Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 9

2008 Financial Crisis

I've been spending a lot of time lately thinking about the role of 'asset-shifting' and 'off-balance sheet' arrangements used by regulated banks during the last 6-7 years, as a primary cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis. CDOs in particular, allow banks that face strict capital requirements to bolster their balance sheets and (improve equity ratios) by removing risky assets.

It's pretty obvious that combining 1) low short-term interest rates, 2) government-driven demand (fannie, freddie, deductibility of mortgage payments) and 3) a generally stock market-averse regular public (that chose to invest more heavily in real estate) we can partially explain the real-estate bull run.

It's also a pretty well-established fact that a banking system, unregulated, has a natural tendency to over-lever, unregulated (I suggest that this tendency comes from moral hazard created when banks have the knowledge that the Fed will intervene during periods of weaker economic growth. It really doesn't matter where it comes from in order to support my eventual argument, as long as it exists.)

I'd like to further suggest that the ease with which regulated financial institutions could collateralize and transfer loan assets to unregulated institutions (the investment banks or insurance funds, for example) was complicit in the price run-up. The ability to avoid capital requirements by selling assets allowed the financial sector to keep lending and lending until they reached the bottom of the "credit" barrel.

I'm looking for discussions, perspectives or data that examines the role of the Fed, as an "ensurer of full employment" in monitoring leverage ratios, not only amongst the regulated institutions, but within the financial sector as a whole. Has there ever been an explicit discussion of this responsibility as a means of protecting credit markets generally? Have their been any well-known financial writers that have made a similar claim recently?

[I think you can see where I'm going with this. I blame the regulatory framework entirely for this explosion. From my point of view, a Fed that monitors and enforces leverage ratios at regulated banks, but not with other financial institutions is no longer protecting society; it's only protecting the depositors of those banks.]NByz (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably familiar with the many Paul Krugman columns saying similar things. UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong's blog (delong.typepad.com) might also be of interest to you. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Fed is primarily responsible for sound money, not employment. Hence, the old saw about "taking away the punch bowl just as the party's getting started" -- raising interest rates and driving the economy into recession (thus increasing unemployment) for the purpose of reducing inflation and thereby defending the value of the dollar. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the role of Yoga in the new millennium ?

role of yoga in the new millennium

Wait, what are you asking...? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yoga will allow self-righteous new-wave hipsters to feel a greater "spirituality" by participating in something they don't really understand, except that its kinda "eastern" and "exotic" and will make them feel superior to their "less enlightened" fellow westerners who don't practice it. So, basically, its role will be identical to its role in the old millenium. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yoga is a superstition like many other Hindu superstitions. Advocates of yoga claim through yoga one can "overcome the illusory temptations of sensual existence, discover one’s true self and eventually, after a number of reincarnations, attain nirvana, a state of ecstatic union with the godhead" [1]. So you can see the goal of yoga is nirvana through reincarnation, which is an unscientific belief. Regarding the role of yoga in the 21th century, I will say the only role of yoga will be to help flourish the growing spiritual industry all over the world, the latest manifestation of which is Swami Ramdev. The spiritual industry will advertise, people will be fooled, they will expend money to learn yoga, will buy books and CDs on it, thus yoga will be a good raw material for the booming spiritual industry. You can also read this reference. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is a bit harsh, and not entirely correct. There is an ancient form of yaga, Hatha yoga, which is practiced entirely for physical training, particularly to prepare the body for strenuous meditation. --S.dedalus (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To bolster sales of lululemon. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Medieval dress of royal women in the Middle East

How did royal women in the Middle East dress in medieval times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramkr (talk • contribs) 05:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Click http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/171379/dress/14021/The-Middle-East-from-the-6th-century. See "The history of Middle Eastern and Western dress » The Middle East from the 6th century" section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing you should remember is that traditionally consorts of middle-eastern Muslim rulers did not have any kind of publicly-visible queen role, but were generally kept strictly secluded from public view. In Ottoman times, the only high-ranking woman who had even a very limited role in official public ceremonies was the mother of the reigning sultan, who would occasionally decorously appear (heavily veiled) on a remote balcony overlooking the men far below, and be acknowledged... AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Would you happen to know of some websites that have information about this topic? I'm writing a paper and am trying to find a quote from an academic source that gives insight regarding how women of royal stature, in the Middle East, would dress. So, I basically need some evidence that they would dress conservatively. Vikramkr (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not medieval but for Ottoman times at their peak, there's a contemporary painting of Roxelana wife of Suleiman the Magnificent. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For other high-ranking women try Shajar al-Durr, Sitt al-Mulk, Ismat ad-Din Khatun...I thought there was a "Medieval Muslim woman" category but apparently not. (The only one for whom there is any worthwhile info is Shajar al-Durr, though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Local Elections in Nazareth

I know that Israel have had local elections in November this year. Can anyone tell me who got voted in as Mayor of Nazareth? There doesn't seem to be an easy source for this information on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.11.162 (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the article for Nazareth, it's Ramiz Jaraisy, but it's probably out of date. Vltava 68 09:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Jaraisy was re-elected, see http://www.ulai.org.il/Info%20about%20outcome%20of%20elections-16.11.08.pdf . --Soman (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancient diagrams

There are two diagrams shown during the opening credits of Neon Genesis Evangelion, both with a mix of Hebrew and Latin writing. I've identified one as Athanasius Kircher's "Tree of Life", but what's the other (seen here)? --67.185.15.77 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like just another version of the Sephirot (which is also what Kircher's "Tree of Life" is). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks like a version of the Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian). I do not think you should use a shounen manga - or anime - as a source of knowledge on the history of religion or philosophy, though. There are much better sources for that :) . Enjoy the manga for what it is, and search in the library for what it is not. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and these diagrams are definitely not "ancient", although the concept of a Tree of life is indeed very old ;) . --Dr Dima (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a suspicion that it was a Tree of Life. Do you know whose version it is? --67.185.15.77 (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Found it! Robert Fludd circa 1620. Enjoy. --Dr Dima (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama - Foreign born

Is there a chance that Obama is foreign born? If this is a urban legend, where does it come from? --Mr.K. (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is a chance (although highly unlikely), but yes it is an urban legend. Check out the Snopes page on this topic.--droptone (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The supposed objections to Obama's qualifications lie in the misinterpretation of the definitions of "natural born". All persons born in the U.S. are natural born automatically, the qualifications on the parent exist for those sitations where a person is born outside of the U.S. Since Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, he's a natural-born American citizen regardless of the age of his mother when he was born, or that he lived for a few years in the Philipines because his step-father's job moved his family there. The claims against Obama's citizenship are particularly rediculous juxtaposed to the circumstances of John McCain's birth, given that McCain was born in Panama on a U.S. Military Base; and U.S. citizenship law does not include military bases as part of U.S. territory for the purpose of citizenship. However, McCain being born to at least one parent who was a citizen makes that point moot. Both candidates in this years election were clearly natural born citizens, and qualified to be president on all counts, despite the fact that neither was "Born in the U.S. to two parents who were U.S. citizens", which has never been the requirement for being a citizen at birth... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also a chance that we're all just brains in vats, and no amount of evidence can make that chance go away. But if you're going to let evidence convince you of anything, it will surely convince you that Obama was born in Hawaii: he and his family say it's true, he has presented a birth certificate which Hawaiian officials have said is authentic, and outside organizations have found his birth announcement in a 1961 newspaper. If that's not enough, what is? I know I can't document my own birth with any more evidence than that. Can you? --Sean 13:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Many people have less documentation of birth. I'm adopted, so my "official" birth certificate has been altered to show my adoptive parents as my birth parents (standard practice to keep adopted kids from easily finding out their family medical history). There was no birth announcement when I was born, but I was born in a hospital. I do know my biological father. His family didn't use hospitals, so they rarely got birth certificates. I found this out from the family story of my aunt Early. My grandfather wanted his daughter to have the first family birth certificate, so he sent a post to the hospital to get one. The doctor knew the family and sent the post back with a note to resend after the birth. My grandfather sent it back with the note "Baby born early." The doctor sent back a birth certificate with the name "Early" on it. -- kainaw™ 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking where an urban legend comes from is like asking why fools fall in love. You can try this mental exercise: how can you be sure you were born where you think you were? Although present at the occasion, you probably lack a clear memory of the events. How do you know the birth certificate is legitimate? In my home town, people relied for decades on baptismal certificates. I've seen a photocopy of the "application for the registration of a birth" for my aunt -- dated thirty years after the event. In the section explaining the applicant's "knowledge of the fact" and circumstances, my grandfather wrote: "I am her father and know the date of her birth." This not only proved Aunt Cassie's age but explained the family tendency toward procrastination. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course he was foreign born... At least to me and anyone else not in the USA. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"'Obama too British' case rejected". --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The article is currently Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories ]... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This urban legend is a product of the vast right-wing conspiracy, otherwise known as the GOP. These jokes are easily identifiable by (a) the total lack of any supporting evidence; (b) the total disregard of contradictory evidence, and (c ) the extremely fine thread linking some obscure point of fact to the lie in question. Although, I have to say that Q Chris makes an excellent point! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Geographical knowledge of Americans

Is it true that 25% of the American population can't find their country on a map?--81.38.153.16 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A) Probably not and B) If it is true, then replacing the word "Americans" with any other nationality will likely lead to similar percentages. Americans are celebrated for their stupidity, but they generally score in the same range as other nations. At certain tests, and in certain years, they score near the bottom of similar nations on certain measures of education, but not every year and not every test. The source of the "Americans are stupid" is probably due in large part to our desire to see Americans and the USA cut down to size for their strong position in the world economy and culture. It gives the rest of the world something to feel good about; "We may not have as strong of an economy or military, but at least we aren't as stupid as those dumb Americans". For the most part, Geography is a poor measure of general intelligence and education anyways. Generally, most geography (beyond maybe, reading a road map) is not useful for most people on a day-to-day basis. It is generally trivial knowledge to know random, unconnected facts about locations on the Earth. One could always argue that proper civic involvement would require some level geographic intelligence; however others have noted that all politics is local. In actuality, the American education system, especially its post-secondary (College and University system) is among the strongest in the world, else one would not see the huge numbers of non-Americans who come to the US just to study. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not true that 25% of the American population can't find their country on a map. The National Geographic-Roper Public Affairs 2006 Geographic Literacy Study found “Nearly all (94%) young Americans can find the United States on the world map" [2]. Here is the full report. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

See page 26 of the report. You will find a graph which will answer to your query. Not only the US, 92% Americans can identify Canada also. But they have pitiful knowledge on Asia and Middle East. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes American education system is one of the "best" in the world, as Jayron32 suggested above, this is why the United States is the most religious country in the western world, this why most Americans believe in religion. World's "best" education system produces blind believers in nonsense like religion. Oh yes, some Americans also believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly not limited to Americans... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To respond to OC... that jingoism you display there shows a fantastic lack of understanding of the American culture and of religious belief both in America specifically and in general. As Adam Bishop notes, that some Americans use their religious belief to reject obvious scientific truths is not limited to Americans; and it does not describe even a majority of Americans. Yes, you can find people who hold such ludicrous positions, but that is merely an indictment on the stupidity of those individuals, and not on American culture as a whole. There is no inherent conflict between, say, evangelical Christianity as a belief system and science. There are many many scientists, even evolutionary biologists, who are themselves devoutly religious. I really suggest you read Rocks of Ages by Stephen J. Gould. It is an enlightening book on how science and religion can and should coexist in a fully developed society. Given that I assume OC is a free thinker, and willing to at least read the works of others, he/she may find that their understanding of the role of religion in people's lives is much different than it really is.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Jingoism"? I think it is you who is displaying jingoism. I have strong objection to the process you estimate the American education system as the best in the world only because people from other countries go there. Russia and China have excellent educational infrastructure. Why people don't go to Russia? Because language is big barrier. My objection came when I saw you simply ignored big players like Russia or China to prove American superiority. Your claim "There is no inherent conflict between, say, evangelical Christianity as a belief system and science" is showing your utter lack of understanding of both religion and science. Religion is belief, science is based on Reasoning. China has the highest non-religious population in the world anyway. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

PS many students from other countries are now going to China [3]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I will recommend you to read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? Because when I read Dawkins, I found it a good read, but lacking on some levels. It certainly does a good job of explaining the "wrong" reasons for believing in God, but I think it does a poor job of completely explaining away religion's role in modern society. For example, it erroneously assumes that rejection of evolution and natural selection and its replacement with the "God made the world on a Thursday afternoon in 4004 BC" is somehow a "requirement" for religion. It is not now, nor has ever been. That there are individuals who are religious who hold that position does not somehow invalidate the religious beliefs of those individuals who do NOT hold that position. Dawkins is entirely on point with his notions that morality is not religiously derived, but (at least in connection to Christianity) the idea that you get into heaven because you are a "good" or "moral" person is also entirely a wrong. I, however, found that Dawkins almost single-minded focus on the evolution vs. intelligent design debate as a basis for rejecting all religious beliefs to be wholly inconsistant. He basically set up "religion" as a house of cards which is predicated entirely on evolution being false. This is such a narrow view of religion. The other main problem with Dawkins book is his notion that God must not exist because the universe is so complex, that a God who created a complex universe MUST be Himself so complex as to be impossible. To make that arguement is to make the same mistake that ID proponents make, but from the other direction. So, yes, Dawkins does a great job of explaining how religion is "done the wrong way" and how NOT to use religion to inform aspects of your life, however when he delves into the absolutes and says, essentialy, that because some people misuse religion it must therefore be invalid, that seems like a weak philosophical position to take. It displays a sort of gross "guilt by association" to say that because some people who are religious reject evolution, therefore ALL religious-minded people are somehow tainted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Dawkins, but I just felt compelled to point out that no one said the American education system is "the best in the world"; Jayron's words were "among the strongest in the world," which is hardly something to get worked up about. Now excuse me, I have to go bathe in snake oil and pet my dinosaur. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Just as a spin and quasi-response to Fullobeans, the US is still undisputed king for college level education. One set of rankings by a Spanish group shows the highest non-US university ranked at #25, a Chinese set shows 17 of the top 20 in the US, etc... Where the US falls flat is that it has a "first world second rate" primary and secondary education system. It has great offerings but fails to deliver consistent results. SDY (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This ranking - as the name indicates - only measures the web presence of the university, not the quality. It is not amazing that MIT fills the first place. What this university offers for free is amazing. On the other hand, I must point out that MIT is probably a terrible place for being an undergraduate. It looks more like a chicken farm than like a university. Mr.K. (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The figure 20% was used in a U.S. beauty pagent question, it was claimed that it was based upon a survey. Not clear on which the survey was, however. (see http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/08/30/upton/). In the 2002 version of the NatGeo report (the same as the 2006 version cited above), 13% of U.S. respondents couldn't find US on the map, and U.S. respondents fared far worse than many other countries. However, one should take any survey based upon hundreds of respondents with a fair degree of scepticism (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/). Some other commentary at http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1068259.html . --Soman (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an even more scary factoid: 40% of US congressional representatives and senators don't have a passport. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered that this is a goodwill gesture on the part of the U.S. toward other nations? --- OtherDave (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We in the (rest of the) English world forget how *big* America is. The US population is much larger than that of, say, Canada, Australia or the UK. A populous country tends to be inward looking, since a much larger proportion of its trade will be domestic, and it produces a sufficient quantity and variety of anything - be it culture, minerals or people - that there is much less need and desire to look outward. The historical factor that the Commonwealth was a global empire from which the US was increasingly excluded also has an effect.

It isn't appropriate to compare the geographical knowledge or congressmen-passport-holding-percentages of the US to what we are used to - i.e. similar statistics in the traditionally outward-looking Commonwealth countries.

It would be more appropriate, on the basis of the size of the population, the degree to which the economy is domestically driven, and other factors, to compare the US statistics to that of other "large" countries like China, Brazil, or India. I don't know whether we could obtain comparable statistics on those countries, but I trust the statistics quoted above would compare favourably, even taking into account the developing status of these countries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

India and China are hell of a lot larger in terms of population then the US (over 3 times in the case of China, nearly 3 times in the case of India). Indonesia and Brazil are perhaps fairer comparisons although both are smaller Brazil is still more then half the population of the US Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Raid"?

News reports say Pakistani troops in a "raid" arrested Lashkar-e-Taiba "commander" Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi, who is accused by Indian authorities for plotting November 2008 Mumbai attacks. I find it quite amusing that the leader of an organization, which is closely linked with the Inter-Services Intelligence (it is an open secret) and its leaders are allowed to freely operate in Pakistan, is "arrested" by Pakistani authorities. Is it really a "raid" or just window dressing? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Is yours a question, or some sort of cheap point scoring? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What the heck you are talking about? My question is whether this raid is real or window dressing because it is well known fact in India that ISI is involved in organizations like LeT. If you don't know anything about this, then don't engage in this thread. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you reread your words you could be forgiven for mistaking it to be a statement of your assertion of the security service's involvement with the raided group, rather than a question. Indeed the question seems to me to be merely a McGuffin to get your opinion on this page. YMMV, of course. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a legit question to me. There have, indeed, been instances of the ISI supporting terrorists in Afghanistan, so it seems quite plausible that factions within the ISI also supported the terrorist attacks against India. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly a variety of factions in Pakistan. The situation is quite complicated there. Unless one of the Ref Desk volunteers happens to be part of the Pakistani government or the ISI (in which case they are unlikely to divulge it), we have no other source of evidence than the news reports. The news reports say that there was a raid. It may be that there was no raid, but we have no way of knowing this, so there is no way that we can answer your question with any assurance other than to say that the available evidence indicates that there was a raid. Marco polo (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The raid appears to have been carried out by the military not the ISI. As Marco has pointed out, the situation in Pakistan is incredibly complex. While it may be true that the ISI maintains links to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, something which remains unproven, this doesn't mean everyone in Pakistan has connections to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Actually even if elements of the ISI maintain links to Lashkar-e-Taiba it's likely there are also elements of the ISI which work against Lashkar-e-Taiba. It's a noted fact by many sources that the civilian government probably doesn't have complete control over ISI does and as the various military coups have shown, nor is the military always in agreement with the government. It is entirely plausible that the government and/or military may wish to crack down on Lashkar-e-Taiba even if (and again I emphasise it's unproven) the ISI maintains links with them. Most of the links you provided mention this to varying degrees so perhaps you may want to read them Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the Peoples Temple a religious cult?

From the article I gather that the Peoples Temple wasn't religious. Surprisingly, I also found out that Jim Jones was an atheist. But when the group moved to Jonestown didn't they ever hold bible studies or didn't Jim Jones ever preach sermons? 124.171.215.119 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article lately, but it is my understanding they were very much a cult. Jones became mentally unraveled toward the end of his life, and he started as a Christian preacher, so I wonder if atheist would be an apt description of him near the end. I suppose the definition of cult is more important than religion in this instance. Pressure to join, stay, give time, money, and effort to the group and to Jones himself were all part of the Peoples Temple. Certainly the way it ended was one of the most powerful demonstrations of cult power and groupthink ever seen in human history. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Most definitions of "cult" suggest the term "cult" is only applicable in those situations where religion is involved, see Cult#Dictionary_definitions. However Merriam-Webster online dictionary has a definition of "cult" which states "great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad". On the other hand Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines cult as "a religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people" [4]. If we take the definition of Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, then the Peoples Temple has nothing to do with cult. But if we take the definition of Merriam-Webster online dictionary, then the Peoples Temple was a cult organization. Some people describes the Peoples Temple as a cult [5][6] while some people dispute this claim [7]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition of Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary is more acceptable. Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines cult as "a system of religious devotion directed towards a particular figure or object > a relatively small religious group regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The definition of cult is vague, since groups like Scientology and UFO-based organisations like Heaven's Gate (religious group) would fit most people's definitions, despite not being focussed on gods - although they do believe in higher beings than humans (actually in both cases extraterrestrial beings of immense but probably not infinite or supernatural powers). There are similar problems in defining religion; it's more a case of comparison between possible examples than matching an exact definition. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Jim Jones practiced faith healing and called himself God, I should think that, yes, you could call the Peoples Temple a religious cult. Regarding the definition of "cult," though, I think "religious devotion" has a very different meaning from "religious group." If a group is religiously devoted to an individual, and that individual convinces the group to adopt militantly atheistic beliefs, then the group would then be an anti-religious group religiously devoted to its leader (and Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo). Since there seems to be an increasing number of controversial, non-religious "self-empowerment"-type organizations that frequently have the word "cult" thrown at them, I suspect the definition of the word is evolving.--Fullobeans (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It has some quite contradictory meanings: when used in "this film/TV show/book has a cult following", it's a fairly benign, or even positive thing. A "cult" of the type we're discussing here is universally regarded negatively. I suppose you could write a book about a cult (-ve), that achieves a cult (+ve) following. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rome

I know this may like homework question but I am sorry because in our history textbook, it doesn't say anyhting about why Roman Republic fall(Ancient Rome). Does any of your articles say about why the Rome Republic fall and what were the reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Read this. I will also recommend you to read this book. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We do have articles on the Roman Republic and on the Roman Empire. Some helpful articles to understand more might be found in Constitution of the Roman Republic and History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic.

The classic understanding was that the Roman Republic ceased to exist in 27 AD with the ascension of Augustus Caesar and instantly became the Roman Empire on that date. The truth is that the Republic had been undergoing evolution, and the ascension of Augustus is merely a symbolic change; in reality the process of transformation of the Roman state from a republican one to a monarchical/dictatorial one took place over many centuries, and the rise of Augustus represents neither the beginning nor the end of that process. There were dictators and non-republican forms of government before Augustus, and there would continue to be a role for the Roman Senate for many centuries to come after Augustus.

The "big picture" issue on the change from Republic to Empire was probably its size. A republic was suited well to governing the Roman city-state during its early years. At the rise of Augustus, however, the state was already in direct control of lands as far apart as Palestine and Iberia in the east and west; and of Gaul and Libya in the north and south. The management of such a large empire became impossible to manage under a republican form of government.

As far as specific "pre-Augustus" events that were central in the change from Republic to Empire, look at the populist rule of the Gracchi brothers, the dictatorship of Sulla (especially his changes to the government of Rome), the First Triumvirate, the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and the Second Triumvirate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic Age vs. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Sparta, Classical Athens, Roman Republic and Romam Empire

Do any of the articles say about the role and status of women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic: Read Paleolithic#Social_organization. According to evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, status of women declined with the adoption of agriculture because women in farming societies typically have more pregnancies and are expected to do more demanding work then women in hunter-gatherer societies. [8]

Ancient Egypt: For the status of women in ancient Egypt, read these references [9][10][11].

Sparta: For status of women in Sparta read this and this.

Classical Athens: For status of women in Classical Athens, read this.

Roman Republic: For status of women in Roman Republic, read this.

Romam Empire: For status of women in Romam Empire, read this online book. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Illicit Trade in Viagra

Would anyone know why spammers keep trying to sell me Viagra? It's legal (at least here in Canada and the US), so why would I want to buy it from them, and at higher price at that, when I can just get a prescription from my doctor?

Is it a matter of embarrassment? Guys too shy to tell their doctors they have erectile difficulties?

Or perhaps is it a matter of abuse? Guys taking it when they don't really need it, or shouldn't be for health reasons, or taking too much?

I just don't get it. 76.69.250.39 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be legal, but the fact that it is heavily regulated (as a prescription drug) keeps availibility difficult and prices high. In such situations, even legal substances have a black market. There is still, for example, illegal moonshine stills and widespread bootlegging in the U.S. even though liquor is legal, and there is an active black market in cigarettes and other tobacco products. Being legal is not the same as being easy to get; I would say that it is both easier and cheaper for me to get a bag of pot than to go through the hoops to get legal viagra. Thus, the black market... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I realize that there exist black markets for legal substances. A pack of 25 cigarettes here in Canada can cost over $10, however I happen to live nearby an Indian Reservation where you can buy a 200 for $6, or 75¢ for 25. But illegal Viagra is more expensive than getting it by prescription, not to mention the fact that you can never be sure what you're getting if you buy it on the black market. You'd have to be a real moron not to go the legal route for this substance. But there's no shortage of morons in this world, which I suppose is the answer to my question. 76.69.250.39 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that people who are getting it illegally don't actually have the medical problem that Viagra is designed to treat so they couldn't get a prescription from their doctor. A strange distinction for what is in essence a recreational drug anyway, but it's only legal as a way to "level the playing field" rather than as a "performance enhancer." SDY (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, those people don't want a level playing field, but want to tilt it in their favor. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How do doctors test for impotence? Surely all they can do is take your word for it (I can only think of one way to test it and I can't see them trying that...). (Conceiving a child wouldn't generally be considered recreational [and least, not purely], so it could be argued that it isn't just a recreational drug.) --Tango (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Impotence can lead to depression, so treating the impotence may prevent the depression. Not a recreational drug. DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not purely recreational, no, but I think most of the ads are targeted towards people who have things in mind other than procreation or treatment of unhappiness. "It" doesn't work, and they want it fixed, so the pill does that. Tests for impotence vary, they're right there in the impotence article. SDY (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That means it isn't ONLY a recreational drug. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Doctors can test for impotence (or at least determine if the cause of the ED is due to physical problems or psychological problems) by attaching a device to the patient's penis for the night. If you have physical problems then the penis will not get hard during the night, if it is psychological the penis will get hard (see nocturnal penile tumescence. A cheap test you can use if you're worrying is licking two stamps and placing them on your penis. If they have come off during the night (and you aren't a restless sleeper) then your problem is probably psychological. This isn't medical advice either.--droptone (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think the spammers will either send you anything at all (once your check clears), or send you actual Viagra? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Viagra was recently shown to be a performance-enhancing drug for athletes. In other words it is now a sports doping concern.[12] --S.dedalus (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But if so used, wouldn't some athletes, like pole vaulters, risk getting caught ? StuRat (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Narrative Poetry and the Real World

(Question by 74.46.126.47 moved here from Reference desk/Language.) Strawless ^(talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'm a writer who creates novels in poetry forms; not epics, because they don't follow the format, but novels just in...poem form. So, I looked up narrative poetry, but am puzzled about two things. First, is it better to write these poems as just blocks of text, or split them into indivual poems about conversations, events, etc.? But, more importantly, what resources are provided to get these into the real world? I know of few publishers that deal with this, and fewer contests. What sort of organizations would offer these (specifically contests, which have a better turn-around time)? Thanks! 74.46.126.47 (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The usual term is verse novel. I don't know of a prize which is specifically for a novel in verse, but of course such work has been published for centuries in the usual way, which is as a printed book, and still is, as with Vikram Seth's The Golden Gate. No doubt the easiest way to publish your work would be to put it online yourself, but then most writers need to be paid royalties of some kind, or at least to get a one-off payment from a publisher. Strawless ^(talk) 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually just read one the other day. A kids book, but full-length and entirely in rhyme. The publisher is Penguin. Zorgamazoo. Sorry can't help with the contest part of the question. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal/sociological terminology question

In the sentence, "The prospect of a prompt fine equivalent to $600 US (at 2005 exchange rate) would help assure preventive compliance, as well as cover costs."

Does the term "preventive compliance" have some particular meaning, or is it (as I suspect) a meaningless combination?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The translation into plain English is "the chance that you would have to pay a $600 fine means that you won't do it, and if you do anyway we can pay for it." "Preventive compliance" is essentially children eating their vegetables for fear of not getting dessert. The fear of consequences forces proper behavior. SDY (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to just using good old "deterrence"... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The probable difference is that "Preventive Compliance" implies that they will do something (e.g. wear a seat belt), "Deterrence" implies that they will not do something (e.g. not drive 80 in a school zone). That and someone might think nuclear weapons were involved, which is slightly more heavy-handed than a $600 fine. SDY (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Preventive compliance" isn't meaningless, but in my opinion it's self-important. The prospect of a fine helps assure compliance (with whatever regulation or policy you're talking about). Negative, positive, who cares as long as they comply? I would take the sentence to mean something like, "A fine of $600 will get more people to comply, and the fines will help cover the cost of (whatever this program is)." This is similar to the speed cameras on roads in my county; the cameras (and the virtual certainty of a ticket) slow traffic, and revenue (from the tickets that get issued thanks to the cameras) helps pay the cost of the camera program. --- 20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase

The article for the Louisiana Purchase says it cost about $217 billion in today's dollars. Was it worth it for America? How much is the area covered by the purchase worth to the American economy every year? Thanks 86.7.238.145 (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, one site I saw put Iowa (a small fraction of the total purchase) at a GDP of $82.3b in 2001, so I'm assuming the total is >$217b/yr. The purchase doesn't cover state boundaries, so getting exact numbers is difficult. That land includes some of the best farmland in the world, so it was undeniably "worth it." Heck, even Seward's Icebox pays itself off every four years. Check this site for some 2001 data. SDY (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the CIA Factbook: [13], US annual GDP is around $13.78 trillion. I'd expect that most of that is produced on the coasts and Midwest, as that's where most of the people who produce the wealth live. But, we can probably figure at least $1 trillion per year is produced in areas obtained during the Louisiana Purchase, so it pays off something like 4-5 times the purchase price every year. That's a darned good investment. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

StuRat is pretty close to on-target with his estimate of $1 trillion per year. Using the Demographia 2001 data and estimating the proportion of GDP produced within the original Louisiana Purchase for states that lie only partly within it (such as Colorado and Minnesota), I got a figure of $841 billion. Certainly a good annual return on $217 billion! Marco polo (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

GDP isn't a useful number, what you need is production minus consumption - there is no point buying an area of land if all the people there end up consuming more than they produce. You need to work out something similar to the current account of the region, that's what it actually adds to the country. --Tango (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Current GDP (say, Iowa's) is the product of a host of things, including the land. It also includes all investment, the legal system and a slew of other things that came long after the Louisiana Purchase. To get to the nub of the question, ask what would the US have been like without the Louisiana Purchase ? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably be also worth considering what would have happened to the (now non-US) territories of the purchase. Would it have stayed part of France? Would it have been sold to the British? The Spanish? Would it have become an independent country? What would the international relationship between the US and the country to the west been like? Even if the US loses money because of the Louisiana Purchase, it may still have been worth it in avoiding an even more costly territory dispute/war with "New France". The long term consequences of "what would have happened if ..." hypotheticals are never easy to determine. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Manifest Destiny probably wouldn't have caught on, and the nation would have been a lot smaller. If France had colonized it more fully, the US probably would have been less influential than Canada is now: the only reason the US grew so powerful so fast was that it had so little "competition." I disagree that GDP is meaningless-it's not "profit" but it does give an indication of the "production" of the area, especially farmland which people will pay thousands of dollars per acre for. According to our article, the price per acre was about 3 cents, which is more in current money, probably a dollar or so. Just poking around on the web, the cost of an acre of farmland varies from $1,000 to $10,000. Even if only a third of the purchase was usable farmland and the rest of it was worthless, the return on investment was staggering. SDY (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are seriously underestimating inflation over the last 200 years. It's most like $400 per acre in modern dollars. The production of an area is meaningless if the people in that area are consuming it all (unless you're assuming the population of the US would be the same as it is now, just spread over less area, which seems unlikely). --Tango (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, misplaced a few zeroes there (m and b), 1.5x10^6 -> 2.17x10^11, about a 1.5x10^5 difference, or 3.0x10^-2 goes to 4.5x10^3, about $450. Still excellent return. I totally disagree with "if it's consumed it's meaningless"- it supports the population of the area, which is part of the US, and that population is available to the country as soldiers in time of war, as workers in times of peace, et cetera. By your logic, the world as a whole is worthless since the net production is zero, which I don't find convincing. SDY (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The world is worthless to anyone outside the world, just as the Louisiana Purchase is useless to anyone outside its boundaries if it doesn't produce more than it consumes (producing soldiers and workers is a form of production). (In fact, the world has positive net production most of the time in the form of investments, if it didn't there wouldn't be any economic growth.) --Tango (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, any $450 an acre growing to an average of $5000 an acre over a period of 200 years is an annual return of about 1%, not at all impressive. --Tango (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's merely the appreciation of the principal. You also have not considered the return on investment due to the productivity of that land, as well as non-financial benefits... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But if that food produced on that land was eaten by people in the Louisiana Purchase area then it hasn't benefited the rest of the country, that's the point I've been trying to make. You can't just look at production, you have to look at consumption too. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The land in question doesn't exist in a vacuum, though (and man does not live by bread alone). If the Louisiana Purchase area consumes more than it produces, then it's producing demand which stimulates growth in other regions of the country (or world). Much of the US population doesn't produce anything of quantifiable monetary value, and yet somehow the country ekes by. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that the people eating that food then go off to work in factories which produce goods and services for the rest of the world... Again, if you eliminate something from the equation, you can make it LOOK like a worse deal than it was (for example, if you ONLY look at food production vs. consumption).

However, there are MANY other factors to consider... For example, the extra land reduces population pressures; much of the Louisiana Purchase provided additional lend to settle imigrants, and reduced overcrowding in eastern states; thus increasing perhaps their productivity. The extra imigrants provided labor to work in factories which produced goods for export or for internal use. Even if not exported, the goods (like machinery, cars, etc.) could be used to increase productivity in OTHER parts of the country.

The LP also opened up expansion for western states; it would have been impossible for the U.S. to stake a claim on the Rocky Mountain or Pacific Coast states without a contiguous means to "get there". You must factor in the potential loss of EVERYTHING west of the Mississippi and decide how that should be valued against the marginal cost of the land itself.

Again, if you dick with the numbers, or make unreasonable restrictions on how you "value" the purchase, you can make it look like a bad deal. It wasn't; the U.S. would definitively NOT be the economic and political power it is in the world today. It was the single most important event of the nation's first 50 years, with regard to the long-term prospects of the nation, and trying to calculate its "worth" by simply adding the value of appreciation of the acreage to the net production of food and thinking that the number you get there means anything is a terrible mistake. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the current version of the article Louisiana Purchase has been updated with source figures which suggest $278 million is the more accurate number in todays figures for the purchase (although from the source it depends how you calculate it) Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)