Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 March 4

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 4

The only woman in Margaret Thatcher's government besides her

I have heard, that prime minister Margaret Thatcher appointed only one woman as minister in her government during her years as prime minister. Is this correct? And in that case, who was this female minister? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Bottomley. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

She served under John Major. The only woman listed at Thatcher ministry is Janet Young, Baroness Young. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottomley's article reads "received her first ministerial position in 1988 as a junior Environment Minister[2] and was appointed Minister of Health in 1989." Thatcher was PM until 28 November 1990. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

True. She became Secretary of State for Health in 1992. What's the difference between that and the "Minister of Health"? There's no mention of any such portfolio for the UK at Health minister. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you were actually right the first time. It's Minister for Health (well, "Minister of State for Health"), which is the next level down from Secretary of State, and it's they position Bottomley held in those years. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 01:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Before 1988, Health wasn't its own department, it came under Health and Social Security, so there was a Minister of Health that reported to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. This is all in the article you linked to. However, that is not consistent with Bottomley being Minister of Health in 1989... perhaps she was a Minister of State in the Department of Health (there are currently two of those according to Department of Health (United Kingdom)#Ministers, although I don't know about 1989)? I don't think that would normally be described as "Minister of Health", but it would be an understandable mistake to make. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I'm wondering why this portfolio (whatever it was called) isn't listed at Thatcher ministry if the holder was called "Minister". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a Cabinet post, it was a Minister of State post, and the article you link to only lists the members of the Cabinet. In the UK, Ministers of State are junior ministers who do not run a government department and do not (generally) sit in cabinet, but normally take responsibility for a particular area of their department and are often described as "Minister for X" (more commonly nowadays) or "Minister of X" (no longer as common a usage). So for example in the large Department for Work and Pensions there is a Secretary of State and four Ministers of State who are called the Minister for Employment, the Minister for Pensions, the Minister for Disabled People and the Minister for Welfare Reform [1]. Valiantis (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Just correcting myself. There are two Ministers of State (Employment and Pensions) and two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State (Disabled People and Welfare Reform) who are even more junior ministers than the Ministers of State (i.e. their portfolio is less wide-ranging and their pay is lower [2]). Valiantis (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if the question is really about ministers in general rather than just cabinet ministers, there's Edwina Currie, who was a publicity-shy Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health. Henry^Flower 04:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP did write "minister" but the statement that is commonly repeated is that she only appointed one Cabinet minister. See for example this recent Vanity Fair article[3]. Valiantis (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This biography of Bottomley [4] from the parliament.uk site confirms she was Minister of State at the Department of Health from 1989 to 1992. I've edited the article and added the reference to clarify this. Valiantis (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Thatcher ministry article has a main list called "Ministry" and supplementary lists that mention the word "Cabinet". There's nothing to indicate the "Ministry" details are confined to Cabinet posts, and if this is the case, it really should be spelt out. Because, without this qualification, it's extraordinarily tempting to believe that anyone who was a Minister in her government would be listed in the "Ministry", and that anyone who's not mentioned was not one of her Ministers. It'd sure make answering questions like this one a whole lot less fraught. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Baroness Young was the only other woman cabinet member during a Thatcher government, and she was in post for only a year. There were several other women non-Cabinet ministers and junior ministers. The full list is:

• Baroness Blatch: Baroness-in-Waiting 15 January 1990 – 7 September 1990; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 7 September 1990 – 28 November 1990
• Virginia Bottomley: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 25 July 1988 – 28 October 1989; Minister of State, Department of Health 28 October 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Lynda Chalker: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health 7 May 1979 – 5 March 1982; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport 5 March 1982 – 18 October 1983; Minister of State, Department of Transport 18 October 1983 – 10 January 1986; Minister for Overseas Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 24 July 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Baroness Cox: Baroness-in-Waiting 3 April 1985 – 2 August 1985
• Edwina Currie: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health 10 September 1986 – 16 December 1988
• Peggy Fenner: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 14 September 1981 – 10 September 1986
• Baroness Hooper: Baroness-in-Waiting 17 September 1985 – 14 June 1987; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science 13 June 1987 – 26 July 1988; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy 26 July 1988 – 28 July 1989; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health 29 September 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Sally Oppenheim: Minister for Consumer Affairs, Department of Trade 6 May 1979 – 5 March 1982
• Marion Roe: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 13 June 1987 – 26 July 1988
• Angela Rumbold: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 2 September 1985 – 10 September 1986; Minister of State, Department of Education and Science 10 September 1986 – 24 July 1990; Minister of State, Home Office 23 July 1990 – 28 November 1990
• Gillian Shephard: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security 25 July 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Baroness Trumpington: Baroness-in-Waiting 11 June 1983 – 25 March 1985; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Health 30 March 1985 – 13 June 1987; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 13 June 1987 – 28 September 1989; Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 28 September 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Baroness Young: Minister of State, Department of Education and Science 7 May 1979 – 14 September 1981; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 27 October 1981 – 6 April 1982; Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords 6 April 1982 – 11 June 1983; Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 13 June 1983 – 13 June 1987

It's worth saying that some of these were more prominent than others. Sally Oppenheim was probably the second most prominent Conservative woman MP in 1979, and had a populist job, but reportedly did not get on with the Prime Minister. Edwina Currie, who was in a very junior role for two years, became very well known to the public. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Solo artists who have played with all four Beatles

Questions like this make me wish I had something more constructive to contribute... Anyway, would I be correct in assuming that Eric Clapton is the only artist who has performed with all four Beatles/ex-Beatles on a solo basis (i.e., with John in Toronto, George at the Concert for Bangladesh and Paul and Ringo at the Concert for George)? Thanks in advance. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Odd use of the word "solo", which I take to mean an artist performing on his or her own, so if Clapton performed with somebody, they weren't solo.HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he means: was Clapton the only artist to perform with each of the Beatles, after the Beatles broke up? Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no artist is truly "solo" if they have a backing group, right? But that's been the accepted use of the term for the past fifty years or so, so I went with that. Blueboar is spot on with regard to my meaning. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Elton John. A search for "Elton John George Harrison" brought a YouTube video of those two plus Ringo Starr. A similar search for "Elton John Paul McCartney" has also produced videos of concerts. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Oh yes and to clarify, EJ and John Lennon recorded "Whatever gets you through the night" together. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Billy Preston. He also (like Clapton) played on a Beatles record while they were together, and even performed with them live on the rooftop. His article says he worked on solo records with John, George, and Ringo. He also appeared in Concert for George with Paul playing "My Sweet Lord". (There's a youtube video of that.) Staecker (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well if you're going to have Billy Preston, you could also have Klaus Voorman... --TammyMoet (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

behavioral economics

How is the research conducted in this field? Thanks... 84.229.140.166 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read our article Behavioral economics and come back here to ask if you have further questions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I read it before posting the question. It doesn't specify, I believe, how exactly is the research conducted. What exactly do they do to reach their conclusion. What is the daily routine of a behavioral economist? Thanks again... 84.228.3.29 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Behavioral economics#Behavioral economics vs experimental economics says it uses a mixture of experiments, theory, and observations in the field. Different behavioural economists will use different methods, whether it's conducting experiments, studying previous experiments, making observations, collecting data, studying historical data, or studying theory. It's not possible to give a typical daily routine; if they work in academia much of their time will be spent on teaching and administration, and even those conducting experiments will only do this occasionally. The best way to get a sense of the methodologies would be to read some academic papers on the subject. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hollands Land reclaimation

This shows what Holland would look like without all its dykes, and I'm trying to find out when and how they actually began reclaiming land? All I can find is the stuff in Flood control in the Netherlands, which now I actually look at it is kind of useful, but I'd really appreciate some casual level reading on this as it seems super interesting but I don't know much about Holland's history, for example I don't even know how civilized the people occupying that area were at that time. 109.150.87.106 (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK so I just took a look at that flood control article and it is more in-depth than it initially looked and so I've edited my initial question. I'd like some stuff from other places though maybe? 109.150.87.106 (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Indian National Congress provincial affiliates

Which states don't have provincial affiliations of Indian National Congress? So far, I know that Tamil Nadu doesn't. Who else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.100 (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think all Indian states have a Pradesh Congress Committee today. --Soman (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Arab nation relationship

Which Arab nations have strained or good relationship with each other like Lebanon and Syria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.100 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are asking for a chart showing the current relationship status of every Arab nation with every other ? Since there are about 22 Arab nations, that means 22×21 or 462 combinations. That's a lot to ask of us. StuRat (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All Arab nations have a strained or good relationship with each other. XPPaul (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We have a whole bunch of good articles with the title "Foreign relations of <country>" such as Foreign relations of Lebanon. Get stuck into those old bean! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My (limited) understanding is that whatever notions of "arab unity" may ideologically exist, it has rarely played out in practice. Realpolitik comes first, as it does pretty much everywhere in the world. "We have no permanent friends, only permanent interests" (quote from some diplomat). As to Lebanon and Syria, Lebanon pretty much lives under Syria's thumb. It certainly isn't a relationship of equals. Lebanon, by virtue of both its' geographic location and demographic makeup, has seldom enjoyed any true independence. 203.214.66.250 (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is only one Arab nation, Balkanized into various states largely as a result of colonial division. Relations between these range from excellent to terrible, but also vary rapidly over time. --Soman (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

differences between national dresses

Does China and Taiwan each have a national dress?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You can see Hanfu movement... AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(Though I'm not sure why all images have been removed from that article since the last time I visited it...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are images that have been removed from the page. The removals lack edit summaries, and are not menioned on the talk page. The images have been deleted by different editors. I won't restore the images, but maybe someone knowledgeable about this should restore them if they're relevant? The first and second images still appear on the Chinese version of the page. (And BTW, according to the logs, the removals happened before your last edit to the page, AnonMoos). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A group of Hanfu enthusiasts on a busy street in China.

I've got stuck in and put all those photographs back in. Rather odd they were removed - not cricket! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll rephrase the question. Does Taiwan have a national dress/costume? If so, how it is different from the hanfu?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The hanfu isn't actually the national dress of China; it is the traditional dress of the Han Chinese ethnic group. But Taiwan has an even larger Han majority than mainland China (98% compared with 92%, according to the Wikipedia article), so if you can say the hanfu is the national dress of China, it's also the national dress of Taiwan. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So if Melinda Wang models for the Taiwanese national costume, would she sport a hanfu or qipao?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it misleading to say the "hanfu" is the "traditional dress" of the Han Chinese ethnic group. It is the historical dress of the Han Chinese ethnic group, and then only a subset of them, depending on occupation. The "traditional" dress of the Han Chinese ethnic group has developed in the last 300 years or so, and examples include the robes and waistcoats familiar from the turn of the 20th century. It seems historically revisionist to deny that the dress has evolved simply because some of that evolution came due to the imposition of Manchu customs on the Han Chinese.

So to answer that last question, the qipao is firmly a part of the traditional national dress of the Chinese, Han or not, even if it is Manchu in origin. For one thing, the modern qipao looks nothing like the original Manchu dress-robe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather, to answer your question specifically: a qipao would be part of the traditional dress in both China and Taiwan.

Hanfu would not fit the usual definition of traditional dress for either China or Taiwan, except to a historical revisionist - it is more like a historical costume rather than a national costume. Another point to note is that the traditional dress varies significantly from region to region even among Han Chinese populations - in Taiwan, it may well be felt that certain (rustic) Hakka or Fujian dress, or even the ethnic costume of Taiwanese Aboriginese, are more representative of it than modern traditional Chinese dress. Similarly, in various parts of mainland China there would also be regional dress that may be regarded as more representative of traditional dress there. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as a name

I wonder about the frequency of this as a given name in many Spanish-speaking countries (as Jesús). It seems pretty clearly based on Jesus from the Bible. In America, if I saw someone named "Jesus", named by English-speaking parents, I would think his parents were trying to make some sort of statement. At the very least, it would be eyebrow-raising, and I think that, acknowledging I paint with a broad brush, most Americans would react similarly. But given the commonness of the name, it doesn't seem like naming someone after an important religious figure is a problem. I also find the name Muhammad strange for the same reasons, particularly given the usual response by Muslims toward depictions of the Prophet. So maybe it's not that Spanish-speaking, or Muslim, societies don't have issue with it, it's that America does. Any light to shed on this? Thanks! 68.54.4.162 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

According to our article Muhammad (name), Muhammad is the most common given name in the world, including variations. Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain's interfaith relations committee and an imam in Leicester, is quoted as saying "Some of us believe we are assured of heaven if we name our children Muhammad.", see BBC news article What can't be named Muhammad. So there is clearly no taboo against naming boys Muhammad among Muslims. There does seem to be a taboo, or at least reluctance, against naming boys Jesus among Christians, with the exception of Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking countries. All the notable individuals listed in our article Jesus (name) appear to have Hispanic roots. The thought occured to me that the frequent usage of Jesus as a given name in in Hispanic societies could have arisen during the nearly eight centures that parts of Hispania were under Muslim rule. This is just speculation, no sources. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 08:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See a recent discussion on the same subject here. Alansplodge (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

James Jesus Angleton was mentioned in the article Alansplodge linked to, commenting that no-one found his name offensive. I'd just like to point out that his mother appears to have been Mexican (judging by name and place of meeting), something which was not mentioned in the previous discussion. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just America that has an issue, I have an issue with it aswell; I'm certain that others in the world also has issues with it. The only way that I would not have an issue, is if the etymological definition of the hispanic varients are unrelated, which I doubt. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, I've just read of the article on the name, it seems that the definition is not so exclusive as I had thought, but the idea still doesn't suit me very well. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If really want to use the full name, it is Yehoshua Immanu'El Mashiah. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The above takes several (distinctly theological) liberties with the name. More likely he would have been known as "Yeshua ben Yosef" or, in reference to his place of origin, "Yeshua miNetzaret". "Yeshua haMashiach" is the closest Hebrew equivalent to "Jesus Christ". If we wanted to get technical, it's worth nothing that the name Joshua, and all variants thereof, is etymologically derived from the name Yeshua or Yehoshua (both meaning either "Yah saves" or "Yah is (my) salvation"), which forms the basis of the Greek form Ieosous, which eventually became Anglicized (via French) to Jesus. Joshua is actually closer to how Christ's name would have been pronounced, minus the J (which didn't exist until France in the 16th Century). Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please define theological liberties? Most likely those were his public names. The name I gave is simply a compilation of every name that he was given throughout the Bible, including His title. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that I missed one. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Immanuel was not a name given to (or claimed by) Christ during his earthly life. It may have been applied to him by those who recognized him as the Messiah (in accordance with Isaiah's prophecy), particularly after his death/resurrection, but it wasn't his "name" in any meaningful sense. And what do you mean by "most likely"? Are you just guessing? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The bible is a collection of various documents, nearly all of which try to make a theological point, and very few of which even make a claim at being historically correct in the modern sense. I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that Jesus was called Immanuel (or any variant thereof) in his lifetime. Indeed, even Matthew does not claim this, he only relates Jesus birth to a prophecy by Isaiah. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew one guy named Jesús, and yeah it's really no big deal in an overwhelmingly Catholic country like ours. I still find it disconcerting though when English-speakers tend to mispronounce the name as "Jeezus". Same with the male given name Ángel. It's weird, as if the very act of uttering them in English changes their intended meaning, from being something quite normal to something bordering on the ridiculous (though in the case of the former, it might have to do with the fact that Angel in English is usually a female given name).

This is all original research, but I think the way these different cultures view Jesus (the diety) could be a significant factor. In predominantly Catholic Latin countries, the Christian God isn't really viewed as a distant, angry, and jealous authoritarian figure. It's more like that of an affectionate but stern father. And in the typically closeknit families of these cultures, the greatest honor you can possibly give to a father is to name his son after him. It's also symbolic, important in cultures where symbolism is woven into the way of life. The fact that the name is taboo among English-speakers might reflect the difference in how their version of Jesus is perceived to react to having someone named after him. In one it is assumed he would be insulted and angry, in the other it is assumed he would be honored and rain blessings on the child. Go figure.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus (name) has the definitive answer to this. It sounds strange at first for English speakers, but remember that at Jesus' time, Jesus was a pretty common name and it being a biblical name and all made it common in many languages, and not only in Spanish and Portuguese. Obviously, all languages use their own variety of the name. English is an exception here. XPPaul (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Genius: We can agree to have our opinions rather than argue about what were, and are is His names. To answer your question, the names that you gave sounds like original research. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Jesus" is etymologically equivalent to "Joshua", and there is no shortage of Joshuas in English. It's just not customary in northern Europe to name kids "Jesus". Probably considered blasphemous or something. Not so in Latin countries. Now, if a Hispanic family named their kid "God" or "Jesus Christ", that would likely raise some eyebrows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose those Joshuas in the English speaking world are Jewish. WKB52 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they are just of Jewish heritage. If a Jew named Joshua has children with a non-Jewish woman, he'll still have some motivation to call the children Joshua. The truth is, however, that's not possible to know how many Joshuas have a connection to the Jewish community. And maybe some Muhammad is not a Muslim, just have a connection to the relevant community. WKB52 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Including well-known Jews like Joshua Gibson. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't discard Josh Gibson being Jewish. Being black is not incompatible with being Jewish and here is a link of him in a Jewish hall of fame: [[5]]. 88.8.68.249 (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. According to the US Government, Joshua was the third most popular name in the US from 2002-2006 and fourth from 1984 to 1996 (with a few breaks)[6]. In New South Wales, Australia, it held the number one spot from 2000 to 2003 before slipping down to number two[7]. An opinion poll in the UK makes it number one in 2010[8]. The two names may have a common root in Hebrew, but for English-speaking Christians, Jesus and Joshua are two distinct people in every translation of the Bible; Joshua is the noisy chap at the siege of Jericho and Jesus is a carpenter who tells good stories and falls foul of the Romans. Old Testament names are common among Christians: Jonathan, Samuel, David, Daniel, Nathan, Sarah, Judith (my sister's name!) and Rachel. Aaron and Isaac have become popular recently. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

US Constitution

There seems to exist in America an almost religious reverence for the Constitution. I wonder if there are any writings explaining or discussing this phenomenon that refdeskers have read and could recommend? Thanks! 68.54.4.162 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of an interesting point. Maybe to clarify a bit, are you talking in a wide sense, in that every american politician/statesman professes adherence, or are you talking more specifically about law makers in particular (whether congress, or the courts). Part of this phenomenon is of course less a reverence for the Constitution than it is for the rule of law. I'm sure there's plenty of discussion about that development and what it means and its origins. As an American lawyer, the respect for the rule of law is a constant, with a few exceptions perhaps. And in the U.S. that means the Constitution. Every person who works for the U.S. government, and every person who becomes a member of the bar takes an oath to that too. So I understand the religious analog you're making. However, what you're referring to is a basic human feature, not something about religion, or unique to Americans and the American Constitution. We all have prominent texts that, in whatever way, define core characteristics of ourselves. In American public life the Constitution is one of those documents. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you weren't already aware, the U.S. Constitution is not just an ideal, it is the law of the United States. Saving debates about natural law which were quite active in the early years of the U.S., but have dissipated significantly since, there is no higher legal text than the Constitution. That may be why it appears to be revered. But if you already knew this and were getting more meta... see my answer above. Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What did you mean by "As an American lawyer, the respect for the rule of law is a constant, with a few exceptions perhaps"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The rule of law is the uniform guiding principle of every person, at least in theory, that swears an oath to become a lawyer in every common law country, and I assume almost every other country as well. That oath may, in rare circumstances, contradict some lawyers' personal codes. There are instances of laywers following their personal codes, rather than their legal ones. That's the exception I'm speaking of. Shadowjams (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I almost thought you were talking about yourself as the American lawyer, but the rest of the sentence didn't bear that out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the premise of the question is true. As said above, the Constitution is part of the law, which is why Americans reference it so often. But I remember historians complaining when the 200th anniversary of the Constitution came & went without Americans seeming to much care. The real "religious" document in US history is the United States Declaration of Independence. As discussed in the article, people have long revered it as something akin to a sacred text. The best book on the Declaration is called American Scripture for this reason. —Kevin Myers 13:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. While the Declaration of Independence has significant meaning, it is not the same as the Constitution. And as much as we love telling the crown what it can do with its colonies... we also owe something to English common law, and the sensibilities that came with it. The "constitution" that comes with that is codified in the U.S. Constitution, which has unique legal significance in a way the Declaration of Independence does not. Some of the misplaced reverence you might be referring to may have to do more with popular ignorance. Shadowjams (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lord only knows what you're "begging to differ" with, since nothing you say differs from my point. Your statements are almost self-evident truths, to coin a phrase, and not in dispute. —Kevin Myers 15:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One time we were going to a Quiz Bowl tournament and had to cross the border. The customs lady thought it would be fun to quiz us, and asked when the Constitution was signed. I knew what she meant, so rather than risk annoying a border official, I just said 1776, and she was happy. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a great story. I think a lot of history buffs learn to hold their tongues at certain times, but there's no historical confusion quite like the confusion between the Constitution and 1776. I saw a children's book once that told impressionable youths that Jefferson wrote the Constitution. The confusion is ingrained early. —Kevin Myers 17:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jill Lepore has written a number of excellent articles in the New Yorker over the last few years about (apparent) Constitution-worship and (apparent) Constitutional-literalism. She points out that the literalist approach is comparatively newer than one might expect (and that none of the Founders actually believed it was some kind perfect, carved-in-stone document), and that most of the people who claim to be huge fans of the Constitution are, at best, fans of the Bill of Rights, and know next to nothing about the actual Constitution itself. (She also points out that despite the claims of the literalists, the Constitution qua Constitution is a pretty tough document to make sense of, full of really quite specific 18th century legal terminology.) This one in particular is quite excellent. Note that the frame of reference was the Tea Party claiming to be Constitutional literalists, but it goes quite beyond that in exploring the phenomena. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also see American civil religion. A lot of Americans see "our Founding Fathers" not as they were -- as imperfect politicians that squabbled a lot, often hated what the others were doing, put their pants on one leg at a time and used outhouses but, like Biblical figures, as nearly perfect individuals whom we should treat with, as the questioner says, religious reverence. So for example, some people say we can't mess with the Electoral College because the "Founding Fathers wanted it that way" (even though current presidential elections are organized in a way the founders never actually imagined). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the Electoral College was to help get the Constitution ratified. The House of Representatives, and hence the Electoral College, were deliberately designed to give the small states a somewhat disproportionately larger voice, and thus a chance to temper being overwhelmed by the larger states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course you mean the Senate (two votes for each State) rather than the HR (proportional to population). But the EC might well exist without the Senate. One of its purposes is to avoid letting the vote be scattered among many local favorites; hence the command that "the Electors shall ... vote for two persons, of whom at least one shall not be a resident of the same State with themselves." (Those who can be bothered to check the text, rather than rely on my memory, feel free to correct it and remove this parenthesis.) —Tamfang (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that the Founders thought that state legislators would choose electors, who in turn would scatter their votes among a group of eminent citizens, with the final decision to be made by the House of Representatives among the top five. They could not have imagined the issue of popular vote vs. electoral vote that we have today. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea was and is that the states elect the President, not "the people" as such. And the Electoral College purposely gives excessive weight to the smaller states just as they have excessive weight in the House of Representatives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If that was the intent, it is not clear that it worked. Another thing the founders didn't necessarily foresee was that slates of electors would be pledged to a particular candidate, and chosen all-or-nothing (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska).

In a simple model where all states are evenly divided between two candidates, the probability of an individual vote changing the result in a given state is proportional to N^−1/2, where N is the state's population. However, the chance of that state changing the outcome of the election as a whole is proportional to the number of electoral votes of the state, which is approximately proportional to N for large N. So an individual vote counts roughly proportional to N^1/2 — that is, an individual vote actually counts more in a large state.

In practice, of course, most large states are not evenly divided. Very little attention is paid to Californians, for example, because for the forseeable future the outcome is taken as a given (that is a fairly recent development; you can thank Pete Wilson for it). Floridians, though, have enormous influence, because they're in a fairly large state that's fairly evenly divided. --Trovatore (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(perhaps a more cautious way of putting my point about California would be: For the forseeable future, any Republican presidential candidate who takes California — will not need California) --Trovatore (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, that's twice you've said that small states have disproportionate weight in the House of Representatives. Have I missed something? —Tamfang (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Consider: Wyoming has 1 representative of 435 (0.229%), but 563,626 of 308,745,538 = (0.182%); California has 53/435 (12.184%), but 37,253,956 of 308,745,538 = (12.066%). Wyoming's "extra" 0.047% is 1.258 times its population weight (nearly +26%), while California's "extra" 0.118% is 1.009 times its population weight (just short of +1%); although this only became disparate with the Reapportionment Act of 1929. (Since some states have more, others have less; the smaller states almost all have more, but collectively more than the larger states.) To see the difference in population per electoral college member at List of U.S. states and territories by population#States and territories, see the '2000 Census Pop. per Pres. Elector column'. Dru of Id (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The "voters per elector" metric doesn't really make sense, for the reasons I explain above. --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Allegiance to the Constitution

Let me take a slightly different tack. When the United States were formed as a Republic (worship of republicanism being a closely-related but distinct topic), there was no human equivalent of the King to whom her civil officials and military officers (most emphatically including the President) would swear an oath of allegiance, in the way that a British officer swears loyalty to his or her monarch. There was no human embodiment of the nation and its ideals equivalent to a human monarch or pontiff. Instead the Constitution itself requires (at the end of Article II, section 1) the President before taking office to swear or affirm that "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." In addition, Article VI requires that the "Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". The current oath or affirmation (which I made upon becoming a census-taker in 1980 and 1990) is, according to Wikipedia, that

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

A similar oath or affirmation is made by those entering the armed services, with the addition of a pledge to obey lawful orders. So when a soldier or federal agent risks or sacrifices his or her life and limb, it is not for his King (or Queen) and Country, but for the Constitution and the Union. The Constitution is (or should be) the guarantee that the Republic has a popular and legally-limited government.

¶ This is of course, the beginning of an answer rather than a whole one, but it should be borne in mind when trying to understand Americans' attitude towards the U.S. Constitution. Another parallel to be borne in mind is the passion of many revolutionary movements, from the French Revolution to the Prague Spring and Arab Spring for a new constitution that would limit tyranny, increase liberty, and give (or return) more power to the governed. In fact, appeals to a venerable and hallowed English Constitution supposedly already long in existence was a staple of revolutionary and reform movements from the English Civil War to Chartism, a tradition with which the American colonists very much identified themselves in their own struggles with the British King and parliament. Although the U.S. Constitution was adopted several years after independence, it was in a young Republic born of such a struggle in blood. And when far more blood was shed two generations later, both sides declared and believed they were defending the principles of that Constitution as well as of the American Revolution. So in some ways, the United States (especially when feeling under internal or external threat) has always felt that revolutionary spirit, and part of that spirit is expressed as dedication to the Constitution. It's not unnatural that sometimes dedication to the Constitution and admiration for the best and most effective parts of it, can combine into a worship of the whole document that some find extreme. This isn't meant as a patriotic Fourth of July oration (in fact, although I've lived in the U.S. most of my life, I haven't yet taken U.S. citizenship), but to try and explain the motives of behind "an almost religious reverence". I have also not discussed the use of rhetorical appeals (sometimes passionately sincere, sometimes quite calculated) to the Constitution in political and legal debates, such as those surrounding the Civil War, civil rights and civil liberties. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mary Macleod (painter)

Hi! Does anyone know anything about Mary Macleod, an artist and painter, who painted this portrait showing Elizabeth Alice Aubrey Le Blond and this: [9]. I need informations about her life ... Thanks a lot, Doc Taxon (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was this page, advertising an exhibition called "Portraits by Mary Macleod" in December 2011 at the Southampton Art School & Gallery in Wingham, Ontario. They might be able to tell you if it's the same one (there are an awful lot of people called Mary Macleod out there) and give you some information. Alansplodge (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One more: a note near the bottom of this BBC blog suggests that a portrait painter called Mary Macleod was the daughter of Edward J Leveson. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is this Mary Macleod? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't a clue as the link says "You have reached your limit for this page"...--TammyMoet (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If you click the "next" link at the top you do get taken to a readable extract. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.209 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you then click "Previous" you get to the page that wasn't shown in the first place. Funny. --Jeppi (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Kitty Ussher's husband

What is PeterJ Colley's middle name please? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the GRO index there are several people called Peter J Colley, however only one who is the same age as Kitty Ussher. His middle name is John, however there is no guarentee this is the right person: her husband could be older or younger than her and there are plenty of candidates to choose from. -- role^player 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reason behind separate race question in corporate surveys

A specific example for this if you are the type that demands specific is Walmart's at survey dot walmart dot com. This one, for instance, has a question whether the survey taker is of Latino or Hispanic origin, and the very next question asks the survey taker to check all boxes that apply to them, including labels such as caucasian, black, asian/pacific islander. Both questions of course have an option to prefer not to answer. My question is why there is a specific question about Latino/Hispanic and why isn't this just another checkbox in the other race section? Remember, the checkbox one allows you to check as many boxes as you want. 69.243.220.115 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This is probably done for consistency with other US demographic data, such as the census; see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census for a discussion. Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, then I'd be compelled to wonder about the reasoning behind why they (or whoever (an individual organization or a group of organizations) was first and everyone started copying) specifically singled out Latino/Hispanic origin. The third paragraph of Race and ethnicity in the United States Census flatly states this but doesn't provide any backstory or justification of any sort. 69.243.220.115 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See the section on the 2000 census in the article you linked to for some backstory. It was a kludgy attempt (which, in traditional bureaucratic style, really satisfied nobody) to figure out who came from Latin or South America irregardless of what "race" they fall into. (Most Latin and South Americans are of European or African ancestry. A good number are actually of Asian ancestry, which usually comes as some surprise to Americans...) To its credit, the 2000 census categories tried to give people a lot of options for mixing-and-matching while self-identifying their race/ethnicity, in part because just handing people categories that seem sensible to white folks has been frowned upon for quite some time. The result, of course, is that census data on race/ethnicity makes almost no sense except to say "these folks are non-white" (which ironically is what the old categories basically told you, anyway) and is thus very hard to draw strong sociological conclusions from. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the question asks why "Hispanic origin" is a separate question rather than a choice in the "race" question. This article on the Census website says they first asked it like this in 1970 and found in testing that that way "would produce the most accurate and reliable results." It looks like the guy you want to talk to about this is Jorge del Pinal at the Census Bureau. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hispanics are not a "race" in the conventional sense. Many are of "pure" Spanish extraction and would be considered Caucasian, and many many more are of mixed race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas Sarkozy and African leaders ceremony

What was the ceremony that was held in Paris where French President Nicholas Sarkozy and African leaders of former French colonies met? I was told it was called sans Afrique or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.73 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was in Paris? Sarkozy hosted the 25th African-French summit in Nice in 2010 ('vingt-cinquieme Sommet Afrique-France') detailed here, the 24th was in Cannes in 2007 (ici), the 26th hasn't been held yet and 23rd was long before he was President. --Saalstin (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarkozy was also the keynote speaker at the 16th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa in 2011: details -- role^player 18:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

spirituality question

So, I was discussing dreams and such like with someone, and we got onto some weird stuff I did in my younger years that seems to be impacting on my dreams now, or at least the memories of it and of what might have happened had it gone wrong. I was given this advice

' Are you familiar with the term "Banishing"? Sounds like you have some obssesive and or destructive thoughts. The idea behind banishing is to "Deguasse" if you will. Like demagnitizing a tape head. I prescribe learning the Golden dawn banishing of the Pentagram and banishing of the Hexagram. Simple to learn. All good holy wholesomeme stuff Angels,Gods, Up stuff not down stuff.These will put your mind at ease and distance you from any "Occult" or unseen forces. Just a suggestion. '

I know nothing about this, anyone point me in the right direction here?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be referring to a sort of spiritual degaussing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

To get an idea of the context, you could start by reading our article Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and decide if you really want to delve into Ceremonial magic. (To clarify: as a Wiccan I'm relaxed about the milieu, but many people might not be, especially if they have a conventional Christian outlook.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.209 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks very... structured and wizardly to me. not what I was expecting. (to clarify my own position on such matters, I am very casually polytheistic, and sometimes wonder if I should be more active and involved in such matters, no conventional christian outlooks here) 148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of "fighting fire with fire", then it should be easy to understand that is one Satan's campaign techniques, he makes evil seem like good by using disinformation and whitewashing. For instance, do know that angels can be either good or bad? Not everything is as it seems, he uses evil to get rid of evil. You'll end up in a viscious cycle if you go down that path. Do you not think that if he can send angels of lucifer (demons) that he also withdraw them? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't Jesus accused of the same thing ("fighting fire with fire" as in casting out demons in the name of the devil in Mathew 12:22-30)? Rabuve (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me, I can't see what you're trying to say, other than the good and bad angels, which I already knew. Though, I do wonder what makes something good or bad. But then, as I say, I'm not christian, so it doesn't apply to me. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you read the books written by Richard Dawkins. If that doesn't "Deguasse" your concerns about evil spirits and such, nothing will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite. It's not evil spirits, though, I'm usually quite logical and sensible about such things, I know it doesn't make sense, but when I'm in bed, half asleep, it does, even when I can tell myself otherwise. Partly the memory of what I might have done, of losing control like that, partly perhaps my subconscious mind playing with my fears, which whenever I think of them just seem to grow and grow and feed on themselves... Yes, I'm all messed up inside, maybe something like that could help, maybe not. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion, not related to answering the question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What I mean is that engaging with spirituallity and other occult practices is certain to cause you or someone around you to be worse off, and I'm not just saying ts based on bias. I've done a background study on this kind of stuff, and I've seen the inevitable consequences. A wiccan almost killed her son with a "protection encantation". Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) How did she do that? something go terribly unexpectedly wrong? or do you mean something about the universe balancing itself out, bad for every good, that sort of thing? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I don't remember much of the details, but I remember that he was attacked by sprites which threw items at him, and chased him out of the house. Apparently, the incantation was spot on, but it backfired, possibly because he converted to Christianity before returning home from military service. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah, right. The mystical woo you believe in defeated the other mystical woo... Really convincing evidence from the most reliable of sources - some bloke on the internet... If you're going to try to promote your belief-system on the reference desks, at least do us the honour of pretending to have evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC) What are you talking about, I just answered the OP's last question? I never promoted my belief system, I'm just saying that from what I've learned, it is bad news. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC) No you haven't. All you've done is told us what you think 'apparently' happened, and that somehow 'Christianity' put it all to rights. You've given no evidence at all. That isn't an answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I told him what I could remember from the report, and I did not say that Christianity put it all to rights" or any form of those words, simply that based on the circumstancial evidense from the report, it is my opinion that it may be a relavent factor. Neither did I say that I have cited evidence. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Which 'report'? This is a reference desk. People are entitled to expect answers to be based on something more than 'opinion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah well, an opinion is all that I can provide. I don't remember what the report was, because it was some time ago. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the other commentary, if you feel "messed up inside," you should see a physician or psychologist. They are better suited to this than random strangers on a website. Magical incantations might ease your mind for a bit, but won't actually identify the issue or help you deal with it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Follow up: culture and magnets, how do they work?

Are there any religious movements that make ceremonial use of magnets, particularly with the ceremonial intent of removing information from structures? In a related question, what is the cultural and social function of non-diagnostic or atypical diagnostic techniques involving magnetic resonance imaging? To what extent have scholars considered these uses as having a ceremonial or cultural meaning centred purpose rather than a purpose inline with "normal medicine"? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just listen to yourself. “Cultural and social function of non-diagnostic or atypical diagnostic techniques involving magnetic resonance imaging”. You use so many long words in your post it sounds like management-speak. – b_jonas 11:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a perfectly well-formed question. I think making fun of a question because you don't understand the words, or the question, makes you look a little ignorant. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have seen work on this from two specific points of view, both relating to brain imaging in particular. One is the way in which brain imaging studies are often trotted out to support various Buddhist beliefs. The other is specifically on the use of brain scans as representations of human selfhood, especially in legal contexts. (Technically that one talks about PET rather than MRI scans, but same difference.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would think there would be little use of MRI's for "ceremonial or cultural" purposes because they are too expensive. Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo's question likely assumes that the line between ceremonial and cultural purposes and, say, diagnostic or medical purposes is a somewhat arbitrary one. "Cultural purposes" is an almost infinitely vague notion. The fact that in the US such tests are done because of a quirky, contextual confluence of insurance company requirements, malpractice lawsuits, and public unease about missed diagnoses fits pretty well under "cultural purposes" in my book, and potentially even "ceremonial" purposes, if you have a wide-enough view of "ceremony". I had an MRI done at a research laboratory once as part of the training of undergraduate scientists — is that any less "cultural" than any other rite of passage? --Mr.98 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr.98 is right, I'm assuming that "normal medicine" is culturally constructed as a practice. So an entire medical system could verge into abnormality (sluggishly progressing schizophrenia anybody?). Bloody Buddhist physicalists; it reminds me of Christianity and geology in the 18th and 19th century. The idea of constructing a self with a magnet is a particularly curious one, I'm not completely up on the continental philosophy work on bio-power etc, but there are some curious attempts to manifest consciousness in the world, and law is a domain where these issues are hard fought. Thanks Mr.98. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But from where are you getting an idea of "constructing a self with a magnet"? And also in an earlier post you mention "…use of magnets, particularly with the ceremonial intent of removing information from structures". I don't understand where these magnets come into play and for what purpose. Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you read the discussion in the section above regarding magnets, where a comparison is made between "degaussing" and a particular religious practice—thus asking about the ceremonial use of magnets to (in a belief) literally remove information from a person, an "erase head." Regarding constructing a self with a magnet; isn't this the implication of claiming that MRIs (or PETs or CATs) image a substantive element of consciousness in relation to legal debates about personhood, identity and self? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I don't believe that magnets banish demons or image "the mind"—I am asking about people's belief in practices that are "culturally meaningful" to them. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify the phrase "culturally meaningful"? The field of medicine is a part of the "culture" of humanity. That would entail construing "culture" broadly. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I referred to ritual or ceremony. To the extent that Doctors over-proscribe antibiotics without reference to demostrable placebo effects, they're participating in a transfer of cultural significance. The patient propitiates the Doctor with claimed symptoms and an expectation of expertise, they're unnecessarily proscribed antibiotics (or, "necessarily" within a treatment regime that has been broadly published as outmoded), and the patient then feels that their sickness has been culturally accepted as meaningful because they've got a small packet of amoxicillan. I'm not referring to the system of meanings within normal medicine's claimed epistemology, but to ceremonial or ritual exchanges lying outside of that. Mr98's suggestion regarding the atypical use of MRIs in the United States; or, the Australian Government's funding structure for major medical purchases that encouraged the purchase of major diagnostic equipment well above and beyond the need are examples of behaviour more to do with the reproduction of US or Australian culture as a whole, than the reproduction of the culture of normal medicine in those societies. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not "ritual" or "ceremony" to wastefully or harmfully deploy medicine and medical procedures. I don't think that ritual or ceremony ever interface with anything objective or rational. Those terms can be used fancifully. I don't see how they apply to standard medicine. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"I don't think that ritual or ceremony ever interface with anything objective or anything rational". Perhaps you should try thinking a bit harder? I find myself unable to restrain myself from pointing out the apparent interface between the rituals of circumcision common to many cultures and the physical object at the centre of such practices... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—what is the "physical object at the centre of such practices"? Does it have a name? Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See penis and foreskin... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—circumcision is an objective term, but a ritual practice that may seem similar may in fact vary in some ways. The ritual practice may be an older practice than the comparable medical procedure. But the ritual practice is likely to vary in other ways as well. Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Any ritual circumcision interfaces with an object, often using an object constructed solely for this ritual function, and carried out in another object constructed for ritual functions. Your original statement is so self-evidently wrong that it isn't worth debating further. You might consider researching the subject of material culture a little before making such daft assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—"object" and "objective" are two different terms. Just because a penis is an object doesn't mean that a ritual procedure involving that object is as objective, or rational, as a similar medical procedure involving that object. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm not interested in arguing semantics. Your attempt to divide the world into the 'ritual' and the 'rational' is so utterly at odds with everything the social sciences have taught us in the last century that it isn't worth debating. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You are generalizing. A medical procedure and a ritual are two different things. Can there be a point at which the distinction between the two is burred? Maybe there can be such a situation, but I don't know of such a situation. Can you suggest or describe such a situation? Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Just wrong. Not worth arguing further. Though you might like to look into Medical anthropology to see why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision is a medical procedure. When is circumcision a ritual? We are talking about related but different procedures. One of the distinctions is in the context in which they are performed but there are other distinctions. The exact procedure may be slightly different. The setting may be different. The language accompanying the two procedures is likely to be different. We can't just overlook differences and pronounce medical procedures indistinguishable from rituals. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wronger still... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving it up to you to tell us when the distinction is blurred between the medical procedure and its closely related ritual. If no circumstance exists in which the distinction is blurred we can assume that the two sorts of procedures are different. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Humongous wrongness... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—can you articulate where I am wrong? Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

More or less everywhere - you seem to be under the misapprehension that there are no ritualistic aspects to 'medical procedure'. Like I said, see medical anthropology - though I'd have thought this was blindingly obvious anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

...and on the more general subject of ritual and health, I'd recommend reading "Body Ritual among the Nacirema", a seminal ethnographic essay on the subject: [10]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you mention[11] medical procedures and rituals in relation to "penis and foreskin". When are medical procedures and rituals indistinguishable from one another in relation to "penis and foreskin"? Do you know of any such circumstance? I do not. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read "Body Ritual among the Nacirema"? It's only a short article, and will answer your questions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I have no idea why you are comparing modern medical practice to the practices of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. They are very different. Again, getting back to a point that I made much earlier in this thread—one sort of practice is objective and rational—the other sort of practice is not. You can argue that these distinctions do not create as bright a line as I assert. But if you are going to do so vis-a-vis the example you gave, you would have to show that the ritual of removing the foreskin is, under some circumstance, similar to the medical procedure of doing so. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ROFL! "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" = "Nacirema"? Not exactly 'indigenous', Bus Stop. You've got it backwards ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am fully cognizant that Nacirema is American spelled backwards. So what? What is your point? Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is that your assertion that are no ritualistic aspects to 'medical procedure' is just plain stupid: ritual is everywhere - as the "Nacirema" article points out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you joined this discussion here. Correct me if I am wrong but almost the entirety of your first post was: "Perhaps you should try thinking a bit harder? I find myself unable to restrain myself from pointing out the apparent interface between the rituals of circumcision common to many cultures and the physical object at the centre of such practices". I've been trying since to get you to tell me when the "ritual" version of this practice is similar to the "medical" version of this practice. I still can't get a response from you in relation to that question. My assertion is that the ritual version and the medical version are in fact distinct. Bus stop (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion is wrong. Medical practice involves ritual. Heck, in the UK at least, waiting for a bus involves ritual. All it takes is a hour or two of ones time, and an open mind, to see this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—concerning the removal of the foreskin, can you describe a situation or a circumstance in which we would not be able to tell if it were the "ritual" procedure or the "medical" procedure that we were observing? Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see no point in discussing this further. Medical practice involves ritual, as does every other aspect of human social behaviour. That you are too stupid to understand this is your problem, not mine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—your argument that "medical procedure involves ritual" and "waiting for a bus involves ritual" is not all that relevant to what we are discussing. Two distinct versions of the removal of the foreskin are found—one medical, the other ritual. You are going on at length about the notion that there is "ritual" in medicine too. Nevertheless the distinction remains concerning circumcision in the "medical" sense and the quite different though often similarly-named circumcision that is part of "ritual" involving religion and other arcane ideas, which tend to be much more irrational than any you would encounter in a medical context. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you win. I wasted four years studying anthropology. The entire field of medical anthropology is wrong. The social sciences in general are wrong. They must be. Because you know more than them, obviously. Because... hang on, what are your qualifications here? As far as I'm aware zilch, zero, nada, none at all. But because you are Wikipedia's number-one expert in out-of-context quote-mining, asking for evidence for things people haven't said, and missing the point entirely, you must be right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you are not showing by real or hypothetical examples that removal of the foreskin in a religious setting is the same as removal of the foreskin in a medical setting. We have articles on Brit milah (Jewish setting) and Khitan (Muslim setting). I think that these settings are different from a medical setting. You are missing the point when you focus solely on the notion that there may be "ritual" even in modern medicine. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware male circumcision was a cosmetic ritual when it was practiced medically in Australia. Parental demand centres around meaning structures with shared names, but distinct from, the medical functions of male infant circumcision. In particular, the use of male infant circumcision as a general prophilaxis, and transmitter of shared socially constructed but biologically worn masculinity, by parents is significant. In some cases mothers seem to believe that it gives the child sexual power, or the capacity to bear sexual power. In the US it might vary, but over here it seems to be transmitted by family unit and often to do with "resembling his dad." Now there's a Freudian terrain you wouldn't want to expose without an ARC grant. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, the reason I'm not "showing by real or hypothetical examples that removal of the foreskin in a religious setting is the same as removal of the foreskin in a medical setting" is because I never said it was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—no matter how "ritualistic" modern medicine may be, and I think there is considerable doubt that modern medicine can be properly described as "ritualistic", the core applicability of the term "ritual", in relation to circumcision, or procedures closely related to circumcision, is to a form of procedure that is resistant to change, dates back several centuries, and is closely related to religion. The religious groups involved have often been practicing circumcision for many centuries. Their methods for performing the procedure are very resistant to change. Modern medicine by contrast is willing to adapt to new technology and procedures. Modern medicine is not beholden to a large body of arcane literature. You are using the term "ritual" innovatively but such usage would still be distinct from the way in which the term would be used in reference to the religious ritual of circumcision. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As Fifelfoo has already pointed out, many supposedly 'medical' circumcisions are in fact carried out for 'cultural' reasons. Your dichotomy is false. As for modern medicine not being "beholden to a large body of arcane literature", I suggest you visit the library of one of the many excellent medical colleges to be found in your home town (New York I believe?) - you will find endless shelves of exactly that. As part of the rites-of-passage involved in becoming a master of the arcane medical arts, one tends to have to visit such libraries, and ideally, read a little of their content: though one can also try sleeping amongst them, in the hope that the contents will enter your mind as you dream - this seemed to work for me when I was a student ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "many supposedly 'medical' circumcisions are in fact carried out for 'cultural' reasons". These are not rituals. These are medical procedures. Under Judaism for instance a medical circumcision is not Brit milah. One is a ritual; the other is a medical procedure. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, please cease your babbling nonsense. Humanity isn't constrained by your lack of imagination, and neither is it constrained by Halachic law, except as it chooses to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—the halakha that you refer to is part of Judaism and is many centuries old. Modern medical procedure departs from the Jewish procedure. One procedure has a very old rationale. The thought processes in support of the Jewish version are purely ritualistic. The medical version is not ritualistic except in the fanciful use of the term ritual that you have been presenting here in this thread. A medical doctor will not likely be touting a ritualistic reason for removing the foreskin. I am willing to entertain ideas that you might have about how a ritualistic procedure might be indistinguishable from a medical procedure but you are not presenting any examples for our examination. Therefore what we have are the two distinct set of circumstances that I think represent all procedures of this sort, or at least that I am aware of. You have to present concrete examples or all that you are doing is insisting that there is no distinction between medical and non-medical removal of the foreskin. Stated conversely, we need to see presented at least hypothetical circumstances in which the ritual and non-ritual removal of the foreskin are indistinguishable procedures. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have never asserted that "there is no distinction between medical and non-medical removal of the foreskin". As for why doctors remove foreskins, I'm sure quite a few do it because they get paid to do it. They may also (as the article I linked earlier pointed out), enlarge or reduce other parts of their 'patients' anatomies, for no better reasons. None of this is of any relevance to the question as to whether current orthodox medical practice can be free of ritualistic and symbolic content. It isn't, it cannot be, and regardless of why (or how) a circumcision is carried out, if a doctor does it, he or she will be doing it in a social role deeply imbued with meaning, and laden with ritualistic practices, whether anyone taking part in them is particularly aware of it or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, getting your son's penis modified because "its cleaner" or as a general prophylaxis against fear for their health is not the same as a procedure proscribed by a recognised medical professional that normal medicine claims will have a prophylactic health benefit. This isn't to say that the latter couldn't also be ritualistic, as I noted above with anti-biotics, even within normal medicine much of the conduct is ritualised and bears meanings not contained within the epistemology of normal medicine ("I like him, he has warm hands," much?). Similarly, getting your son's penis modified for reasons of the cultural transmission of acceptable masculinity, or because of family tradition, is again ritualised. Getting open heart surgery is ritualised. Revising the DSM or ICD is ritualised. Publishing a review of cases is ritualised. Many of these rituals don't bear any meaning from the epistemological system related to their action. Some of the rituals bear content related to their epistemological system, for example, the ritualistic esteem placed on Doctors is related to normal medicine's construction of Doctors as experts. Even when "Doctor as God" isn't in play, other ritual relationships hold, such as "Doctor as mechanic." Similarly the technical hierarchy of the Ward bears both ritualistic content and at the same time content from normal medicine's findings. (Hell, even the technical organisation of medicine into Wards, Departments, Hospitals and Health Care Providers bears ritual content; that sickness is enforced as a distinct geographic and spatial moment in life). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "It isn't, it cannot be, and regardless of why (or how) a circumcision is carried out, if a doctor does it, he or she will be doing it in a social role deeply imbued with meaning, and laden with ritualistic practices, whether anyone taking part in them is particularly aware of it or not."[12] I don't think we automatically make assumptions without evidence. I think the above remains a medical procedure unless we have reason to conclude otherwise. You are referring to something that is "deeply imbued by meaning." Where is the evidence for that? What would make you conclude that? It is not part of the scenario you describe above. "Laden with ritualistic practices" as indicated by what? You are describing a straightforward, nonreligious, medical procedure. No "ritual" is in evidence in the description you provide above. You refer to a "doctor". I have no reason to believe that just because the individual is a doctor that there is any "meaning" above and beyond the standard medical role expected of that individual in their professional capacity. Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, this is a reference desk, not your own personal soapbox. As for what makes me reach the conclusions I do, I'd say it is a product of the accumulative knowledge of the social sciences, as imparted to me through my time spent studying anthropology at university, and indeed also imparted through personal experience. As has already been pointed out to you repeatedly, there is an entire academic field (medical anthropology) devoted to the subject we have been discussing - the interaction between 'medicine' and 'culture'. If you want to find out more, I suggest you study the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo—you refer to "getting your son's penis modified for reasons of the cultural transmission of acceptable masculinity".[13] From where are you deriving that this sort of thing takes place? I have yet to encounter the articulation of a notion of "acceptable masculinity" in this context. Do you have a source indicating that "acceptable masculinity" ever plays a role in "getting your son's penis modified"? This may be the Humanities reference desk (as opposed to for instance the Science reference desk) but I think a source would be a plus. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It took all of two minutes for Google scholar to find this example: [14] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you will note that more than once I have suggested that you merely provide a hypothetical scenario to illustrate your case. This you still have not done. How much more difficult it would be if I actually asked you to provide an actual sourced case illustrative of your point. You are still presenting your own ideas without even the accompaniment of an argument in support of them. Again: you said "It isn't, it cannot be, and regardless of why (or how) a circumcision is carried out, if a doctor does it, he or she will be doing it in a social role deeply imbued with meaning, and laden with ritualistic practices, whether anyone taking part in them is particularly aware of it or not."[15] For what reason would anyone believe that? Do we normally assume that there are ritualistic practices deeply imbued with meaning in the daily functioning of a modern medical practice? Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Do we normally assume that there are ritualistic practices deeply imbued with meaning in the daily functioning of a modern medical practice"? I do. You don't. I've studied a relevant field (anthropology). You haven't. Your lack of knowledge is your problem, not mine. Do something about it, or find another thread to troll with your repetitive drivel. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus and Andy... this thread seems to getting a bit too personal, and (while fascinating to read) also straying from the purpose of this reference desk. May I suggest that it is time to "respectfully disagree" and move on to other topics. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—who is "troll"ing a thread? Who is using a thread as a "soapbox"? You introduced the topic of circumcision to this thread here. After much circumlocutious reasoning presented by you and countered by me we are at this point at the end of this needless dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andy for noting that reference regarding circumcision (or absence of circumcision)'s function in constructing Australian masculinity. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

STOP... this is definitely getting too personal. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar—I would have no objection to "hatting" or archiving. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

international shipping

I need to get £85/70lbs of toys across the atlantic from colorado to england. my contact in the area assures me the cost of this could be as much as $600, which seems excessive to me just to post something. Anyone suggest any cheaper way I could do this? Or, at least give me a more accurate price, since he seemed a bit unsure on this.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this link. Moonraker (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looked at that, isn't it for sending stuff from england though? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this. Moonraker (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try the post office website, [16]. They have a price calculator. It depends on the weight and dimensions of the package. The number is coming up quite high for me ($300+), but that's for express service. You can probably get a better price for slower delivery, but you might need to call or go into a post office in person. You could also stop in at a local mailing store which seem to be everywhere and ask for advice. RudolfRed (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is going to depend heavily on how quickly you need to get it where it is going. If you can afford for it to take several weeks, then you can send it by sea fairly cheaply. If you need it there within a couple of days, then you'll need to fly it and that could very easily cost $600. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Might not need this any more, my contact has agreed to instead become my business partner and help ship things out to customers, many of them likely in america anyway, a huge saving there. But thank you for all your help anyway. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved