without leaving behind a cultural/religious heritage for the children. In that case, the Western type of Buddhism is too individualistic. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, Zen can and often is pursued in a family oriented way among Westerners. The first thing that came to my mind was this, but google "family dharma" or phrases like that for lots of links. Pfly (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Christians in China tend to include their own cultural-religious teachings into their own variant of Christianity. Perhaps, that is not so hard to do in the West. A Westerner may attend church, raise the children in the faith, and identify themselves as Christians. In practice, Chinese Christians may include elements from Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confucianism is different from Chinese folk religion in that Confucianism relies heavily on texts. It is much easier to "revive" a religion based on text than one passed down largely by word of mouth. Do you have any experience of either of these religions? If not, I suggest that you try to get a sense for them before deciding to study one or the other. The best way to do this would be to travel to China. Forgive my original research, but my impression from visiting places of worship for both Confucianism and Chinese folk religion in China is that these two religions are almost antithetical in style. Confucianism is more of a philosophy than a religion: highly intellectual, with an austere, almost sterile aesthetic. By contrast, Chinese folk religion is intuitive, largely nonrational, and very colorful. If you are interested in Chinese religion, you might also explore Taoism, which has both a philosophical dimension and a religious dimension that is related to and somewhat overlaps with Chinese folk religion. You might also look into Chinese Buddhism, which is more influenced by the Pure Land tradition than by Zen, and which is more communal and less individualistic than (Western) Zen. Marco polo (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion is try to immerse oneself in a Chinese Christian community in the United States. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems a little backwards to me honestly. Typically, to practice a religion in the traditional sense of being a true adherent, the principles of the religion would already be of interest to you, as in the case that you were brought up in it (in which case you'd already have some knowledge of the various practices involved). Not a criticism, but rather a request for further context. You've emphasized the familial a couple of times now, so is this perhaps a case of you wanting to surprise family members who are already practitioners with a ritual you've learned? If so, the answer to your question will vary considerably given just which specific religious folk traditions we're talking about. If you're not looking for something this specific, but rather looking for any traditional folk practice, perhaps a little bit more context would assist (just speaking for me, of course). Snow (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

budget of american states on intrastate defense, border control, intelligence etc

it's been said from time to time that america was lucky in that it acquired large, isolated region (bounded by the oceans) and was apart from the war and strife of europe.

I would like to know if this is true: what percent, approximately, of each state's budget goes toward defense against other states, border control, intelligence, and so forth?

Is it exactly 0%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly 0%. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is no border control between U.S. states to speak of. There is a small amount of between-the-states security issues, possibly, in dealing with things like law enforcement jurisdiction and extradition between states, but I don't think that's what you're talking about here. International border crossings are maintained by the federal government with some aid from states along those borders, but there is no border control amongst the states, and there is no "defense against other states" or "intelligence" in the sense of espionage committed by one state against its neighbors. It simply doesn't exist. Now, whether this meets your definition of "exactly 0%", I'm sure we could find some line item on some budget somewhere that could, maybe, possibly be interpreted as border control expenses for states, but realistically, there is complete freedom of movement from one state to another, and the states make no effort to "police" their borders with other states. --Jayron32 20:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Not exactly 0%, since California, at least, has border checkpoints to enforce prohibitions on the movement of some animals and plants into the state, though people are not required to stop at these checkpoints and can't be forced to stop unless it is obvious that they are transporting livestock or plant matter. (See this link.) Also, there are state defense forces, which theoretically could be used in interstate conflicts, but they never have been used in that way. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last time there was actual fighting amongst the states as states (as opposed to something like the Civil War, which was under the auspices of the US Federal Government and the CSA Federal Government) was the Toledo War, which involved mobilization of state-controlled militias of the State of Ohio and the (then) Territory of Michigan. However, since then, I don't believe that any state defense forces have ever been involved in any conflict with the state defense forces of another U.S. state under the auspices of their state governments, nor in any inter-state conflict. Interstate military conflict simply does not happen. --Jayron32 20:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Michigan won the Toledo War, forcing Ohio to take Toledo. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

In the 1930s, the City of Los Angeles took it upon itself to send city police officers to the state borders and turned back "Okies" the city decided were unwanted. The state Attorney General declared such action illegal and made the city back down. [1]. RNealK (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting here that most airports that are not strictly municipal will have a degree of border security that does not necessarily discriminate between whether the originating flight was international or simply interstate (well, not in all respects anyway), meaning there is, with respect to air travel at least, some degree of border control between states, albeit largely incidental. Of course, this security infrastructure is largely the purview of the federal government. Snow (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a federal thing. But you can drive a car freely anywhere within the US and cross state lines to your heart's content. That doesn't mean you can do any old thing you want. There are stories (possibly true, possibly rumors intended to serve as deterrents) that bordering states police will cooperate in this way: Various types of fireworks are legal in Wisconsin but not in the bordering states. Hence there are often large fireworks sellers just inside the Wisconsin borders. So the story goes that cops will note the plate numbers of cars from bordering states and notify the state police when they head back to their home states with this contraband. Whether it actually happens or not, it could happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with a state's police catching people who go just across the border to buy lower-tax alcohol and try to bring it home. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid laws

what is the reason for all the insanity and often directly stupid laws that are among the most states in the U.S.? Can not even see any historical meaning to them. a few I think of

California: prohibited to shoot a whale if you sit in a car
Oklahoma: It is illegal for a tavern owner to let any of his guests pretend to have sex with a buffalo.
Maryland: It is illegal to scrub a sink
Oregon: Its prohibited to whistle underwater

Is that a deeper meaning to this kind of laws U.S. States? --109.232.72.49 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This inquiry sounds more like an opinion than a request for information, unless someone can actually provide and cite a written reason for those laws. I think you may be interested in "Blue Laws". Actually, I am not sure if "Blue Laws" is the right term, but I do know there is a special term for "stupid laws". 140.254.226.246 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue laws may be "stupid", but they are not all obsolete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, im sorry i ask on my own way. Are you happy now?--109.232.72.49 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Two things to keep in mind: 1) Most of these "lists of stupid laws" which are circulated on the Internet are made up out of whole cloth, that is, they're complete fabrications. 2) In cases where they aren't completely made up, the wording of the actual laws is perverted to the point where it looks odder than it is. For example (and I'm making this up, but using it to illustrate the idea based on your above statement), perhaps the law in California for whale hunting carefully defines how whales can be hunted: this isn't unusual: most states have lots of regulations on what you can hunt, when you can hunt it, and how you can hunt it. It may not specifically say the words "You can't shoot a whale if you sit in a car". Instead, it may carefully state the types of vessels you can use to hunt whales, or perhaps there's a law that says you can't hunt anything from inside a car. Who knows? But any of those would be reasonable (and not at all stupid) laws that someone has twisted to sound stupid. Any sensible law can be made to sound "stupid" if you play around with the wording a bit. I've yet to see a single one of these "lists" of laws which actually cites the chapter-and-verse from the state law codes in question, so that someone could look it up. That should tell you something right there. --Jayron32 20:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to Jayron's comment, there are laws in the Bible that seem to be insensible today. I suppose you may call them "senseless laws", though that may be ripping out of the cultural context of the people who wrote it. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oklahoma law, if it exists, sounds like a reaction to a specific performance in a bar, which they decided was obscene, and wanted to outlaw, without affecting anything else. StuRat (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another class of silly laws is ones that are now obsolete. For example, there was once a law requiring that somebody walk in front of a car waving a red flag, to warn everyone the car was coming. Sensible at the time, but absurd now. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider (as background) this UK related web page which does not look like a reliable source --Senra (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb laws. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to speak? Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. They just lie there silently in the lawbooks, waiting to be discovered by triviaists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK princesses

How wrong is it to address Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, with the title of princess? As I understand, officially they are not princesses. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How wrong is it? What are you using to measure the how? 140.254.226.246 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need degrees of wrongness? a. stupid mistake, b. just plain ignorance, c. common mistake, shared by many people, d. socially acceptable, although not true. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine is a princess, as her article says. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says that she's the wife of a prince. Does it imply that she's a princess? OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her full title and style is "Her Royal Highness Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Lady Carrickfergus". I don't see why it would be wrong to call her a princess. She's addressed as "Princess William" at 1:20 in this video[2].Dncsky (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See British Royal Family#Royal styles and titles: "These letters patent state that henceforth only the children of the Sovereign, the children of the sons of the Sovereign, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would 'have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour.'...Women marrying sons and male-line grandsons of a Sovereign are normally styled Her Royal Highness followed by the feminised version of her husband's highest title... However, when a woman marries a prince who does not hold a peerage, she is known as HRH Princess [Her husband's Christian name], followed by whatever territorial or titular designation." Thus, the former Camilla Parker-Bowles is princess by virtue of being married to the Prince of Wales, and the former Kate Middleton is both Duchess of Cambridge (by virtue of being married to the Duke of Cambridge) and Princess Kate (by virtue of being married to the son of the Prince of Wales, who is himself also allowed the dignity of "Prince". In the U.K. tradition, the wife of a title holder is normally allowed to bear the feminized version of that title. Since William is both a Prince and a Duke, Kate is both a Princess and a Duchess. Notably, the reverse is NOT true; so the husbands of female title holders in their own right do not normally enjoy the use of that title jure uxoris. Thus, when Margaret Thatcher was named "Baroness Thatcher" in 1992, her husband Denis Thatcher was NOT afforded the dignity of being a Baron; he was a Baronet under a separate letter patent, but did not become a Baron upon his wife's elevation. Had the reverse been true, she WOULD have become a baroness. --Jayron32 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's not "Princess Kate", she's "Princess William". If Prince William had not been created a duke upon his marriage she'd be styled "HRH Princess William of Wales". In the British system only women who are princesses by birth rather than marriage (or in very rare cases who are specifically granted the privilege) have their own name, rather than their husband's name, in their title. (This mirrors the usage for the nobility: whilst Lord John Smith's sister may be Lady Jane Smith, his wife is Lady John Smith.) Proteus (Talk) 00:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that correction. --Jayron32 02:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official position on titles, explained above, does not prevent the press and the public from using an unofficial title, as they did with Princess Diana. Dbfirs 14:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the Duchess of Cornwall, see Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall#Titles, styles, honours and arms. She is actually a princess, but chooses not to be called that. But I'm not sure if anyone in authority really minds if people use the wrong titles, it's just a matter of pride for those who like to get these things right. Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people do mind to a point. If she said she prefered to be styled "Queen of France" it might piss a number of people off. The Duchess of Cornwall is a reasonable title for her to choose from amongst her various legal titles, and she's in a unique situation considering the position her predecessor held in the social consciousness of Britain.. It seems a prudent move on her part to use the title she does. --Jayron32 19:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if anyone called her "Princess Camilla", she would probably smile politely and carry on. It's not as big a deal as some people think. BTW pissing off the French is something of a reciprocal national sport here and has been these last few centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with this, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it was no joke. Your monarchs were formally styled "King of France" right up until 1801, long after there was any French territory actually under British control. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your monarchs too, Jack. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. That the eastern part of New Holland was claimed by Captain Arthur Phillip in 1788 for George III, King of France is not normally taught in our schools, but malheureusement, c'est trop vrai. (Jacques d'Oz)-- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

There are a couple of French-speaking islands ofs the coast of France under the rule of the queen of England, Scotland and NI still. Which just goes to show how complex it all is. Rmhermen (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although they don't speak an awful lot of French there these days; see Languages of Jersey. Now we're getting REALLY off topic. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do speak an awful lot of French in Québec, though. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bien sûr... Alansplodge (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of religions

Wikipedia is not a discussion or debate forum. Please seek a forum.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi,
I would like to know why the religions are so global phenomenon,
and why in the modern times they extinguishes.
I mean, science has always existed, so why it had a little role in the human perspective of creation of the universe? Exx8 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first claim "why religions are so global", you may want to read Religion For Dummies, but don't worry, it's a reference for the rest of us! To answer your second claim, I have no idea what you are talking about. To answer your third claim "science has always existed", that would certainly depend on your definition of "science". See Scientific method to read up on how it was formalized and its history. Lastly, not all religions in the world care about the creation of the universe, so that part is senseless. Sorry if I sound snappy, but I am simply responding to the claims you report. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read up on the psychology, sociology, and anthropology of religion. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technology has always existed. Science is relatively recent. There are many reasons, culturally and personally, why religion persists. The common denominator seems to be that we want to believe that there's some larger purpose to our existence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Karl Marx had one of his few correct observations when he said that "Religion is the opiate of the masses". That is, by promising commoners rewards after death, if they behaved, leaders could get them to go along with being abused in this life. In this case, democracies may reduce the power of religion, since democratic leaders are less likely to use this means of control. StuRat (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that would be considered original research. Although you are explaining the interpretation for Karl Marx's claim, I think you are also taking a position or finding a position that equates religion to abusive means to control people. Trouble is, if that really were the case, then people would probably not offer pastoral care services at my university hospital to tend to patients, their families, and anyone who wants to attend the Catholic mass or use the Muslim prayer & reflection room for solemn prayer, reflection, and meditation. It's hard to say that these people do so because they are weak-minded or that religion wants to control them, as you seem to suggest. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously religion is not SOLELY a means of control of the masses, that's just one aspect of it, which also happens to explain why religion is generally in the decline in democracies, but not in non-democratic nations. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]