September 25

Earth is a geologically active planet. With earthquakes and volcanos, new land can be formed, and old land can be submerged. How do humans assert control over land when the land is constantly evolving? What if a supervolcano erupts and covers everything with ash, with flowing lava destroying the local buildings? What if a huge tsunami comes and floods the coastal areas, making them unstable for habitation. Do humans still assert control over geologically dangerous areas? How can a country maintain border control when the Earth is HUGE? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could depend on the situation, and on whatever treaties a country might have. Hawaii is a good example of such expansion, and I don't know that anyone questions Hawaii's right to control all the new land its volcanoes create. But there's not much near Hawaii anyway, so it's easy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Badly, is the answer. Some countries, such as China, have been known to construct artificial islands just so they can extend their sovereign borders. See Great wall of sand. It makes everyone else really mad.--Jayron32 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese leaders might have read the Dilbert strip in which one character was "illegally" expanding the size of his cubicle by stacking binders up outside the entrance to make additional "walls". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no single answer... Sometimes countries have agreements to settle any disputes resulting from changes... sometimes they go to war over the changes... Sometimes they take each other to court. Sometimes they ignore the changed land (and act as if nothing changed). Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of river borders, there is a general principle that if the river changes course gradually and naturally (soil is eroded from one side and deposited on the other, that sort of thing) then the border shifts with it, but if it changes course abruptly (a storm causes a new channel to open) or artificially (canal work, landfill along the river bank) then the border stays where it was. Two examples of borders within the US that stayed where they were are the Iowa/Nebraska state line at Carter Lake and the Bronx/Manhattan borough boundary at Marble Hill. There's some good discussion here. For specific borders it's always possible that they are defined by a treaty or agreement that covers the issue explicitly; for example, a 1908 treaty authorized the Canada/US border in, for example, the Detroit and Niagara Rivers (this would be Article IV of the treaty) to be redefined as a series of straight lines joining a set of points determined by survey. So any shift in those rivers can no longer affect the border. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to many places along the Mississippi, where changes in the river's flow have left pieces of one state now sitting across the river, surrounded by the other state and the current river's flow, hence disconnected from their original state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Finland is actually rising into the Baltic due to glacial rebound. As what was seabed becomes land, the person whose shoreline has been extended does not automatically own the new land. The sea is owned collectively, and as it turns into land, it remains public property, but the affected landowner can buy the land at market price. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "the person whose shoreline has been extended does not automatically own the new land.^{[Citation Needed]} The sea is owned collectively,^{[Citation Needed]} and as it turns into land, it remains public property,^{[Citation Needed]} but the affected landowner can buy the land at market price.^{[Citation Needed]}" --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the cited article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound#Legal_implications and put your silly bitching there, Guy. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Finland, but usually in the U.S. what is between the low tide line and the three-mile limit is the property of the individual states, while what is between the three-mile limit and the 12-mile limit is the property of the federal government (see Submerged Lands Act etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but what happens if I build some dikes and pump out the water -- Holland style -- and thus create a square mile or two of dry land where once there were US territorial waters? For an example where this has happened already, see Battery Park City#Ownership and maintenance. It's not a perfect example, because it was built by a government. What if I built such a thing somewhere in US territorial waters with my own money? Let's say I picked the Cortes Bank as my location. Would I then own it? Could I declare it to be a new country? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accretion is one of the classical methods under international law by which countries' borders change (although this meaning is strangely not listed at the dab page.) This means that, when geological events affect political boundaries, the changes will generally be recognised in international law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"What if a supervolcano erupts and covers everything with ash, with flowing lava destroying the local buildings? What if a huge tsunami comes and floods the coastal areas, making them unstable for habitation."

You do not need a supervolcano for this. An ordinary volcanic eruption may easily destroy and/or depopulate nearby human settlements. The Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 wiped out the nearby settlements of Pompeii, Herculaneum, Oplontis and Stabiae. The eruption of Soufrière Hills in 1995 rendered much of the island of Montserrat uninhabitable and wiped out the city of Plymouth, Montserrat (which happened to be the capital).

And we have an entire category about Category:Sunken cities, settlements which were lost under water due to natural or man-made disasters. Take for example the city-state of Helike in Greece. It was a relatively powerful city-state in the Peloponnese and had founded its own network of colonies. In 373 BC, a tsunami caused Helike to be completely submerged in the sea, with most of its inhabitants failing to flee in time and perishing. What remained of Helike's lands was annexed by the nearby city-state of Aigio, but Helike remained one of the major tragedies of the ancient world. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Fairly recently, Iceland's land territory extended significantly further south in the 1960s with the eruption of Surtsey, which extended Iceland's southernmost land several dozen kilometers further from the prior southern point. --Jayron32 12:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://i.imgur.com/GIJPKDi.png Land reclaimation over the centuries in the Netherlands. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that when a country adds land area or gets new land from a volcano in its territorial waters, that country gets to decide who owns the new land. I am still puzzled about what happens legally when a volcano creates a new island in international waters. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The island of Réunion grew by sixty acres as a result of the 2007 volcanic eruption. Not formed by volcanic activity, Rockall (230 miles from Scotland) was simply annexed in 1955, becoming part of Inverness - shire. 46.208.167.127 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it matter as long as they can communicate? (though blinking out a will in Morse Code or binary with high statistical probability of being intentional and of sound mind throughout would take a long time) And the less sound the body the more likely they'll need the will. Is it just to reduce the insult of having to say you're not insane? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a declaration that you are competent and not desperate; not under the care of a quack as you lay dying or subject to coercion. I can't find my legal dictionary, but the phrase mens sana in corpore sano comes from Juvenal and was championed by John Locke. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back up. In what jurisdictions is the phrase "in the will formula"? Is it just a matter of common practice there, or does it have a legal purpose? The specialist lawyer who drafted my will (in Canada) didn't put in any wording about my soundness of any kind. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be the practice, when writing up a will, to begin "I, ........., being of sound mind", etc. I don't know if this is still the case, but it's prudent given how many court cases are brought by people seeking to overturn them. I think this is what the OP is referring to. A lack of soundness in the body is not necessarily mirrored by lack of soundness in the mind. Quite often a testator will also mention (where someone has not been provided for) the reason for this. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada? Where is that? Isn't that the place where Americans who wanted to remain the subjects of a Mad King went? Was he of sound mind or body? (Blue pee?) Or did it not matter, a Protestant God's Archbishop having smeared oil on his forehead? μηδείς (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

Are most people who live in the sovereign nation of Afghanistan ethnically Arab? If not, then are Arabs a significant minority? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Arabs stand among the 4% of ethnic minorities in Afghanistan. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even less than 4% according to our table at Afghanistan#Ethnic groups. See also the article Ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Rmhermen (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say among, which meant among the 4% of ethnic minorities but not the entire 4%. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan has a rather diverse ethnic population, with the dominant group being the Pashtuns (whose exonym actually is "Afghans"). They speak the Pashto language, part of a wider group of Iranian languages. The other major languages in the group are Persian and Kurdish. Indo-European speakers in other words.

Arabs, despite being a widespead group, only represent dominant or major groups in (by order of population) Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Morocco, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Somalia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Libya, Lebanon, the State of Palestine, Kuwait, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti, and the Comoros. They are the 22 states of the Arab League. Dimadick (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Afghan' is the word for any Afghan, even if they are not Pashtun. People who are Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimaq, Turkmen, Baloch and others can be 'Afghan'. 'Afghani' is the name for the currency. I would be interested to know the history of the minute Arab population ... I wonder if they are just a recent immigrant group?Hayttom (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that, as with many states outside of Europe, Afganistan is an artificial creation whose borders and resident population dynamics is a vestige of colonialism. The land we call Afganistan exists mostly because Britain and Russia didn't feel like fighting wars against each other in Central Asia, so it was created as a buffer state without regard for ethnic or linguistic concerns over who lived there and whether they made a natural nation state. See The Great Game for some background. The borders for Afganistan are so unnatural, that its putative border with Pakistan, the Durand Line, exists solely to give map-makers somewhere to draw a line; there's no meaningful border there "on the ground". Given that, it is no surprise that Afganistan has such a wide mix of ethnic groups. To answer the OP's question directly, as well as Hayttom's follow on question. Wikipedia has an article titled History of Arabs in Afghanistan, which I am surprised no one has mentioned. --Jayron32 17:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see our article on the Wakhan Corridor, a piece of land whose possession by Afghanistan would be thoroughly pointless aside from the country's buffer-state status. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Indian politician Narendra Modi considered to be highly controversial? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would doubt the "highly" but there was some controversion about Mr. Modi's role in the 2002 Gujarat riots. In general every major political person can be considered controversial in a democracy. Even if she/he has a giant majority of voters behind her/him, someone will be in Opposition, strongly disagreeing the choices. --Kharon (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Modi and his party BJP are Hindu nationalists and (especially outside India) are seen by many as discriminating against Muslims and Sikhs (which ties in to the riots linked by Kharon). For instance, the British liberal/left paper The Guardian calls Modi's policies "anti-Muslim bigotry". Smurrayinchester 08:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides his nationalism and involvement in a series of riots and massacres in 2002 (although his actual role is disputed), his term as Chief Minister of Gujarat involved some rather controversial economic policies. Tax breaks for big business, systematic weakening of labour laws, very little funding for human development, poverty relief, nutrition and education, alarming reports from UNICEF that a large number of children in Gujarat were underweight, undernourished, and received no medical immunisation, social policies which increased social inequalities and marginalised part of the population.

After his election as Prime Minister of India, Modi abolished a number of labor laws, making it harder for Indian citizens to form new unions, and making it easier for business owners to fire their employees. Modi also cut or decreased funds for social programs, such as poverty reduction programmes, social welfare measures, health and family welfare, and education. He started with tax breaks again, lowering the corporate taxes, and completely abolishing the wealth tax. His environmental policies have consistent of defunding government organizations dealing with the environment, and abolishing or weakening regulations against pollution.

His personal life is largely free of scandal, with the exception of the nature of his marriage. When Modi was a child, his parents arranged for a him to marry a girl called Jashodaben. Modi married her when he was 18-years-old, but he apparently never consummated the marriage and abandoned her two years later. He is still legally married to his wife and has been for 49 years (1968-2017), while having minimal contact with her and keeping the marriage secret from the public eye until 2014. Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having had an interest in Early Christianity and the historical Jesus for several years, I have become aware of a minority view known as the Christ myth theory, which essentially states the religious figure named Jesus never existed, at least not as a single person. Although a fringe topic in the academe, it seems to be quite popular among certain groups of people, particularly atheists. Without debating the merits of the theory (which seem weak, but that's beside the question), and without discussing the question if Jesus existed or not (there's articles for those topics), my question is: how and why does this theory appeal to many atheists, and why do many atheists believe in it despite the theory's lack of acceptance in the academe? It seems weird that, just because there are claims of a divine Jesus in the Bible, that there would be people who'd deny his entire existence, instead of simply discounting the divine and supernatural aspects of his character, while maintaining that there was a historical figure named Jesus who preached in Galilee and Judea approximately 30 CE. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence for any of this? What survey are you pulling from? Or are you just writing your observations? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that almost all, or even most atheists believe in the Christ myth theory (famously, Bart Ehrman is a well-regarded scholar on Christianity who defends the historicity of Jesus, and he's an atheist). I merely observed that the theory is popular among a large number of atheists, and especially now, many of its proponents (such as Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty) are atheists. It also seems to be a popular viewpoint on a number of atheist online forums, such as Reddit's /r/atheism sub-Reddit. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talking with random people on Reddit is not a survey. There is a lot of selection bias on a casual website. On Christ myth theory, a 2015 survey by the Church of England suggests that 22 percent of people in England do not believe Jesus was a real person. 22% is hardly the majority of English people. Sorry, but I can't find a source among atheists. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just Reddit - I see the same arguments made on a lot of liberal and atheist blogs and forums. Of course that's still just anecdotes subject to confirmation bias. But that could be part of the answer - lots of people with the same views hanging out on the same group of forums, reinforcing each others ideas. (It reminds me somewhat of Climate_change_denial: you have a bunch of clever people (or people who think they are clever) who think they've found a flaw with the mainstream academic consensus and assume that they are correct and that the experts are all wrong and biased). Iapetus (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many aspects of religion can be viewed, by non-believers, as a collection of myths and fairy tales. Once you embrace that viewpoint, it is easy to believe that religion is ALL myths with no basis in fact. It is easy for atheists to look at it that way. In addition, it is also provocative to challenge the central "facts" for someone else's religion, and notable outspoken atheists often like to be provocative. Dragons flight (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a slight suspicion that this theory may be more popular amongst atheists than amongst Christians. As the UK is (recent pop surveys) 53% atheist (which is more support than Brexit got), then that's a lot of atheists. Without really surveying more carefully, all you have is confirmation bias from skewed sampling. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an atheist, I think the reason this theory is convincing for some people is because we live in a world where we can be certain that if someone went around curing sick people, walking on water etc., we would hear about it immediately and thus assume that contemporary writers would have made a huge fuss about such a person if he existed. This is corroborated by the fact that the only sources about Jesus who are not people who already believe in him (ruled out as sources due to the confirmation bias Andy mentions) were written long after he died (Josephus in 79-80 CE and Tacitus in 116 CE). Personally, I think the idea that there were probably multiple people called Jesus that were "mushed" into a single figure after countless retellings sounds plausible. After all, we are not even able to always keep people apart these days with far superior technology and knowledge. Regards SoWhy 12:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From an atheist perspective, I don't particularly get the fascination. I seriously doubt than any historical Jesus would end up resembling the figure featured in the (often contradictory) Gospels, but whether Jesus existed or not is hardly a life-defining question for me. I don't believe in deities, miracles, or any kind of supernatural intervention in human events. Whether some kind of faith healer lived an itinerary life in the 1st-century Roman Empire seems hardly relevant to life in the 21st century.

I have read works by supporters of various theories, from the mainstream to the loony fringe, but I don't have any strong feelings on the subject. I just enjoy viewing different perspectives. (I grow suspicious whenever anyone tries to enforce uniformity on any discussion subject.) I view Jesus as largely irrelevant to 21 centuries of Christian history, where Christians kept reinterpreting him to match the fashionable ideologies of the day. Who he was, nobody really cares. We just want someone to fit our world-view.

As for supporters of the Christ myth theories (there are actually multiple, mutually contradictory theories in the field), some of them raise decent points about the unreliability of available ancient sources. Some of them are nuttier than your average fundamentalist, and suggest highly illogical theories. Take for example the so-called "Roman Piso" theory by Joseph Atwill. It claims that Gaius Calpurnius Piso and/or other members of the Calpurnii Pisones, invented Jesus, wrote the Gospels and/or other books of the New Testament, and pretty much founded Christianity, as a way to pacify and control the discontented lower classes of the Empire. Evidence for this in ancient sources? None whatsoever. So Atwill relies on much speculation, radical reinterpetations of ancient texts (including some which do not have real connections to Christianity, such as any references to the Sicarii), and what he views as clever worldplay (mostly, stupid puns) in ancient texts. Some of the puns would work in English, but not in Greek or Latin. Entire texts have been written about how full of shit Atwill is, but some people still buy his theories. See this text for another attempt at debunking his crap: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664

Still on Atwill, some of his theories are not so bad. Their relevance to his main theory on the other hand is questionable. There is one Late Antique source which claims that Pope Clement I was a son of career politician Titus Flavius Sabinus. The source is mostly considered unreliable, but Atwill accepts it as historical. So far so good. Atwill then used the source to connect Clement to the Flavian dynasty, to attribute to Clement several innovations in Christianity, and to "prove" that early Christianity was primarily based on Roman traditions. All because of who one man's father MIGHT have been. Dimadick (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1980s, there were frequent small ads in the back of "The Nation" and other U.S. magazines which promised to send "proof" that Josephus had invented Jesus in return for $1 and a S.A.S.E.

Some works published in the Golden Age of Freethought still seem to exert an influence, but that era was golden more for rhetoric than sound historical scholarship. The most embarrassing piece of almost complete nonsense from the "Golden Age" which still occasionally shows up in modern contexts would seem to be The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves... AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a horrible, unscholarly, fraudulent (the cover is photo-shopped) book called The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics written by an (ex?)prosecutor from Los Angeles that excuses every fault of Ayn Rand's, with the ironic necessity of admitting those faults before "explaining" them. That book was so bad as to be unreadable just due to the typos in my opinion. In any case, the author swore Jesus never existed, and promised to prove that negative in his next work. (I am unaware it was ever published.) [The book was self-published as "Creating Christ" and claims that Roman emperors invented his myth. You can get it on Kindle!]

The real problem with treating Jesus as a myth is that there is so much evidence against interest that it would be hard to believe his supporters would make up so much stuff that puts him in a relatively bad light according to Judaism and later Christian teaching if they were just making it up from scratch. As an atheist, I am fully certain from the textual evidence that Jesus actually existed. A. N. Wilson's Jesus: A Life was written during his atheist period, and well-worth a read. μηδείς (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there the assumption in the question that nearly all atheists are sensible? After all religious people believe all sorts of peculiar things, surely we should assume the normal condition for people is that they believe some strange things even if they are atheists? Dmcq (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rhetoric of some atheists (including some of those most vocal in recent years) tends to imply that eliminating "irrational" religion unleashes rationality. AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, other religions just preserve the sacred texts as it is (be that Arabic, Hebrew, or Classical Chinese). When the religions spread, the original language spreads too. Christians apparently aim to translate the Bible into other people's languages, thus disconnecting future converts from the original language. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't always the case: for many centuries, in Catholic countries, the Bible was generally only printed in Latin. In fact, it wasn't until as recently as the 1960s when Catholic masses began to be more commonly done in vernacular languages, as prior to this Masses would generally be spoken in Latin: see Second Vatican Council for more information. So Christianity, or at least Catholicism, does have a history of primarily using one language for use (as far as I know that historically, Greek was the main language of Christianity, but by the Middle Ages, Latin was in wider liturgical use). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was somewhat a later development, only limited to areas under the Roman church. The books of the Bible were originally written in at least three languages: Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Among the very first Acts of the Apostles was to retell the stories in other languages as part of the campaign to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation". Biblical texts show up in other languages early: Syrian Aramaic from the 2nd century, Gothic from the 4th century, Armenian from the 5th century, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- the first large-scale or extended translation of sacred texts was almost certainly the Septuagint, which was mainly done by Alexandrian Jews before Christianity even existed... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Bible doesn't have a single original tongue. The books vary, even some sources for the same book vary. The transmission of the New Testament was also somewhat obscured in its early centuries and so only by re-connecting the surviving texts (which are no longer in a single tongue) can we re-gain a full picture. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament is overwhelmingly written in Hebrew (with some small passages, written toward the end of the Old Testament period, being in Aramaic). Grouping together the Old Testament and New Testament as the Bible is an exclusively Christian perspective. AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the accessibility question. A key part of the Protestant Reformation was the notion of a Bible in "the language(s) of the people" rather than in Latin. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... why is the Bible printed in all languages? So everyone can read it. Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Muslims spread out, bringing their culture with them. Jews also spread out (the diaspora) but theirs is a non - proselytising religion. Chinese also do not seek to convert others to their faith. Christians operated as missionaries, respecting the cultures of the peoples they came into contact with. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"respecting the cultures of the peoples they came into contact with." [sic] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except the parts of those cultures that were "backwards", "savage", "heathen" and non-Christian. 😝 Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Interestingly, the journal Ethnologue, which is one of the most widely respected catalogues of the world's languages and used by linguists the world over, began as a means to catalogue Bible translations. The desire by the Bible publishers to get the local language translation as correct as possible has resulted in one of the best such reference works, used even by non-Christians. It should be noted that the use of vernacular languages in the spread of a religious text is peculiar to Western, Protestant Christian tradition, at least at THIS level of widespreadedness. Sacred_language#Christianity notes the use of liturgical languages in Church traditions. Widespread vernacular Bible translations didn't really get going until the proto-Protestant movements of the 14th & 15th centuries, i.e. John Wycliffe and the Lollards, Jan Hus and the Bohemian Reformation, and widespread, acceptable use of the vernacular is closely tied to reformers like Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli. Notably, the first major English vernacular translation by Roman Catholics was the Douay–Rheims Bible which is a counterreformation product, and the Roman Catholic church only fully came around in 1969 (see Second Vatican Council. Of greatest importance, however, is that while many of these church traditions used calcified liturgical languages for centuries (and many still do), NONE of them used the original languages, indeed all of these liturgical languages began as vernacular translations which only later became fixed. --Jayron32 12:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word is widespresion. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the historical/mythical (whatever) Jesus said “ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Non of these ancient texts contain the rider “Oh, and by the way teach them Hebrew and Aramaic first!” Aspro (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Christianity is not Islam. The good news is the good news for all of humanity, however delivered, it does not have, as Aspro makes clear, to be delivered in Hebrew or Etruscan. This differs from other religions that declare that God speaks a preferred language. The Christian God is universal. BTW, I am an atheist, so please don't accuse me of partisanship. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that when I gave the eulogy at my sister's funeral when she was 20, the Catholic pastor gave me permission to read from the King James, rather than the Douay-Rheims version for 2 Corinthians. He said they were heretics, but better writers. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think the pastor in his wisdom recognized you were more of an Agnostic, which I think is a better term. As I too have nothing against god (re: atheist: prefix α ; Greek indicating for against god). Just as I too accept that there is a flow to things that I (nor physicists whom seek to explain the phenomenons of our wonderful universe) need not to personify as a deity and yet be part of it all the same. Even those of the Jewish faith try to avoid using a name, as the very act of naming creates a definition, and thus limits one's ability to become one with every thing. (Oh can't resist this. The Dalai Lama goes into a pizza house. and is asked what sort of toppings he would like. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama replies “ Make Me One with Everything !”. Aspro (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, @Aspro: a- in Greek means "not" or "without" EO sense 3 and I consider myself without a belief in a personal God (not just agnostic, I am not "unsure", I find the notion self-contradictory, and I don't believe things for which I have no evidence whatsoever) or I am also happy to call myself a pantheist. Natura naturans.

I consider crusading people like Richard Dawkins and people in the Freedom From Religion organization anti-theists. They are not just without belief, they are actually hostile to the idea of something they say they don't believe in, and dismissive of others' sincerely held beliefs. To me, such hostility makes about as much sense as joining an anti-Santa league. It smacks of a need for attention, a type of virtue signalling. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the trouble to clarify. It is a pleasure to come across editors that are sapient (if you will forgive me for putting you into yet another pigeon-hole of a classification). Aspro (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many people died essentially for the right to read the Bible in their own language. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess originally God had it all his own way. But ever since that original failed theme park, we've had a bit of catching up to do. I'd see Jesus' main message as being that, whatever language we speak, we're all on the same planet. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has Richard Dawkins ever criticized eastern religions? Uncle dan is home (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why doesn't Wikipedia mention about hin him criticizing eastern religions? Uncle dan is hifome (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By eastern religions, I mean all the eastern ones other than Islam. Uncle dan is home (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already answered such a question on Quora. https://www.quora.com/What-were-Christopher-Hitchens-and-Richard-Dawkins-views-on-Hinduism-a-religion-which-explicitly-allows-for-atheism Wikipedia probably mentions his stance on Christianity and Islam, because he mainly focuses on those two, and seeing that he used to be personally affected by Anglican Christianity, it's no wonder why he knows so much about it in order to reject it.140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the middle of Upper New York Bay, the more sheltered of the two. In the Early Modern Era the first explorers said it was deep enough for any ship of their time (fully laden) but now the approach to New York has to be dredged to at least bedrock to accommodate modern ships. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what was the first ship that couldn't reach the Thames at Parliament fully laden without dredging? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Galilee#History might be relevant to your second question; it has a very long history of watercraft usage, and no boat/ship on the Sea of Galilee would have a chance of reaching the Thames, period, without a massive dredging project. Probably the first such vessel, however, would be some lost-to-history boat that was built on a stream above its head of navigation, i.e. you'd have to dredge away a waterfall or rapids in order to reach the ocean in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, use your teleportation device to gently place it in the part of spacetime where the ocean's deep enough and man hasn't quite altered the water depth yet and see if it can get in. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was literal minded but I acknowledge and praise the master ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To your second question, this website says the first dredging happened in the mid 19th century. So the question is, when did some ships stop going up to the upper Thames? An upper bound is the construction of the medieval London Bridge, after which larger ships were restricted to the Pool of London. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, London Bridge was provided with a drawbridge for the passage of ships to quay at Queenhithe below St Paul's. It was frequently broken and finally fixed in place by the 16th century. It rather depends on your definition of "big ship" because few ships were really "big" in the 13th century when London Bridge was first built. Alansplodge (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Thames at Westminster originally had a ford which in Roman times, could be crossed on horseback at low tide. So its never been very deep. Westminster Bridge was built in 1739-50, but as you say, large traffic couldn't pass London Bridge by that date. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely one of the huge East Indiaman, since the Dutch East India Company both used them and also where the first to settle in New Amsterdam, which later became New York City. --Kharon (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it isn't the first, but French ship Redoutable (1791) was definitely too large to fit in NY Harbor at low tide, so that is at least an upper bound. Dragons flight (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with List of countries by intentional homicide rate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't count war or many other things though. This will make a big difference in warzones I think. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That can only be estimated because the usual secrecy or utilization of these statistic numbers in war, for or against propaganda - but also the frequent massive forces applied to kill combatants - often result in countless MIA-cases that will never or only much later be resolved. --Kharon (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find WHO estimates for 2008 here [1]. I'm not sure why they don't have newer estimates. The data includes "Unintentional injuries" and "Intentional injuries". Intentional injuries includes violence, self-inflicted injuries and war. (Unintentional injuries includes things like road traffic incidents and fires.) Assuming you're counting all intentional injuries, Sri Lanka seems to be first 179.7 estimated deaths per 100,000 population, Iraq 166.1, Somalia 101.1, Côte d'Ivoire 68.7, Guatemala 67.4. (There are a total of about 20 which are 48 or more and 37 which are 30 or more.) I presume Sri Lanka has gone down significantly since then, for the others I'm not so sure. Côte d'Ivoire and Guatemala are the 2 where violence predominates of thise 3 causes. P.S. Make sure you select the death rates sheet not the deaths one. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah actually I found 2015 estimates here. [2]. They have the same categories but redefined "Self-harm", "Interpersonal violence" and "Collective violence and legal intervention". However it no longer seems to have rates so you'll have to calculate them yourselves. It does provide population figures although only to 1000 but good enough for a rough estimate. It seems it's 339 Syria Arab Republic, 124 Iraq, 89 Honduras, 74 El Salvador, 55 Colombia. Guatamela is now down to ~16 with 39, Sri Lanka on ~17 with 38, Côte d'Ivoire ~32 with 30, Somalia 37 (sic) with 26. Note I'm pretty sure both versions exclude some countries without data and of course the quality of the estimates likely varies although that would apply to all possible sources. Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm including self-harm since some of these may be considered fairly violent and also it's simpler (you'll need to add yourself if you only want interpersonal violence and collective violence and legal intervention for example, ditto with the older cats). And you didn't say anything about homicides. Of course motor vehicle accidents may also be considered fairly violent, and other suicides would not generally be considered particularly violent (many poisoinings for example). If you have other definitions I suggest you look at the stats. If you don't agree with the WHO classifications, you could look for other data, although I'm not certain you'll find worldwide estimates which separate "violent" suicides from "non-violent" ones whatever definition you choose. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To be clear these rates are estimates per 100k population as with the older figures, both for easier comparison and because that seems to be the standard for death rates, also used by the earlier linked article with UN figures for example. The sic is because the one above and below Somalia are far enough that I'm fairly sure even the lack of precision of the population won't change its position. Of course as said before I'm pretty sure some countries are missing plus the margin of error in population estimations let alone death estimations means that 37 is still only a very rough estimate. (But the point is, if you were using WHO data Somalia (also Syria, Iraq, Honduras, El Salvador and Columbia) should definitely show in those positions. But I think WHO may generally have more precise population figures, or at least they seemed to in 2008, so there's a possibility the positions of the others may change under proper WHO rates. (I didn't study each case carefully enough to know for sure. I think you'll need a country with a population of something like 100k or less for this to have happened.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

One common saying is that the Chinese civilization has 5000 years of history. When one examines further, one finds that this is based on what the Chinese interprets as history, even if those figures are kind of historical and legendary (sort of like Beowulf or King Arthur). That said, what do people say of the Jewish civilization? Jews track their beginnings 5000+ years back, because that's when their calendar starts. So, does that mean the Jews have been around for 5000+ years or when Jacob begat Isaac? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 5,777 year thing is from Adam and Eve. Well a week before. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at a tombstone. If the tombstone says "died 350 BC" then you know the civilisation exists at 350 BC. 110.22.20.252 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the inscription says "died 350 BC" then you know it's a forgery. 81.147.143.77 (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hmmm... Good theory, but when they were carving their gravestone, would they be likely to know that Jesus Christ would be born 350 years in the future? (The BC/AD system is traditionally ascribed to the Venerable Bede in the 8th century.) Actually it's a lot more difficult than that. Our article, Chronology discusses some of the variables; the exact sequence of Egyptian chronology has reached a kind of consensus, but nobody is really sure. As to how you define when a civilisation started, see our Civilization article. Alansplodge (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- the Shang dynasty is the first one that had writing, and (according to our article) "the earliest dynasty of traditional Chinese history supported by archaeological evidence", so based on that, the length of Chinese civilization in meaningful terms would probably be closer to 3,500 years than 5,000.

As for Jewish civilization, Israelites are not too visible in the archeological record until the rise of the Four room house around 1000 B.C. (though the Merneptah Stele mentions "Israel" as a probably nomadic group two centuries earlier). Again, the Israelites did not likely have any significant use of writing for record-keeping purposes until 1000 B.C. or slightly later, so based on that, Jewish civilization would be roughly 3,000 years old... AnonMoos (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ship of Theseus might be relevant here talking about civilizations lasting a long time. I've no desire for instance to hang my enemies heads inside my house. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They're usually dated several ways, which vary somewhat. Then we try to reconcile these. Bishop Ussher dated the whole Earth to 6,000 years, using a Biblical technique that's not regarded as reliable.

Nowadays we have technology, so we use combinations of radiocarbon dating (good for organic material, such as bone and wood) or thermoluminescence dating for pottery. Pottery making is one of the first skills that most civilisations develop, so these techniques can often be applied and may provide a cross-check on each other.

Archaeologists also use stratigraphic techniques, similar to geologists. Where sediments are deposited, the oldest are the ones on the bottoms. Deposits in adjacent layers are of similar age. Potsherds are very important: they're widely found in sediments, they last well, they may have distinctive styles of decoration and they can be thermoluminescence dated. If one culture changes its style of decoration for pot making, then seeing a similar change of style on another site indicates that they may be of similar date. If we can date one, then we date the other.

Historical events may also be used to cross-connect civilisations, even across the globe. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, eclipses and comets have all been used for this - particular with civilisations which developed an astronomically-inclined priesthood which kept good records. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a theory that the later-recorded history of the Xia Dynasty repeats entirely from duplication and reassembling of Shang history. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Phantom time hypothesis Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The creation sequence was: Day 1 (Sunday) - light; Day 2 (Monday) - firmament; Day 3 (Tuesday) - the earth; Day 4 (Wednesday) - sun, moon and stars; Day 5 (Thursday) - life; Day 6 (Friday) - Adam and Eve. New Year's Day is the date of creation of mankind - Friday - but this is the start of year 2 as creation was already in progress. The start of year 1 was worked out by linking the time when Adam was ordered not to eat from the Tree of Life (2 P.M. Friday) with the time it takes the new moon to become visible (six hours). The new moon was therefore set at 8 A.M. Friday and the start of the calendar twelve months before - specifically at 11:11 1/3 P.M. on Sunday, 7 October 3761 BC. 146.198.102.66 (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological dating has the answers to the title question. Of all the various techniques, dendrochronology may be of particular appeal to the lay person as it has a common-sense appeal. The related article at Timeline of dendrochronology timestamp events has some interesting stuff as well. Matt Deres (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Chancery says: "The Chancery had jurisdiction over all matters of equity, including trusts, land law, the administration of the estates of lunatics and the guardianship of infants."

Is the "lunatics" part the result of a vandalized WP article? Or is "estates of lunatics" an actual term of art in equity law? Mũeller (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. See further down. Court_of_Chancery#Insanity_and_guardianship 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• May I suggest that when answering questions of the form "Is it this or is it that?", starting with "No" is apt to be confusing? --69.159.60.147 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like vandalism (although the reference isn't accessible). I don't think "estates of lunatics" an term of art, but Lunatic used to be the standard and perfectly acceptable term in law and medicine for a person of unsound mind mentally ill person. Iapetus (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Insanity in English law: 'The early law [of England] used various words, including "idiot", "fool" and "sot" to refer to those who had been insane since birth, and "lunatic" for those who had later become insane, or were insane with some lucid intervals'. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about a historic court, which ceased to operate in 1875. The term lunatic remained the standard term in English law until 1930, when it was replaced by "person of unsound mind" (mainly because it was recognised that the moon had nothing to do with it). Wymspen (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chancery Lunatics Property Act 1828 (9 Geo. IV c.68) mentions "the sale of mortgages of estates of persons found lunatics by inquisition". There were further Chancery Lunatics Acts in 1833 (3&4 Will. IV c.36), 1842 (5&6 Vict. c.84), 1853 (16&17 Vict. c.70) and 1862 (25&26 Vict. c.86). These were consolidated in the Lunacy Act 1890 which remained in force until it was replaced by the Mental Health Act 1959. 146.198.102.66 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this 2001 BBC article or this 2015 newspaper article, you are still not allowed to vote if you are an idiot or a lunatic. However, my brief search for the actual legislation found the Representation of the People Act 1983 which says that "detained and informal psychiatric in-patients are entitled to vote. However, under s3A Representation of the People Act 1983, certain offenders detained in mental hospitals are disenfranchised [3], so perhaps those articles have not caught up with the current law. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that from roughly 1928 to 1963 there was a quasi-standard phrase used in British newspapers to describe those ineligible to vote in parliamentary elections -- something like "lords, lunatics, and felons" (though maybe in a different order, and possibly using synonyms instead of those exact three words). I'm not having much luck finding it in Google... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Paul Nuttall of UKIP used the phrase on BBC Question Time in 2012. [4] It seems to be party policy never to miss an opportunity to offend somebody. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "peers, felons, and lunatics" does get some hits. It was basically true at one time... AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. What percent of the world lives without a roof over their head and barley any food? 2. What percent of the world would not know what a cell phone is? Kinda like the situation in the old movie The_Gods_Must_Be_Crazy. 184.71.183.70 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 :140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tackling your other questions:

No roof: List of countries by homeless population says about 100 million people worldwide.

No phone: If you really want people who haven't heard of phones, you'll need to explore Uncontacted peoples. Not surprisingly, their numbers are not known, but it is almost certainly just a fraction of a per cent of the total world populationi.

For just people who don't have mobiles, start with List of countries by number of mobile phones in use and scroll to its source [5], them compare against population figures. Looks like the countries with the lowest percentage of mobile use (in 2011 per the source were) Myanmar, North Korea, American Samoa, Somalia and Eritrea, all with approx. less than one mobile subscription per 20 people. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

184.71.183.70 -- a number of developing countries have gone straight to widespread cellphone use without ever going through a phase of wide landline phone use, due to the corrupt and inefficient nature of old-style "PTT" monopolies in those countries... AnonMoos (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping the middle man and going straight to wireless monopolies. Progress! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are wondering, "PTT" is a reference to "posts, telegraphs and telephones" (or telecommunications). 92.8.220.234 (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is, to postal, telegraph and telephone service agencies. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OP's questions visually, try Gapminder. Created by the late great Hans Rosling, the Gapminder Foundation aims to increase understanding by "Unveiling the beauty of statistics for a fact-based worldview". Based on UN data, their "Wealth and health of nations" chart suggests that only a tiny proportion of the world is living on less than $1000 / year. NB they use ICP, which means "a worldwide statistical partnership to collect comparative price data and compile detailed expenditure values of countries' gross domestic products (GDP), and to estimate purchasing power parities (PPPs) of the world's economies". In other words, a dollar is not always a dollar. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all the news about Colin Kaepernick I was surprised to notice that (as our article confirms) he was the child of a white woman, raised by a white adoptive couple. If you had the same situation with a Jewish mother and adoptive parents, as I understand it the baby would be unequivocally Jewish. Now I understand that the apparent recessive nature of the "white race" is an example of hypodescent. I feel as if the "octoroon" standard, though not law in the U.S. in a very long time, seems unrepealable and unalterable. But is it? Are there countries where hypodescent never developed or no longer applies and Kaepernick would be regarded as a white man, or at least equally of either race? Wnt (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is maybe not very directly answerable in that form, but there has been a traditional contrast between the United States and Brazil etc. -- in the United States, the "One-drop rule" was generally applied, while in Brazil (and some other societies) there was a whole range of gradations based on skin-color and appearance, so that a simplistic binary categorization between "black" and "white" was lacking. That doesn't mean that the people at the bottom of the hierarchy in Brazil were better off than people at the bottom in the U.S., though... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite of hypodescent is Hyperdescent. This was that standard in Australia - and resulted in white children of Aboriginal parents being forcibly adopted, because is was deemed inappropriate for white children to grow up in Aboriginal communities. Going further back in time (Ancient/Classical, and possibly Medieval) hypodescent seems to have been the standard way of thinking about race, which was usually defined in terms of descent from a famous ancestor or clan (e.g. the Scots and Irish tracing their descent to a Greek or Scythian prince and an Egyptian princess and their followers). Iapetus (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "hyperdescent" about the famous ancestors? Also, are you saying Kaepernick would be viewed as white in Australia? (Indeed, they had a race-specific immigration policy until fairly late -- would he have passed that?) Wnt (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's black in Canada, because he looks like he does. Same rule generally applies to whites. Doesn't matter like it does in America, but if he finds his white adoptive parents were raised by Métis descended from Scots brought up by untitled Black Nova Scotians, he could still be a controversial regional figure. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, September 28, 2017 (UTC)

In South Africa, he would not be considered to be black or white. The apartheid government recognized four official racial categories: black, coloured, white and Asian/Indian, and in the case of whites, made a distinctions between English and Afrikaners. SA has officially abandoned the old categories, but they are still in common use. There is a very interesting paper related to this subject at [ at http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_nbn_fi_uef-20141453/urn_nbn_fi_uef-20141453.pdf ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I got a claim that there was "malware" in that pdf... I haven't accessed it as of yet. Wnt (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE: Coloureds, the official racial category of apartheid South Africa. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% sure the label 'Coloured' would be applied in contemporary SA for people not from SA. 'Coloured' in SA isn't just a racial category, it also denotes a community with shared language, history and culture. --Soman (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The answer is, quite likely, no, because the very concept of race is an invention by the white power structure to maintain their own power over those they have labeled "inferior", either explicitly or implicitly. That's why the one drop rule exists; to be white is to essentially be "raceless", and the existence of other races in one's genetic background makes one "tainted". Race is a way of measuring purity, and under no modern society is race defined as anything except in opposition to pure whiteness; there are other racial frameworks that societies use outside of America's "White-Black-Brown-Yellow-Red" one, but they all pretty much work the same way; as a way to rank people by degrees from whiteness. --Jayron32 16:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the cynical view. At a more practical and objective level, the obvious visual difference between Caucasians, Africans, Asians, Polynesians etc is used by police forces as the primary identifying criterion when describing people they want to "assist them with their enquiries". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Are there any Uncontacted peoples tribes in Africa?==

See Dogon people, West Africa. Also see Himba people herders, Namibia. Bayaka, Central African Republic. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way could these possibly be described as "uncontacted"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "The past century has seen significant changes in the social organisation, material culture and beliefs of the Dogon, partly because Dogon country is one of Mali's major tourist attractions.". Hardly uncontacted.... Our convenient article on uncontacted peoples does not mention any in Africa. Fgf10 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted your question into Google and got (first result): How many uncontacted tribes are left in the world? by Bob Holmes from the New Scientist in 2013. I quote: "There are thought to be around 15 uncontacted tribes in Peru, a handful in other Amazonian countries, a few dozen in the Indonesian part of the island of New Guinea and two tribes in the Andaman Islands off the coast of India. There may also be some in Malaysia and central Africa".

I'm reminded of the old Tom Lehrer song: "These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard, / And there may be many others but they haven't been discovered". [6] Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more Googling finds Health and Disease in Tribal Societies edited by Katherine Elliott, Julie Whelan (p. 47): "...in the Bangwela swamps in Zambia, for example, there probably are some uncontacted people". Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has marijuana legalization ever received any conservative support? Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "conservative". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., libertarians often are pro-legalization. (In the U.S. libertarians aren't exactly conservatives, but they're much closer to conservative than to liberal or moderate. Basically they're conservatives who depart from conservative orthodoxy on some matters of personal choice but are more extreme on some other issues. Well, sort of. It's complicated.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the Conservative Party (UK) (probably quite liberal by US standards), they're offially against legalisation, but see May's letter will reignite cannabis debate, says Lord Monson, qwhich says that it's subject to a policy review. Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, Scott Reid is the cool one. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, September 28, 2017 (UTC)

"Conservative" is not a political party. It is a type of political orientation. Anything can be "conservative" as long as there is someone even more liberal than said party. It's really relative. If you're talking about the USA, then there are the Republicans and Democrats, of which the Republicans will probably be more conservative and diametrically opposed to any ideas suggested by the other party. Therefore, this question is not answerable. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a (U.S.) national Conservative Party. However, it's so meaningless politically that when people talk about what "conservatives" think they are generally talking about conservative members of some other party... mostly the Republican party. - Nunh-huh 14:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the History of Cannabis reaches back all the way to the Classical Greeks and Romans, which is infact the center foundation of western conservatism, it is some surprise this has become such a major issue for conservatives. Also the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 reveals how much this was part of western culture all the time. It was Richard Nixon with his fanatic War on Drugs however that pushed policy far over the edge in comparing Cannabis with Heroin, Cocain, Crack and alike real "hard drugs".

What followed is the odd mechanics of political Legacy in democratic politics. Politicans only rise to power from inbetween the party rows and thus they bond with the political Legacy, making it near impossible or even political suicide to change the Legacy or question the Legacy of famous Leaders. Had it only been Richard Nixon, this fanatic war on drugs had long be revised but it was most prominently Ronald Reagan too, who continued this "holy" war on drugs. So the political Legacy oddly prevents western conservatives to treat cannabis as the Cultural heritage it factual is and has been for centuries in western culture. --Kharon (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional conservatives are not known for supporting "vices" such as drug use and prostitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not politically, but some are known for directly paying for sex. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

As opposed to Democrats who ran gay brothels out of their houses or flew to the DR for sex tourism yet didn't fight to legalize prostitution? Political cherrypicking is discourse at the lowest level. Politicians are hypocrites. William F. Buckley ran as the Conservative Party of New York candidate for Mayor of NYC, yet also bragged in print that he had smoked and enjoyed marijuana--yet he never fought for drug legalization. In fact, dying from the habit, he called for the illegalization of tobacco on his death bed. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buckley never "fought for" drug legalization; that's probably true. But I had it in my memory that he was at least "in favor of" cannabis legalization, though he may not have put any particular effort into it. Am I mistaken? --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the word fought on purpose. Googling gets you "Buckley on Cannabis". This may have been around the time Wilhelm was advocating tattooing the HIV positive. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't picking on Republicans, I just figured we were talking about them. Historically, Democrats are the more commonly scandalous. Fred Richmond seems to be the only one who had weed on him, and the only one sent to the loony bin; coincidence? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs. Conservatives dont support drugs? Go into politics, become a major. Then propose a local tax on beer and watch who will hunt you! Let me give you a hint. It will not be the progressives! --Kharon (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes on legal products like alcohol and tobacco (also known as "sin-taxes") are a long-established sources of revenue. Legalizing illegal sbstances and putting a tax on them have long been talked about, but little has been done except maybe in a few states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Anecdotally, I attended a party in the early 90's where about half the guests were Republican lawyers, none of them defense attorneys that I recall. They spent the hour before dinner discussing how being a lawyer was the best way to do drugs (of all sorts) and get away with it, since there was no drug testing, professional courtesy, and everyone had the dirt on the judges. The attitude was "I got mine, Jack", and petty drug "offenders" were laughed at. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a crook, specifically, not a drug dealer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Well, just keep your hands off my stash.... μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of money could ever convince me to soil my hands with your "stash", your "clunge", or any other of your body parts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Uhmm. Interesting question. So I looked it up on Wikipedia. The answer is unequivocally yes. List of United States politicians who have acknowledged cannabis use. Still, that is just what Wikipedia says and what politician is going to believe wikipedians that haven't been elected? As μηδείς has observed, hypocrisy when it occurs, occurs by the bucket load. One law for them (the hoi polloi) and a different one for us -the law makers. Bush is reported to have spent hours on the phone to his lawyer tying to remember whether or not he had ever snorted cocaine so that he could issue a press statement. Then there is JFK's reliance on mediation that gave him so much stamina during his term in office. Aspro (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in the United States we are talking about the US, right? Somehow I feel we are is not a single philosophy, but rather a coalition of groups that oppose certain types of change, often for very disparate reasons. Only a few of these groups have any coherent reason to oppose legal cannabis, but I speculate that the others often do so just to keep peace in the coalition.

Even then it's far from unanimous, and we're not just talking about people who could without torturing the language be described as "libertarian". The example of Buckley has already been given. During the last primary season, Ted Cruz said it should be a decision for the states, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of legalization but is also not what you would expect from someone who thought it was an existential threat.

See https://qz.com/889367/republicans-marijuana-legalization/, http://time.com/3724131/conservatives-marijuana-buckley/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/cpac-2015-pot-republicans/index.html, --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another interesting case: Former Texas state legislator David Simpson, who is a Christian conservative. He says "I don’t believe that when God made marijuana he made a mistake that government needs to fix". See https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/03/the-republican-argument-to-end-marijuana-prohibition/?utm_term=.92bdf1253258. --Trovatore (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I researched him a little more, and I may have been wrong to call him "Christian right". He's Christian and on the right, but that's not the same thing. A lot of his positions seem more libertarian-conservative, despite his umbrage at Obergefell v. Hodges. --Trovatore (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspro: Awesome find this wikipedia article List of United States politicians who have acknowledged cannabis use#List of politicians who farmed hemp. So in today's terms almost all of the key Founding Fathers of the United States where factual Drug Lords - producing, distributing and selling industrial amounts of Hemp aka Cannabis sativa. --Kharon (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in yesterday's City A.M., Elena Shalneva claims that Americans do not understand the First Amendment and the fact that it protected "hate speech".

Is this true, or is it on the same level as the claim that the Constitution gives every citizen the right to walk around carrying guns (e.g. at the school Nativity play on Christmas Eve). 92.8.220.234 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution is a relatively old text to the extent that some of the things in the text are disputed because of changing times. How literally should one read the US Constitution? How much "wiggle room" does it allow? Different people have different interpretations, often matching up with their own political orientation. It is often difficult to know what the founding fathers actually had in mind, because back in 1700s, there was not much diversity. People didn't really see people who engaged in homosexual relations as gay people, people who just had a darker shade of skin color as black and brown people, etc. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question perhaps should have been, "Does the U.S. Supreme Court currently interpret the First Amendment as protecting "hate speech?", since that matters more than the plain meaning of the text. - Nunh-huh 14:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Short answer is: Yes, the First Amendment does indeed protect "hate speech". Longer answer: It's complicated, because there are some important limitations on all speech (for example, one can not cry "fire" in a crowded movie theater), and those limitations apply to hate speech as well. There is a fine line between saying "all Xs should be shot" (an opinion, even if a repugnant one), and saying "Go, get a shotgun and kill all Xs" (an incitement to riot and murder). Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, basically speech in furtherance of a crime or tort is not protected: false advertising, fraud, assault, conspiracy, espionage, incitement and causing a riot are not protected speech. These all further actual acts which are illegal in themselves. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I think so far unmentioned are instnaces where the speech itself is the only crime: libel and slander - Nunh-huh 04:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing "incitement", the key case to understand is Brandenburg v. Ohio. You are allowed to advocate pretty much anything, including illegal and violent acts, at the level of abstract theory. If you get down to cases and call for specific illegal acts to happen proximately, then you lose your protection, at least if your listeners are actually likely to do it (see imminent lawless action).

The bottom line for the OP is, as you say, yes, the First Amendment protects "hate speech". --Trovatore (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references about hate speech and the First Amendment if you are feeling like reading from the Washington Post, the LA Times, and a couple from Popehat, one of my favorite law blogs. There is a specific article here that is a good read. uhhlive (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a big deal when I was about 30. The Supreme Court upheld the right of American nazi groups to hold gatherings and promote hate in 1977. In 1978, the Blues Brothers made reference to this by having a sub-story about nazis. See National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. Note, "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist" - another thing that modern socialists conveniently forget. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialism was as similar to Socialism as the German Democratic Republic was to Democracy. Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This is why American Nazis are always pushing for more government programs such as health care for all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are equivocating. People called Nazis now are not advocating the conquest of Slavic europe, alliance with Japan (as honorary Aryans), eugenics, and nationalization of Ford. They are simply uneducated white-supremacists who think Nazi memorabilia is cool. Godwin's law all over again. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of neo-Nazis is on target. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help find some good detailed travel description of the city of Shantou (Swatow) and the surrounding Chaozhou region from the 19th century which describes its culture and dialect?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Swatow to Canton by Herbert Allen Giles, published 1877. A proclamation from 1860 and a letter from 1858 about one specific aspect of life: the risk of being kidnapped by gangs and sold to foreign ships. A Handbook of the Swatow Vernacular by Hsiung-ch?êng Lin, published 1886. with a wordlist for foods. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

I'm hoping someone with access to Highbeam or some other subscription news aggregator can help me find a specific source:

• McDermott, J. "Trump’s Brownshirts? Militia vows to 'protect' Donald Trump", Arizona Republic, 13 June 2016

I'm at a loss. Not only can I not find the source, but I can't find any evidence online that it ever existed. Can someone please find the source and confirm that it actually exists? Thanks in advance. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REX may also be helpful to you. --Jayron32 00:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's the page I was trying to find! Thank you!!! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if wrong subsection, but what's the name of that old sales tool where a company, for example, would put an attractive person next a car for sale? Or those adverts on TV where an attractive male shaves using a certain brand of razors? I know the basic idea is "wow if I buy this I'll get a woman like that" or "I'll be that good looking if I buy those razors!" but I can't remember the name for it. Thanks for any help! 80.6.102.227 (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sex sells? 110.22.20.252 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The psychological concept you are looking for is Priming. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identification (psychology) seems a more specific fit but its unclear if any of these psychology terms are used in the public relation industry. --Kharon (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I didn't realize the OP wanted what the PR flacks call it instead of what it is actually called. For that, 110.22.20.252 gave the correct answer: sex sells. BTW, it seems likely that the primary goal of having a pretty girl standing next to a used car for sale is to induce someone who is flipping through the channels to pause for at least a short time. If so this would be akin to the concept of clickbait in web advertising. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a blip in time, but involves a lot of spontaneous message processing (third section). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

There's classical conditioning, typically associated with drooling dogs, but also effective on man. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

The OP's question is a great example of the male gaze, by the way. "Wow if I buy this car I'll become as beautiful as that woman" or "My husband will become as good-looking as that shaving model if I buy him those razors". The "attractive person next to a car" is indeed almost invariably a woman; there are lots of informal names, but our article is at Promotional model, which discusses the difference between mediated and in-person advertising. See also Sex in advertising, a redirect from "sex sells". Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

A Sex guide, which was it?

Long back I did come across an excellent book on the subject. Tragically don't recall it's author or even title. Maybe it was by someones called "The Diagram Group", and the a person name as "Masters" was on the cover as coauthour or reviewer (or one of 'em). And one astounding fact that it told the reader was that the Eskimos let have their guests have their wives along with shelter. Can someone please recall and tell which book it was ?125.62.116.205 (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]