Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 2

What's the highest ranked team this World Cup that was "seeded to lose"?

By drawing a group with 2 stronger teams? What's the record for all World Cups since they moved to 32 and 8 seeds? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You can work it out yourself using 2014 FIFA World Cup seeding. --Jayron32 02:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Presuming you're referring to the rankings at the time of seeding, the answer to this years world cup is England (10) who were in a group with Uruguay (6) and Italy (9). I think the fact that England was in a 'tough group' was well noted before the world cup, but in either event, England finished at the bottom of their group with Italy joining them in not going further and Costa Rica (31) finishing top! As for the record, it may be complicated and could potentially be higher than 7 or 8 which is what you may expect to be the maximum (7 for 2002 where there were two hosts and the defending champions were also guaranteed to be top seeds, 8 for other years with only one host but also and the defending champions guaranteed to be top seeds). It seems the seeding did not just rely on ranking on some other years, see e.g. 2002 FIFA World Cup seeding.

Edit: Of course I'm only really thinking of your question as asked. You could also imagine in another cases a team ranked 10 like England may have ended up playing against the 1st, 7th and 11th ranked team. Or even a team ranked 11th against 1, 7 and 12. In the first case you would have a team equally high, and in the second case, a team who's ranking was nominally worse but could probably come down to a single goal (heck maybe even a goal of another team unrelated to both of you); who either way would be, in pure ranking terms be in a much tougher group/'seeded to lose'. On the other hand, as you may know, Costa Rica is in the quarterfinals and Uruguay is not so being 'seeded to lose' only means so much. Perhaps partially because (as mentioned) of them finishing first in their group, meaning they only had to beat 15th Greece 5-3 on penalties to get there whereas Uruguay lost to 4th ranked Colombia.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible scam email

I AM RECEIVING EMAILS FROM TEXAS INVESTIGATION DEPERTMENT FROM ALICIA ROY. IT STATES THAT AN ARREST WARRANT COULD BE ISSUED IN MY NAME FOR FRAUDELENT BANK REGULATIONS. I AM NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS BECAUSE I DONT DEAL WITH ANY BANKS .FRIENDS ARE TELLING ME THIS IS A SCAM .HOW OR WHO DO I TALK TO,HELP?24.31.19.140 (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

1) When you type in all caps, it is the written version of SCREAMING AT PEOPLE. You shouldn't do that. 2) Contact a lawyer. No one here can help you with your problem. --Jayron32 04:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Umm, every time someone is confused about whether some email is a scam or not, they should pay a lawyer? I'd say, just listen to your friends, and keep a diary of what you read, and why you acted a certain way. Then if it turns out to be real, you have documentation of each step. IBE (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I've added a subject to your question. Also please don't type your questions in all capitals as it makes it harder to read and frequently comes across as shouting. As for your question, I agree with your friends that this is almost definitely a scam. For starters there doesn't seem to be such a thing as the "Texas Investigation Department", I suggest you do a search yourself. If there were and your message is an accurate transcription of the email contents, I find it unlikely that anyone from said department would not know how to spell "department" or "fraudulent", and also that they would contact you by email without any previous contact via other means. In future, if you receive such emails and are in genuine doubt, try contacting whoever is allegedly contacting you directly. By this, I don't mean you should use any email addresses or phone numbers in the email you received. Instead, look online, in a phone book, ask directory services or ask a citizens advice bureau or similar for their genuine contact info. If you are looking online, make sure you only trust proper .gov websites (in the US) if it is allegedly a government agency. In most cases, you shouldn't even need to do this as it is extremely unlikely any random agency or organisation will be contacting you in this manner if you don't have previous contact, so you should generally already have their contact info. (This doesn't mean you should trust all phone or even in person contact.) Edit: See also [1] another reminder to search for details (in this case "Alicia Roy") on what you've been emailed if you have doubts. To be clear, it is very unlikely the person involved is really named Alicia Roy, that's just a convenient name chosen by the scammer that they haven't yet changed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a scam, and the same name, "Alicia Roy," has been reported as used for this scam on other web pages. You can report this scam online to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National White Collar Crime Center. Although there is no Texas Investigation Department, it seems likely that the Criminal Investigations Division of the Texas Office of the Attorney General might be interested as well, although investigators from that division have access to IC3 reports. If you decide to contact the Office of the Attorney General, there is contact information here. John M Baker (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Racially mixed couples / female partner preferences

I understand this might be a contentious issue. In the West (certainly where I hail from) it seems like there is an overwhelming number of Caucasian females choose black male partners. Whereas, rarely do I see Caucasian males with black female partners.

Many of these females I have observed appear to associate with disadvantages or broken backgrounds. I can't be too specific on that as these sorts of observations may be commented as subjective in nature.

But any way, simply put why is the ratio of mixed race relationships so skewed in favor of Caucasian female / black male? Is there a biological explanation for this (different genes for healthy offspring) or is there some sort of psychological aspect that can offer an explanation. Perhaps an act of rebellion, feeling of insecurity remedied by black 'macho-ism' or simply a manifestation of social rejection. Perhaps even compensation for a lack of father figure during development? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.96.72 (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

'The West' is a big place; you may want to be more specific, although given that you seem to think 'Caucasian' means 'White', I think I can guess.

That said, there are two problems with this question: Firstly, confirmation bias - you've not provided any evidence that your premise is true. Do you have any figures to show if there's a significant gender bias in mixed-race relationships?

Secondly, you're asking us to explain your observation in terms of a whole bunch of armchair psychology cliches which aren't valid in the first place. You've basically strung together a load of lazy racial and gender-based stereotypes and asked us to join them up for you. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am a Caucasian male who dated a black female as a young man. Where do you get your information? Because it does not align with my personal experience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a caucasian female who dated a black female as a young man... not really sure how that situation would show up in the statistics though. :-P Katie R (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I might as well take the gloves off. Firstly my IP gives away my location, so you can feel great knowing that I'm not that white KKK loving racist hillbilly from Gatorsville that you want to imply. Secondly, walk the streets. Implying that I'm imagining this situation or making it up is just fantasy. Wake up. I'm asking for pointers in the right direction. It is of demographic / anthropological interest. Is that too much to ask? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.96.72 (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I asked you your location because I thought that would be politer than assuming based on an IP lookup. And don't tell me to walk the streets, because my streets are not your streets. I'm in London, UK, one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and I haven't seen any evidence to support your claim. I didn't suggest you were making the idea up deliberately - I'm suggesting that you've drawn a sweeping conclusion from very limited data. If you want general answers, you should provide enough data to show that the trend extends beyond your own casual observation. And again - the possible explanations you provided are hardly current in psychology, demography and anthropology. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, so your IP geolocates to London! (Mine doesn't; it thinks I'm in Milton Keynes, so I'm not going to assume you're in London too.) You do realise that almost no-one here uses Caucasian to mean, 'white', right? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• First, definitions of "race" are fluid from place to place, so there is no way to make any "world-wide" (or really, even "western", statements) based on the racial definitions from one specific culture to another. Secondly, partly because of this, statistics are not available in every country, and even if they are available, they are not necessarily comparable from country to country. Remember that the United States has a history of defining races a certain way, and then treating people shittly based on those definitions. Because the entire society didn't wake up one day in 1969 and say, to a person "We should stop doing that", then there is some interest in taking statistics to see if things are getting better or not, and if they are not, to do something about it. Now, having said all of that, on Wikipedia, all I can find is Interracial marriage in the United States, which only covers the U.S., but it says "Gender patterns in intermarriage vary widely. Some 24% of all black male newlyweds in 2010 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds." Without saying which U.S. defined race black males and females are marrying, and also knowing that marriage is not identical to "being a couple", we still get some indication that, in the U.S. at least, the OP's initial assumptions do bear out as probable. I can't find any similar stats for the U.K. based on gender, but there is this BBC article, which has links to some of the studies it uses. Perhaps your research may lead you somewhere there for the UK. --Jayron32 12:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the OP said "an overwhelming number of Caucasian females choose black male partners". I don't see anything which supports this claim, if anything the data you presented suggests it isn't true. In fact, if you look at the article, there is this table Interracial marriage in the United States#Census Bureau statistics. According to that 50,410,000 married couples were a white wife and white husband. 390,000 were a white wife and black husband. I don't see any way 390,000 vs 50,410,000 (actually you should add the total of white wives, but the numbers are small enough it doesn't really matter) could be "an onerwhelming number".

Of course were are talking marriages, and it's possible that they choose them, but don't marry them or whatever. In addition your statistics suggest the numbers may be increasing. But even taking that in to account, considering their demographic majority, it's difficult to see an overwhelming number being involved.

To avoid confusion, I am aware the demographics vary question considerably so in some locations such as urban areas perhaps there is an overwhelming number partially due to a much higher black population. But as the OP lives in the US, I would assume they understand better than me that this is unlikely to hold through the whole country, let alone "the West".

Even for the OPs other statement, I would say it's at best only partially true. While the OP did suggest there was a discrepency which seems to be true, they also suggested it was a case of "an overwhelming number" (let's ignore whether this is true) and "very rare". Yet according to the statistics in the article, it's 390,000 vs 168,000. Your statistic of 24% vs 9% is similar. This is a fairly big difference (~2.5x depending on which figure), but it's definitely hard to call it a case of "an overwhelming number" vs "rarely". If the OP is seeing an overwhelming number in their specific locale, they should be seeing quite a few white male with black female couples too. So while I can't rule out the OPs experience applying to their specific locale which for some reason doesn't follow the general patterns, it does seem unlikely.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a guess here, since you couldn't be too specific, but if most of the interracial couples you observe are in porn, it might explain why you think of them as girls with daddy issues from broken homes looking for macho men. General porn attracts them, not black guys, and it's generally easier for women than men to shoot it. If I guessed wrong, nevermind. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

The truth is, you're not wrong in terms of white female/black males couplings dominating interracial pairings. They are the most common. I'm not sure there's been a ton of quality research as to the reasons behind this, but I did see a study awhile back where they identified black women as the reason why black female/white male relationships weren't more popular. They apparently did some questionnaires and found black women to be very traditional in terms of views of family and they see black husbands as a big part of that. Now, I have no idea how valid this study was and I don't remember enough about it to find it again for you to view, so take that with a grain of salt. Certainly the historical sterotype of black women seems to bear this out, whether it's fair or not. I remember holding this viewpoint in high school and college that if I dated a black man, black women would be pissed at me. Also, there's that line in Kanye's Gold digger where he talks about "leaving your ass for a white girl". There's a definite understanding that it's a situation that would be an irritation.

However, I personally think that whatever factor was stopping things before is falling away. I see an awful lot of black females paired with men of other races. I recently "liked" an interracial relationship facebook page (I'm not in one, but it looked interesting) and there are an awful lot of caucasian men looking for relationships with black women. Same with black women. Bali88 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• The premise is silly, provocative, and should have been closed from the beginning, but in the US there are about 5 times as many white women to date black men as there are black women to date white men. It's called math. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your logic is a mystery to me. If you are saying there are 5 times as many white people as there are black people, then one can equally argue that there are about 5 times as many white men to date black women as there are black men to date white women. It's not math. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes there's no intrinsic reason why the OP wouldn't see just as many black male with white female couples as they would black female with white male couples since the minor population differences between black males and black females, or white males and white females, are small enough to be irrelevant.

The fact that there's a lot more whites than there is blacks is relevant in the manner I highlighted namely that it basically impossible for there to be an overwhelming number of white females choosing black males, well unless we're talking about polygynous type relationships or the OP has a very weird definition of overwhelming, but clearly not in the manner μηδείς specified.

It also means that a black female is much more likely to be with a white male than a white male is likely to be with a black female. And there's a fair chance that a black female is much more likely to be with a white male than a white female will be with a black male. Or that a black male is similarly probably much more likely to be with a white female than a white male is likely to be with a black female. But the OP premise didn't raise such issues and there are already enough apparent flaws in the OPs premise that I don't think it's helpful to bring up that sort of stuff.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

While researching something unrelated, I discovered that the Office for National Statistics has today released statistics on this topic: [2]. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that the OP's premise is false: according to Figure 1 and its accompanying table, 25% of Black African men and 19% of Black African women are in inter-ethnic relationships; for Black Caribbean people the figures are 48%:37%, and for other Black people 64%:59%. For mixed-race people who are themselves White/Afro-Caribbean it's 88% for both sexes, and for White/Black-African people it's 80%/79%. Among White British people in inter-ethnic relationships, the majority are in relationships with people in the White Other category. White/Asian relationships are commoner than White/African, White/Afro-Caribbean and White/Black-mixed. The largest sex disparity is that Chinese women are twice as likely as Chinese men to be in an inter-ethnic relationship; the next largest disparities are among Arabs (more men than women) and 'Other Asians' (more women than men). In short, the data do not support the claim, so the proposed explanations are unnecessary. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

One definitely good thing about all these allegedly mixed pairings is that their descendants will make it more and more difficult for bigots to make racial judgments based on skin colour alone. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Some will always conceive a One-drop rule. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Or cling to blood quantum laws, for the differently different. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:34, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Absolute timing?

In the film Hudson Hawk, Hawk and his partner carry out synchronised robberies by singing the same song, even though they're in different places and can't hear each other. For this to work, they'd need to sing in exactly the same rhythm and tempo, and I know from experience it can be hard to get people to sing in time with each other when they're right next to each other. I know, I know, fiction, willing suspension of disbelief, particularly silly film. But there are people who have absolute pitch, who can reproduce the pitch of a note exactly without having to hear a reference note. Ask them to sing a song they know and they'll always sing it in the right key. I wonder is there such a thing as absolute timing? Are there people who can exactly reproduce the tempo and rhythm of a piece of music they've learned? Could something in Hudson Hawk actually be plausible? --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Somehow i doubt it. I believe our neurons fire faster in times of stress, and the timing comes from those, so I'd expect people to speed up their singing as the stress hormones get released into their brains. An MP3 player hooked to headphones is the obvious solution. Actually recording what actions to take on the MP3 would be easier to use, but the song would have the benefit of seeming innocuous, if they are caught with it. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Those who are musically inclined tend to have a good sense of timing and tempo, especially if classically trained using a metronome. If one were ambitious, there could be found sources relating to tempo of syncopated spell-casting, alchemy, songs and chemical reaction timing, but a cursory search mainly turns up references to Final Fantasy XI.  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The duo-piano team of Rawicz and Landauer "were legendary for the precision of their ensemble playing. They could start a piece together while seated in adjacent rooms; the door between them was then closed until near the end of the piece, when it was opened to find them still in time with one another".

I've just finished reading Paul Kildea's biography of Benjamin Britten (subtitled "A Life in the Twentieth Century"), where the point was made several times that Britten felt that every piece of music had one and only one correct or natural tempo, and even a slight deviation would sound very weird to his ears, as weird as the wrong key to a person with absolute pitch (which he also had; except that as he aged his pitch dropped, so that "I hear the overture to Meistersinger in "my" C-sharp major rather than C major - reasoning that it was simple enough to convert it" (p. 464). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Aficionados of BBC Radio 4's panel game, I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue will know the Pick up Song game, in which the contestants have to sing along to a recording of a well known song. The recording is then turned off while the contestants continue singing and it is then turned back on to see if they have kept in time. Our article highlights Monday 26 June 2006 as one of the few times when this was done successfully. It also notes that: "On a few rare occasions it was found that when the song was faded back in, that the record had in fact moved onto the next track". Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised by that. I said recently to my wife that I could keep good time by having some dance music in my head so she tried me out. I got too close to tell and probably within a second of a minute. I find people can usually tell if dance music is 5% slow or fast. Dmcq (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing a book without page numbers

I want to cite, in a Wikipedia article, a book that has about 60 pages, but none of them numbered. What should I do to indicate the page where the cited information comes from? Should I just count the pages myself? Should I indicate somehow that the pages are unnumbered in the book (say, by putting the page number in square brackets)? Should I not bother about page numbers at all? What would be the standard practice? — Kpalion^(talk) 23:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd try to find a numbered edition first. If all editions lacked a number, I'd either count for the cited page number(s) or cite the paragraph number (whichever was easier), and probably include a quote or keyword to indicate what the text is in case someone has access to it in a different edition. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Your first step is to see if the book's signatures (groups of consecutive pages bound together) bear signature marks (which could be a letter, a number, or some other symbol). If so, you cite a page by giving its signature mark followed by the number of the leaf within the signature, followed by "r" (for "recto") for the front of the leaf, or "v" (for "verso") for the back of the leaf. ( So the back of the 6th page in the third signature might be cited as "C6v"). If the work has no signature marks and is truly unpaginated, standard bibliographic practice is to include, if possible, some sort of locator in the reference, such as a numbered paragraph or a nearby heading or chapter title. For sixty pages, if there is no other locator handy, you could indeed count the pages, but I would definitely indicate that the work is unpaginated and that the page number is, say, "about page 40". But this is bibliographic practice; the style on Wikipedia is certain to be more arcane. - Nunh-huh 00:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The word "unpaginated" occurs once on the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works (version of 21:28, 13 January 2014).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has 287 pages with the word "unpaginated".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, with the same heading, "Citing a book without page numbers".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The goal is to allow the reader to find the correct passage in the book, and be confident that she has found the right spot. Counting yourself is one method, but I'd add a note to the citation explaining where you started counting. Also, include a quote of a heading or a sentence from the book so the reader can be certain she found the passage you are citing. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the first line at the top of the page could also be useful for someone skimming. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:00, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

Don't count the pages. If there are no page numbers, you cannot invent any. If there is some other numbering system, such as numbered sections, you can use that, and it may even be preferable to do so. If not, you may be able to use a chapter number or name or other heading. John M Baker (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that link is specifically about MLA style and it primarily talks about works like web "pages" that are not naturally divided into pages at all. If you're talking about a book, the pages are there even if they don't have numbers. Something like "20th page from the start of the body text" is clear and helps the reader find it. Of course if you're citing many pages from the same book, you'll want to use a shorter wording and an explanatory note somewhere. Something like "20th page^[note]" with the footnote "^[note]Pages are unnumbered; counting the start of Chapter 1 as the 1st page", say. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My copy of the MLA Handbook (don't remember the edition number; I bought it in 2005) addresses this situation, saying simply "City: Publisher, Year. N.p." if I remember rightly. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to format a citation in a non-standard way. As long as the citation will reasonably help readers find the passage being cited, it is acceptable. Be creative. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I remember encountering a weird pagination issue in grad school that baffled my university library's reference desk; they ended up saying "Discuss this with the professor, and if you send this in for publication, you can simply work out the details with the journal's editorial staff". I agree that counting the pages yourself, and relying on that count, is a bad idea, due to the link that John Baker gave; however, it would probably be helpful if you included a <!-- hidden HTML comment --> saying something "In my copy, it's the sixty-eighth page from the start", since that might hinder people from tagging it with {{Page needed}}. Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 3

Questions about closed primary elections in the US

I was reading this page[3] and was puzzled by the following statement: "A poll worker can challenge a voter’s membership to the party based on which party the voter voted in the two previous election cycles." Here are my questions:

1. Who do the poll workers in this case work for? The federal government? The state government? The Ohio Democratic Party? The national Democratic Party?
2. Doesn't it violate the secret ballot guarantee when a government worker (or worst, a private organization) has access to a voter's voting history?

Sorry if these questions sound dumb. My country doesn't have primary elections so I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around the whole concept of closed primary elections. WinterWall (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For the first question, I'm not familiar in detail with Ohio law, but the poll workers presumably work for either the State of Ohio, or some smaller governmental entity (e.g. city or county). For your #2, yeah, that does sound weird. Maybe it was misreported, or means something else.

However, if closed primaries are hard to understand, surely open primaries are even harder. The whole idea of a party is that people of similar minds come together to pick a candidate to represent them in the general election. If people not allied with them can pick the candidate, what exactly is left of the party? On the other hand, sure, it's hard to see why a closed primary, which is essentially an internal affair of the party, should be run by the state at all.

California, which was historically a closed-primary state, now uses non-partisan two-round voting for everything except the presidential race and party central committees. That really makes much more sense to me; parties can do whatever they like and endorse whomever they want, but the state's elections do not rely on this. The presidential race is exempted presumably because two-round voting wouldn't make much sense there — if you did use it, in the general election, voters would have to pick between the top two finishers, but one or both of them might not even be on the ballot in the rest of the country, meaning that California's fifty-plus electoral votes might go to a candidate that got no other votes at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe in Ohio the poll workers work for the county. As for #2: the ballot is still secret. What the poll workers know is which primary you voted in, not who you voted for. So if you voted in the Democratic primaries for the past two cycles, and now want to vote in the Republican Primary, apparently the poll worker can object and force you to sign an affidavit that you support the party in whose primary you wish to vote. The thing that's unusual is that Ohio apparently *will* let people switch party affiliations at the polling station. I think in most places, one has to change party affiliation well before the election (before a given deadline) in order to vote in that party's primary. - Nunh-huh 03:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In Texas, you don't register for a party before voting at all; you declare your affiliation when you show up to vote in a party's primary. Traditionally, the poll worker would stamp your voter registration card with "DEMOCRATIC" or "REPUBLICAN" just before you voted, but that seems to be somewhat optional now, and its main purpose was only to prevent someone who voted in one party's primary from voting in the other party's primary runoff (which can be prevented with computer records nowadays). Every two years, another voter registration card is mailed out, and each voter starts out with a blank slate again... AnonMoos (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WinterWall, a few years ago, I signed up to work as a backup poll worker in Ohio; they would have called me if one of the regular poll workers had called in sick. If you're a poll worker, you're an employee of the county board of elections; you may benefit from reading this page put together by the Clermont County Board of Elections. When you vote in a primary election, they don't have your party affiliation on record. Instead, they simply ask you if you want a Democratic ballot, a Republican ballot, or an issues-only ballot; this is because tax levies, constitutional amendments, and other matters are often up for public votes, and they don't want to restrict them to just Republicans and Democrats. I don't remember there ever being the option to vote a third-party ballot, although I suppose one could be provided if a third party had a primary election. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth for Howard Austen

Hello Reference desk/Humanities people.
I'm trying to find a date and possibly place of birth for Howard Austen, but no dice so far.
(Those whose leather wireless set is regularly tuned to ABC Radio National may have noticed that he was mentioned on Late Night Live a few days ago. Which is indeed where I first heard of him.)
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Fred Kaplan's Gore Vidal (2012), at p. 336, Vidal met Auster in 1950, and Auster is described as "a twenty-one-year-old New Yorker", which suggests he was probably born about 1929. In Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere, Christopher Hitchens says "On the gravestone in Rock Creek Cemetery, Howard is incised as 'Howard Auster', the New York Jewish name that stopped him getting a job in advertising until Vidal proposed a one-letter amendment." So you may be able to get a precise date from that cemetery. Moonraker (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some details of the grave are online here, stating "Birth: Jan. 28, 1929, USA / Death: Sep. 22, 2003 California, USA". Moonraker (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on that, I would say that this Howard Auster is the same as the Mr. Austen in question—born in New York (City?), 1929. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Howard Auster assumed the surname Austen. He had a sister, Arlyne, who had apparently not been born by the time of that census. She later married and became Arlyne Reingold. - Nunh-huh 23:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to roll to Rio some day before I'm old!

Watching Crooks in Cloisters, in which Wilfrid Brambell sings a snatch of song - "I've never seen Southampton, I'll never see Brazil, but the Don and Magdalena go there when they will". Now, the words are almost the same as the start of Rolling Down to Rio by Rudyard Kipling. My question is - did Kipling base Rolling Down to Rio on an existing folk song? (If you watch the film you'll also get the chance to see Ronald Fraser sing The Farmer's Boy while milking a cow, which has to be worth your time.) DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Kipling's poem was set to music by Sir Edward German in 1903[4] - you can hear it on this YouTube clip. Let us know if it's the same tune. By coincidence, my grandfather was the first officer of RMS Magdelena before and during the First World War, although she had finished with the South America run and was operating from the West Indies by the time he joined her. Alansplodge (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm, not entirely sure it's the same tune - Brambell perhaps not the best of singers, and it was only a snatch - but seems likely. and thanks too for the Magdalena link - I hadn't realized she was a real ship! DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The "rolling down" occurs in one older song title, Rolling Down to Old Maui. No idea if Kipling was aware of the song. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - no I'm sure it's not that tune (though I'm glad to discover it - having a bit of a folk thing at the moment). Kipling did like to hang around with sailors (and had a friend in Gloucester, Mass. who helped him out) picking up yarns, and many of his poems fit to old folk, hymn, and music hall tunes. So I suppose he could have transmogrified bits of existing songs. I've not been able (yet) to find much analysis of Rolling Down to Rio online - will keep digging! DuncanHill (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect Kipling had either a "standard" tune in mind or none in particular - you could probably sing it to three or four tunes without much trouble :-). But based on his other work, I doubt it was a direct lift from a particular song. (On the occasions he did this, it was often alluded to in some way) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just found our article Just So Songs, but it doesn't shed any more light on the question. Also a ship called "Don" was difficult to track down, but it seems that she was originally called SS Corcovado (1872) and was purchased by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company in 1875 and renamed RMS Don. She was scrapped in 1901,[5] which was a year before the poem was published. Alansplodge (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Alansplodge :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 4

Was Fyodor Rostopchin a general?

(old headline: Rostopchin & Paskevich - done)

Does history know any noted interaction between Russian generals Fyodor Rostopchin and Ivan Paskevich? --KnightMove (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• No, it does not. Rostopchin was not a general, by the way. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. According to the Russian Wikipedia, he was a "генерал от инфантерии", a General of the Infantry. They also sketch his career as an officer. The English article seems to be incomplete in this regard. --KnightMove (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with name of book.

Does anyone know the title of a book I remember reading about 15 years ago. From what I can remember of it, the story was about this guy who comes across a chess set then when used in a game & if the other player loses then that person will die. In the end of the story the guy with the chess set plays a chess game with someone that he expects to lose but he loses himself. Any ideas ?Scotius (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at List of chess-related deaths#In fiction and see if any of them ring a bell, although none of them sound quite right for what you are looking for. This list might help as well. --Viennese Waltz 13:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You might try asking user Bubba73. He's a chess maven, and might have heard of this story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I talk to Bubba73 ? Scotius (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Click on User talk:Bubba73 and post your query there (at the bottom). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Scotius (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

July 5

Congressional sessions in the 19th century

In the 19th and early 20th century Congress was always in session after the next election was held (between November and March). Incoming presidents signed their first bill a year into their term, so congress was out of session for a long time. Then congress passed a large number of laws in the closing months of the election cycle; many presidents signed bills in the time between the election and inauguartion of their successors. What's the reason for this? In my opinion, it's unlogical to make laws after a new congress (and president) is elected and doing almost nothing in the first twelve months after the inauguartion of the senators, congressmen and president. --89.12.6.172 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

See Lame duck (politics) where it explains the situations you are asking about. --Jayron32 00:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Us tribal reservation law enforcement

Do the law enforcement officers of us tribal reservations count as US federal law enforcement officers?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.110.77 (talk • contribs)

That appears to depend on whether they're officers hired by the tribal reservation or granted to them by the US government. The Bureau of Indian Affairs Police enforce federal laws (so probably a "yes" to your question), while Indian tribal police appear to only have authority on the reservation (so a "no" to your question). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

July 6

French painter

A French (or at least francophone) painter, usually grouped with surrealists, who painted mainly ancient Greek and Roman figures, either in grotesque ancient settings or interracting with contemporary people, often accompanied by old fashioned dress forms. Can you help with his name?--85.74.121.116 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He's not French, but the closest I can think of that matches that style is Giorgio de Chirico. --Jayron32 03:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that you might've been tricked by the dress forms. What I forgot to mention is the figures are also accompanied bu skeletons, and that, apart from the grotesque imagery that characterizes him as a surrealist, his style is very realistic. I hope this info helps.--85.74.121.116 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Now, this was externally answered. I asked a friend of mine if he recalled such a painter and he did. The name was Paul Delvaux.--85.74.121.116 (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Would it be better if all legislators will be required to obtain a law degree before entering into politics?

Are there any empirical researches out there disproving the correlation between legal education and good public policies?

Culturally speaking, most people believe that legislation is mainly for lawyers, so much so that in some countries, most politicians are lawyers or, at least, have a background in law. I think we should break this culture that has prevailed for a long time and let other people who excel in some other fields, like the sciences, share their views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.198.47 (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In a democracy, great importance is placed on the notion that the people are the best ones to determine who will represent them. Apart from legal provisions to exclude convicted felons, bankrupts etc., no further constraints should be applied. If a majority of voters wish to be represented by a person with no legal education, or perhaps no education at all, no action by the legislature should deny those voters their choice of representative. Dolphin (t) 06:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Would what be better? An incumbent's chance of reëlection? —Tamfang (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Legally trained people know, inter alia, about how to interpret laws and how to use them to guide one's choices about certain things in life. But they are no more or less expert than you or I are when it comes to knowing what laws should or should not exist in the first place. That's the job of legislators to jointly decide. Think of legislators as the car makers and of lawyers as the drivers. There's an overlap, but they're still distinct groups. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

1) This is a request for opinion, and 2) that makes no sense at all. You need people that actually have experience in the areas they're legislating in, not in law. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really a request for opinion. See the line in bold under the heading. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that would be a very dangerous approach. Legislators need to be informed by relevant experts but they also need to act in the interests of the whole community, so they need to consider a wide range of views, opinions, issues, concerns and, yes, expertise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

And experts can't? The only reason most legislation is nonsense is that the legislators have no clue about what it is they're legislating. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Most legislation" requires numerous examples, please. Or .-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"No, that would be a very dangerous approach." 82.21.7.184 (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States begins with the words: "Congress shall make no law...". I often wish that James Madison had put a period after those words, and stopped writing. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's actually the standard approach being used by the present US Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• First, kill all the lawyers. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahem. The relevant article is Representation (politics). The concept of descriptive representation (which is one of several ideas about representation) means that an elected body as a whole should share the relevant characteristics of the constituency. Sjö (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Lawyers make their living by interpreting the law for lay people. Laws that are badly drafted, ambiguous or otherwise difficult to interpret mean more work for lawyers. So requiring all legislators to be lawyers could create a conflict of interest, and, I suspect, the large number of legislators who are lawyers may mean that conflict of interest already exists. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What was in the original Japanese text?

In The Box Man by Kobo Abe, in one of the early sections ("A Safety Device... Just in Case"), we have a cut-off sentence right before the narrator runs out of ink and has to change pens.

In the English translation I'm reading (translated by Saunders), it says:

No matter how much one rejects the world and disappears from it by getting into a box, essentially a box is di...

I'm wondering what the original Japanese text has for this cut-off sentence, but the translation I'm reading is lacking in translator's notes, and as someone with a mostly nonexistent knowledge of Japanese, I'm asking here since it might well be somewhat difficult to find this on the internet. --Morningcrow (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did the russian stop kissing each other after communism

OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

They didn't. Why do you think they did? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I mean russian leaders kissing each other.OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

July 7

Did Jesus get married?

I was looking up "Jewish monasteries", which brought me to this article. So, Judaism never has this concept of monasteries? If Jesus was a real human being who was Jewish, then does that mean that there is a high probability that he is married? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly that point has been argued. See also Gospel of Jesus' Wife. However, the overwhelming view in the dominant strains of Christianity is that he never married.

One explanation as to why not (this is no longer mainstream) is the assertion that he belonged to some ascetic sect, such as the Essenes. --Trovatore (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See also Unknown years of Jesus which mentions one theory that he married Mary Magdalene. Dismas|^(talk) 01:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ec... :You seem to be asking 2 questions. The first, about monestaties in Judaism, Judaism does have communal religious communities, which is what a monestary is. See kibbutz for an example. For the second question, the best answer we can give is "we don't know" and the second best answer we can give is " not according to any reliable literature we have" for any given value of " reliable". There are some traditions that hold that Jesus may have been married,but none tied to any literature that would have come within centuries of his life. See Jesus bloodline for more on this. --Jayron32 01:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article goes by the definition of some sort of secluded place that regards the outside world as evil, and in light of this definition, the article argues that Judaism never has monasteries. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you invent your own definition, you can get anything you want. Most definitions of monestary don't confine it to good and evil terms. See no true Scotsman for the problem with the specific definition you gave. If you just define a monestary as a relatively closed religious communal group, Judaism has those. --Jayron32 01:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the article I linked to? I am not making it up! You still haven't criticized whether the Jewish reference is accurate. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See monasticism#Judaism. Deciding whether or not Judaism has monasticism or at least similar analogues to monasteries depends entirely on what you decide is the defining characteristic of what a monastery is. I've already indicated what the problem is with the specific definition of monastery is in that article. It isn't incorrect, except in its restrictiveness in a way that allows one to say that Jewish monasteries don't exist. Which is true in the sense of the definition of monastery given in that article. But is isn't true if you take a wider perspective on what a monastery is. --Jayron32 02:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not take a "wider perspective on what a monastery is". If you reread my post, I was simply stating my interpretation of what the article said. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying you did. I am saying you should. --Jayron32 02:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I was merely restating what the article said. This is what I said: "The article goes by the definition of some sort of secluded place that regards the outside world as evil." As you can see, I was NOT describing the defining characteristic of what a monastery is. I was going by with what I think the article is saying, and THAT ARTICLE - NOT ME - says that a monastery is some sort of secluded place that regards the outside world as evil. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You may also be interested in the article titled Nazirite. --Jayron32 01:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This question cannot really be answered with a definitive (or even "likely") yes or no. There was no rabbinical command to marry and reproduce until after the destruction of the temple (source). It's just as reasonable to project that command backwards as it is to assume that the command is a result of the destruction of the temple. Paul, in discussing marriage and celibacy, never really cites Jesus as an example either way (unless one wants to skew the analogy of being married to the church in bizarre ways that would also allows us to argue that Paul was really John the Baptist, and Jesus Simon Magus). Paul appears to have been celibate, however, which does give some support to the notion that Jesus might have been (after all, if Jesus followed that part of the law, and Paul proudly considered himself to be a good follower of Jewish law, he would have gotten married too). Jesus's marriage would have ultimately been more ammo for the proto-orthodox Church than the Gnostics, since Gnostics held that the flesh was evil (and so assumably would not have encouraged trapping more souls in flesh). The Gnostic works that support the idea of Jesus being married are centuries late to be considered seriously, especially since some of them get outright hallucinatory and pornographic in their descriptions of Jesus's marriage (I remember one work describing Jesus making Mary Magdelene cum so hard she saw heaven, before pulling out and stating that that's how humanity will be saved). The least insulting possibility there is "it's an allegory." The Gnostics with a reputation for being a bunch of orgiastic free-lovers got that reputation through accusations by the early Church fathers, who still never accused them of marrying.

There is also the third and intermediate possibility that Jesus was planning on marrying "some day," and got killed before that could happen.

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife was written in the 2nd century at earliest. Our article states King has stated that the fragment, "should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married".

And while there's nothing to say that Jesus was part of the Essenes, celibacy among their number is not disputed, and is evidence that not all Jewish men got married during that period.

From all this, I believe that knowledge of whether Jesus was married or not was totally lost by the end of the first century, that that information is about as likely to be recovered as an authentic Gospel of Jesus, and the social evidence and Paul's behavior leaves the options of married, unmarried, and celibate equally possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned earlier, but the OP needs to read Mary Magdalene. She seems the most obvious candidate for the wife (if any) of Jesus, but given the swirl of contradictory theories, it's clear to see that no one knows. In the Bible she is mentioned in the last days of Jesus, and it's reasonable to suppose that contemporary readers "knew who she was" so there seemed no particular need to elaborate on details. This is actually pretty common in contemporary accounts of events, that certain facts are assumed to be understood by the reader and need no explanation. Over the long haul, unwritten facts are lost and we're left with mysteries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, "Jesus did not marry" (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22jesus+did+not+marry%22&p=par), but he sacrificed his perfect human life to redeem imperfect humans from sin (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22ransom+sacrifice%22+adam&p=par).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be strictly their opinion. The Bible is silent on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A movie about a child murderess

There was a British movie in which some woman was a governess, and her charges figured out (from the initials on her property being other that those of her assumed name) that she had been a famous murderess as a child. I recall it as being a 1940's or 1950's black and white movie, something like a Hitchcock film. What might be the title be? (I was reminded of this by the 12 year old accused girls in the Slender Man attack and by the "James St James" matter. Edison (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You're more likely to get this answered if you ask it on the Entertainment Reference Desk. Rojomoke (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like Lady Audley's Secret, which became a 1920 British film. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

I had to read that twice, the position of your signature made it look like the most unlikely film from a book ever!

Successful lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation

Has the Wikimedia foundation itself ever been successfully sued in court (in any jurisdiction) over Wikipedia content?

I know people have brought unsuccessful cases, but these are not what I'm asking about. Also, I'm not asking if contributors have been sued.

If yes, can anyone direct me to the specific judgements and cases?

For completeness' sake, I have absolutely no intention of suing the foundation. I'm simply curious. 58.168.149.224 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation.—Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ira B. Dutton

Who was Ira B. Dutton's (aka Joseph Dutton) wife? When did they marry, how long did she live and how was she unfaithful?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why does an Englishman say "dollars" in The Hound of the Baskervilles?

In Arthur Conan-Doyle's "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1901-02), the character of Sir Henry disclaims "How is the owner going to restore the glories of the Baskervilles if he has not money enough to keep up the property? House, land, and dollars must go together." (Chap 5, p. 69) Rather curious as to why this character, a Baronet, said "dollars" instead of "Pounds". Why is that? Zombiesturm (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Sir Henry Canadian? In any case, 'dollars' as a casual expression for money is far from unknown in the UK; at one time 'dollar' was a common synonym for the sum of 5 shillings (a crown) because of the exchange rate. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Dollar" was just a term for a type of coin, Anglicised from "Thaler". See dollar. Shakespeare uses the word many times. It just happens that the term for currency in the US was derived from this common English word for coins. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The quote is not in British English. I checked wikisource [6] and the quote is correct. Could wikisource be from an American edition?
Sleigh (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As AlexTiefling said, Sir Henry is Canadian. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment two above about "wikiquote". I typed the quote out myself and I have the novel right in front of me. And yes, Sir Henry had been living in Canada for a long time. But it seems there is more to it than that. Zombiesturm (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why does it seem that? It just looks like characterising him as Canadian to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll get back to you when I finish the book. You yourself also stated that dollar was a term used in England. I agree, therefore, the "He's Canadian" explanation is not sufficient. Zombiesturm (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect, that's not how logic works. "He's Canadian" is a sufficient explanation; "A dollar sometimes referred to 5/" would not be a sufficient explanation (because I don't know if at applied at the time the novel was set and published), but that doesn't matter, because the first point is sufficient. I just thought that mentioning it might be informative; you're reading into it something I didn't intend. I'm sure there's nothing mysterious about Sir Henry's use of the word 'dollars'. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The first point is not sufficient just because you claim it to be so. With respect, that's not how logic works. Zombiesturm (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Zombiesturm, Alex gave you useful information and your response seems to be to attack him. By the time the novel is set Canada had currency called "dollars", so that is sufficient explanation for the term being used by a character who is supposed to have been living in Canada. In addition, "dollars" was a long-established generic term for "money" in English dating back to Shakespeare - well before the existence of the US dollar. That generic usage continued to be familiar in the 19th century, though it was fading by the time the novel was written. Paul B (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Rehabilitating pedophilia ?

In light of all these scandals we have having in the U.K involving child abuse, I have been thinking. Perhaps it is time to redefine what place child-adult relationships have in our society. To me (and seemingly to a bulk of society) using children for the purposes of ones own selfish sexual desires is hideously unacceptable. That is my own personal view because my own sexuality does not lean that way. I accept that this may prevent me being able to ask this question from a neutral position.

However, despite our agreement with regards to the depravity of the acts I can't help but wonder if it is simply a part of the human condition. And, dare I say it is merely a normal behavior within the range of human behaviors. It is well known other societies incorporated child-sexual activity in prehistory and beyond. Look at ancient Greece or tribal communities in Papua. I know it's grim, but sexually enjoying children just seems to be part of who we are sadly. And being a Darwinist, I have to accept that somehow the conditions of pedophilia evolved with us and improved our survival. I've no idea how or why it could benefit our procreation though.

Perhaps I could make a comparison to homosexuality - once a taboo it is protected and even celebrated. I feel that society has accepted being gay or lesbian now as 'normal'.

Perhaps we need to come to terms with pedophilia, and rehabilitate it somehow. Obviously grossly indecent acts with children unlike consensual sex has a victim. But perhaps we could see that in the light of prison bird syndrome. If you have a section of society that is so sexually repressed, sooner or later they are going to lash out. Whereas, if society could accepted pedophilia, those people could have their urges expressed in less damaging ways. Although that's anyone's guess what that might entail. Perhaps a hypothetical society where kids are encouraged to make fields with men? Obnoxious and vomit inducing I know, but perhaps we need to quit all living with our heads in the sand and deal with our own make up accordingly.

Any comments, or pointers to research in this field?