Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 21

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

March 21

Religion

Do you have an accurate % of how many people are Catholic in the U.S.A.? Thank you and God Bless you, Father Jason Joseph Asche —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Asche (talk • contribs) 05:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion_in_the_United_States#Christianity says 23.9%. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, that is people that identify as Catholic. Not all of them will be practising Catholics. If you want the percentage of people that actually attend a Catholic church service on a regular basis, we'll have to do more hunting (the values differ depending on whether you ask people how often they go to church or ask churches how many people attend!). --Tango (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Such a caveat should not be restricted to Catholics, though. Many Protestants also are "only on holidays" churchgoers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This page[1] gives a figure of 65% practicing to 35% non-practicing. More data here[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I didn't restrict it, I just didn't consider protestants relevant to the question. --Tango (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Any truth to reports of Chinese people making cooking oil from sewage

I want to know if there is any truth at all to certain websites on the net suggesting that Chinese people in China consume food make from cooking oil which is created from raw sewage. For example this url

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/31712/

122.107.207.98 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably true that a certain amount of cooking oil is recycled in China (which is what that article is suggesting, it's not oil "created from raw sewage"). To what extent the particulars of the article - that oil is harvested from sewers, that oil is recycled in such large quantities, or the level of health risk - are true I couldn't say. How much credit do you give the sources (eg the Epoch Times)? FiggyBee (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That sounds bizarre. There are two possible re-interpretations. One form of cooking gas is methane, which can be extracted from sewage or manure, a process known as biogas. Another is the more general cycle of nature: farmers may use night soil to fertilise their crops, which might include plants from which vegetable fats and oils derive, sunflowers for example. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, y'know, you could have actually read the article he linked to before "reinterpreting" the question... FiggyBee (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

what about this url? http://www.recordchina.co.jp/group.php?groupid=40648&type=1 122.107.207.98 (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a gamer url talking about it. http://gbatmw.net/showthread.php?tid=13428 122.107.207.98 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We need some perspective on this. We in the West drink water (tap or bottled) that was flushed down the toilet by others. It's just properly processed to remove contaminants then returned to the rivers and lakes (from which it is drawn back out for people). The same can be done with oil. The differences are that some of the oil is 100% recycled by humans, while water is not, and the water treatment methods we use are better at removing contaminants that those used by individuals in China. Rather than stopping this process, they should have the government regulate it, so the oil never goes into the sewers, and is properly decontaminated, before being reused. Also note that we have a similar issue in restaurants in the West, where the same vat of oil can be reused for long periods, accumulating contaminants. Perhaps a system to continually decontaminate the oil and reuse it would be better. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The oil is being recycled from waste, but not human waste. Based on press reports by government sources from China (and not from anti-government sources like the Epoch Times, which is affiliated with the Falun Gong), the current scandal is about unscrupulous merchants who siphon the oil from kitchen waste, purify it and re-sell it as cooking oil. Some say that one in ten restaurant meals in China is cooked with recycled oil. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a scandal in Britain a few years ago when the French were discovered to be feeding chickens human sewage. It put me off eating chicken for a while. 78.149.193.98 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Life of Moreshwar Ramchandra Kale

Please help me find biography of Moreshwar Ramchandra Kale. He had a lot of Sanskrit works but I can't find his biography. Thank you. --ธวัชชัย (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the Palestinians

What exactly are the issues between the Palestinians and the Israelis that no matter how many people try to help solve the issues, they are still where they were years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.76.14 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article Israeli–Palestinian conflict has many linked articles to help you get a full view. Remember, the Reference desk is not a forum for airing debate.--Wetman (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Palestinians assert that the territories (West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights) are occupied territories and demand that Israel vacate them so that they can form a new nation called "Palestine." The Israelis assert that the territories are annexed into Israel and that the Palestinians have no sovereign right to the land from any persepctive (historical, geopolitical, religious, etc.) I don't think anyone's been able to help solve their issues because the media spins the issues and very few people are informed about the history behind the present state or really care about the issues. (And as suggested by Wetman, this question will likely develop into a big mess because it's controversial -- but I think I outlined the basics pretty simply.) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's just the West Bank and Gaza Strip which are in dispute. Both the Jews and Palestinians claim the whole of Israel/Palestine. StuRat (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On what basis would the Palestinians claim the entirety? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On the basis that they were living in it before being expelled by force of arms. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) On the basis of Muslims having had control of Israel/Palestine, from 630 AD - 1918 (with the exception of short periods during the Crusades), from the conquest by Mohammed to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during WW1. See Palestine#Islamic period (630–1918 CE).StuRat (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

1) Israel has yet to expel Palestinians from their land en masse. Arab nations have, however, expelled Jews numerous times.

2) Your argument would be valid if a) the Palestinians actually wanted to just live where they have lived for many years and b) Israel was not allowing them to do so. But the Palestinians don't just want to maintain their private property but demand a sovereign nation on land that "was their sovereign territory" -- but that's based on the false premise that there was ever a Palestinian sovereign territory to begin with. The claim that "Muslims lived there and so other Muslims can by proxy demand the land returned to them" (read "the other group of Muslims") doesn't possess any validity.

I just don't understand your argument -- do you deny these historical realities? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I pass no judgment on the validity of the claim, but simply state that this claim has been made (that "historically Muslim controlled land should remain so (or be so restored)"). StuRat (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Validity of claims is apparently overlooked by the uninformed majority. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's our place to discuss that here, since that would lead to a debate. The nature of the claims is a factual matter, but their validity is a matter of opinion. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all no Palestinian group claims the Golan heights as Palestinian. The Golan heights belong to Syria. Secondly, I think we must conclude that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not merely a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, but involves a lot of other, international, interests. The conflict could be settled quite rapidly, if the U.S. stopped propping up the Israeli warmachine and if Arab neighbouring regimes would end their hypocritical attitude of denouncing Israel in rhetoric whilst allowing oil exports to Israel in practice. --Soman (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It could also be settled if certain countries stopped openly vowing to destroy Israel and stopped conducting suicide bombings and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@baseballlbugs; no, on the contrary. The position that the conflict could only be ended by first enabling a sense of 'security' amongst the Israeli polity is the same as wishing perpetual conflict. The sense of security is elusive, and can never be obtained on forehand. Trust is something that is built in process. There are numerous examples (for example, almost all of Europe) were previous mortal enemies are now happy neighbours. It is acheived through normalization of relations. In this case the ball is in Israel's court. They can withdraw from the occupied territories, and thus change the dynamics of the conflict. Such a move would enable a peaceful solution to the conflict and in such a context whatever rhetoric that might come out of Tehran would be just as irrelevant as Gaddafi's statements on dissolving Switzerland (see the other thread above). --Soman (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the real problem is that each side says the other started it and won't back down from their repsective positions. In fact, Israel and Egypt settled their differences, and Israel pulled out of the Sinai because they no longer regarded Egypt as a threat. The "he started it" mentality is what fuels this situation, and what has always fueled it - and until that mentality changes, the fighting will continue. The bottom line of what you're saying is, "We'll stop the suicide bombings if you'll surrender." Would you trust the word of someone who said that to you? I certainly wouldn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what I'm saying. Even if there would be a peaceful settlement of the conflict, there would still be spoilers on both sides. But gradually such elements could be marginalized. The notion that people turn into suicide bombers for sheer fun (or by some abstract philosophical reasoning) lacks material basis. Once Palestinians are able to live normal lifes as human beings (without sieges, humiliation, blockades, curfews, check-points, arbitrary arrests, etc.), suicide bombings will be a historical phenomenon. We have to recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an asymmetrical conflict. Israel has the possibility to withdraw and end the occupation, the Palestinian leadership lacks such options. The Israeli side is highly institutionalized, on the Palestinian side there are various different armed actors. If one group ends rocket launches from Gaza, another resumes it. Only when there is a viable Palestinian state, there will be a Palestinian side that can be a partner for mutual security. In short, peace and justice must preclude security. (edit conflict, responding later to query below) --Soman (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"...peace and justice must preclude security" ? I think you mean "prelude". To "preclude" means to "prevent". StuRat (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course, English is not my first language and such mishaps are quite frequent for me. --Soman (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)(Freudian slip?)

No problem, I just wanted to make sure you weren't misunderstood. StuRat (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

@Soman - why would Israel withdraw from land that it captured while defending itself from belligerants? The other countries attack Israel during the War of Israeli Independence and when Israel defends itself and does such a good job that it captures land in the process, the countries say "just kidding -- let me have the land back now"/ DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Peace? Unless peace is attributed some sort of value in itself (and given prominence over arguments of national pride, etc.), any sort of solution of the conflict gets quite remote. From that line of reasoning (i.e. never give up land that was conquered in war), I would say that you are not particularily interested in a settlement of the conflict. Moreover, if you see the 1948 capture of Palestine as a war of defense, then you will have serious difficulties understanding the opposite side of conflict. So, the question perhaps is to ask whether the Israeli majority at this point actually want a peaceful and just 2-state solution. After all 90%+ vote for pro-war parties. In such a scenario, there are two ways of viewing the issue: 1) either we sit down an wait for the Israeli public acheive a moral awakening and to turn around and see the benefits of ending the inhuman occupation of the Palestinian territories or 2) we organize pressure on all fronts (political, economical, cultural, etc.), calling for boycotts, divestments and sanctions, that Israel cannot be a full member of the international community as long as occupation persists. In the case of bringing down Apartheid in South Africa, option 2) worked. --Soman (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, each side justifies its behavior by saying it's the other side's fault. Until that mentality changes, nothing will change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The the validity of your elaboration rests on the assumption that the Israelis were at fault in the War of Independence. Perhaps there's no precedent (and that may very well be the issue) but Israel captured the territories in a war in which they were attacked. So land captured by the Israelis is not, for instance, similar to land captured by Germany in its conquest to a priori overtake other nations. And there was no capture of Palestine -- Palestine has never existed. The land belonged to the Ottomans and then the British and then it was either given over for the future State of Israel (which was declared and formed) and to Jordan. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the vast majority of the world's disputes, from international hostility to that argument with your neighbour about the size of his tree, could be sorted if you just sat them down, strapped some logic to them, and asked "But what's the point, really?" Vimescarrot (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask yourself how the ongoing Israel situation has helped solidify and strengthen the resolve of all three major groups involved in the struggle, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The answer to that question is also the answer to the question, "What's the point?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DRosenbach's first answer above is unfortunately mainly incorrect. When it comes to the formal, legal, settings, there is complete agreement, including Israel, that the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were militarily occupied by Israel in 1967. Israel would like to annex them, but has never squarely come out and formally annexed any of them, although one can make arguments concerning Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The official representatives of the Palestinians for decades have recognized pre-1967 Israel and supported a two state solution with a state of Palestine based on the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in Jerusalem, with the aim of a future unification of Palestine and Israel through peaceful means.John Z (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

But the Palestinians were offered the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and rejected this offer! And one can perhaps waive the lack of formality employed by Israeli as a display of political submission to a greater power (USA?) -- with Israeli relying on de facto rule for the past 43 years. Even if you reject such a proposal (which I admit is merely a possible explanation of the reality and not an attempt at political wiggling, if you will), Israel (as you have said) has considered unified Jerusalem as its capital for "the past 42 years". How then can Palestinian settlers (because that's what they are, in essence) demand "restoration" of "sovereign" territory that never existed in the first place?

And on your second point, that "the official representatives of the Palestinians" did or did not do something -- has there ever really been an official representation? Even when Yasser Arafat was involved, there would be terrorist attacks and Arafat would bemoan his lack of control over the terrorist entities perpetrated by those over which he had no control -- but a lack of control would suggest that he was not the official representative after all (See September 1993). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it should be given back to the Canaanites, from whom it was originally taken. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kabul Times

Is there anyway to find an archive of the english language newspaper, the Kabul Times, later called the Kabul New Times, from the 1970's and 80's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.178.175 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat indicates that there are microfilm copies in various university libraries. That's probably the best option out there. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

fishing sector of Canada 2

what were the main issues and controversies of the fishing industry of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.175 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Some links were provided for you three days ago. If you have more specific questions that the links did not answer, please be specific. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say that in the fishing industry of Canada, were there any controversies being faced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.19 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you google canada fishermen dispute there are many links. The second one is about flounder. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Uganda-Tanzania War press conference

Hello. Apparently, during the Uganda–Tanzania War, the president of Uganda, Idi Amin, (who was a former world champion), challenged the president of Tanzania (Julius Nyerere) to a boxing match, in order to settle the dispute. I believe he did so in a press conference, according to here. That page quotes this bit "I am keeping fit so that I can challenge President Nyerere in the boxing ring and fight it out there, rather than having the soldiers lose their lives on the field of battle."

I've seen this reference in a few other places, too. I'd like to see the transcript of the entire press conference, or the entire address. I can't seem to find archives of major Ugandan newspapers at the time, and it's missing from the NY Times archive. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the quote was from Bob Astles in a phone call to reporters.[3].—eric 21:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the Ledger article. I hadn't seen it. Though the way I read it, however, is that the author of the article received it as a quote during a telephone call. I still believe that it was announced at a press conference, which makes me think that there's a transcript, if not an audio or a video version of it somewhere. Llamabr (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

more[4].—eric 21:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I read that the same way. In fact, it's the same quote, which makes me think that this author got it from the same wire service as the previous one. In this one, he goes on to say that he'd do it with one hand tied behind his back. That makes me think there's a full transcript somewhere. thanks again, Llamabr (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, i was able to find a bit more, but i think it was a prepared statement and not from any public remarks. The blog you linked was probably mistaken in saying it was a press conference—as well as mixing up the chronology some. Amin announced the annexation of Kagera 1 November and offered to negotiate a peace at the same time. Nyerere rejected negotiations at a rally 2 November, calling Amin a "barbarian" and comparing him to a snake. The phone interview with Astles came on the 3rd and was a response to Nyerere's comments.

Astles (phoning from Kampala and speaking to reporters in Nairobi) stated that Amin had spent the 2nd "in the battle zone" and had flown back to the State House at Entebbe that morning where he began "basketball exercises" and dictated the following statement:

I am keeping fit so that I can challenge President Nyerere in the boxing ring, and we fight it out there rather than soldiers lose their lives on the field of battle. There is a saying in Africa that when elephants fight it is the grass that suffers.

That might be the whole of the prepared statement, the rest about Ali etc. Astles recounting their earlier conversation.—eric 06:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As a minor correction, Amin was never a 'world champion' boxer. He was a champion of Uganda for a time (as his article mentions), and I believe had won British Army boxing titles, but (despite the British Army serving around the world) these would only have been open to British Army personnel and cannot be considered 'world championships' in the usual sense. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was France so weak militarily during WW2?

Never really understood this. Were they also weak during WW1? I'm assuming it might be because they lost the Napoleonic Wars, but that was a long time ago relatively speaking. ScienceApe (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In 1939, the French had almost a million men under arms, with 5 million trained reservists. However, the strategic thinking was still First World War, with massive defenses all along the border. In the end the Germans invaded through an unexpected route, captured Paris within a couple of months, and simply left the bulk of the French forces in their dust. FiggyBee (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article Military history of France is a featured article. France has a long history of having one of the very best militaries in Europe. Specific to WW2, you want Battle of France and the enormous article Military history of France during World War II. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to World War II says that the French army in 1939 was "regarded by many as the best in the world, heavily armed, well equipped and led by highly acclaimed veterans of 1918... it was the German superiority in the operational deployment and use of tanks and planes that made these comparisons in retrospect look irrelevant."--Pondle (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If one does a comparison between German and French military strength in 1939, do remember that France in 1939 also had a vast colonial empire that stretched across every continent on earth. Large parts of the French military were stationed outside of metropolitan France, not at its land border with Germany. --Soman (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Vast, but mostly rather sandy. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with the French Army in 1940 was one of poor morale and poor leadership. Gamelin's HQ didn't use radio or telephones for fear of espionage and was famously described as a "submarine without a periscope". There was no planning for a German breakthrough and stunned inaction when it happened. The British commander "Tiny" Ironside picked-up his French counterpart Billotte by the lapels in a vain effort to get something done. Alan Brooke was astonished that Gamelin's successor Weygand was more concerned about his career than the defeat of France. The Allies had a clear numerical and material superiority (on the ground anyway), but lacked the co-ordination, aggression and initiative that the Germans showed from top to bottom. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's not unreasonable to say that France wasn't weak - it just wasn't conceptually prepared to fight a modern mechanised war. The French army, to all intents and purposes, fought one battle and lost it. This would not have been a knock-out blow in 1914 or 1870, but the unexpected speed and mobility of the German army meant that the French army was unable to recover from its defeat in that battle; the country collapsed within a month, and the army effectively ceased to exist. Had it had a chance to recover - had it stalled the German advance as in 1914 and begun another "long war" - we would not remember it as "weak", just as having been caught off balance in May 1940. Shimgray | talk | 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the "not a knockout blow" statement; see Battle of Sedan (1870), from which France never recovered during the Franco-Prussian War. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The pacifist mood (also prevailent in the U.K. and the USA) and the "socialist" agitation and successes in the years before 1940 must have played a role? The "reactioinary" caste did perhaps not want to fight and die for a France it saw as half-communist. But the famous english historian of France, Richard Cobb, gives examples of French bravery in his memoirs.--Radh (talk)

News orgs using "Mr. Obama"

I thought the US president was always referred to as "President <lastname>"; I thought it was improper to the point of rudeness to refer to him as "Mr. <lastname>", especially during his presidency. In fact, I thought it continued to be the correct way to address him even after he left office.

I've noticed more and more news agencies referring to our current president as "Mr. Obama"; often they use "President Obama" early in the story, and then use "Mr." (often multiple times) later on.

Have they done this with previous presidents? In particular, did they often refer to the previous president as "Mr. Bush"? I can't remember ever seeing it, but I tended to pay less attention to stories about him

Ralphcook (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Certain news outlets, including the New York Times, have a specific policy of using Mr. (or Ms., etc.) and the surname. They did follow this with Bush and with other leaders such as Tony Blair. I don't believe it's "generally" considered rude to use a president's surname + Mr.--达伟 (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec's)This is a matter of house style. On the front page of today's New York Times, we have Obama referred to first as "President Obama" and later as "Mr. Obama" in each article concerning him, as well as "Speaker Nancy Pelosi" first and "Ms. Pelosi" thereafter. More casual media might drop the titles. (The NYT always use titles, except on the sports pages. Rarely will one see Willie Nelson referred to as "Mr. Nelson" elsewhere.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were speaking with him face-to-face, and you didn't have any prior relationship to justify any other familiarity, it would be expected of you to address him as "Mr. President", but that doesn't apply to reporting about him. —Akrabbim^talk 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The protocol for conversations with the Queen of England is to address her on first meeting as "Your Majesty" and as "Ma'am" thereafter. Applying that in this case would yield "Mr. President" and "Sir". The more formal title at goodbye time would seem appropriate. If I recall, that's how they did it on West Wing. PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's from West Wing that I got my sensitivity to it; the only time I remember President Bartlet being referred to as "Mister", it was meant as an insult, spoken by a (retiring) Supreme Court Justice, and he was sort-of-gently corrected to "Dr. Bartlet." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphcook (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The first time I can recall the American press using "Mr." in lieu of "President" was with Richard Nixon, and I wouldn't be surprised if it predates that. And I aslo recall some commentators raising the same question as the OP, that it implied a lack of respect for the office. The OP is also correct that "Mr. President" continues to be used once a President has left office, as with other high officials such as "Senator". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The BBC has done this for a very long time. Searching their "on this day" section (which reproduces verbatim an historical report, juxtaposed with a later "in context" reflection) refers to Nixon as Mr here and here, Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev as Mr Brezhnev here, and FDR as Mr here. They also refer to German Chancellor Angela Merkel as Mrs here (not as Chancellor Merkel or Dr. Merkel) and no-one ever seems to call Gordon Brown "Dr. Brown". Conversely, the American habit of addressing British Prime Ministers as "Mr Prime Minister" or "Prime Minister Blair" is both grating and wrong. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No one would call Brown "Dr" because he sensibly doesn't use it himself. In the UK it is generally looked on as a bit pompous for non-medical doctors to use their title unless they have an educational or clerical career. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is weird because the vast majority of medical "doctors" do not have doctorates of anything, whereas the non-medical doctors do. If anyone is more entitled to use the title, it's the ones who have actually done the hard yards and actually are doctors. In medical parlance, it means a registered medical practitioner regardless of their actual educational attainments. It's analagous to architect, dentist, lawyer etc - yet nobody ever refers to "Lawyer Smith" or "Architect Jones" or "Dentist Brzezinski", do they. But "Doctor Hoffmann", ah, that's different. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Although, in the US lawyers do use a postnominal "Esq.". (In Britain, "Esq." or "Esquire" after a name is equivalent to "Mr." or "Mister" before the name, albeit a little old-fashioned.) --Tango (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That really surprises me, Tango. I'd have thought "Esq" was as completely unknown in modern-day USA as it is in modern-day Australia. It appears only in reference books and old stories here, never in practice. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Spammers frequently use 'Barrister' as a title in their begging letters. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mr. Hoover" was widely used (31,000 Google News archive hits) to refer to FDR's predecessor. "Mr. Coolidge" was widely used for his predecessor. Etc. I did not find it used for George Washington at Google News archive, but perhaps the papers from 1789-1797 are not adequately represented there. Edison (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Washington, when not addressed as "President Washington", was addressed as "General Washington". His immediate successors were addressed as "Mr. Adams" and "Mr. Jefferson". —Kevin Myers 03:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

Just an interesting side note on that: In July 1776, just as the Continental Congress was declaring independence for the US, the main part of the revolutionary army was in New York City, and the British began arriving with a huge fleet to dislodge them (which they did: see New York and New Jersey campaign). Hoping to negotiate an immediate surrender, the British commander, Lord Howe, began by sending a letter to George Washington -- who refused the delivery because it was addressed to "Mr. Washington" and not "General Washington". In other words, "If you won't even recognize that I'm not part of your empire any more, we have nothing to talk about." (Source: 1776 by David McCullough.) --Anonymous, 19:25 UTC, March 22, 2010.

Washington's efforts in NYC didn't go all that well. A book on the history of the Empire State Building and its location has a section titled, "George Washington shlepped here". Regardless, wasn't it Washington who came up with the subdued title of "Mr. President"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(Some OR here): As a journalist, I have had to deal with people commenting to me about this very issue for years. Strictly speaking, according to the AP Stylebook, one uses a title and full name on first reference, and surname only [my emphasis] on subsequent reference. That is the listed journalistic style for all names; there is no exception for the president or any other public official. The use of "Mr." is actually an attempt to be more courteous than calling him simply "Obama." Frequently during the George W. Bush administration, we were accused of being Democratic sympathizers because we said "Mr. Bush" instead of "President Bush," even though proper style would have been just "Bush." Now the same journalists are tabbed as pro-Republican when they equivalently say "Mr. Obama" instead of "President Obama." ... At least, that's what many reporters do. As for me, I go strictly by-the-book and write just "Obama" and "Bush." — Michael J 23:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Mr. President (title) and Title of Nobility Clause, the issue arose with Washington and it was soon decided that "Mr. President" would be best. I can see how this could easily slip into Mr. [surname]. Personally, I always thought the use of "Mr." for the president came from an early desire to make a break from European-style titles--especially after Mr. Jefferson became the first non-Federalist president; and even more so after Mr. Jackson stomped into the White House in his muddy boots. But my quick search seems to suggest that "Mr. President" was, from early times, considered the proper form of address. Pfly (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Death penalty law wording

In the states that have it, how do they make an exception for the prison workers who throw the switch so they won't be charged with murder, or in the case where there are multiple switches and nobody knows if theirs was the one that did it, attempted murder, since they knew theirs could be the live switch and they threw it anyway? Do they simply not define the act of throwing the switch as murder, even though obviously it results in the person not living any more as a direct result of their action? 71.161.59.39 (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Throwing the switch or otherwise participating in a legal execution is not murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What if I at home hooked someone up to the same exact system they have and threw the switch? I'm interested in how they word their making it legal for them to do it.71.161.59.39 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. Legal executions are legal. They are not murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Executions are the end product of a legal process. Hence, executions are not murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the pith. Is there a written definition of lawful execution in the books of the states that have it? The part on the books that differentiates a state where the death penalty is allowed and a state in which it isn't, how do those states come out and say "we can legally perform executions" on the page of the law books?71.161.59.39 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to familiarise yourself with the idea of common law before asking where in the 'law books' something is. Not every legal provision is necessarily codified. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely the ending of a human life at the state's hands is statutory. That's what I'm looking for and would like to read.71.161.59.39 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Capital punishment has existed at common law for a long, long time. It's the abolition of capital punishment that requires a statute (or at least an amendment). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, executioners obtain a execution warrant. Our article says: "This protects the executioner from being charged with murder." Staecker (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Side discussion

::Does this question sound vaguely familiar? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No. Staecker was answering a question, not asking one. And no offense, but he gave a better answer than you did. ScienceApe (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No offense, but you're missing the point. A few weeks ago also, an IP was raising questions about capital punishment that presupposed certain things that weren't true. As long as it doesn't devolve (again) into a moral discussion about executions, things will be peachy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I understand. Well, whoever it was a few weeks a go wasn't me. My core interest was in how the switch guy is covered, which Staecker answered. 71.xxx and 20.xxx is me. The only reason I haven't joined yet is I don't know what to make my name. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC) If that was your point, you should have replied to the original post, and not Staecker's comment. Didn't sound like he was trying to get into a moral debate. Sounded like you were jumping to conclusions. ScienceApe (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I was asking Staecker if it sounded familiar. You jumped to a conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC) No, because I didn't draw a conclusion, I made a suggestion. ScienceApe (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The first thing to note is that there's nothing special about capital punishment in this respect. When a suspect is arrested, when a criminal is punished by imprisonment or by a fine, the police officer or criminal officer or court officer carrying out such duties is still doing something that would be illegal if not for the proven or suspected crime that justifies them. Since we were talking about executions, I looked at the law in Texas and found Title 2, Chapter 9, of their Penal Code, in which section 9.21 reads:

PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.

(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).

(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.

(d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes:

(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or

(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.

So this part of the law is a general rule that takes precedence over the section that says if you kill someone it's murder, and the section that says if you imprison someone it's kidnapping, and so on. (Other sections of Chapter 9 cover things like self-defense.) Other jurisdictions can be expected to have similar laws. --Anonymous, 19:52 UTC, March 22, 2010.

The general idea here is Hobbsean - i.e., that when individuals prove themselves incapable of proper moral restraint, the state (in the collective defense of its people) is entitled/obligated to exercise moral constraints over them, up to and including execution. An executioner is not acting as an individual any more than a soldier is: he is acting as an extension of the state. In fact, the use of multiple switches, executioner's hoods, guns with blanks in firing squads, and etc, is specifically designed so that each participant can believe that it was not his individual act which carried out the state's will. Whether the state has a right to execute its citizens at need is a difficult question, on which you will find reams of philosophical discussion. but currently it is a well-established practice in many nations. --Ludwigs2 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Implicit in that statement is that executions, incarcerations and confiscation can all be acceptable under the law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha, when in doubt, go right to the source and ask the horse. The statement in execution warrant which reads, "This protects the executioner from being charged with murder", has been in that article, uncited and unchallenged, from the second edit that occurred, in November of 2002. While the warrant authorizes the execution, that's just part of a legal process. To say that it "protects the executioner" is original synthesis, as the executioner is not going to act until he has that warrant authorizing him to do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a real photo of Hitler?

[5] Looks like a painting, maybe, I'm not sure. It certainly doesn't look like him and his posture is weird. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's a painting, it might be based on this[6] which looks like a legit photo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This site says it's "Hilter with the children of Nazi dignitaries on his birthday"[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll be darned. It appears to be a legit photo.[8]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of Quest's links works for me, but the original post looks like a badly colorized photo to me, by the way it includes every pastel known to man. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a still from a B-movie about an evil babysitter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In the article Goebbels children, it says "Hitler was very fond of the children, and even in the last week of his life still took great pleasure in sharing chocolate with them". I recall other sources saying that he would get on the floor to play with visiting kids. Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

looking at the second image (which is obviously a photo - you have to refresh the page to get it to load), I think the first image is a painting based on the photo that tries to correct that fact that Hitler's face is hidden in the photo. the painter tried to rotate Hitler's upper body backwards and added a full-frontal face, but the head looks jutted out because the neck in the photo is bent downward. or it could be a modern colorized cut and paste job, I suppose, but notice the differences in hitler's hand positions (which would be difficult to achieve), and look at the face of the girl in the blue bonnet, which has the classic 'Norman Rockwell' too-smooth, rosy-cheeked look. lousy painter, though - why would anyone who wanted to paint hitler in a positive light like this give him an expression like he's suffering from a horrid attack of gas? can anyone find a picture that the painter might have used to copy hitler's facial features? maybe something with him saluting troops or giving a public speech - that artist captured that 'thousand-mile stare' that public speakers sometimes get. --Ludwigs2 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect they are both photos of the same event, almost certainly the same photographer. One is either colorized or was created with very poor quality color photography (something that would be fairly primitive even for WWII). I don't see any reason to think the first is a painting other than the colors being off (which is more an argument for it being colorized than painted). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is almost no one in the acting or "TV" or movie bussiness that looks real on the set. But to get that Doll like look it takes about three inches thick of makeup, Fake tans, and clothes there Studio picks out for them to wear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)