Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 22

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.

August 22

Partition of South Africa

How come a two-state partition of South Africa to give the whites and blacks there their own state (similar to what happened in Palestine and British India in 1947-1948) was never proposed or seriously considered by anyone at any time in South African history? From a practical perspective, it would have been much better for the whites and blacks there to have their own state and thus avoid discrimination and having less of a voice than the other side. The whites could have been given the sparely-populated western parts of South Africa and moved there en masse, while the blacks could have been given most of the other parts of South Africa. Futurist110 (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Because probably most of the whites were in positions of power and wealth and if a partition would happen they would get little next to nothing since even today they make up 9% of the population. The only way for them to stay in power and make money was to exploit and discriminate the black majority. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wasn't South Africa partitioned in the 1980s or 1990s when the whites there knew that their rule over South Africa would not last, though? Futurist110 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think it would have worked based on the racist division of labor set up as blacks as workers and whites as management. Workers without management don't do well, and neither does management without workers. Consider what happened in Zimbabwe, when they pretty much kicked the whites out. Not pretty. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not because they got rid of white managers, though. They got rid of white farmers and replaced them with black politicians (and other cronies) that didn't know anything about farms or had any interest in actually farming them. Replacing farmers with politicians is going to cause a food shortage regardless of the racial makeup of the country. --Tango (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The person who manages the farm is what I am calling the white manager. I tried to use general terms so it would apply outside of farming, too. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The whites in the white-majority state could still have placed some of their companies and means of production (such as factories and farms) in the black-majority state (similar to American companies in China, India, ad other parts of Asia today). Also, blacks would have been able to travel to the white-majority state if they wanted to work there (similar to the Palestinian Arabs working in Israel). Finally, the black-majority state could have worked in educating its population in the meantime and the white-majority state could have imported guest workers if necessary. Futurist110 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much the system they had under Apartheid. StuRat (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh, No, since blacks weren't allowed to vote or have civil rights anywhere in South Africa under apartheid, while they would be able to hold civil rights and vote in the event of a South African partition.

They could vote in at least some of the Bantustans. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a partition itself be a form of Apartheid? Or at least segregation? If I was a black South African in the 1980's looking up to Mandela and demanding equal rights in South Africa, I wouldn't want to debase myself and decide to accept a partition to split the country and appear as not equal to white people, just because some racists don't want their government system to fall. --Activism1234 00:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember, partition needs to be accepted by both sides. The British Mandate of Palestine never worked becuase only the Jews accepted it, and not the Arabs. The India-Pakistan partition worked because Nehru and Jinnah accepted it, no matter how much Gandhi didn't want it. And that wasn't the best partition either, mass-murder along the way when populations were transferred. I can't imagine blacks in South Africa in the 80's agreeing that they should, for some reason, be cut off and partitioned. --Activism1234 00:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the partitions in India and Palestine didn't work too well (there were 4 large wars in India and 3 in Israel). However, keep in mind that once Israel and India/Pakistan acquired nukes and other countries found out about those nukes, the conflicts in those areas became less heated. Arab countries stopped attacking Israel directly, while India and Pakistan became more careful to avoid wars. Considering that the whites in South Africa had nukes and a strong military (which a white majority-state would probably keep in the event of a partition), the black South African state wouldn't really have been able to do much to destroy the white South African state without bringing heavy damage to itself. And what do you mean by "cut off"? The black-majority state in South Africa would have still been contiguous, and the blacks there would have been able to work for whites (including in the white-majority state) if they would have wanted to. Futurist110 (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In Israel's case, that applies only so long as other Arab countries don't have nukes, which they don't yet, in the future it is possible, albeit unlikely, that Iran may get nukes. In regards to India, the situation is much much worse, because Pakistan, India's fierce rival, has nukes, and they almost had a nuclear war. --Activism1234 01:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Iran isn't Arab, but is still a huge enemy of Israel's. However, I seriously doubt that Iran would start a large-scale war with Israel, as in sending its own troops to fight it and using nukes, since the Iranian regime isn't really interested in getting wiped off the map. As for India and Pakistan, the key word in your sentence is almost. Yes, India and Pakistan came close to a nuclear war in 1998-1999 and 2001-2002, but they backed off since both countries have way too much to lose in a nuclear war. Likewise, the 1999 Kargil War wasn't as bad as the previous three wars (in 1948, 1965, and 1971) and after 1999 there were no large-scale wars between India and Pakistan at all (keep in mind that Pakistan announced that it had nukes in 1998). Futurist110 (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Look into the creation of Lesotho and Swaziland. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the South African government went for partition in a big way, starting in the 1960s, but without giving anything valuable away to non-whites. The policy produced the "homelands" or "bantustans"; "Ten bantustans were established in South Africa, and ten in neighbouring South-West Africa (then under South African administration), for the purpose of concentrating the members of designated ethnic groups, thus making each of those territories ethnically homogeneous as the basis for creating "autonomous" nation states for South Africa's different black ethnic groups" Four of these were granted "full independence", although internationally unrecognised; Transkei is a notable example. Alansplodge (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Banstustans weren't nearly large enough to create viable economies and to give the black South African percentage that amount of land that they deserved. Also, not all the Bantustans were independent, and thus blacks in many of them still suffered huge discrimination. Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear that partition was 'seriously considered', though, in that it happened to some extent. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The point of the partition wasn't to achieve a fair and balanced settlement, but for the white minority to keep control of the prosperous bulk of the country, while much of the black majority could be shunted off into marginal areas and left to get on with it, while providing SA with a migrant workforce when required. I suspect that the intention was for all of the homelands to be independent eventually, but never prosperous enough to be a challenge to the RSA. By the way, Transkei was small in comparison to the RSA but more than twice the size of Wales, so all things are relative. Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(question) Is there anywhere in the entire South Africa, besides for Pretoria perhaps, that still has a white majority? I can't easily see how Pretoria becoming an independent enclave (like Lesotho is) could make a viable country. 58.111.229.109 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so but Western South Africa is very sparsely populated so creating a white-majority state there in the 1980s and moving most South African whites there would not have been too implausible. Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Incest Exception for Abortion

With the whole Todd Akin rape controversy, the abortion debate was brought back up into the spotlight right now. I was wondering what the rationale was in some Republican politicians supporting an incest exception for abortion while opposing abortion in most other cases? I mean, some incest is consensual and in some cases children born to closely related parents don't have any or much defects. I know that political pragmatism might be a factor, but is there another rationale for this? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

An obvious consideration is even if it's true the child won't have 'any or much defects' (whatever you mean by that), it remains fairly difficult to know for many until either late in to the pregnancy or even after. A child of incest is also likely have much the stigma of a child of rape to third parties. However I don't think these are significant considerations for people as you describe. The more significant factor is when people say an exception for incest, they actually are really thinking of rape involving a related underage participant and an of age one (or significantly older age at least), e.g. a father raping their underage daughter. Of course in some cases they may also be thinking of cases involving underage participants where rape isn't clear (e.g. siblings of very similar ages). As a way of reference the examples given here [1] mentions a thirteen year old. [2] mentions incest along with rape in the discussion about how the woman is forced to carry a baby against her will etc. [3] mentions several things about incest in reference to a rapist and also in one case young victim. And remembering that abortions aren't forced, even in cases when it is apparently consensual, they may be thinking the woman has come around to the idea she did an extremely disgusting thing and so would have almost as much trouble living with the reminder of it as a rape victim (note I'm not saying and of this actually is, simply this is what the mentality is likely to be like). Or that it probably wasn't really consensual, particularly if it involved significantly different ages and generations (e.g. parent-child). Consider many of the comments in this case [4] [5] [6] (both these links and elsewhere) seemed to express these views. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The strongly-conservative folks I know argue that the rape-or-incest exception is essentially hypocritical or dubious - because the whole point of being anti-abortion is that the pre-born infant's life is being taken for something that fetus had no control over. The "to save the mother's life" argument usually holds up because the doctor and the family have to make a choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

By defects, I meant congenital disorders. If you're going to argue that we won't know if a fetus will have severe defects until later on, then couldn't the same rationale be used to allow people with inherited medical conditions to get elective abortions? Also, as for the fetus later having a bad life, this argument could also be used to allow poor women to get elective abortions. If someone is thinking of rape, then just say rape. There's no need to allow for a separate incest exception considering that some incest is legally consensual (both parties are above the age of consent and they actually give consent). If someone is underage, then it's generally considered to be statutory rape, and if one is extremely young then it's always considered to be statutory rape. As for this statement--"And remembering that abortions aren't forced", I think that you meant to say that "remembering that incest isn't forced". If you're arguing about the "ickiness" of incest, couldn't a racist woman also theoretically argue that it was disgusting for her to have sex with a man of a different race and that thus she should be allowed to get an abortion? Baseball Bugs, as for the argument that you mentioned, it isn't really convincing, since I don't and shouldn't be able to force someone else to let me have a kidney, blood, or bone marrow from them even if it was necessary to save my life (for an illness/condition that occurred through not fault of my own) if they were not responsible for my illness/condition/dependence on them to survive. Thus, why should a woman be forced to let an offspring conceived in rape use her body for several months? Also, I think that the correct term is prenatal, not pre-born. Futurist110 (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I made clear, I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply pointing out why some people support such an exception. You asked a question, I provided referenced answers which will not directly making the claim, do support most of the thesis, as I made the assumption you really wanted to understand why people may support such an exception, rather then pretend you were interested to try and start an argument on the RD. In case it's still not clear to you, the fact that when these people say incest, what they mean is rape involving related individuals doesn't change the fact it appears to be what many are doing. Similar to the fact not all of their arguments may be consistent etc. If you disagree with these people, you should take it up with them, and somewhere else besides the RD, since the RD isn't the place for such arguments. You're mistaken about statutory rape. In some jurisdictions, if the people are of very similar age and neither is in a clear position of power over the other, as may be the case for siblings, then there may be no statutory rape, hence why I made that specific distinction. (I already made clear that in other cases, it usually is rape.) And you're quite mistaken. I meant what I said. Abortions aren't forced. So someone who had consensual incest but doesn't regret it or the pregnancy isn't likely to be getting an abortion. So if someone is getting an abortion under such an exception, it generally suggests they don't want the pregnancy, which could be for a number of reasons, but from the POV of people who support such an exception perhaps it will be because they've realised what a disgusting thing they've done and are having trouble living with it. Again let me repeat I'm not saying I subscribe to such views, but if you want to understand why people support or oppose something, you've got to try and see things completely from their POV. P.S. It sounds like you're also missing my point on 'defects'. For starters it's unclear why you would consider Congenital disorder important, when it comes to incest genetic disorder seem to be more relevent here. Either way, there are a large number of things which could be considered genetic disorders (and therefore a type of congenital disorder), such as increase risk of varioys types of cancer, obesity, diabetes etc etc which depending on the precise genetics, may be of higher risk if the parents are highly related. The fact you mentioned disorder rather then abnormality does suggest you are including these but to what level is unclear. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to legal abortion quotes some views from groups opposed to abortion on whether incest should be an exception. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Utility Maximisation

Recently I read about Utility Maximization and it seems to be an very important topic in Economics. But are there any stand out examples of firms / companies that have applied this and benefited from this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.147 (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled Utility that has some background, but more importantly has some sources which you could follow to read more information. From reading the article, it sounds like your answer would be "all of them", in the sense that utility is such a core concept it would be hard to find a firm which took absolutely zero consideration as to the usefulness of their product or service. Whether the firm takes a rigorous mathematical analysis of utility (as the Wikipedia article does), or whether it takes a more qualitative approach towards analyzing their own products, at some level all firms have to have asked, and answered the question "Is the stuff we make useful, and how can be its usefulness be maximized so we can make more money". It does sound like a fundementally important economic concept, such a fundemental concept, however, that it is a core concept and thus unavoidable, and not a magic program that a company could choose to follow or not follow. That's my reading after looking over the articles, as a non-Economist and simple lay person. Perhaps an actual economist could weigh in and give a more thorough answer. --Jayron32 12:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a student of economics, Jayron's answer makes sense from one perspective, but it's not how I would understand the term "utility maximisation". Rather, one tends to see it used to mean "I, as an agent, am constantly trying to maximise my own utility subject to x constraints" (which is obviously contentious, I'll point out, before Fifelfoo does that for me). Thus, it's not clear what you mean when you use the term: (a) what Jayron said, perhaps (b) "do any firms try to maximise their own utility (aggregate utility of their staff?), rather than maximising their own profits (the standard assumption in mainstream economics)?" (c) "Do any firms try to maximise societal utility (welfare) rather than profits", or something else? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's my understanding of "utility maximisation" as well. It is the assumption underlying pretty much all of economics, so is implicitly (and often explicitly) used by anyone using economics. Businesses almost all do that - you need an awareness of supply and demand, for instance, in order to effectively set prices. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that firms do perform a mathematically rigorous calculation of the utility that they get from goods and services they buy such as labour. It's called balancing the books. In a business, utility is easily reduced to dollar terms because maximization of utility is the same as maximization of profit. For any given business it can be estimated how much extra profit would be generated if one extra unit of labour, electricity, water, or other factor of production was purchased. In most businesses, at some point further production leads to diminishing returns. If production continues, a point is eventually reached where the marginal cost is equal to the profit generated and further production would lead to a loss.

For individuals it's not as easy to work out utility gained per dollar spent as the goods purchased are necessarily valued subjectively according to the consumer's own preferences. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jarry1250! :). Veblen and some of the other institutionalists try to theorise concepts of utility as separable from exchange value. This can get interesting when you can demonstrate some agents within the firm value gross output maximisation (kilograms) over realised surplus value maximisation (expressible by in one moment of its circulation, but not actually, units of currency). This is, of course, more for other readers here than for you. For the other readers, you may wish to examine the failure of the utilitarian project, or Marx's critique of use-values as a sole expression of capital. Marginalist economics uses "utility" in a terminological way disconnected from ordinary concepts of use; so, maximisation of surplus value is equatable with the marginalist concept of maximisation of utility because there's no contradiction between these within the marginalist world view. If the question comes down to "how much gold can you eat?" then the problem is the failed utilitarianism research programme's problem. It the question is which balance of models of widgets maximise profit, then marginalist concepts utility hold valid. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Athabaskan Indians

Is there a reason why the Athabaskans are from a diverse number of tribes (Apache, Navajo, etc)? Also, why does it appear they retreated northward? Reticuli88 (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a language family, so it's like referring to "Europeans" when you could refer to a specific nationality. And did they "retreat northward"? They must have travelled south like the other native groups. The Apache and Navajo are actually the southern outliers, since most Athabaskan-speakers live in the north. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand. For more specificity, how about the Koyukon Athabascan, which I am a part of..?Reticuli88 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the article Koyukon people help? --Jayron32 13:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Reticuli88 -- some linguists (such Joseph Greenberg) have posited three successive waves of migration from Asia. Earliest was a general "Amerindian" migration, then came a "Na-Dené" migration (which included the spread of Athabaskan languages), then an Eskimo-Aleut migration. (Of course, there may have been even more migration waves, but they could only be discovered by archaeological or genetic analysis methods, not linguistic methods). AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Reticuli88 (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the Athabaskans are the largest group of speakers of the Na-Dene languages, it will be useful to read the article on the Dene-Yeniseian languages about their ultimate origin. The greatest diversity in the Na-Dene languages is in the north and west of their range. This and logic points to a general north to south expansion. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Satish K. Kappor

Respected sir i am already added biography of Dr Satish K Kapoor. Till not comes in our WIKIPEDIA.ORG siite. it will take how many days sir? Please send answer at <redacted> Dr Dama L.B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southraj (talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed you e-mail address, because it is against the rules and may lead to you receiving spam. Regarding your question, if I understand correctly, you are asking about when a Wikipedia page is going to be created about Dr Satish K Kapoor. The answer is whenever an editor (could be you) decides to add it. However, reliable sources are necessary to establish that the subject is notable enough for a wikipedia article. - Lindert (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Southraj has requested an AFC review at User:Southraj/sandbox but has not written an article draft there, so there is nothing to review. Southraj, you may have neglected to save your draft. If you want to try again, please add the text of your submission in your sandbox. If you want someone else to write an article about the person, please follow the instructions at WP:AR; and if you have any further questions, please post them at the help desk, as this is not the correct place. Deor (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In WWII, did the Allies not use encryption? Did Axis powers not bother trying to intercept messages?

I've been reading all about Engima machines and so on but I've yet to encounter any mention of efforts on Germany's part to intercept/decode Allied transmissions, or of Allies even using encryption. Are there some articles to get me started or are there some simple reasons why this wasn't an issue? Thanks. Vranak (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on German code breaking in World War II. My understanding, though, is that much of German intelligence was focused on spies rather than codebreaking, and that the British were remarkably successful in turning spies into undetected double agents. — Lomn 16:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We have an article, German code breaking in World War II, which suggests it was poor logistics on the part of the Germans which meant that their codebreaking operation was not as successful as that coordinated from Bletchley Park. My (somewhat uninformed) understanding is that it wasn't a case of the Germans being particularly bad at codebreaking and interception - as our article says, they were able to listen in on conversations between Churchill and Roosevelt - more that Bletchley Park were streets ahead of any comparable effort. Equally important, the Germans were heavily reliant on Enigma, and convinced of its security, and the Allied codebreakers were able to keep their ability to decypher Enigma a secret (even to the extent that they deliberately left cities undefended from bombers when they had gained knowledge of a raid through Enigma transmissions). I believe that the Allies weren't quite so naive - they knew that the Germans could and would decypher their codes and so took further steps to mitigate against the consequences. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The allies actually did a lot of encryption techniques, from high tech (for the day) machine aided encryption like the Combined Cipher Machine to lo-tech methods like Code talkers. A good place to start your research into Allied cryptology methods during World War II is the article World War II cryptography. --Jayron32 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You might like the book Between Silk and Cyanide by Leo Marks, about UK codemaking and some of the consequences of German codebreaking in WW2. Yes there were considerable German successes in this area. Note: the story that Churchill let a city be bombed on purpose to preserve the Enigma secret was almost certainly apocryphal. Coventry Blitz#Coventry and Ultra has some info. A fairly thorough book on German WW2 codebreaking came out about 5 years ago but unfortunately I don't remember the title or author :(. It was based on documents that had been declassified only pretty recently (1990's?) so it has some info that wasn't previously known. It changed the picture some, but I don't have the impression it was earth-shattering. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You might also look at M-325, Hebern rotor machine, and most of all SIGABA, which was the U.S. version of enigma. Although I don't know if the allied use was as uniform or as extensive as the Germans was. Shadowjams (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as a side comment, it's worth noting that many of what became the really important Allied projects — cryptography, radar, the atomic bomb — were started (at great expense) at a time when Germany looked like it was rolling over Europe without much to stand in its way. The Allies saw themselves, early in the war, as being vastly outmatched in many respects, and spent loads of money on trying to use technology as a way to quickly catch up. By contrast, while the Germans loved spectacular weapons, then spent comparably less time on the sorts of defensive technologies (the atomic bomb was initially conceived in defensive terms, as a deterrent) that ended up being so key to the Allied successes. By the time the Germans realized that they had made a serious tactical error in this respect, it was too late. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The proliferation of German organisations engaged in code breaking was typical of Hitler's leadership style. He and other top Nazis would often give overlapping or even identical tasks to different departments in the belief that the best operation would come out on top in "survival of the fittest" style. The result was more often petty rivalry, poor communication and duplicated effort. Alansplodge (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Another encryption device used by the Allies was the Scrambler which was "invented at Bell Labs in the period just before World War II." Unfortunately, the Germans had a chap who had worked at Bell Labs just before WWII, so it all had to be scrambled a bit more. Alansplodge (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere in "The Game of the Foxes" Ladislas Farago claims Germany broke into many or most of the allied diplomatic codes. Our article certainly does need some work. Zoonoses (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ted Bundy's interview

I saw an interview with Ted Bundy, his last interview hours before being executed and he blamed pornography for his violent and compulsive thoughts. Is there any article on Wikipedia that explains a possible link between violence and pornography? Nienk (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the veracity of the conclusions so reached, or any conclusion you may reach by reading them, you may be able to find some information in the articles Feminist views of pornography or Anti-pornography movement or Misogyny and mass media. Many social activists have claimed a clear connection, Andrea Dworkin comes to mind as the most prominent. If you are interested in exploring that view, Dworkin's books on the subject are probably as canonical as you can get. Again, don't take these recommendations of her works as an endorsement of them, or any of these articles, as being true, but they are usually considered to be among the most cited. --Jayron32 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Opposed to Dworkin is Sex-positive feminism... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nienk -- Viewing violent media depictions doesn't directly and immediately lead many people to go out and commit violence, or else most cities in the world would look like Grand Theft Auto locales. The more perceptive question is whether it leads to psychological habituation and desensitization effects, and there have been several studies on this (see Desensitization (psychology)#Desensitization). AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Susan Griffin's Pornography and Silence is an excellent read on this subject. -- 21:57, 22 August 2012‎ User:Woz62

I'd say Bundy is putting the cart before the horse in that interview. Sounds like the "Taxi Driver made me do it!" defense (which sometimes mutates into the "Marilyn Manson made them do it!" style of moral panic) - drafted this before I saw your Columbine question below. In either case, the perpetrator is already clinically insane; the media he cites is a vehicle for expressing some of his violent thoughts, not the cause of them. I'm sure media has an impact of some kind on some of the thought processes and imagery (as AnonMoos points out above), but I don't see the determinative causal link that Bundy and Hinckley (or people talking about them) used as an excuse. FWIW, neither did Martha Nussbaum in her critique of some of Dworkin's writings. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Willy has returned to the reference desk after several years of silence! I went through a phase several years ago of trying to improve our porn related articles, so heres what I remember from my "research". Fistly check out the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, theres plenty about it on google books. From what I recall this was the biggest and most authoritative investigation into whether porn had bad effects that had ever been undertaken, involved shitloads of shrinks, criminologists and other academic experts, and essentially found that there was no evidence that porn caused any type of harm to anyone. Republican congressmen didnt like the sound of this, so it was ignored. Compare and contrast this worthy, methodologically valid investigation with the social-conservative-stacked joke that was Ray-Guns Meese Report, which, given that its purpose was to find that porn is evil, funnily enough found that porn is evil. The British Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship essentially found that theres no evidence porn causes any harm to anyone. Check out Social effects of pornography too; although I havent read it or edited it yet, so it may well be bollocks; certainly the first quote mentioning the family is obvious drivel. The only academic I recall from my porn-editing days is Berl Kutchinsky, who also found that theres no evidence that porn causes any type of harm to anyone. Incidentally, if anyones interested in appallingly bad pseudo-academic "research" about porn, then read about Tony Bliar's thought-crime of Extreme pornography. Finally, the only other research I recall about this topic is [and sex crimes in Japan], which, like Kutchinsky, found that the more porn, the less sex crimes. Peace and love bitches! Willy turner (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

French working hours

The French 35-hour workweek restricts working hours to 35 per week, but does allow overtime (although apparently with an annual limit). Is there a definition of overtime that makes it different to regular working time? Is there anything to stop you just having your employees do two hours a week overtime every week, and essentially have a 37 hour week? I'm struggling to find good explanations of the rules in English (I don't speak French). Thanks. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather from Google Translate, overtime differs from regular working time in that the employer has to pay a bonus percentage and must (partly) compensate his workers by giving them time off. Thus, the overtime hours are more expensive for the employer and he is better off hiring more workers (which is the intention of implementing the 35-hour workweek. - Lindert (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the intention of the 35-hour week is actually to maintain a healthy work-life balance, or prevent exploitation of workers, or both? I suppose the intention of the legislation might be specified somewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Our article gives reasons - both allowing people to take advantage of modern technological advances to increase their lesiure time and reducing unemployment by sharing work more evenly. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions about the Columbine shooters

I love to read about crime and conspiracy theories, and on the Columbine massacre I've read a lot. For instance, that they were Neo Nazis, something not true since Dylan Klebold was Jewish. I've also read that they were Freemasons and homosexuals. Is there any truth in that?, in the last two pieces of conspiracy theories? Thank you. Nienk (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any evidence that they were homosexual, in fact there is evidence to the contrary. For example Eric Harris wrote in his journal Quote: "ALL gays, should be killed. mit keine fragen. lesbians are fun to watch if they are hot but still, its not human." In addition to hating homosexuals, the fact that he considered some lesbians 'hot' and 'fun to watch' strongly suggests he was not (exclusively) homosexual. I do not know about freemasonry, but I can't find any reputable sources that support the claim, so I highly doubt it. - Lindert (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did he write in German in his diary? And why is the German so bad (my Sprachgefuehl says it should be "ohne Frage")? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that writing such homophobic things is evidence that the writer is not homosexual. See Homophobia#Internalized_homophobia, or read about any number of the closet-homosexual and publicly gay-hating people in recent US history, such as Ted Haggard or Bob Allen. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, according to "Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold," Dylan was raised as Lutheran, not Jewish, though he did have a Jewish grandfather. I haven't seen any evidence that they were neo-Nazis, but nothing in their background precludes that possibility. D Monack (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He could've been a neo-Nazi. Look at this quote from his journal, for example, "I'm gonna be so fucking loaded in about a month. the big things we need to figure now is the time bombs for the commons and how we will get them in and leave then there to go off, without any fucking Jews finding them." Very irrational. As someone else mentioned above, he also hated homosexuals, which neo-Nazis hate as well. --Activism1234 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I have several comments.. One, the assumption that someone can't be a neo-nazi just because they're Jewish is false. If he was jewish by ancestry, he could very well rebel against it. It might seem ridicolous to go as extreme as neo-nazi, but I recently saw a documentary about the neo-nazi youth movement in Poland, and being Polish myself I found it equally absurd. Secondly, what if they were gay? Ask yourself Why would someone try to claim that? They were obviously disturbed in some fundamental way, could their sexual preferences also have been 'disturbed'? Is a regular gay person 'disturbed'? Can a disturbed person just happen to be gay? Seems to me equally absurd to try to draw a link between the fact they were homicidal maniacs and what their sexual preference was. You might as well make a conspiracy about what their favorite food was, start a rumor that McDonalds was their favorite food and they ate it 7 days a week and I bet someone conspiracy nuts will believe it and think there is a link. Vespine (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you saying... Are you replying to me?? Heck, I never even said whether he was gay or not... --Activism1234 00:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Neo-Nazism, see The Believer、loosely based on Dan Burros. While it is extremely unlikely, it is not entirely impossible. Oh, and Activism, I think he was replying directly to the OP. 164.71.1.221 (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah all right, I was so confused! --Activism1234 01:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you're the one that caused his edit conflict he can't possibly have been replying to you. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best book published on the subject is Columbine (book), by Dave Cullen. It explores a lot of the personal background of the two murderers, and also corrects many of the factual inaccuracies that were in the initial news reports and have subsequently passed into popular belief, even though they later turned out not to be true. A fascinating book, and mandatory reading for anyone interested in this event. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another question on Columbine

I added the category American Jews to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold since Klebold was born to Jewish mother. Is that edit right? Nienk (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends, I think. There are different ideas about what makes a person Jewish. It would be better to find a reliable source that directly states he is Jewish. Otherwise it might be considered original research to conclude that he is Jewish. - Lindert (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Also important is that it is generally agreed that reliable sources need to indicate that a person self-identifies as a categorization before we categorize them similarly. The standard at Wikipedia is threefold:

1. We need a reliable source
2. Which indicates that a person self-identifies with a category
3. Which is important to their reason for being notable

At best, we have only criteria 1) met. The other two are no where near being met for categorizing Klebold as Jewish in his Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There's an AN/I discussion going on about this topic right now. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Full Style of King of Saxony

What were the full style of the Kings of Saxony?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything more extensive than "His Majesty The King of Saxony" as listed at Frederick Augustus I of Saxony while I did find this page, which when fed through Google Translate gives "We, FIRSTNAME, by the Grace of God, King of Saxony, etc. etc." without giving additional titles. Several sources I ran across researching this question indicated that after deposition, the heirs to Saxony began using the title of Margrave of Meissen, which I assume to have been a lesser title they held when Kings of Saxony, indicating that Margrave of Meissen may have been one of the "etc." bits, but I can't find anything more definitive than that. Since I don't speak German like, at all, I'm not finding much more, but if you have access to German language sources, you may find more than I can find in English. --Jayron32 20:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

1806 through 1918: "Wir, (Name), von Gottes Gnaden König von Sachsen etc. etc. etc." . --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

One place to look is Ruvigny Titled Nobility of Europe (1913), which if I remember right has a page for each monarch – including the immediate vassals of the German Empire – displaying their coat of arms and listing their full styles. (No, I don't know where to lay hands on it; I've only ever seen it in the San Francisco Public Library, twenty-odd years ago.) —Tamfang (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Here it is in Google Books: [7]. Sadly, it doesn't seem that this one is previewable online. --Jayron32 02:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The entire title, along with a detailed explanation of what each of them was, at least for the year 1873, is on the German Wikipedia (de:Titulatur und Wappen (Deutsche Kaiser nach 1873)). Google also suggests that earlier in the ninteenth century, in 1815, Frederick Augustus I of Saxony was "King of Saxony and Duke of Poland" (Herzog von Warschau), but possibly with other titles (unfortunately searching for that only brings up examples followed by more "et ceteras"). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I just noticed you were asking about Saxony specifically, not the emperor, so nevermind... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Article 3 of the Treaty of Poznań (11 December 1806) reads "his electoral highness endues the title of king". A proclamation dated 29 December 1806 reads: The provisional title of the king is: "We, by the Grace of God, Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, etc. etc.", see 1811 state directory, p 157. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)