'<noinclude>((Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H)) [[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] [[Category:Pages automatically checked for accidental language links]] [[Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers]] [[Category:Wikipedia help forums]] </noinclude> ((Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 18)) ((Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 19)) ((Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 20)) = August 21 = == Islam == If a disaster destroyed Mecca, what would Muslims do, since it wouldn't be possible for them to make the Hajj any more? Would they think that they're all going to hell? --[[Special:Contributions/168.7.231.202|168.7.231.202]] ([[User talk:168.7.231.202|talk]]) 03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :[[Jihad]], I guess. [[User:Narutolovehinata5|Narutolovehinata5]] ^{[[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|t]][[Special:Contributions/Narutolovehinata5|c]][[WP:CSD|csd]][[Special:Newpages|new]]} 03:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::Please guess elsewhere - that isn't even an attempt at a rational answer. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 03:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::I suspect they would rebuild it at the same location; after all any disaster wouldn't erase the latitude and longitude from existance, merely the buildings and stuff like that. That can all be rebuilt. There are some irreplacable relics which are a part of the Hajj, such as the [[Black Stone]] within the [[Kaaba]], but it is likely that Islam would survive and adapt. Religion is somewhat plastic, and when major events like that happen, the religion changes. Consider what happened in [[Judaism]] after the [[Siege of Jerusalem (70)|Destruction of the Temple]], Judaism changed and adapted. It would provide a good model for what would happen if a similar fate befell Mecca. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 03:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::Of course not. Firstly, Mecca is a location - a geographic coordinate, How do you destroy a coordinate? In any case, "The Hajj is the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that all Muslims are required to make at least once in life, provided that a person is physically and financially capable of doing so". [http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/essays/hajj] If Mecca didn't exist, Muslims wouldn't be 'physically and financially capable' of doing it, and would be exempt. If there is a religion that insists that you will 'go to hell' if you don't do something that nobody ''can'' do, I can't think of one offhand. If anything I suspect that in this regard at least, Islam is a little more tolerant in its 'keep out of hell' requirements than those imposed on other 'People of The Book'. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 03:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::(ec)The [[Hajj]] is only required if it is reasonably possible, so if [[Mecca]] was gone every muslim would be excused. But what sort of disaster are you talking about? Even if the city was leveled they could still attend the site, and structures can usually be rebuild. Unless it was underwater or swallowed up by a [[subduction zone]] or left radioactive or otherwise poisoned, then nothing would stop people rebuilding or just attending the site. If the disaster was natural, many of the faithful may take it as some sort of sign. [[User:W203.27.72.5|203.27.72.5]] ([[User talk:W203.27.72.5|talk]]) 03:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :(entirely speculative sci-fi scenario) What if Earth were destroyed but there were Muslim colonists on other planets/moons? --[[Special:Contributions/168.7.235.250|168.7.235.250]] ([[User talk:168.7.235.250|talk]]) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::See above answers. They are excused if it isn't physically or financially feasible. [[User:Mingmingla|Mingmingla]] ([[User talk:Mingmingla|talk]]) 04:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::You may also be interested in [[Malaysian_National_Space_Agency#Muslims_in_space]] and [[List_of_Muslim_astronauts#Praying_towards_Mecca_in_space]]. [[User:W203.27.72.5|203.27.72.5]] ([[User talk:W203.27.72.5|talk]]) 07:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :I could see a situation where Israel is attacked from all sides, about to be wiped out, threatens to nuke Mecca if they don't back off, then carries out the threat, leaving Mecca destroyed and irradiated. I wonder if Moslems would still visit, even though it meant an increased risk of cancer. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 04:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::Unless it was a [[Cobalt bomb|salted nuclear weapon]], the site wouldn't be very radioactive after a relatively short time, so the [[Hajj]] would at worst be put on hold for one or two years. Also note that Mecca is important to Muslims that might otherwise not have any major issues with Israel, like Indonesians, Malaysians and Pakistanis, so pissing them off might just result in a nuclear power weighing in against Israel. It would make more sense to use the nukes against military targets or mabye civilian populations of the countries that are actually attacking them (I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to attack them). [[User:W203.27.72.5|203.27.72.5]] ([[User talk:W203.27.72.5|talk]]) 06:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::One of the [http://www.islamic-laws.com/hajfiq.htm#2) explicit exemptions] to Hajj is if you feel that it will endanger your life to go on Hajj. --[[User:Mr.98|Mr.98]] ([[User talk:Mr.98|talk]]) 13:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ---- By the way, the Wahhabites of Saudi Arabia have actually destroyed a large number of former subsidiary holy sites in Mecca and Medina (houses and tombs associated with members of Muhammad's family and other prominent early Muslims), because they didn't fit with the Wahhabi version of Islam -- see [[Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites]]... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 06:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :I believe there was a point where the [[Umayyad Caliphate]] (then based in Damascus) lost control of Mecca. Their response, I gather, was to build the [[Dome of the Rock]]. [[Special:Contributions/58.111.229.109|58.111.229.109]] ([[User talk:58.111.229.109|talk]]) 22:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC) More interesting question would be an earthquake at the "al-aqsa mosque," as Jerusalem has faced very severe earthquakes in the past and experts predict an event worse one is coming in the next few years. I think that's a more likely scenario than Mecca. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 22:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :It would be interesting to hear from an actual Muslim on this question. One would think they would have contingency plans in case of disasters. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::Hmm thanks for bringing that up. Maybe I'll go ask a Muslim friend of mine. If you're a cynic, you don't have to believe I actually did that, but I'm not lying to ya. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::My wife's a muslim. She hasn't been and doesn't plan to ever go. Her family are all too poor to make the trip, and I would offer to help (since I'd be interested just to go and see what it's all about), but she shot that idea down. I suspect they would want to go if they could as some are quite devout. [[User:W203.27.72.5|203.27.72.5]] ([[User talk:W203.27.72.5|talk]]) 23:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::::If you're non-Muslim, then you would not be allowed to go on the pilgrimage, or even allowed near the city of Mecca at all (see the infamous [[:File:Christian Bypass.jpg|"Christian bypass"]]). (Also, if you're non-Muslim and your wife is Muslim, then your marriage is theoretically in violation of traditional Islamic law.) -- [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::::Yeah, but I would just say the [[shahadah]] before I go. Also, even though our marriage is a clear cut violation of Islamic law, her family, (including her brother-in-law who has some sort of Islamic scholarly title) don't seem to have any problem with it at all. Her mother always said how I was so much better than the last guy (who was a muslim). Even though I'm not Christian either, we had to have a certified Catholic marriage in Indonesia as the authorities there require some sort of religious ceremony and the Muslim one was just patently too much hassle. Her passport still lists her as a Muslim though. [[User:W203.27.72.5|203.27.72.5]] ([[User talk:W203.27.72.5|talk]]) 21:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::Here's the response my friend gave me. "Possibly we might have to do other pilgrimages in other mosques 3) hajj being destroyed is a sign of doomsday there would be mass panic about the arrival and of the messiah and the antichrist." ::Hope that helps! --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 01:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::Muslim names for "the messiah and the antichrist" in an apocalyptic context are [[Mahdi]] and [[Dajjal]]... -- [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::::I quoted exactly word for word what I was told. That may be true, I was just using a quote. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 21:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::::I'm sure that he was trying to phrase things in terms that would be more comprehensible to you, but he quasi-Christianized the terminology so that it would be difficult to correlate the words he used with the relevant Wikipedia articles. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC) ::::Although there are similarities between the concept of 'Messiah' and 'Mahdi', Islam still considers Jesus to be the Messiah (Masih), being distinct from the Mahdi. Both the Masih and the Mahdi are said to arrive in the end-times. - [[User:Lindert|Lindert]] ([[User talk:Lindert|talk]]) 21:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :The story of the [[Qarmatians]] might be relevant here, they sacked Mecca in the 9th century. The pilgrimage sites in Mecca are obviously a lot more extensive now, but I'm sure they could rebuild and everyone would get on with their lives, just like they did then. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 08:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC) == Romley == Where can I find information about the meaning of the first name "Romley", like in [[Charles Romley Alder Wright]] <span style="color:grey;"><b><small>GEEZER</small></b>^{[[User talk:Grey Geezer|<span style="color:grey;">nil nisi bene</span>]]}</span> 07:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :It's probably the surname of an ancestor, likely a female one. It used to be very common for surnames lost through marriage to be preserved by being given as middle names. --[[User:Nicknack009|Nicknack009]] ([[User talk:Nicknack009|talk]]) 10:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::Which seems to be an uncommon surname from the north of England (Cumberland, to be specific). It may have originally been an Anglicization/corruption of Romilly - or, far less likely, Romney (Romney is Kentish in origin, so from the other end of the country). It could also be derived from a local geographical feature. --[[User:NellieBly|NellieBly]] ([[User talk:NellieBly|talk]]) 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC) == Punishment for having caused monks to break their vows == This is a hypothetical question pertaining to France in the early modern age. If a woman was suspected to have had sexual intercourse with monks (or indeed the other way around, with a man and nuns), was she then considered to have had committed a religious crime, that is to say a form of heresy? She would in that case after all have made the monks to break their vows. And could she be arrested by the church rather than the royal authorities? Avignon was at the time a papal province, I have understood. Thank you. --[[User:Aciram|Aciram]] ([[User talk:Aciram|talk]]) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC) : She '''''made''''' the monks break their vows? They couldn't say "No"? -- ♬ [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] ♬ [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus">^{[your turn]}</font>]] :::I am sorry; I am from Sweden, so I may have used the wrong English words occasionally. I don't understand. But do you have an answer? This is not a pornographic question, but a serious historical one, even if it is about sex. Please respect that. --[[User:Aciram|Aciram]] ([[User talk:Aciram|talk]]) 13:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::(ec) Indeed. The Third Council of Constantine (accepted by the Catholic Church) decrees that "''A monk convicted of fornication, or who takes a wife for the communion of matrimony and for society, is to be subjected to the penalties of fornicators, according to the canons.''" ([http://christianbookshelf.org/schaff/the_seven_ecumenical_councils/canon_xliv_a_monk_convicted.htm source]), but says nothing specifically about the other partner involved. To equate this fornication with 'heresy' seems to me a little far-fetched. - [[User:Lindert|Lindert]] ([[User talk:Lindert|talk]]) 13:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::The women did not "cause" the problem - the monks were responsible. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 14:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::::Of course, but that does not absolve the women from responsibility. If a single man sleeps with a married woman, the woman breaks her marriage vow, but the man is equally at fault, despite not having made any commitment. - [[User:Lindert|Lindert]] ([[User talk:Lindert|talk]]) 14:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::::It wouldn't be heresy but sexual questions were always under ecclesiastical jurisdiction (adultery, homosexuality, incest, etc), so yes, that would have been a crime tried in a church court. I guess it depends on the time period, since "early modern" is a lengthy period. It may also depend on the order of monks as well, but fornication would certainly be forbidden in any monastic rule. It's also certainly possible by the standards of early modern law that a woman who seduced a monk would be accused or witchcraft or of enticing him some other way, so the monk may not have been at fault. Of course it didn't work the other way, if a married woman was seduced by a man, it was still the woman's fault! (I actually know some people who work on this exact question for medieval monks and nuns, I should ask them...it's funny when a monk and a nun get caught together...) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::::::This is not really a moral question, but a factual one. Am I to understand, that the woman would be tried for fornication by a church court? Would it be the same for the monks, or would it differ? If this happened in France in the 18th century, would she then perhaps be arrested by the papal Avignon court? AdamBishop, do please ask them, it would be much appreciated; you can give me their answer on my talk page if you wish. I thought it would be considered heresy, because the vows was after all considered holy in a religious sense? --[[User:Aciram|Aciram]] ([[User talk:Aciram|talk]]) 14:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::::::It would almost certainly be fornication, and perhaps also adultery (especially for nuns), since they had taken vows to the church. Heresy is a very different crime, which doesn't really have anything to do with breaking monastic vows. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 8:19 am, Today (UTC−7) :::::::Just a small point: The [[Avignon Papacy]] lasted from 1309 to 1376. It was long gone by the 18thC. [[User:Rojomoke|Rojomoke]] ([[User talk:Rojomoke|talk]]) 16:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::::::::However, Avignon did continue to be one of the Papal States until the French Revolution. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 16:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC) == The punishment for having broken the vows of celibacy == Was there any particular punishment practised by the Catholic church for monks and nuns who had broken their vows of celibacy? Was this considered a form of heretic crime against religion? And if the monk or nun had broken their vows with some one not a monk or nun, how was that outsider punished? Please note, that I am referring to the time period before 1789. Thank you. --[[User:Aciram|Aciram]] ([[User talk:Aciram|talk]]) 13:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :It might be easier to keep these questions in one section, but in any case, no, that was not heresy. Like I mentioned above, it might depend on time and place, and the specific monastic order, but flogging was a typical punishment, or being expelled from the order. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::Breaking the vows would probably be considered "sinful", a personal failing. ''Publicly advocating'' the breaking of vows by others (or of violating any church doctrine) would probably be considered heresy. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::No, that's not heresy either. Violating a doctrine is one thing, but still probably not heresy. In this case violating a monastic rule is certainly not heresy, nor is it even likely to violate a church doctrine. Advocating that others break the monastic rule would get you in trouble, but not for heresy. It would be heresy to deny a specific doctrine, or to teach something contrary to a specific doctrine (usually something more abstract than chasing after women). [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 15:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::::I think we're saying the same thing. To publicly proclaim that the church has got it wrong, with respect to Biblical doctrine, is heresy. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::::You might want to read about [[Urbain Grandier]], somewhat notorious for his opposition to clerical celibacy, and how he ended up being treated. [[User:Eldamorie|eldamorie]] ([[User_talk:Eldamorie|talk]]) 15:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::::Clerical celibacy (also not a doctrine, and so not heretical to oppose) is not the same thing as a monastic rule of celibacy, which is what the question asks about. [[Special:Contributions/86.169.212.200|86.169.212.200]] ([[User talk:86.169.212.200|talk]]) 18:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::::::Clerical celibacy is a ''church'' doctrine (or ''rule'' might be the better term), which they readily admit is not a ''Biblical'' doctrine - it's just how the church wants to operate. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::::::It isn't quite true that the Catholic Church doesn't have biblical backing for their belief in clerical celibacy. [[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1_Corinthians+7&version=NIV 1 Corinthians 7] contains passages that clearly indicate that celibacy is the preferred state; Paul advises marriage as the second best state over celibacy, and urges those who have the strength to use his own example of Celibacy as the model. For those that find they cannot live the celibate life, he advises marriage, but only as a "second best" option. Which is not to say that the Catholic Church is necessarily right or wrong in enforcing clerical celibacy, but there are clearly parts of the bible which could be easily used to justify the policy. Especially since the instructions come from Paul, whose epistles spend a large portion of their text dedicated to the instructions for churches and their leaders. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 03:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::::::Clerical celibacy is ''not'' a Church doctrine. It is a discipline, that is a practice which is required in a particular time and place, but is not held to be universally necessary. It is not a ''doctrine'' because it is not a belief. It is not heretical to oppose, because it is not a belief, let alone a core belief universally defined. Opposing a relevant ''doctrine'' would involve opposing that celibacy is a good and desirable practice among Christians, especially those in pastoral roles. As shown by Jayron's reference, that is a ''doctrine'' with a Biblical basis, based on [[Sacred Tradition]]. It would be possible to heretically oppose those doctrine, but opposing a discipline is not heresy. Requiring clerical celibacy is a matter of canonical law, and is only required in the Western Catholic Church, and even there is not completely universal (just the norm). This is different to, for example, only ordaining men, which is a matter of ''doctrine'' in that the Church officially teaches that it is not possible to ordain women. [[Special:Contributions/86.169.212.200|86.169.212.200]] ([[User talk:86.169.212.200|talk]]) 13:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::::::::I'm going by what a prominent Catholic spokesman said on a conservative talk show some time back: "Celibacy is a church doctrine which they could change tomorrow if they wanted to. Men-only as priests is a scriptural doctrine which will never change." ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::::::::Neither statement is fundementally true. One can find bible passages to both disallow and to allow women church leaders, as well as clerical celibacy, and how a particular denomination chooses to interpret those passages, and what value to place on them, says more about the church values than about any universal principle. The more time one spends reading scripture with an open mind and heart (and trying, hard as it may be, to read it without any personal filters) the more one finds conflicts within the scripture itself, and muddiness in interpreting that scripture. That doesn't mean that, as a Christian, I don't believe it isn't all true. That means that, sometimes, I find it hard to understand ''how'' it is all true, but also have Faith that God knows, and perhaps that is enough. But one cannot deny that scriptures are rarely clear and often internally inconsistant, which is why one denomination can make a claim that its practices are biblically-based, and another can make a claim that its different practices also are. Paul himself anticipates this problem, when he states in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14&version=NIV Romans 14] "Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters." and later in the same chapter "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves." That is, there are going to be "disputable matters", and the properly behaving Christian doesn't cause conflict over these matters. We're all going to make mistakes in interpreting scripture, and my mistakes are not less problematic than your mistakes. Knowing we're all going to make such mistakes means it is futile to condemn others for their misinterpretations when I am making misinterpretations myself. Later in Romans 14 Paul says "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves." In other words, before you condemn someone else by criticising a bad interpretion, consider that you yourself may be the one in error. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 14:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC) == Was the French inquisition abolished in 1772? == I seem to remember, that I once read about the Inquisition in France. According to what I remember, the French Inquisition was not as strict as others, and by the time it was finally abolished in 1772, it had in reality stopped being active for many years. Is this true? When was the French inquisition abolished? Thank you--[[User:Aciram|Aciram]] ([[User talk:Aciram|talk]]) 13:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :It seems that during the 18th century, cases of blasphemy was handled by the local judges rather than an ecclestiastical court, as the case against [[Jean-François de la Barre]] shows, so I would guess that a French Inquisition only existed by name, and not by deed, until it was finally abolished in 1772. However de la Barre was a nobleman, so it is possible that the judicial jurisdictions regarding blasphemy for commoners would have been different. But concerning your title question, yes, [http://books.google.dk/books?id=CWCSxWaXxJEC&pg=PR36&lpg=PR36&dq=french+inquisition+1772&source=bl&ots=4dYwDLNGUE&sig=07b58g2UJLWyKJBUNodAQ6MqYpk&sa=X&ei=b68zUKzkOZHwsgb-zYGYDw&ved=0CBUQ6AEwATgo#v=onepage&q=french%20inquisition%201772&f=false the French Inquisition was abolished in 1772]. --[[User:Saddhiyama|Saddhiyama]] ([[User talk:Saddhiyama|talk]]) 15:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ==The authority of the Papal Avignon in France== Did the Papal province of Avignon (I seem to remember Avignon was a Papal province until 1789) have any authority over religious crimes committed in France during the early modern age? Thank you--[[User:Aciram|Aciram]] ([[User talk:Aciram|talk]]) 13:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :Church courts don't work like that; ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction over their own dioceses, so the [[diocese of Avignon]] was responsible for that diocese, and that was all. But even if Avignon claimed special authority as a papal enclave (and I don't think they did), the Kingdom of France, secular and ecclesiastical authorities included, would never have allowed them to exercise that claim anywhere else. (The papal enclave at Avignon had an uneasy relationship with France, to say the least.) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::I see. That seems simple enough. I assumed the papal authorities would automatically have authority over all clerical matters, no matter were they were. I suppose a religious crime in France would rather be handled by the French church then? The French inquisition? --[[User:Aciram|Aciram]] ([[User talk:Aciram|talk]]) 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::I'm not really sure about the French inquisition at this period, but inquisitions in general were meant to root out heretics, if I'm not mistaken. The local church court would deal with simple religious crimes. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 15:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::::Avignon (as well as the [[Comtat Venaissin]]) was not part of France until the Revolution, although from frwiki it appears that Louis XI, and most other French kings beginning in the 16th century, were the de facto rulers of the territory. Beginning in 1691, the secular government was abolished and Avignon was controlled directly by the [[papal legate]], so it would appear that at least in Avignon the church had complete power. Elsewhere in France it's less likely that that was the case due to the influence of [[gallicanism]], which suborned ecclesiastical power to the French monarchy. [[User:Eldamorie|eldamorie]] ([[User_talk:Eldamorie|talk]]) 15:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::::As far as the Inquisition goes... I am not really sure that it is correct to talk about a "French Inquisition" as if it were a distinct thing or phenomenon... unlike the [[Spanish Inquisition]] (which had its own administration and authority). I also think it a misnomer to talk about a "French Church" existing at this time, as if it were a distinct ecclesiastical entity... yes, there were some ''cultural'' distinctions between the Church in France and the Church in Italy or the Church in Germany (etc)... and we can certainly identify a French faction in Church politics and in the Church hierarchy, but administratively and judicially each diocese was an distinct entity unto itself. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC) == Iraq-Afghan relations pre 9/11 == Leave to one side all the bunk about [[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda links]]. What was the diplomatic relationship like between Saddam's Iraq and Afghanistan under the Taliban? They were both enemies of Iran as well as America. That much I know. But did Saddam and the Taliban collaborate at all? The religious enmity between the Shia mullahs of Iran and the Sunni Taliban precluded any accord between them, despite their mutual hostility towards America. The Taliban's philosophical gulf with Saddam's Baath party was far wider than their divide with Iran. Did this divide likewise prevent an understanding between Afghanistan and Iraq? Or was Saddam's Sunnism and his hatred of Iran enough to drive him into the Taliban's arms? Any knowledgable input is welcome. Knowledge backed up by books/journals/newspapers and other citeable things, even more so :). [[User:Risingrain|Risingrain]] ([[User talk:Risingrain|talk]]) 15:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :From an ideological perspective, the Ba'ath party is, for all intents and purposes, a secular party that was initially formed and dominated by Arab Christians. In the early years of the [[Ba'ath Party (Iraqi-dominated faction)|Iraqi Ba'ath party]] it was mostly Shia but slowly came to be dominated by nominal Sunnis. Their goals are [[Pan-Arabism]], [[Arab socialism]] and anti-imperialism. They view fundamentalist Islam (Sunni or Shia) as just as much a threat to their power as "western imperialism". As a fundamentalist, non-Arab (the Taliban are [[Pashtun]]s) entity, the Taliban would have been less than ideal as an ally for Saddam's Iraq. In fact, the government of Iraq never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE were the only countries to do so). Likewise, fundamentalist Muslim groups such as the Taliban view the Ba'athists mostly with contempt for suppressing fundamentalists movements so the Taliban would not have viewed Iraq as a particularly helpful ally either.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] ^{[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]}^{[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]} 18:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::That said, [[Realpolitik]] has a tendency to make people and countries work with sworn enemies when they deem it to be in their interests. Not sure if this happened to be the case in this particular situation. But ideologically, no, they would not have been natural friends. [[Special:Contributions/58.111.229.109|58.111.229.109]] ([[User talk:58.111.229.109|talk]]) 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, it was realpolitik I was wondering about. The Iranian mullahs and Libya's Gaddafi were allies, even though ideologically they could not have been more different. Syria and Iraq were both ruled by Baathists, but they were bitter enemies. Iraq and Afghanistan had no territorial disputes or history of war. They also had a mutual enemy (Iran). Their ideologies were different but that was no bar to an alliance, and let's face it in history it rarely has been. So, I guess what I'm asking is: did Saddam and the Taliban, in spite of their ideological disaffinity, attempt to gang up against Iran? [[User:Risingrain|Risingrain]] ([[User talk:Risingrain|talk]]) 21:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :I don't think that there was ever a military alliance between Saddam and the Taliban, but perhaps there might have been some negotiations between them about establishing closer ties. [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 22:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199757,00.html - Here's some further info. :) [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::Stating that a link from Fox "News" is info is a rather unnatural stretching of the meaning of the word info, n'est ce pas? --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::::I'm not a big fan of Fox News either, but it was the quickest news source I could find at the moment and this info appears to generally be accurate, since it's quoting another source. [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 03:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::::Wow, since you opened the door I'm just wondering if you'd have made the same snarky comment if he had linked a story from MSNBC or CNN. They're just as biased (if not more so) in the other direction which doesn't make them any more, or less, trustworthy than FOX.--[[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] ^{[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]}^{[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]} 03:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::::I never had the chance to make that comment, since no one used those sources. Would you like to make a link to an MSNBC article so I can make the same joke? Though, at this point, it wouldn't be funny. But I can make it if it would set your suspicious mind to ease. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC) == Using chains to block rivers == The [[Hudson River Chain]]s were used in the American Revolutionary War from 1776–82 to block ships' access up the river. A similar device was used to guard the Chao Phraya in Siam/Thailand during the 17th–19th centuries. (Looking briefly through search results, [[Chevalier de Forbin]] mentioned using a chain to block the river during the Makassar pirate attack on the fort at Bangkok in 1686, and such chains were still employed when tensions against the British were rising in the mid-19th century.) These were most likely separate parallel developments. Are there records of such devices having been used elsewhere? --[[Special:Contributions/101.109.223.81|101.109.223.81]] ([[User talk:101.109.223.81|talk]]) 17:11, 21 August <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="#">2012</a> (UTC) :Sure. [[Golden Horn#History]] mentions perhaps the most famous. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]^{<small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small>} 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::Other examples given in [http://www.castlesontheweb.com/<a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="#">quest</a>/Forum7/HTML/000612.html this forum] include the [[River Dart]] at [[Dartmouth Castle]] in [[Devon]] (15th century), [[Fowey]] in [[Cornwall]], the [[River Medway]] at [[Upnor Castle]] in [[Kent]] (1585) and the Grand Harbour at [[Valetta]] in [[Malta]]. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 18:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::Much more information on the history of chain defences in [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bkNjv-9mqocC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=valletta+%22grand+harbour%22+chain&source=bl&ots=zk1zKefZLD&sig=aYtmfxvjvEwLmbr8GfeUGnJouBU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rdkzUI-ZD4ah0QXT04GwCA&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=valletta%20%22grand%20harbour%22%20chain&f=false Chaining the Hudson: The Fight for the River in the American Revolution by Lincoln Diamant] (page 87) - assuming that you can see this result from <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="#">Google</a> books. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 19:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :Another example (a boom, not exactly a chain) was at the [[Siege of Derry]]. In that case, the royal navy successfully broke the boom, allowing their ships to sail up-river and relieve the city. The boom in question was apparently built by a clever french naval officer, [[Bernard Desjean, Baron de Pointis]]. [[Special:Contributions/58.111.229.109|58.111.229.109]] ([[User talk:58.111.229.109|talk]]) 19:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :Harbour chains were typically found in any medieval port. Jpgordon mentioned Constantinople above, but there was also one in [[Acre, Israel|Acre]] and [[Damietta]], for two other examples that immediately spring to mind. (The Latin word was "catena" but we don't seem to have an article about them specifically.) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 08:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :The [[Raid on the Medway]] is an English example from the 1660s. --[[User:TammyMoet|TammyMoet]] ([[User talk:TammyMoet|talk]]) 09:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :The [[Rhine River]] was chained in medieval times to exact tolls.<br>~~~~ == Why doesn't Israel have the right to the Gaza Strip and West Bank == Since Jewish militias won a Civil War, the winner of a war takes it all isn't it that way? Shouldn't Israel have the right to those lands as well? [[User:Nienk|Nienk]] ([[User talk:Nienk|talk]]) 17:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :The modern law of war (established after say Germany tried the same thing) forbids this. [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 17:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::See [[Right of conquest]] for more details. As to Israel's claim to the west bank, I'd say that's a somewhat more complex topic. If Israel wants to annex the west bank, it would be forced to give its' (Palestinian) residents citizenship, including the right to vote in Israeli elections. Aint gonna happen, methinks. That said, if such a proposal was put to a (Palestinian) referendum, I could see it winning, crazy as this may sound. The Israelis would be the ones to resist. Israel has long faced a struggle to be both "Jewish" and "Democratic" at the same time. Enfranchising the West Bank population would quite likely make this task impossible, as it would largely obliterate Israel's Jewish majority. ::And as far as the Gaza Strip is concerned, Israel wouldn't even be remotely interested in doing any such thing. The place is generally considered a hellhole. Pretty much all Israel wants on the Gaza front is quiet. ::As an aside, I believe International law still does recognize certain rights (as well as responsibilities) on the part of an occupying power. I remember reading that an occupying power may seize land for genuine military needs, for example. Can someone clarify this? [[Special:Contributions/58.111.229.109|58.111.229.109]] ([[User talk:58.111.229.109|talk]]) 18:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/18/israel-reject-settlements-report :The Levy panel recommended overturning Israeli laws, military orders, and precedents that are based on the law of occupation. It called on the government to allow settlement construction on expropriated Palestinian lands, subject to the approval of the security services, rejecting a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that the Israeli military could not expropriate Palestinian land for the purpose of establishing a civilian settlement rather than for security needs. :Lots of fun stuff. "Do onto others as has been done unto you", I suppose. [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :Funny. The Hebrew version of the report actually doesn't say that stuff, and makes a really strong case using international law why settlements are legal. Well, doesn't matter, since Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu buried that report and disregarded it. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :As for the OP, the Gaza Strip is irrelevant anymore, as Israel unilaterally withdrew from it in 2005, and evicted all Israelis living there. Israel has done the same to certain settlements in the West Bank, but a unilateral withdrawal may be unlikely, as really a final peace status is needed to decide on those issues. Now, I noticed someone said above that you can't win territory through war, but the counterargument would be that the territory it was won from, which was Jordan and Egypt, had been occupying that territory in an occupation that the international community didn't recognize, and a Palestinian state or idea wasn't established then, and also that the territory was won in self-defense. It's a disputed topic, and you'll hear people saying both things, but I like to focus more importantly on what should be done in the future to resolve it. Hope this helps. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Also, for the OP, Israel does have certain rights to the West Bank under the Oslo Accords in 1993, which was signed with the Palestinians. Israel has full control over Area C (about 60% of the West Bank; also contains the settlements, which themselves are about 1% of the West Bank), and certain rights over Area B. Under the accords, the Palestinian Authority has full control over Area A, which is where most Palestinian cities are (except in Gaza, which a different Palestinian rival government controls). Since then, a number of treaties have been proposed, for example by President Clinton and Israeli President Ehud Barak, or by Israeli President Ehud Olmert in 2008 (over 90%), that would mean for Israel to withdraw from more of Area C and give more in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, but these proposals have been rejected by the Palestinian Authority. Hope this helps. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :Note that Israel ignores international law when not in their interest, in any case. I've often thought it would be in their interest to implement a policy that each time they are attacked, they will seize a small chunk of the West Bank or Gaza Strip (whichever launched the attack), evict the residents, annex it to Israel, and move the wall to enclose it. This would make attacks by the terrorists look less "heroic" to the Palestinians. This would, of course, be called "ethnic cleansing", but, as I've said, Israel doesn't care about such things. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::Everyone ignores (or reinterprets) international law when it's in their interest to do so. [[User:W203.27.72.5|203.27.72.5]] ([[User talk:W203.27.72.5|talk]]) 21:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::::In the case of tiny nations, international law may be their only chance to win disputes with their neighbors, so they tend to support it wholeheartedly. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 02:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::::I.e. it's never in their interest to ignore it, so that doesn't contradict my statement. [[User:W203.27.72.5|203.27.72.5]] ([[User talk:W203.27.72.5|talk]]) 21:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::That's extremely incorrect and so disgustingly biased against a country, would never happen, and the only annexed territory has been Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest site which was abused under Jordanian control, and the Golan Heights, claimed by Syria. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::Ethnic cleansing usually refers to a population decreasing, not increasing. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::I believe forced relocation has been called ethnic cleansing. Also, moving Israelis in might not be wise, as they would come under immediate threat. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::Btw, that "wall" you're referring to is actually 96% fence (another example of bias) and only a "wall" in areas where it came under heavy fire during The Second Intifada. Since it was constructed, terrorism has decreased significantly, and has saved countless of lives, and that includes Arab lives who are also killed in terrorism. Of course, some people think that Israelis don't get human rights, in which case I'd understand if saving people from terrorism is irrelevant. But really, when you start using these terms and ignoring the facts around them, it paints a one-sided extremely biased and incorrect picture to delegitimiez a legitimate country. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :::In those places it might be wise to build an actual wall, as they would come under immediate threat. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::::An oft-made point - International law isn't "law" as such. It's really just a bunch of politically-written conventions and treaties, which pretty much everyone ignores when they're strong enough (or needed enough) to get away with it. The world of "International Law" has as much (or more) to do with politics and politicians as it does with courts, lawyers, and the like. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.111.229.109|58.111.229.109]] ([[User talk:58.111.229.109|talk]]) 20:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :::::You mean, exactly like all other laws... --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 20:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::::::Well, with domestic law in a democratic country, one hopes that at least the law-''enforcement'' authorities will be [[Separation of powers|somewhat de-politicized]]. In the world of International "law", that's clearly an absolute pipe dream. Even when we're talking about a [[Assassination of Rafic Hariri|murder]], politics can often see those responsible walk scot-free. The life of a human being is but a small pawn in the bigger game. Alas to humanity :( [[Special:Contributions/58.111.229.109|58.111.229.109]] ([[User talk:58.111.229.109|talk]]) 22:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Theoretically speaking, Israel can annex all of the West Bank and Gaza. However, if Israel does that (even only in regards to the West Bank), then it will need to give all the Palestinian Arabs there Israeli citizenship in order to avoid becoming an international pariah. Israel isn't going to do that, since having several million more Palestinian Arabs with Israeli citizenship will end Israel's existence as a Jewish state, while not giving them citizenship in the event of an annexation would open Israel up to the allegations of apartheid and discrimination. Thus, annexing the West Bank and/or Gaza is a no-win situation for Israel, since either way it acts it gets screwed (and expelling all the Palestinian Arabs from these territories would make Israel a huge international pariah as well). I hope that my response helped in answering your question. [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC) == children's book == I am trying to find the name of a book that I read over and over as a child. Unfortunately, I can't remember many details. It would've been in the late 70s or early 80s. The book was about a child who liked to sleep late/was lazy. I think the family was animals of some kind. One day the kid wakes up and the family has moved to their new house and left him/her behind while s/he was asleep. I don't think it was supposed to be horrendously cruel. The kid made friends and had adventures and eventually found his/her family. I think there was a swamp or pond involved somehow. Anyway, I know it's a stretch, but thought I'd ask because I'd really like to read it again and see how closely it matches my memories. [[User:Mom2jandk|Ingrid]] ([[User talk:Mom2jandk|talk]]) 19:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :In which country would you have read it Ingrid? And at what age <small>(or, since you shouldn't ask a lady her age, what age was it aimed at)</small>? Was it a picture book or more like a novel? The plot vaguely rings a bell for me (would have been late 80s to early 90s in the UK) but I can't for the life of me think of a title. - [[User:Cucumber Mike|Cucumber Mike]] ([[User talk:Cucumber Mike|talk]]) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC) == Religion in Saxony == In 1697 [[Augustus II the Strong]] convert to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism to be eligible for the Polish throne, but after the 1800s, the House of Wettin (Albertine branch) lost any hope of ruling Poland again when it was partitioned between Russia, Prussia and Ausria and King [[Frederick Augustus I of Saxony]] losted the Duchy of Warsaw. So why didn't the family reconvert back to Protestantism since from 1827 to 1918 their subject in Saxony were overwhelmly Protestant and before 1697 the rulers of Saxony had been considered the "champions of the Reformation".--[[User:The Emperor&#39;s New Spy|The Emperor&#39;s New Spy]] ([[User talk:The Emperor&#39;s New Spy|talk]]) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :You are talking a span of 130 years between 1697 and 1827... multiple generations of the family had been raised as Catholics by the later date. My guess is that the family had simply gotten used to being Catholic, and self identified as such. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC) :((ec)) Well, there are several answers. The first is that it was a matter of conscience. Those particular rulers may have been genuinely and earnestly faithfully Roman Catholic. This may be the antithesis of ''realpolitik'': an official sticking to their conscience in the face of political difficulties it creates. Secondly, I'm not sure how much it applied at that late of a date, but officially the position of Europe over religion after the [[Peace of Augsburg]] (1555) and confirmed by the [[Peace of Westphalia]] a century later, was ''[[Cuius regio, eius religio]]'', which means "He who rules, it's his religion" or more directly that the personal religion of the Prince determined the official religion of a sovereign state, and not ''most importantly'', the other way around. I am pretty sure that, officially, this never went away, which meant that it would ''not'' be expected that a Prince would change his religion to meet that of those he ruled over, though (and this is where [[realpolitik]] comes in) many did so, notably [[Henri IV of France]], "Paris is well worth a Mass"... So Princes ''did'' choose to convert to meet the religion of their subjects, but there was no expectation that they had to, and there was a legal principle in place that the expectation was in the reverse: a Prince's subjects were expected to convert to his religion. However, by the later dates that you note, well past the [[Age of Enlightenment]], more modern notions of religious tolerance and plurality were becoming entrenched in Europe, so there may not have been any expectation that it would ''matter'' that a Prince was of the same religion as the majority of his subjects. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 20:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ::The monarchs of Belgium, Luxembourg and all of the newly created monarchies of the Balkans either converted to their country's majority religion by their own choice or were made to raised their children in the country's majority faith. I am pretty sure by the 1800s, Saxony was the only European monarchy in which its reigning family didn't follow their country's majority religion.--[[User:The Emperor&#39;s New Spy|The Emperor&#39;s New Spy]] ([[User talk:The Emperor&#39;s New Spy|talk]]) 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::OK. So what? Some monarchs changed their religion. The Albertines didn't. Saxony wasn't really a "newly created monarchy"; foreign princes installed in Greece had a reason to convert to Orthodoxy to win the hearts and minds of their new subjects. Wettins had been electors of Saxony for well over a century before Martin Luther even thought about nailing lists to doors. In other words, they had nothing to prove; they had no reason to use religion to establish their legitimacy over a newly created state: they were an old family ruling an old state for a very long time. Legitimacy of their rule wasn't a question. They had no reason to change. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC) = August 22 = ==Partition of South Africa== How come a two-state [[partition]] of [[South Africa]] to give the [[White South African|whites]] and [[black people|blacks]] there their own state (similar to what happened in [[1947 UN Partition Plan|Palestine]] and [[Partition of India|British India]] in 1947-1948) was never proposed or seriously considered by anyone at any time in [[History of South Africa|South African history]]? From a practical perspective, it would have been much better for the whites and blacks there to have their own state and thus avoid [[discrimination]] and having less of a voice than the other side. The whites could have been given the sparely-populated western parts of South Africa and moved there en masse, while the blacks could have been given most of the other parts of South Africa. [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 00:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Because probably most of the whites were in positions of power and wealth and if a partition would happen they would get little next to nothing since even today they make up 9% of the population. The only way for them to stay in power and make money was to exploit and discriminate the black majority. --[[User:The Emperor&#39;s New Spy|The Emperor&#39;s New Spy]] ([[User talk:The Emperor&#39;s New Spy|talk]]) 00:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::Why wasn't South Africa partitioned in the 1980s or 1990s when the whites there knew that their rule over South Africa would not last, though? [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 00:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :(ec) I don't think it would have worked based on the racist division of labor set up as blacks as workers and whites as management. Workers without management don't do well, and neither does management without workers. Consider what happened in [[Zimbabwe]], when they pretty much kicked the whites out. Not pretty. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 00:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::That's not because they got rid of white managers, though. They got rid of white farmers and replaced them with black politicians (and other cronies) that didn't know anything about farms or had any interest in actually farming them. Replacing farmers with politicians is going to cause a food shortage regardless of the racial makeup of the country. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 00:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::The person who manages the farm is what I am calling the white manager. I tried to use general terms so it would apply outside of farming, too. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 00:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC) The whites in the white-majority state could still have placed some of their companies and means of production (such as factories and farms) in the black-majority state (similar to American companies in China, India, ad other parts of Asia today). Also, blacks would have been able to travel to the white-majority state if they wanted to work there (similar to the Palestinian Arabs working in Israel). Finally, the black-majority state could have worked in educating its population in the meantime and the white-majority state could have imported [[guest workers]] if necessary. [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 00:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :That's pretty much the system they had under [[Apartheid]]. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 00:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::Eh, No, since blacks weren't allowed to vote or have civil rights anywhere in South Africa under apartheid, while they would be able to hold civil rights and vote in the event of a South African partition. :::They could vote in at least some of the [[Bantustan]]s. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 02:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Wouldn't such a partition itself be a form of Apartheid? Or at least segregation? If I was a black South African in the 1980's looking up to Mandela and demanding equal rights in South Africa, I wouldn't want to debase myself and decide to accept a partition to split the country and appear as not equal to white people, just because some racists don't want their government system to fall. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 00:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Remember, partition needs to be accepted by both sides. The British Mandate of Palestine never worked becuase only the Jews accepted it, and not the Arabs. The India-Pakistan partition worked because Nehru and Jinnah accepted it, no matter how much Gandhi didn't want it. And that wasn't the best partition either, mass-murder along the way when populations were transferred. I can't imagine blacks in South Africa in the 80's agreeing that they should, for some reason, be cut off and partitioned. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 00:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::Yes, the partitions in India and Palestine didn't work too well (there were 4 large wars in India and 3 in Israel). However, keep in mind that once Israel and India/Pakistan acquired nukes and other countries found out about those nukes, the conflicts in those areas became less heated. Arab countries stopped attacking Israel directly, while India and Pakistan became more careful to avoid wars. Considering that the whites in South Africa had nukes and a strong military (which a white majority-state would probably keep in the event of a partition), the black South African state wouldn't really have been able to do much to destroy the white South African state without bringing heavy damage to itself. And what do you mean by "cut off"? The black-majority state in South Africa would have still been contiguous, and the blacks there would have been able to work for whites (including in the white-majority state) if they would have wanted to. [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::In Israel's case, that applies only so long as other Arab countries don't have nukes, which they don't yet, in the future it is possible, albeit unlikely, that Iran may get nukes. In regards to India, the situation is much much worse, because Pakistan, India's fierce rival, has nukes, and they almost had a nuclear war. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 01:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::::Iran isn't Arab, but is still a huge enemy of Israel's. However, I seriously doubt that Iran would start a large-scale war with Israel, as in sending its own troops to fight it and using nukes, since the Iranian regime isn't really interested in getting wiped off the map. As for India and Pakistan, the key word in your sentence is '''almost'''. Yes, India and Pakistan came close to a nuclear war in 1998-1999 and 2001-2002, but they backed off since both countries have way too much to lose in a nuclear war. Likewise, the 1999 [[Kargil War]] wasn't as bad as the previous three wars (in 1948, 1965, and 1971) and after 1999 there were no large-scale wars between India and Pakistan at all (keep in mind that Pakistan announced that it had nukes in 1998). [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 02:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Look into the creation of [[Lesotho]] and [[Swaziland]]. [[User:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] ([[User talk:Plasmic Physics|talk]]) 00:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::Actually, the South African government went for partition in a big way, starting in the 1960s, but without giving anything valuable away to non-whites. The policy produced the "homelands" or "[[bantustan]]s"; ''"Ten bantustans were established in South Africa, and ten in neighbouring South-West Africa (then under South African administration), for the purpose of concentrating the members of designated ethnic groups, thus making each of those territories ethnically homogeneous as the basis for creating "autonomous" nation states for South Africa's different black ethnic groups"'' Four of these were granted "full independence", although internationally unrecognised; [[Transkei]] is a notable example. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::The Banstustans weren't nearly large enough to create viable economies and to give the black South African percentage that amount of land that they deserved. Also, not all the Bantustans were independent, and thus blacks in many of them still suffered huge discrimination. [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 01:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::::It's quite clear that partition was 'seriously considered', though, in that it happened to some extent. [[Special:Contributions/130.88.73.65|130.88.73.65]] ([[User talk:130.88.73.65|talk]]) 10:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::::Agreed. The point of the partition wasn't to achieve a fair and balanced settlement, but for the white minority to keep control of the prosperous bulk of the country, while much of the black majority could be shunted off into marginal areas and left to get on with it, while providing SA with a migrant workforce when required. I suspect that the intention was for all of the homelands to be independent eventually, but never prosperous enough to be a challenge to the RSA. By the way, Transkei was small in comparison to the RSA but more than twice the size of Wales, so all things are relative. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 21:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC) (question) Is there anywhere in the ''entire'' South Africa, besides for [[Pretoria]] perhaps, that still has a white majority? I can't easily see how Pretoria becoming an independent enclave (like Lesotho is) could make a viable country. [[Special:Contributions/58.111.229.109|58.111.229.109]] ([[User talk:58.111.229.109|talk]]) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ==Incest Exception for Abortion== With the whole [[Todd Akin]] rape controversy, the abortion debate was brought back up into the spotlight right now. I was wondering what the rationale was in some [[GOP|Republican]] politicians supporting an incest exception for abortion while opposing abortion in most other cases? I mean, some incest is consensual and in some cases children born to closely related parents don't have any or much defects. I know that political pragmatism might be a factor, but is there another rationale for this? Thank you. [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 01:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :An obvious consideration is even if it's true the child won't have 'any or much defects' (whatever you mean by that), it remains fairly difficult to know for many until either late in to the pregnancy or even after. A child of incest is also likely have much the stigma of a child of rape to third parties. However I don't think these are significant considerations for people as you describe. The more significant factor is when people say an exception for incest, they actually are really thinking of rape involving a related underage participant and an of age one (or significantly older age at least), e.g. a father raping their underage daughter. Of course in some cases they may also be thinking of cases involving underage participants where rape isn't clear (e.g. siblings of very similar ages). As a way of reference the examples given here [http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm] mentions a thirteen year old. [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life005.html] mentions incest along with rape in the discussion about how the woman is forced to carry a baby against her will etc. [http://kgov.com/writings/abortion_for_rape_incest_and_mothers_life] mentions several things about incest in reference to a rapist and also in one case young victim. And remembering that abortions aren't forced, even in cases when it is apparently consensual, they may be thinking the woman has come around to the idea she did an extremely disgusting thing and so would have almost as much trouble living with the reminder of it as a rape victim (note I'm not saying and of this actually is, simply this is what the mentality is likely to be like). Or that it probably wasn't really consensual, particularly if it involved significantly different ages and generations (e.g. parent-child). Consider many of the comments in this case [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/david-epstein-incest-char_n_794864.html] [http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/12/10/professor-david-epstein-charged-incest-his-daughter] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/david-epstein-pleads-guil_n_881639.html] (both these links and elsewhere) seemed to express these views. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 03:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::The strongly-conservative folks I know argue that the rape-or-incest exception is essentially hypocritical or dubious - because the whole point of being anti-abortion is that the pre-born infant's life is being taken for something that fetus had no control over. The "to save the mother's life" argument usually holds up because the doctor and the family have to make a choice. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ^{''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''} [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::By defects, I meant [[congenital disorders]]. If you're going to argue that we won't know if a fetus will have severe defects until later on, then couldn't the same rationale be used to allow people with inherited medical conditions to get elective abortions? Also, as for the fetus later having a bad life, this argument could also be used to allow poor women to get elective abortions. If someone is thinking of rape, then just say rape. There's no need to allow for a separate incest exception considering that some incest is legally consensual (both parties are above the age of consent and they actually give consent). If someone is underage, then it's generally considered to be statutory rape, and if one is extremely young then it's always considered to be statutory rape. As for this statement--"And remembering that abortions aren't forced", I think that you meant to say that "remembering that incest isn't forced". If you're arguing about the "ickiness" of incest, couldn't a racist woman also theoretically argue that it was disgusting for her to have sex with a man of a different race and that thus she should be allowed to get an abortion? Baseball Bugs, as for the argument that you mentioned, it isn't really convincing, since I don't and shouldn't be able to force someone else to let me have a kidney, blood, or bone marrow from them even if it was necessary to save my life (for an illness/condition that occurred through not fault of my own) if they were not responsible for my illness/condition/dependence on them to survive. Thus, why should a woman be forced to let an offspring conceived in rape use her body for several months? Also, I think that the correct term is prenatal, not pre-born. [[User:Futurist110|Futurist110]] ([[User talk:Futurist110|talk]]) 04:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::::As I made clear, '''I'm not arguing anything'''. I'm simply pointing out why some people support such an exception. You asked a question, I provided referenced answers which will not directly making the claim, do support most of the thesis, as I made the assumption you really wanted to understand why people may support such an exception, rather then pretend you were interested to try and start an argument on the RD. In case it's still not clear to you, the fact that when these people say incest, what they mean is rape involving related individuals doesn't change the fact it appears to be what many are doing. Similar to the fact not all of their arguments may be consistent etc. If you disagree with these people, you should take it up with them, and somewhere else besides the RD, since the RD isn't the place for such arguments. You're mistaken about statutory rape. In some jurisdictions, if the people are of very similar age and neither is in a clear position of power over the other, as may be the case for siblings, then there may be no statutory rape, hence why I made that specific distinction. (I already made clear that in other cases, it usually is rape.) And you're quite mistaken. I meant what I said. Abortions aren't forced. So someone who had consensual incest but doesn't regret it or the pregnancy isn't likely to be getting an abortion. So if someone is getting an abortion under such an exception, it generally suggests they don't want the pregnancy, which could be for a number of reasons, but from the POV of people who support such an exception perhaps it will be because they've realised what a disgusting thing they've done and are having trouble living with it. Again let me repeat I'm not saying I subscribe to such views, but if you want to understand why people support or oppose something, you've got to try and see things completely from their POV. P.S. It sounds like you're also missing my point on 'defects'. For starters it's unclear why you would consider [[Congenital disorder]] important, when it comes to incest [[genetic disorder]] seem to be more relevent here. Either way, there are a large number of things which could be considered genetic disorders (and therefore a type of congenital disorder), such as increase risk of varioys types of cancer, obesity, diabetes etc etc which depending on the precise genetics, may be of higher risk if the parents are highly related. The fact you mentioned disorder rather then abnormality does suggest you are including these but to what level is unclear. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :[[Opposition to legal abortion]] quotes some views from groups opposed to abortion on whether incest should be an exception. [[Special:Contributions/130.88.73.65|130.88.73.65]] ([[User talk:130.88.73.65|talk]]) 09:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC) == Utility Maximisation == Recently I read about Utility Maximization and it seems to be an very important topic in Economics. But are there any stand out examples of firms / companies that have applied this and benefited from this ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/115.113.11.147|115.113.11.147]] ([[User talk:115.113.11.147|talk]]) 12:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :Wikipedia has an article titled [[Utility]] that has some background, but more importantly has some sources which you could follow to read more information. From reading the article, it sounds like your answer would be "all of them", in the sense that utility is such a core concept it would be hard to find a firm which took absolutely zero consideration as to the usefulness of their product or service. Whether the firm takes a rigorous mathematical analysis of utility (as the Wikipedia article does), or whether it takes a more qualitative approach towards analyzing their own products, at some level all firms have to have asked, and answered the question "Is the stuff we make useful, and how can be its usefulness be maximized so we can make more money". It does sound like a fundementally important economic concept, such a fundemental concept, however, that it is a core concept and thus unavoidable, and not a magic program that a company could choose to follow or not follow. That's my reading after looking over the articles, as a non-Economist and simple lay person. Perhaps an actual economist could weigh in and give a more thorough answer. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 12:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Speaking as a student of economics, Jayron's answer makes sense from one perspective, but it's not how I would understand the term "utility maximisation". Rather, one tends to see it used to mean "I, as an agent, am constantly trying to maximise my own utility subject to x constraints" (which is obviously contentious, I'll point out, before Fifelfoo does that for me). Thus, it's not clear what you mean when you use the term: (a) what Jayron said, perhaps (b) "do any firms try to maximise their own utility (aggregate utility of their staff?), rather than maximising their own profits (the standard assumption in mainstream economics)?" (c) "Do any firms try to maximise societal utility (welfare) rather than profits", or something else? - [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]]&nbsp;^{[''[[User_talk:Jarry1250|Deliberation]] [[Special:Contributions/Jarry1250|needed]]'']} 14:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::That's my understanding of "utility maximisation" as well. It is the assumption underlying pretty much all of economics, so is implicitly (and often explicitly) used by anyone using economics. Businesses almost all do that - you need an awareness of supply and demand, for instance, in order to effectively set prices. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 18:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::Note that firms do perform a mathematically rigorous calculation of the utility that they get from goods and services they buy such as labour. It's called [[accounting|balancing the books]]. In a business, utility is easily reduced to dollar terms because maximization of utility is the same as maximization of [[profit]]. For any given business it can be estimated how much extra profit would be generated if one extra unit of labour, electricity, water, or other [[factor of production]] was purchased. In most businesses, at some point further production leads to [[diminishing returns]]. If production continues, a point is eventually reached where the [[marginal cost]] is equal to the profit generated and further production would lead to a loss. :::For individuals it's not as easy to work out utility gained per dollar spent as the goods purchased are necessarily [[subjective theory of value|valued subjectively]] according to the consumer's own preferences. [[User:W203.27.72.5|203.27.72.5]] ([[User talk:W203.27.72.5|talk]]) 20:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC) == Athabaskan Indians == Is there a reason why the Athabaskans are from a diverse number of tribes (Apache, Navajo, etc)? Also, why does it appear they retreated northward? [[User:Reticuli88|Reticuli88]] ([[User talk:Reticuli88|talk]]) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Well, it's a language family, so it's like referring to "Europeans" when you could refer to a specific nationality. And did they "retreat northward"? They must have travelled south like the other native groups. The Apache and Navajo are actually the southern outliers, since most Athabaskan-speakers live in the north. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 13:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I understand. For more specificity, how about the Koyukon Athabascan, which I am a part of..?[[User:Reticuli88|Reticuli88]] ([[User talk:Reticuli88|talk]]) 13:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Does the article [[Koyukon people]] help? --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 13:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ----- Reticuli88 -- some linguists (such [[Joseph Greenberg]]) have posited three successive waves of migration from Asia. Earliest was a general "Amerindian" migration, then came a "Na-Dené" migration (which included the spread of Athabaskan languages), then an Eskimo-Aleut migration. (Of course, there may have been even more migration waves, but they could only be discovered by archaeological or genetic analysis methods, not linguistic methods). [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 14:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Thank you [[User:Reticuli88|Reticuli88]] ([[User talk:Reticuli88|talk]]) 17:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Since the [[Athabaskan]]s are the largest group of speakers of the [[Na-Dene languages]], it will be useful to read the article on the [[Dene-Yeniseian languages]] about their ultimate origin. The greatest diversity in the Na-Dene languages is in the north and west of their range. This and logic points to a general north to south expansion. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 00:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC) == Satish K. Kappor == Respected sir i am already added biography of Dr Satish K Kapoor. Till not comes in our WIKIPEDIA.ORG siite. it will take how many days sir? Please send answer at <redacted> Dr Dama L.B. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Southraj|Southraj]] ([[User talk:Southraj|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Southraj|contribs]]) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :I removed you e-mail address, because it is against the rules and may lead to you receiving spam. Regarding your question, if I understand correctly, you are asking about when a Wikipedia page is going to be created about Dr Satish K Kapoor. The answer is whenever an editor (could be you) decides to add it. However, [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] are necessary to establish that the subject is notable enough for a wikipedia article. - [[User:Lindert|Lindert]] ([[User talk:Lindert|talk]]) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::Southraj has requested an [[WP:AFC|AFC]] review at [[User:Southraj/sandbox]] but has not written an article draft there, so there is nothing to review. Southraj, you may have neglected to save your draft. If you want to try again, please add the text of your submission in your sandbox. If you want someone else to write an article about the person, please follow the instructions at [[WP:AR]]; and if you have any further questions, please post them at the [[WP:HD|help desk]], as this is not the correct place. [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 18:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) == In WWII, did the Allies not use encryption? Did Axis powers not bother trying to intercept messages? == I've been reading all about Engima machines and so on but I've yet to encounter any mention of efforts on Germany's part to intercept/decode Allied transmissions, or of Allies even using encryption. Are there some articles to get me started or are there some simple reasons why this wasn't an issue? Thanks. [[User:Vranak|Vranak]] ([[User talk:Vranak|talk]]) 15:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :We have an article on [[German code breaking in World War II]]. My understanding, though, is that much of German intelligence was focused on spies rather than codebreaking, and that the British were remarkably successful in turning spies into undetected [[double agent]]s. &mdash; [[User talk:Lomn|Lomn]] 16:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :((edit conflict)) We have an article, [[German code breaking in World War II]], which suggests it was poor logistics on the part of the Germans which meant that their codebreaking operation was not as successful as that coordinated from [[Bletchley Park]]. My (somewhat uninformed) understanding is that it wasn't a case of the Germans being particularly bad at codebreaking and interception - as our article says, they were able to listen in on conversations between Churchill and Roosevelt - more that Bletchley Park were streets ahead of any comparable effort. Equally important, the Germans were heavily reliant on Enigma, and convinced of its security, and the Allied codebreakers were able to keep their ability to decypher Enigma a secret (even to the extent that they deliberately left cities undefended from bombers when they had gained knowledge of a raid through Enigma transmissions). I believe that the Allies weren't quite so naive - they knew that the Germans could and would decypher their codes and so took further steps to mitigate against the consequences. - [[User:Cucumber Mike|Cucumber Mike]] ([[User talk:Cucumber Mike|talk]]) 16:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :The allies actually did a lot of encryption techniques, from high tech (for the day) machine aided encryption like the [[Combined Cipher Machine]] to lo-tech methods like [[Code talker]]s. A good place to start your research into Allied cryptology methods during World War II is the article [[World War II cryptography]]. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :You might like the book [[Between Silk and Cyanide]] by Leo Marks, about UK codemaking and some of the consequences of German codebreaking in WW2. Yes there were considerable German successes in this area. Note: the story that Churchill let a city be bombed on purpose to preserve the Enigma secret was almost certainly apocryphal. [[Coventry Blitz#Coventry and Ultra]] has some info. A fairly thorough book on German WW2 codebreaking came out about 5 years ago but unfortunately I don't remember the title or author :(. It was based on documents that had been declassified only pretty recently (1990's?) so it has some info that wasn't previously known. It changed the picture some, but I don't have the impression it was earth-shattering. [[Special:Contributions/69.228.170.132|69.228.170.132]] ([[User talk:69.228.170.132|talk]]) 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::You might also look at [[M-325]], [[Hebern rotor machine]], and most of all [[SIGABA]], which was the U.S. version of enigma. Although I don't know if the allied use was as uniform or as extensive as the Germans was. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams|talk]]) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Just as a side comment, it's worth noting that many of what became the really important Allied projects — cryptography, radar, the atomic bomb — were started (at great expense) at a time when Germany looked like it was rolling over Europe without much to stand in its way. The Allies saw themselves, early in the war, as being vastly outmatched in many respects, and spent loads of money on trying to use technology as a way to quickly catch up. By contras, while the Germans loved [[Wunderwaffe|spectacular weapons]], then spent comparably less time on the sorts of defensive technologies (the atomic bomb was initially conceived in defensive terms, as a deterrent) that ended up being so key to the Allied successes. By the time the Germans realized that they had made a serious tactical error in this respect, it was too late. --[[User:Mr.98|Mr.98]] ([[User talk:Mr.98|talk]]) 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::The proliferation of German organisations engaged in code breaking was typical of Hitler's leadership style. He and other top Nazis would often give overlapping or even identical tasks to different departments in the belief that the best operation would come out on top in "survival of the fittest" style. The result was more often petty rivalry, poor communication and duplicated effort. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::Another encryption device used by the Allies was the [[Scrambler]] which was ''"invented at Bell Labs in the period just before World War II."'' Unfortunately, the Germans had a chap who had worked at Bell Labs just before WWWII, so it all had to be scrambled a bit more. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Somewhere in "The Game of the Foxes" [[Ladislas Farago]] claims Germany broke into many or most of the allied diplomatic codes. Our article certainly does need some work. [[User:Zoonoses|Zoonoses]] ([[User talk:Zoonoses|talk]]) 02:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC) == Ted Bundy's interview == I saw an interview with Ted Bundy, his last interview hours before being executed and he blamed pornography for his violent and compulsive thoughts. Is there any article on Wikipedia that explains a possible link between violence and pornography? [[User:Nienk|Nienk]] ([[User talk:Nienk|talk]]) 16:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Without commenting on the veracity of the conclusions so reached, or any conclusion you may reach by reading them, you may be able to find some information in the articles [[Feminist views of pornography]] or [[Anti-pornography movement]] or [[Misogyny and mass media]]. Many social activists have claimed a clear connection, [[Andrea Dworkin]] comes to mind as the most prominent. If you are interested in exploring that view, Dworkin's books on the subject are probably as canonical as you can get. Again, don't take these recommendations of her works as an endorsement of them, or any of these articles, as being ''true'', but they are usually considered to be among the most cited. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::Opposed to Dworkin is [[Sex-positive feminism]]... -- [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 19:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Nienk -- Viewing violent media depictions doesn't directly and immediately lead many people to go out and commit violence, or else most cities in the world would look like Grand Theft Auto locales. The more perceptive question is whether it leads to psychological habituation and desensitization effects, and there have been several studies on this (see [[Desensitization (psychology)#Desensitization]]). [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 19:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Susan Griffin's Pornography and Silence is an excellent read on this subject. ''-- 21:57, 22 August 2012‎ [[User:Woz62]]'' == French working hours == The French [[35-hour workweek]] restricts working hours to 35 per week, but does allow overtime (although apparently with an annual limit). Is there a definition of overtime that makes it different to regular working time? Is there anything to stop you just having your employees do two hours a week overtime every week, and essentially have a 37 hour week? I'm struggling to find good explanations of the rules in English (I don't speak French). Thanks. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :From what I gather from Google Translate, overtime differs from regular working time in that the employer has to pay a bonus percentage and must (partly) compensate his workers by giving them time off. Thus, the overtime hours are more expensive for the employer and he is better off hiring more workers (which is the intention of implementing the 35-hour workweek. - [[User:Lindert|Lindert]] ([[User talk:Lindert|talk]]) 20:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC) == Questions about the Columbine shooters == I love to read about crime and conspiracy theories, and on the Columbine massacre I've read a lot. For instance, that they were Neo Nazis, something not true since [[Dylan Klebold]] was [[Jewish]]. I've also read that they were Freemasons and homosexuals. Is there any truth in that?, in the last two pieces of conspiracy theories? Thank you. [[User:Nienk|Nienk]] ([[User talk:Nienk|talk]]) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :There does not seem to be any evidence that they were homosexual, in fact there is evidence to the contrary. For example Eric Harris wrote in his [http://acolumbinesite.com/eric/writing/journal.html journal] Quote: "''ALL gays, should be killed. mit keine fragen. lesbians are fun to watch if they are hot but still, its not human.''" In addition to hating homosexuals, the fact that he considered some lesbians 'hot' and 'fun to watch' strongly suggests he was not (exclusively) homosexual. I do not know about freemasonry, but I can't find any reputable sources that support the claim, so I highly doubt it. - [[User:Lindert|Lindert]] ([[User talk:Lindert|talk]]) 20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::Why did he write in German in his diary? And why is the German so bad (my [[Sprachgefuehl]] says it should be "ohne Frage")? [[User:W203.27.72.5|203.27.72.5]] ([[User talk:W203.27.72.5|talk]]) 23:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::I don't think that writing such homophobic things is evidence that the writer is not homosexual. See [[Homophobia#Internalized_homophobia]], or read about any number of the closet-homosexual and publicly gay-hating people in recent US history, such as [[Ted Haggard]] or [[Bob Allen]]. [[User:SemanticMantis|SemanticMantis]] ([[User talk:SemanticMantis|talk]]) 23:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :Also, according to "[[Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold]]," Dylan was raised as Lutheran, not Jewish, though he did have a Jewish grandfather. I haven't seen any evidence that they were neo-Nazis, but nothing in their background precludes that possibility. [[User:D Monack|D Monack]] ([[User talk:D Monack|talk]]) 23:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) He could've been a neo-Nazi. Look at [http://acolumbinesite.com/eric/writing/journal.html this] quote from his journal, for example, "I'm gonna be so fucking loaded in about a month. the big things we need to figure now is the time bombs for the commons and how we will get them in and leave then there to go off, ''without any fucking Jews finding them''." Very irrational. As someone else mentioned above, he also hated homosexuals, which neo-Nazis hate as well. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :::(EC)I have several comments.. One, the assumption that someone can't be a neo-nazi just because they're Jewish is false. If he was jewish by ancestry, he could very well rebel against it. It might seem ridicolous to go as extreme as neo-nazi, but I recently saw a documentary about the neo-nazi youth movement in Poland, and being Polish myself I found it equally absurd. Secondly, what if they were gay? Ask yourself ''Why'' would someone try to claim that? They were obviously disturbed in some fundamental way, could their sexual preferences also have been 'disturbed'? Is a regular gay person 'disturbed'? Can a disturbed person just happen to be gay? Seems to me equally absurd to try to draw a link between the fact they were homicidal maniacs and what their sexual preference was. You might as well make a conspiracy about what their favorite food was, start a rumor that McDonalds was their favorite food and they ate it 7 days a week and I bet someone conspiracy nuts will believe it and think there is a link. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC) ::::<s>What in the world are you saying...</s> Are you replying to me?? Heck, I never even said whether he was gay or not... --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 00:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC) :::::Re: Neo-Nazism, see [[The Believer (film)|The Believer]]、loosely based on [[Dan Burros]]. While it is extremely unlikely, it is not entirely impossible. Oh, and Activism, I think he was replying directly to the OP. [[Special:Contributions/164.71.1.221|164.71.1.221]] ([[User talk:164.71.1.221|talk]]) 01:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC) ::::::Ah all right, I was so confused! --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><font color="teal">Activism</font></b>]][[User talk:Activism1234|<font color="darkred">1234</font>]]'''</small> 01:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC) :::::::Since you're the one that caused his edit conflict he can't possibly have been replying to you. [[User:W203.27.72.5|203.27.72.5]] ([[User talk:W203.27.72.5|talk]]) 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC) == Full Style of King of Saxony == What were the full style of the [[Kings of Saxony]]?--[[User:The Emperor&#39;s New Spy|The Emperor&#39;s New Spy]] ([[User talk:The Emperor&#39;s New Spy|talk]]) 19:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC) :I can't find anything more extensive than "His Majesty The King of Saxony" as listed at [[Frederick Augustus I of Saxony]] while I did find [http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGSachsen-K.htm#1837 this page], which when fed through Google Translate gives "We, FIRSTNAME, by the Grace of God, King of Saxony, etc. etc." without giving additional titles. Several sources I ran across researching this question indicated that after deposition, the heirs to Saxony began using the title of [[Margraviate of Meissen|Margrave of Meissen]], which I assume to have been a lesser title they held when Kings of Saxony, indicating that Margrave of Meissen may have been one of the "etc." bits, but I can't find anything more definitive than that. Since I don't speak German like, at all, I'm not finding much more, but if you have access to German language sources, you may find more than I can find in English. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 20:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::1806 through 1918: [http://www.feuerwehr-orden.de/rubriken/lebenslauf/Wollf_Walter_003.jpg "Wir, (Name), von Gottes Gnaden König von Sachsen etc. etc. etc."] . --[[User:Pp.paul.4|Pp.paul.4]] ([[User talk:Pp.paul.4|talk]]) 21:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC) : One place to look is Ruvigny ''Titled Nobility of Europe'' (1913), which if I remember right has a page for each monarch – including the immediate vassals of the German Empire – listing their full styles. (No, I don't know where to lay hands on it; I've only ever seen it in the San Francisco Public Library, twenty-odd years ago.) —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 23:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ::Here it is in Google Books: [http://books.google.com/books?id=4SAZuAAACAAJ&dq=Titled+Nobility+of+Europe&source=bl&ots=M9U8QaoZx5&sig=b9CRGmEe8zUzHnAm5qzjSuw23wE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_Zk1UP2KF6Tl0QGHrIDoDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA]. Sadly, it doesn't seem that this one is previewable online. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC) = August 23 = == Are they any books or movies with a villain with [[Aspergers_syndrome]] in it? == Are they any books or movies with a villain with [[Aspergers_syndrome]] in it? Interestly enough, people with aspergers sometimes commit crimes in real life. is there non-fiction books and movies about these types of people are criminals? [[User:Neptunekh2|Neptunekh2]] ([[User talk:Neptunekh2|talk]]) 06:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)'