Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 2

Humanities desk
< May 1	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 3 >

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.

May 2

List of locations of polling places in last Czech Parliamentary elections?

Is there anywhere a comprehensive list of locations of polling places can be found for the latest Czech parliamentary elections? Thanks.--128.54.224.231 (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. I poked around a bit online and couldn't find anything comprehensive. Apparently the mayor of the municipality a voter lives in will inform them of their specific voting place at least 15 days before the election. Voting locations are also published in September newspapers and in the town halls of cities within the Czech Republic. FUTURI (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Czech Republic has an equivalent of the UK's Freedom of Information Act 2000 then I suspect that would be your best bet? ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... Apparently brief internet research indicates that there is a FOIA from around the same time yet it seems like one must be a citizen to make any sort of request. As such it seems like archival research would be best using newspapers (or asking a citizen to do all the paperwork for you). This would be a difficult undertaking however. Thanks anyways.--128.54.224.231 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: Ok, so I found this website here. When you click on a region, say Praha (Prague), it lists municipalities and next to it, it counts wards. I know these wards are not more specific as to location like I originally asked, but is a ward represent one polling place. Any idea what ward means in this context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.224.231 (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Teen views on same sex marriage

There are many polls that break down support of same sex marriage by age bracket, and not surprisingly, the younger respondents are more supportive. However, I've yet to see a poll that includes the 13-17 year old group. Based on the pattern, I'd predict that teens are more tolerant of same sex marriage than young adults, but does anyone have data that supports/refutes this hypothesis? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

13-17 year olds tend to be more tolerant of many things such as the absolute wisdom of the latest pop-idol. bearing in mind that the human brain is usually not fully formed untill one reaches the 20s much less gathered wisdom, it seems reasonable that the lower age groups might not be the best place to seach for informed guidence.190.56.17.88 (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The upper age groups aren't good places to seek guidance either--they're just old and senile miscreants with outdated views. The middle-age group should be ignored, too, because they're too busy getting mid-life crises to think rationally about the wider world. While we're at it, we should avoid the young adults, because they're frantically looking for jobs and likely to promote whatever political views get them richest the fastest, and have no time to be idealistic.

My point is that we should judge a person's opinions on a case-to-case basis instead of using sweeping generalizations. I'm very sure that for every social issue I've ever thought about, at least one teen in the world has pondered it more rationally and more objectively than me. I respect the opinions of everybody who is willing and able to justify them, regardless of age or any other physical characteristic. In fact I've often succeeded in having intellectual conversations with teens on "sensitive" topics, whereas the adults I tried to discuss them with simply accused me of insulting their beliefs and refused to continue the conversation. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that was magnificent! And I've had much the same experiences myself comparing teenagers and adults. DuncanHill (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP didn't say that they were looking to 13-17 year olds for guidance. Just data from surveys of that age group. Dismas|^(talk) 03:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you.17.88190.56.17.88 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dismas is correct: I was just looking for data, not for guidance. However, I thought that your post was insulting enough to warrant a response. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that some jurisdictions may have child-protection laws which would have the effect of discouraging (not necessarily explicitly) the inclusion of minors in opinion polls and statistical surveys of social attitudes, either in general or just on certain subjects including those related to sexual activity. Similar considerations of informed consent may be covered by the research ethics of those engaged in social research. If so, there may simply be few surveys which have gathered this sort of data from the age group in question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.85 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Time Urgent-- help us find a list of companies that supported Jim Crow?

We need a list of companies that supported Jim Crow laws or came under boycott as part of the civil rights movement. For example, this story on the National Civil Rights Museum shows the Montgomery Bus Boycott exhibit[1], their bus carries a Pepsi-Cola ad suggesting that company was a sponsor-- but obviously, I want a source, not an inference.

What other companies that still exist fell under boycott? Please help. Time urgent and for a good cause. --Tangledorange (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Rosa Parks does not imply that the boycott was against any particular company or companies, but against the state law. Similarly, I think you will find it difficult to find any companies that were explicitly either for against this law. No doubt there were individuals who spoke out both for and against segregation, but few people would have regarded it as appropriate for companies to say or do anything one way or another. In particular, I think your assumption that Pepsi-Cola "sponsored" the Jim Crow laws is misplaced: they were a company who advertised on buses amongst other places. Until Rosa Parks made her famous stand, there was nothing political about buses, and even after there was nothing about one particular bus company as against others. --ColinFine (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's my understanding too, but I know boycott was too powerful a tool for the civil rights movement to have limited it to buses. --Tangledorange (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Rosa Parks speaks only of the "Montgomery Bus Boycott", and makes no mention of boycotting anything else. This strongly implies that only buses were boycotted. It's possible he was concerned about Coke's local bottler or distributor rather than the Atlanta company. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Greensboro sit-ins famously began at a lunch counter in a Woolworths, but I wouldn't take that to mean that Woolworths the company explicitly supported the segregation legislation - they may have agreed with it, they may have hated it but tolerated it as the price of doing business, and we just can't tell. You may be able to find some examples of firms that chose not to do business in the South due to opposition to the laws (though it would take some digging), but it'd be much harder to find a major corporation that explicitly and publicly stated its support for the legislation. Shimgray | talk | 23:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, given a day before he died, he encouraged Memphis residents to boycott Coca-Cola, Wonder Bread, Sealtest milk and something called Hart's Bread because of unfair hiring practices. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I remember seeing a picture of a cannery company in Alaska in the 1890s with a sign that said "Negroes need not apply". Not a major corporation, but a rather strong hint towards their tendencies. And they were in Alaska, it's not like they would have been pressured into it from being surrounded by Southern businesses all doing the same thing. And what's funny is that, while all these Jim Crow laws were at their worst, some black people in the deep South were actually able to get favors from governors (see Lead Belly), so Jim Crow wasn't always the bright-line rule it's portrayed as. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Online Korean Language courses - where, please?

Also, for anything less than $225/credit-hour, please? (Coming from a Kansan resident.) A Korean class has been elusive for me, especially an online one.

ONLINE Korean Language courses - where, please?

I hope to take a Korean class online, as they're hard to come by. As in-state tuition for me is $222.40 at my university, I hope to find one for less than that. Please link me to some good leads. Thanks. --129.130.96.232 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Online Comm Courses

Moreover, what are some communications classes online that I can take through a community college (or other places that'll, for me, cost less than $220/credit-hour?) (I already took Public Speaking, so maybe Interpersonal Communication, Persuasion, and whatever could teach me to negotiate myself to better positions in life. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are christians happy that Osama Bin Laden is dead?

I thought their religion teaches them to love their enemies. Isn't this part of their religion? I am confused. 69.68.161.178 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are a little confused. There are many kinds of Christianity, and many Christian opinions within these kinds. Some Christians are upset about the assassination of Osama bin Laden for religious reasons, others for political reasons. Some are celebrating the assassination of Osama bin Laden for political or nationalist reasons; and, a smaller minority for religious reasons. In addition, many of the people celebrating his killing who aren't Christian are doing so for political or nationalist reasons. Many people, many views, many reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Because terrorists gave up their claim to humanity (in some of their views anyways). Googlemeister (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the New Testament is that you can't ever give up your claim to humanity, whatever you do. Love the sinner, hate the sin, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) :Many, many Christians are not happy that he is dead. They see this passage: "Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove" as being true and applicable in this case. (Proverbs 24: 17,18) --TammyMoet (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As others have said, clearly not all Christians are happy over his death. From our own article on the death:

Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi said that while Christians "do not rejoice" over a death, bin Laden's death serves to remind them of "each person's responsibility before God and men," expressing hope that bin Laden's death "would not be an occasion for more hate, but for peace." The Vatican went on to say that Osama bin Laden must answer to God for having killed an innumerable number of people and exploiting religion

Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks it is a troll post? --Reference Desker (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think people are celebrating the removal of a person who had thrown down the gauntlet against the western world and therefore made it impossible for innocent people (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, athiest, pagan, Wiccan, Satanist, whatever) to travel in planes, the metro, by train or to even feel safe in their own streets, towns and cities. It's not "nice" to threaten people, you know.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessarily a troll. Consider it from the other side... After 9/11, the news media directed at Christians focused heavily on showing anyone who looked anything like a Muslim having a huge celebration. Many Christians asked why the Muslims are celebrating the deaths of so many people. Now, I'm sure that the news media directed at Muslims is focused heavily on showing anyone who looks anything like a Christian having a huge celebration. Many Muslims will certainly ask why Christians are celebrating the death of another human. In both cases, the root of the evil is the news organizations that are truly focused on making money in any way possible - mainly through exploitation of ignorance. -- kainaw™ 14:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that true? One of the images I remember from the reporting on 9/11 was a crowd of Iranian women in full hijab chanting "America! Condolences! America! Condolences!". Anyway, I as a Christian cannot feel happy that Bin Laden is dead, however much as an American I feel like I'm supposed to. Although I utterly disagree with both his ends and his means, joy is not what I'm feeling today. I will feel joy if Obama takes this opportunity withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, though I'm not holding my breath. Pais (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some media outlets (particularly right-leaning) loved to show footage of various Middle-Eastern people burning American flags and celebrating the attacks in the days after Sept. 11. The more centrist stations also showed various nationalities who offered their condolences.

And I have many family members & co-workers who are happy bin Laden is dead. I caught a bit of flak from family & co-workers for posting that above scripture quote to my Facebook page. I'm actually atheist, but I feel we should never celebrate a death, even a necessary one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility is it's not a troll but still not a genuine question, e.g. a person trying to make the point that it's a flawed idea to use some members of a religion as representative of the whole religion. Note that I'm not suggesting we not discuss the question because of it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Not all Americans are really christian, and many Christians aren't observant. Americans are _everything_. Young people in big cities especially tend to be secular or some other religion. When we see the huge crowd on TV, we assume American Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus are all probably in that crowd. 2) I think some Americans do feel a little 'weird' about celebrating a human death-- but bin laden caused so much pain, people are feeling joy that that evil is gone. --Tangledorange (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There were some Muslims dancing in the streets on 9/11, while others (including Arafat) expressed shock and horror at what happened. Last night there were also Muslims dancing in the streets at the death of that evil being. As one of them said, Osama bin Laden had caused a great deal of harm to Muslims in America and around the world. While it may not be right to celebrate one man's death, it is a war we're in, and which we have to win. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Tangledorange's answer is correct on both counts. I should elaborate that I think much of the rejoicing is not directly because people had been afraid of terrorism - I don't think they were, and the threat at least right now may be higher than ever. But it's a hope that after a whole decade of security lunacy, trillion dollar wars, and a whole new kind of Cold War mentality, that this death might inexplicably bring about a return to sanity and prosperity, as inexplicably as people allowed the original attack to cause all those things in the first place. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think it's more of a relief than anything. We've been waiting over 9 years to deal with that guy who harmed us so badly. He's like Hitler, in being a good, visible scapegoat for everything bad that's happened in America and around the world during the past decade. It appears that Pakistan double-crossed us at every turn, until we finally got wise and did it ourselves (don't ask why it took us 9 years to figure that out). Even though al-Qaeda will surely go on, their founder is gone, and there's no grave for them to rally around. And as soon as the next guy takes over, he'll be hunted down and killed too, and maybe the followers might start to get a clue. It's to be hoped that this is the beginning of the end of this situation, this "war on terror" or whatever to call it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very few people derive their morals from the nominal tenets of their religion. Most inherit it from their society and then pick and chose some parts of the faith that can be used to support this pre-existing framework.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a theologian here, but I think that it might be possible to love one's enemy and want them to be brought to justice for their crimes at the same time. I don't think there are any Christian societies that have interpreted the command to love one's enemies to mean that criminals should not be punished. (Although some may view that as a reason not to have the death penalty or torture criminals) Many Christians do view mass-murder as a capital offence, not sure if that's because of a specific bible verse or societal conditioning. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Different people interprete Christianity differently. Constantine the Great and Catherine de' Medici would have little use for Thou shalt not kill, or for turning the other cheek. The Quakers and Jehova's Witnesses interprete this part of the teaching more strictly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true, it's a good reason why one shouldn't make generalizations about members of any given religion. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere does it ever say that loving one's enemy means condoning any of their actions. When you forgive someone, it means you've stopped hating them for doing whatever it was they did that hurt you, it doesn't mean the hurt didn't happen in the first place, nor does it mean that the person is suddenly relieved of responsibility for making whatever amends are possible and necessary. When you go to Confession (or whatever they call it these days; Reconciliation, I think), and the priest asks you to say 10 Hail Marys and forgives you, you still have to submit yourself to whatever legal processes are necessary if there's any breach of the law involved, and take whatever punishment or pay whatever fine the state decides is appropriate; or, if it's a private matter, you still have to apologise to the offended party and build a bridge by demonstrating your regret and your commitment not to reoffend. This distinction between people and their actions means that not even Osama bin Laden was an evil person; he was a person who committed evil deeds, and deserved whatever punishment was appropriate for those deeds. If you start a war, you run the risk of being killed. It's that simple. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer to this question is that the world is full of people of all races and religions who are ignorant enough to get excited over pointless violence. Bin Laden's death changes nothing, the war on terror has changed nothing, even 9/11 didn't really change anything - but for some reason they each made different people feel good about themselves. It reminds me of an old apocalyptic science fiction book (can't remember the name), where the last living act of the last living human on the face of the destroyed planet is to thumb his nose at God. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On a more general note, this article contains an interesting discussion of the psychology of revenge. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Beyond revenge, think "decrease of menace." A man who organized the murder of over three thousand of one's countrymen, in an effort to kill far more, who had demonstrated his malevolence in many attacks over many years, who wished one ill and had every desire to kill one and one's family, is shot dead. What person would not feel great relief and satisfaction at such an event. Jesus Christ would have absolutely "turned the other cheek" after Osama slapped his one cheek. Most people, even followers of Christ, are not really that Christlike. Even his own apostles in his last hours were not Christlike: Judas was a paid traitor and an accessory to murder, one attacked the servant of a Temple official with a sword, Peter denied knowing Jesus repeatedly, all the remaining ones but Thomas locked themselves up in a secure room for fear of physical harm to themselves. They may have been Christians, but they were flawed. Edison (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You've implicitly brought up the divide connected with active killings in general. True "right-to-lifers" will oppose any deliberate taking of human life: abortion, murder, capital punishment, and warfare. The dilemma comes when you're attacked, or more generally, when your loved ones or your society or your homeland are attacked. If someone harms you, you can "turn the other cheek" and forgive. But if someone harms someone else, then the "greater sin" concept comes into play. If an armed robber breaks into your house and you have a gun, do you use it? Strict right-to-lifers might say "No". But then the robber kills you and may kill others later. While it may be a sin to kill him, it's a "greater sin" to allow yourself and your family to be killed. Capital punishment may seem like revenge, but what it really is is permanent removal. Once dead, that person cannot harm anyone again. That's what's going on with OBL. He and/or his organization killed 3,000 Americans directly, and who knows how many other people worldwide. He is now permanently removed, and will never kill again. And that's reasonable grounds for celebration, in my book. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, a true Christian might feel sadness for OBL the human. How did it come to this? What went wrong in his life that turned him into such a hateful, evil being? Those are reasonable questions to ask. But while answers to those questions might explain his behavior, it doesn't excuse it. And to quote Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." OBL had his life, and he had a choice to be in the right. He chose to be in the wrong, and ultimately he chose the way he died. Not so for his victims in the WTC and elsewhere around the world. He chose for them. And to allow him to get away with it would be a very great sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it says somewhere in the Old Testament about an "eye for an eye" and "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". In the last century, Christianity lost its former fire and fury. All this talk about "loving one's enemy" and "turning the other cheek" is nauseating, and that's putting it mildly. The people celebrating in the streets are glad a major threat to their own lives and the lives of their families has been removed. It's normal. As it was normal for Europeans and Americans to have celebrated the end of World War II. As I have said before, it is not wise to threaten people. They will retaliate. The law of nature is to protect one's own life and those of their loved ones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "lives by the sword" is from Matthew 26:52, and it's Jesus telling Petrus what not to do! And while "an eye for an eye" is indeed in the Old Testament, the whole point of Christianity is a New Covenant which gets rid of many of the rules of the Old Testament. That's why Christians don't have to get circumcised, and are allowed to eat a nice pur porc salami, and have cheeseburgers and shrimp cocktails. Oh, and don't have to be Jews. In particular, The Man himself has said (if you believe in the infallibility of the Bible): "You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5:38-39, NIV). Christians have spend 2000 years finding excuses, but it's very hard to argue that their Christ would support this killing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

C'mon, folks, we're here to provide sourced answers, not argue amongst ourselves over pacifism vs. retaliation on a personal level. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jesus was preaching passive resistance. It worked for Gandhi in India. I seem to recall reading that Gandhi conceded it wouldn't have worked against Nazi Germany. So what would you have us do after 9/11? Nothing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Actually, there's little doubt in my mind that doing nothing would have been the most effective response to the September 11th attacks. Bury the dead and encourage people to redirect their anger to good causes, such as a national campaign against drunken driving. (Steal the terrorists' one virtue, instead of their vices) If people came together patriotically in such a way, they could save more lives and more monetary damage than Osama inflicted, and it would show the terrorists that all their efforts add up, in sum, to less than nothing. I don't feel like there's any unusual sin in rejoicing at Osama's death, but the way of the saints is better than that of ordinary men. Wnt (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Even among those happy with the hunt, there was some concern with the Wild West approach of Wanted, Dead or Alive. It seemed to place a greater emphasis on the first option. Gosh, even Saddam was captured alive and tried in a court. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I don't believe Jesus was a passive "hippie at Woodstock", barefoot in the park, man of peace and all you need is love, love, love. One only has t recall his violent action in driving the moneylenders out of the temple. Tht took a lot of balls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I completely agree with Stephan Schulz and Wnt. The simple and obvious lesson of history is that retaliation begets retaliation, violence breeds violence, killing leads to more killing. Bin Laden's assassination does not make us any safer (probably the opposite) and there is certainly no moral justification for celebrating it in any way. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Why does morality have to be dragged into everything? Humans are animals; they have no morals. The idea of morality is a facade invented to pacify us amd to make us feel superior to beasts. We are not. It's a basic instinct of survival to strike at those who pose a danger to ourselves and loved ones. I will confess to having rejoiced when people who were my open and declared enemies died. I don't practice hypocrisy nor shield behind a false code of morals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Ridiculous nonsense. Humans are reasoning beings, and whenever we treat our fellow humans as reasoning beings like us - which should be all the time - then we are taking a moral stance. All society and civilisation is founded on morality of one form or another. Without morality, all you have is barbarism and savagery. And without morality you have no basis for saying that anything that bin Laden did was even wrong or to talk of "retaliation" in the first place. You do have a moral code, albeit an unattractive one. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) OBL himself had a "moral code" of some warped variety. We need not care what his "moral code" was, only what his impact on us was. We could sit still and continue to be bullied by the likes of him, or we could take a stand and do something about it. His kind will always be around. That doesn't mean we have to put up with it. And I'm sure Jesus would understand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC) So let's teach the bullies how not to be bullies by beating them up until they give in. What could possibly go wrong ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC) There's no teaching the likes of OBL to do anything. He made his choices and nothing was going to pursuade him to change his mind or his actions. One of his choices was to be killed, and we obliged him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The flaw in the "doing nothing" argument is that you'll eventually end up getting killed anyway, and what good will that do you? Do nothing after 9/11? You may not believe in war, but your enemy does believe in war, and he'll keep on killing your countrymen, upping the ante from tens to hundreds to thousands to hundreds of thousands until he gets your attention. How about doing nothing after the attack on Pearl Harbor? How about doing nothing after the attack on Fort Sumter? How about doing nothing to resist the British in the 1770s? How far back do you take this pacifism theory? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Civilisation is just a facade built around mans' inherent need for law and order, which exists in the animal kingdom. I personally dislike cruelty and abhor violence, yet if one were to threaten me or my chidren's existance, the vestiges of civilisation would drop and barbarism would take over in my natual instinct to protect my offspring. Barbarism is present in all of us. Pacifism is a flimsy excuse not to recognise this. Pacifism is the brave Apollo who denounces war yet has a friend who beats his wife.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I think the argument is that attacking bin Laden allowed him to portray himself as a martyr, and thus attract more recruits. So, ignoring him would hopefully decrease the number of recruits. This is counter to the conventional wisdom that we need to "send them a message". I don't think that works with people who are already suicidal. However, there's also the issue of destroying his capability to make war, by taking out the leadership, training camps, weapons stashes, command and control, etc. This applies as well to terrorism as to conventional warfare. StuRat (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Yes. Ignoring enemies doesn't make them go away, it makes them stronger and more determined, as Europe found out with Hitler. And it's important to keep in mind that this has not just a one-man targeted effort. They've been systematically taking out these characters over the last 10 years, and not just that, but trying to erode their influence as well, like you're saying. Al-Qaeda has not been a "conventional" enemy, but they're an enemy nonetheless. And whether it's wife-beaters or Al-Qaeda, passively enabling them doesn't work. They have to be actively stopped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Individual anecdotes are not a good guide. Also notice that there are many options between "ignoring" and "shooting" - in fact, most of human intercourse lies in that spectrum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful now. There are many very different questions being mixed up here. The most specific is if the bible passages on "an eye for an eye" and "live by the sword" can be used to justify a violent reaction based on the teachings of Jesus. If you look at the context of these passages, the answer is unequivocally no. The second question is "What would Jesus do". That question is hard to answer, as we have comparatively little information on him, and what we have is highly selective and filtered through millenniums of tradition and interpretation. As Jeanne pointed out, Jesus showed some aggression in the episode with the money lenders, and in the non-canonical Infancy Gospel of Thomas child Jesus slays other children left and right for very minor causes. The third question is what a proper "Christian" reaction would be. That is different again - different strains of Christianity have found ways to accommodate the (perceived) need for secular violence at least since the time of Constantine the Great (of in hoc signo vinces fame). And the fourth question is how we should have reacted. I'd strongly maintain that our answer to the last question should not blindly reflect the opinion of any religion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You've hit upon the ultimate irony - that without the military force of Constantine, it's likely Christianity would have died out, or at least taken much longer to get established. In terms of "purity", Christianity becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire was just about the worst possible outcome. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This hymn sums up Jesus and His teachings perfectly: Onwards Christian soldier...... For a religion to have triumphed from Greece to Ireland, and from Sicily to Norway, and lasted for 2,000 years, someone had to have put the boot in somewhere, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What would Jesus do? it seems I know the answer to this and most other questions, so you may as well just go ahead and ask me - apparently.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed Jeanne. Christians have always advocated force in certain circumstances and nothing has changed. Historically popes and bishops have gone to war and military holy orders (Knights Templer, Knights Hospitaller, Teutonic Knights) have joined crusades all in the name of Christ. Even today armies have padres who back up countries' wars and interventions. So the intial questioner asked Why are christians happy that Osama Bin Laden is dead?. So the answer must be why not. A man who was responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of people around the globe and who was responsible for the continued planning of further attrocities should and had to be brought to book. His death seems an appropriate and measured response. Yes, his death will almost certainly involve so called reprisal outrages but these actions would have been in the pipeline anyway--only now they will be commited in bin Laden's name, but happen they would have anyway. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly makes your jingoistic pseudo-Christian miltantism any better than bin Laden's jingoistic pseudo-Muslim militantism ? Are they not two sides of the same blood-soaked coinage ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

To borrow your own phrase--ridiculous nonsense. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's rather telling how many Muslims were dancing in the streets after the disposal of that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It strikes me that the way Japan and Germany were handled post-war was a practical application of American Christianity. First, crush the enemy. Second, turn the enemy's previously captive citizens into allies/friends by helping them rebuild and to be free of oppression (or as free as they want to be, anyway). This is what they've tried to do in Iraq (the jury is still out on that one), and what was not done after WWI, the US not being powerful enough yet, thus making a Hitler both possible and "necessary" from the German standpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't a person who believes in God ascribe credit to God for the defeat of a mortal enemy? Thus any rejoicing is tempered by the mindfulness that it is God who brought about the defeat of an enemy. I think rejoicing is associated with self-satisfaction. The person believing in God is less likely to exuberantly rejoice. I think there would be an abiding fear that God could choose to favor the enemy in the next bout—the rematch could be a real lollapalooza if God looks favorably on your enemy. Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're kind of citing the Jerry Falwell argument - that 9/11 was God punishing us for various sins, such as tolerance of gays, non-Christians, and the New York Yankees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And the recent tornadoes in Alabama are God's punishment for Bible-Belt fundamentalism? Anyway, Bus stop, I think the reason a Christian does not rejoice in the death of an enemy is that it's sad to consider the fate of someone who has committed terrible sins in his life and apparently never repented of them. Pais (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't exactly addressing the specific question asked, but speaking about "believers" generally. I'm referencing the dynamics of believing in God vis-a-vis warfare and the defeat of an enemy. I would say that "believers" and "non-believers" may tend to view this differently. Or indifferently as the case may be. Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As I recall from being forced to read it back in my early teen years, some of the major players in the Iliad (sp?) were the gods who had taken sides. Even though this is presumed to be superstitious behavior, this pagan concept is still around, as expressed by Falwell, et al, and it's a frequent theme in the Bible, especially in the O.T. In the American Civil War, both sides argued that God was on their side, and as Lincoln wisely pointed out, both sides might be wrong, but they can't both be right. Old-fashioned Christians may indeed see the defeat of OBL as some kind of affirmation that God is on our side after all. Others of us see it as being lucky that we have such great resources to carry out such a mission and defeat an enemy of the USA, and that God has nothing to do with it as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea of God (or gods) taking sides is dangerous, because it assumes one side is good and one side is evil. But I believe the First Law of Peace is that good and honorable men can come into conflict with one another. In an imperfect world, with imperfect information, where people do what they feel is justly necessary to defend themselves and those they love, they can find themselves at war; yet they can also find a common enlightenment and make peace.

I don't think that we should uncritically accept either face of defeatism - neither that victory by war is impossible because it only begets violence, nor that victory by peace is impossible because violence must crush resistance. History shows the most surprising victories by either means. The Christian martyrs took on Rome and won, at least on the most important points; the civil rights movement took on racism and prevailed the same way. Even more inexplicably, the U.S. fought Japan and Germany and somehow the two emerged as allies without continued violence - something which truly perplexes me, because from first principles I would never have believed that POWs of the Japanese or victims of the Holocaust wouldn't still be stalking those countries making harsh retributions to this very day, less that the Imperialists and the Nazis would have given up their taste for blood.

I think that the largest part of avoiding "gloating" here is not so much whether people are happy or sad, but how they absorb this victory into their view of what to do next in the Middle East. We should recognize that, however abhorrent their attack, the Islamic fundamentalists returned to the U.S. some of our own baser tendencies, as expressed in aid for the Shah of Iran (and as Osama complained, the House of Saud), the near-prisoner status of the Palestinians, the tremendous casualties of the liberation? of Iraq. It would be better to oppose evil when our own country is doing it than to wait until it boomerangs back on us. If people instead think that because they've defeated Osama, they can get away with any crass scheme they think of... well, that may bring more trouble our way even in this life. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Suffice to say, there are as many opinions on this as there are people in the world. As pointed out earlier, some Christian sects (ie Quakers) are totally pacifistic and would not endorse the killing of bin Laden; others still adhere to "an eye for an eye" (ie. Fundamentalist Christianity). Most people tend to fall somewhere in between, especially in a Melting pot culture like the USA has. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dulle Griet/Dull Gret

Online, I can only find reference to the painting by Pieter Brueghel and the cannon, both of which reference a Flemish legend... where can I read more about the legend itself? 165.91.189.35 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK so it's not online but de Dulle Griet bar in Ghent has an ancient cartoon strip which explains one version of the legend: Adam and Eve are in the Garden, and are tempted by the snake to eat an apple. Adam goes first, grows hair and genitalia, and jumps Eve. Eve goes next, and gets mad as hell and takes it out on the snake. Is that the version you're after? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• I found this reference [2] on Google books, for what it's worth. It doesn't quite give the kind of detail I think you're looking for, but it's a start. The phrase "dulle griet folklore" turns up several more results that might be more useful (didn't have time to check through them all).Kafka Liz (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy

Wikipedia cannot offer legal advice BurtAlert (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine has gotten into some legal trouble. He was going to court on his second DUI. He went to a couple of court hearings on the case and the judge orgered him to pay a heafty fine (I think around $1700), 200 hours of community serive and 12 months of probation. He had been paying on his fines, but was yet to sign up for probation. Being as smart as he was, he was still driving around on a suspended driver's lisence. Of course, he was pulled over for having a cracked windshield, and recieved a couple more tickets. When the officer ran his ID, he came back to inform him that he had a warrant out for his arrest for violating his probation. The warrant was sent out from the county court district, the charges that he had been seeing the judge for was a city courthouse. He had just had a court date at the city courthouse a few weeks before this and the judge gave him some more time to sign up for his probation and set a review hearing, which was only a few weeks away. He tried tried explaining this to the officer. How could he have a probation violation when he wasn't signed up yet? Somewhere in all of this, my friend was under the impression that the police officer saw that he was supposed to be on probation and since he was recieving new charges that day, that it would be a probation violation, so the officer made it into a warrant. I don't know how that would work, or if an officer even has that right, but they took him to jail on the warrant. He happened to be in a different county when he was arrested so he endend up waiting for nearly a month before they sent for him to go to court, not to mention that they only knew he was incarcerated because he had a friend call them. After he went to court on the warrant, they gave him time served which cut his community service and fine down, but he still was required to do the 12 months of probation. Needless to say, he missed the review hearing for the city while he was in jail. Since the charges had been moved to the county and he was already sentanced on that case, he didn't think anything of it. They released him from jail, he signed up for his probation and about a week or so later, he recieved a letter stating that he had been issued a warrant from the city for missing his court date! I know about the double jeopardy law and have been researching like crazy. My question I quess would be, is there anyway that the court system can get away with this? After waiting around in jail until his friend called on the case, it makes you wonder if there was a warrant. You would think that if they county was waiting for this guy to be caught, they would be watching for him in all the county jails. Or that the arresting county would notify the other jail to let them know that he was being held there. Maybe the officer did have some way to violate his "probation" and turn it into a warrant. Now he is looking at actually violating his probation on the charges that he's already been sentanced on, twice in a way, the city that had a review hearing set up in just a few weeks and the couny that had him incarcerated which led to him missing his review with the city. I'd appreciate any kind of feed back on this. Thank you for spending your time reading this. Sincerely, Confused ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcracraft (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I have removed the leading whitespace - this is not how paragraphs are marked on Wikipedia and makes things harder to read. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC) The ref desk cannot give legal advice. You must consult a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC) As BB has said, we can't give legal advice so this is obviously not legal advice but simply noting something you don't seem to have considered. In particular despite knowing next to nothing about US law I don't see why not signing up for probation by the deadline could not potentially be a probation violation in itself (and is probation violation actually the legal term of just the officer's shorthand?). I could easily see it being a violation of some sort leading up to a warrant [3] Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Again, we can't give out legal advice for your friend's specific situation, because we're just Wikipedia volunteers, not licensed lawyers in your state. That said, this doesn't sound like double jeopardy. People can & do rack up multiple probation violations all the time. Probation is basically just an arrangement where the judge agrees to hold off on sentencing hard prison time, so long as the accused keeps up "good behavior" -- and what counts as good behavior can be very complicated and inflexible. That's the main reason why your friend needs the probation officer. Aside from hiring a criminal defense lawyer (which could really be worth the money at this point!) the probation officers are the only ones who really know the system inside and out, and can help your friend avoid digging a deeper hole. --M@rēino 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC) point of observation: the police can do things like this. whether it's entirely legal is something you'll need to hire a lawyer to discover (and it might be worth the $100+ dollars just to get a consultation, because a good lawyer will quickly tell you whether there's any case here to be had). However, I'm not at all surprised by the officer's behavior. Your friend was driving on a suspended license from a second DUI, when it's clear he had not taken the necessary responsible action of getting his parole straightened out - that sets off so many red flags even in my warm&fuzzy liberal brain that I expect the cop was crackling audibly. The cop was surely thinking "This guy is not in control, and I need to get him off the street before he kills someone", and I have a hard time imagining a judge who wouldn't see it that way as well. Your friend has a real uphill battle here. --Ludwigs2 23:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Forts / Fortresses in Medieval Europe

The size of Fortresses could vary I suppose, and thus how many men they could hold would also vary, but in general how many men would you think a fort could hold?

Also how few could the smallest forts hold, and how many could the biggest forts hold? Just to get an idea of the minimum and maximum capacity. I want to make clear that I speak of 'real' fortresses, solid proper fortresses made of solid stone, like in the crusades. And I don't really speak of a citadel or anything like that which was part of a city, where soldiers might live outside, in the city.

Instead, imagine a fort situated somewhere at a frontier, away from cities and towns, but that it is still fully manned because some enemy, or perhaps barbarians or somesuch threatens to attack the kingdom from that direction.

I'm sure that one can squeeze in a lot of men in that fort over a short time, but over a longer period soldiers would live there, sleep there, eat there and patrol the walls, and simply be there in case the enemy shows up, so there has to be some limitation as to how many soldiers a fort could hold. I cannot picture a fort holding... thousand men or more. As I said before they need to sleep there and enough food needs to be available to feed the men etc. I can imagine a fort being able to holding maybe 100 to 300 men over a longer period..?

But since I'm only speculating and do not know for sure, I ask for your opinion :)

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.18 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, from what I know about castles in 12th century England, towns grew up around them, so wouldn't the same thing happen elsewhere? Googlemeister (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Martello tower article says they held from 16 to 26 men, so that could be a lower limit. The Martello towers were designed to have one cannon on the roof. See also Broch. 92.15.8.107 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But the Martello tower was late 18th early 19th century. Not from the Middle Ages. Still, it might be a reasonable starting point. Googlemeister (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I for one took that as read. Brochs were Iron-age. 92.15.8.107 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Caernarfon Castle says "In 1284, Caernarfon was defended by a garrison of forty men, more than the thirty-strong garrisons at Conwy and Harlech. Even in peace time, when most castles would have a guard of only a few men, Caernarfon was defended by between twenty and forty people due to its importance." Caernarfon was one of the most important, and largest, castles in Wales. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're thinking of a literal crusader fortress, you are probably thinking of Krak des Chevaliers, which (according to our article) "may have held about 50–60 Hospitaller knights and up to 2,000 other foot soldiers", plus many hundreds of horses. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of Edinburgh Castle the article says "A large garrison was installed, 325 strong in 1300"; that's at the very height of a war of which the castle was one of the key targets. In 1341, still a highly contended strongpoint, its garrison was 100 men. By 1688 (a bit later than the period of the question) it was 160 men. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks all of you. Very helpful :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.18 (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Princess Royal

If Kate and William have a daughter, will she take over as Princess Royal from Anne, or would that only occur if and when William becomes King? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Princess Royal article explains exactly this, in its introduction. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Should've read that first. Thanks. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Middleton's money

How did the Middletons Snr make enough money to send their daughter to an expensive school? Thanks 92.15.8.107 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

They own Party Pieces, a party supply company, which Carole Middleton (formerly a flight attendant) founded in 1987 ([4]), when Kate was 5. The Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge says the company's value is ~£30million. Both previously worked for British Airways. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Her great grandfather set up a trust to fund the education of his heirs [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.84.184 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So not really middle class, as 'they' would have us believe. 92.15.8.107 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you apparently live in the UK I would have thought you understood this better then me but my impression was that in the UK it is accurate to say they are middle class (I think more specifically upper middle class) since they aren't members of the aristrocracy i.e. the Upper class#United Kingdom no matter how rich they or their ancestors may have been. This seems to be supported by that article and in more detail by Social structure of Britain#Upper class. Or did you miss the plenty of reminders that Kate was the first untitled woman to marry a close heir? Nil Einne (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

92's missing a lot of things; how many of these posts have we had in the past few weeks? We get it, you hate the monarchy, thanks for letting us know. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• They certainly bourgeois, though. "Middle class" often means a social status, rather than a socio-economic relationship. One could make the argument that while they subsist on the ownership of capital, they have no control over capital, but this is getting obtuse. The main reason to inquire into their class is to discuss social status, or to discuss socio-economic relationships. Decide which one you want to do, and get it right with the one you do. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They are more like the gentry, who while not being titled aristocrats, were wealthy enough to live in mansions go to public schools and had income from capital. 92.15.10.74 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bay Area US Peace Index

The GPI at [6] is very interesting. Does anyone know of any research like this in the San Francisco Bay Area? Ryan Singer (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

People in the situation room last night

I was trying to figure out who all the people are in this picture. I've figured out Obama, Biden, Clinton, Gates, Daley, and Donilon (I think) thus far. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The flickr link lists them all. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DOH! Qrsdogg (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd think that when they obscured the classified document in the foreground, they would have taken pains to make it look less like a pixilated porn image. Though, with Biden there... --Ludwigs2 01:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a great pic. I have to be a bit concerned, though, with the Prez, VP and Secretary of State being all in one room together... something Cheney and Bush supposedly didn't allow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Like why? Unlike brain surgeons, plumbers and the like, there tends to be an inexhaustible supply of politicians to take their place, should a lump of space rock, out the sky, fall on them. --Aspro (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to Bush and Cheney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GB is a good example, they came in twos. One might say Snr. had an heir and a spare. Anyway, Bush and Cheney could well exhibit a COI and so I was only addressing your concerns about fearing of being left leaderless ;-)--Aspro (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See designated survivor. —Kevin Myers 03:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)