Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 January 23

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.

January 23

National conservatism in Europe

Which political parties are based on national conservatism?

Try national conservatism. Is this homework? IBE (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What denomination do born-again Christians belong to?

Here in the Philippines, I know several people who are "born-again Christians" and I see small churches all around calling themselves "Full Gospel Church" or "Non-Sectarian Gospel Church", but what denomination of Christianity are they? Our article on "born agains" is vague on the matter, although after a little bit of research, they may be Pentecostal churches. But are they Pentecostalists, Protestants, or are not part of any particular denomination? And as a side question, is the Iglesia ni Cristo Protestant and is the Philippine Independent Church and Members Church of God International Catholic? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Lots of different denominations. "Full gospel" churches are Pentecostal, but there are plenty of other denominations (note that Pentecostals are a kind of Protestants) whose members would be likely to refer to themselves as "born-again". By the way, there are lots of Pentecostal denominations, as well as lots of independent Pentecostal churches that aren't part of any denomination; Pentecostalism is more like a family of denominations. Members of my denomination are going to describe themselves as "born-again" if you ask them, and we're very far indeed from being Pentecostal. I'll leave it to someone else to answer the side question. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC

For your first question, I agree with the above: there is no one denomination rhey belong to, though I would add that they aren't likely to be Catholics, as thry don't generally use that term. For your second question, the articles you link to answer the question, though again, if you mean Roman Catholic (the kind most people think of when they hear the word Catholic; there's more than one kind) then no, they aren't. Mingmingla (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just by way of adding to the above responses, you might like to read Evangelicalism. Basically, most Protestant Christians I know (in Australia) identify as evangelical, and use the term fairly often, but rarely say they are "born-again Christians" (it has a pejorative connotation here). But if you asked them whether they are born-again, I'm fairly sure they would say yes, as per the article I linked. The most often-cited distinction is really between evangelical and liberal Christians in Protestant circles, so the people you know most probably are evangelicals (unless it's different where you are). But you'd have to ask them. IBE (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that they aren't in any denomination--the "non-sectarian" bit suggests that to me anyway. You may want to read Nondenominational Christianity. Meelar (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that possibly Justification (theology) may be relevant here - though the 'again' part is difficult to reconcile with the more strict understandings of the concept of predestination. Then again, I'm an atheist, so what would I know... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, but if you look at their beliefs and practices (and history), "non-denominational" churches are generally Southern Baptists or similar who have renamed themselves "non-denominational" because of awareness that denominations (as divisions) are pretty clearly condemned in the New Testament. However, this doesn't actually mean they aren't a denomination: they have a set of beliefs and practices which are not the same as the basics that all Christians agree on, and they expect members to follow them. Their denomination is called "non-denominational", but that doesn't mean they aren't a denomination. They're generally Calvinist. It reminds me of when people belong to the majority culture in a given society, and thus say that they "have no culture", that they themselves are some sort of 'neutral'. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that they could be just about any denomination as 'born again' is a phrase used by Jesus in John 3. Eomund (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Born-again/evangelical Christianity isn't a denomination as such, it's more a style practised by some congregations of various protestant denominations, and some independent churches that aren't affiliated to any denomination. Where I come from (Belfast), most protestant churches are evangelical to some degree, and that includes Church of Ireland, Prebyterian, Methodist, Baptist and independent. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Overturning Dred Scott

Is Dred Scott v. Sandford generally considered to have been overturned in full? Obviously a lot of it was overturned by the Reconstruction Amendments, but I'm interested in something that none of them (and no amendments enacted since that time) seem to discuss. A key component of the ruling was that Scott, not being a US citizen, did not have standing to file the suit that he did; since no amendment ratified since the case has discussed the question of noncitizens suing in US courts, I'm not sure quite how to understand the article's statement that the case is no longer jurisprudentially important. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary to settle the general issue of the rights of non-citizens in order to overturn Scott. The court ruled that Dred Scott was considered a non-citizen because he was of African ancestry. The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause extended jus soli citizenship to anyone born on US soil (as Scott was), so Scott was therefore nullified. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that's beside the point — no constitutional amendment has granted non-citizens the right to sue in US courts, and as far as I know, no later Supreme Court decisions have stated that non-citizens have a right to sue in US courts. Can you present something to show that I'm partially or completely wrong? Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest getting someone with online access to Shepard's Citations to settle it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not beside the point at all. To build on what Wehwalt says below, the ruling was not about whether or not non-citizens in general had the standing to bring a case in a US court. The ruling was about whether or not those of African descent were citizens. The ruling was about determining who was a citizen, and nothing more. The general issue of the rights of what non-citizens could and could not do was not at issue for this case, so I'm not sure why you would expect that essentially unrelated question to be settled for this to be completely put to rest. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the law, but this surely fails a reality check; see stories like [http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89295/ "Rancher ordered to pay illegals $77,000"], etc. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, obviously that's not the way that US courts work now; I'm just curious if it's been explicitly overturned, or if precedent has essentially just ignored that finding. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if there was ever a case which said that Dred Scott was overruled, explicitly. The ratification of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments put an end to those particular factual circumstances, and so that would never come before a court. That being said, there are certainly any number of Supreme Court dissents which accuse the majority of promulgating the worst case since then.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is discussed in the book Slavery, Law, and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective by Don E. Fehrenbacher ISBN 0-19-502883-X. Apparently, the closest thing to an explicit judicial overturn came in the Insular Cases, when one "Justice Brown" stated that the Civil war had "produced such changes in judicial, as well as public sentiment, as to seriously impair the authority of this case". Apparently certain minor technicalities about the relationship between federal citizenship and state citizenship (not directly connected with race) still remain accepted, despite having been first introduced in Dred Scott... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. the Conservapedia article actually appears to have a little more information than the Wikipedia article on this point. AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And they think Garret Hobart was from Ohio, and was a congressman. Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really an answer, but see standing 124.148.55.187 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't the US kill Che earlier?

Hi, I've just stumbled across this video about the speech Che gave to the UN in 1964. Given that he was the enemy of the US at the time, and that he was virtually on American soil, why didn't the US send out an assassin to murder him? Are there policies regarding the actions of other nations on the soil belonging to the UN, or was Che to clever at deceiving the FBI, CIA, or any other intelligence agencies belonging to enemies of Cuba? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Che Guevara was head of the Cuban delegation to the UN in December 1964 so his trip was not a secret; during his visit he appeared on CBS and met with US politicians. There were attempts to assassinate him while he was in New York, but they were carried out by Cuban exiles. Although the CIA had links to Cuban exile groups, it is very unlikely that the US government would have openly supported the assassination of Che Guevara while he was in New York - apart from any ethical considerations, they would not have wanted to risk Soviet retaliation. Remember this was in the middle of the Cold War and only two years after the Cuban missile crisis. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any references but I think that as part of the treaty that sited the UN in New York, the US gave certain guarantees regarding people attending the UN, allowing them to travel freely, etc. These may well include protection for anyone attending the UN in a diplomatic function. This would have prevented them from arresting/capturing Guevara, and if the US government was found to have assassinated him, the repercussions would have been even more serious, with the UN effectively unable to do business. Additionally, the US government does occasionally like to obey the law, and doesn't normally assassinate people on US soil, at least as far as we know. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure they are allowed to travel freely; when Khrushchev came to the UN (the shoe-banging), he had made himself head of the USSR's delegation, but as tensions were high and K wasn't exactly high on the State Department's Christmas card list, he was restricted to Manhattan, plus weekend trips to a country house the USSR owned on Long Island. I will look for the actual treaty too.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it is a host countries duty to protect any members of foreign a delegation, and any diplomats. Politically and legally this would have been the worst time to assassinate him. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It is the sort of thing that could lead to a boycotting or re-siting of the UN, at the very least. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See diplomatic immunity, a principle that has been followed for centuries. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. But what if, in a highly-implausible case, the diplomat murdered someone? Would he/she be given immunity? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Che may have been an enemy of the US, but he wasn't all that dangerous, after Cuba fell to Fidel Castro. In fact, he bickered with Castro, who sent him abroad to get rid of him (which resulted in Che's execution in 1967). I'm surprised nobody shot him sooner, if only for that hair. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think Fidel was more of a danger than Che was? The former wanted to change the political landscape in Cuba only, whereas Che wanted a World Revolution.

Because merely wanting something doesn't make it happen. You'd need a good plan and plenty of resources. Che didn't seem to have either. And, as our article states "...Guevara's known preference for confrontation rather than compromise, which had previously surfaced during his guerrilla warfare campaign in Cuba, contributed to his inability to develop successful working relationships with local leaders...". So, leaving "the forces of world revolution" with an incompetent leader may well have been their strategy. Castro, on the other hand, nearly succeeded in starting WW3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That makes him far more dangerous than Che. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How likely is intelligence?

I was reading an interview with a noted philosopher of science in the Atlantic, and he made a novel (to me) point about the Fermi Paradox: namely, that of all the millions of species that existed on earth, humans are the first to actually have intelligence enough to use technology. His point was that even if life is common, intelligence is not, and that this could explain the "great silence". So this raises a couple questions for me. First of all, has anyone else raised this point previously, and if so, any good sources to read more about it? And secondly, is there any reason that intelligence didn't arise earlier than it did? Is there some physical or biological fact that would prevent the development of a tool-using dinosaur, for instance? Thanks! Meelar (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See Drake equation, specifically notes 20 to 22, and anything about the parameter f_i in that equation. IBE (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence at the human level is not necessary to survive in the wild, so it doesn't normally happen. You don't need to be able to build carts on wheels and do the maths to calculate trajectories of balistic missiles to survive. And the brains to be able to do that are really costly, so they are not an evolutionary advantage. Something odd happened to apes, that is that we started selecting ourselves using intellingence as the key criteria, through sexual selection, (while natural selection was still operating normally). This may explain the fermi paradox, sexual selecction is not uncommon, but sexual selection of intelligence has indeed only been observed once. I have never read anything discussing the reason why it didn't happen in other social animals earlier, but I guess sexual selection criterias are decided randomly?--Lgriot (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Amerindians were unable to build carts on wheels because they never invented the wheel.
Sleigh (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And also because they never invented the horse (American bison, the only candidate beasts of burden, are very hard or impossible to domesticate). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

While we're here, think about the Australian Aboriginal people. The big mammal they faced was the kangaroo. Can you imagine them as beasts of burden? HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well potentially they could have used the Diprotodon except it seems they were more than a little complicit in the diprotodon's extinction before they got a chance to come up with a use other than food. --jjron (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, humans are not just the first intelligent species to use technology, but based on our extraction and manipulation of resources on the surface and below, they are the last. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we eliminate ourselves in a way that leaves a more or less functioning biosphere, that may not be the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that based on the collective evidence from various disciplines, intelligence on Earth is a one shot deal. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll never know ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we already know. See future of the Earth for only one piece of evidence. There's a lot more where that came from, and it ain't pretty. We're it, folks. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That article gives us some 4 billion years before all life on Earth is extinct, which might be enough to reach intelligent life starting over from a glowing ball of magma. However, if we manage to kill off ourselves, and leave any life behind, even cockroaches, that would be a huge leap forward from nothing. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Plants and microbes will be all that's left in just 500-600 million years from now. McKay explains the one shot deal argument: "among mammals, humans developed intelligence first and are thereby effectively precluding the development of intelligence in other species. It follows from this argument that intelligence evolves once and only once on a planet, because once evolved it changes the rules of the interaction between species and effectively dominates the planet from then on." That does not mean, however, that another intelligent species (such as Troodon) did not previously evolve to build radio telescopes (the measure of intelligence according to McKay) but just that there are no technological artifacts left for us to examine if they were ever intelligent enough to create any. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That argument seems to assume that intelligent species are either immune from extinction, or would wipe out every other life form with them. I can quite easily imagine us wiping ourselves out without causing much permanent damage to other life on Earth, say due to a war using human-specific bioweapons. We might also engineer either self-replicating machine intelligence or biological intelligence, before we wipe ourselves out. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The argument assumes neither. What determines our potential for extinction depends on which step we find ourselves along the Great Filter. But to get back to the argument at hand:

• "...the overwhelming majority of living things failed to evolve smartness. Unlike streamlined bodies, wings, and eyes, intelligence of the sort that characterizes Homo sapiens is hardly a widespread biological trait, having arisen (so far as we know) just once in all the fifty billion species that have existed since the origin of life."[1]
• "To attain that level of intelligence, life has to evolve to a high level of complexity, and it must do this within the few-billion-year habitability window during which the sun burns stably...the evolution of intelligent life on Earth has 'used up' about 4 billion years of the roughly 5-billion year window of opportunity, before Earth gets fried by the swelling sun...If our understanding about the sun's evolution is correct, then (according to the best estimates) there's about 800 million years to go before our planet is too hot to support intelligent life."[2]
• "The fact that high levels of intelligence have evolved so seldom during the history of animal life on Earth suggests that the circumstances that favor intelligence are rare. Therefore, as evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, if complex life were to evolve all over again, it is unlikely that a human level of intelligence would evolve...scientists should not expect to find highly intelligent life on every planet that is capable of supporting complex life. Gould strongly rejected the idea that strucurally simpler organisms are evolving toward higher intelligence."[3]
• "Clearly high intelligence has little evolutionary advantage, for it has appeared once in tens of billion attempts. As Ernst Mayr has pointed out, even the development of high intelligence may not lead to the ability to communicate with distant planets. Only one of the 20 or so civilizations, some with highly developed skills in astronomy, that have arisen on Earth in the past 5000 years has developed the technology with the potential to communicate with other possible life-forms elsewhere."[4]

The bottom line is that there isn't enough time nor chance for life to evolve advanced intelligence for a second time. Based on the available evidence, we are the great inheritors of intelligence for the planet Earth and that necessitates a great deal of responsibility. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How does it not assume either ? If we wipe ourselves out with a human-specific bio-weapon, leaving every other life form here, a billion years is plenty of time for another intelligent life form to develop from, say, another primate. That 1 in 20 civilizations argument only works by considering us to now have a single global civilization. And, since any civilization to develop radio communication is likely to spread this idea to the rest of the planet, you would inevitably only have one. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You continue to appeal to the fallacy of the ladder of evolution. The evolution of intelligence is in no way guaranteed or even a goal. Because of the numerous constraints listed above (and hidden assumptions not raised due to space considerations) the circumstances that led to the development of intelligence on Earth are unlikely to happen again. You're assuming that human intelligence is an evolutionary endpoint when the evidence is against it. Have you forgotten about the five mass extinctions that occurred during the last 600 million years? There have been plenty of chances for intelligent species to evolve. Why didn't they? Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Homo genus contained several species and subspecies which developed a fair degree of intelligence (Neanderthals, in particular). Competition with modern humans apparently killed them off, but there's no reason to assume that additional intelligent primates wouldn't soon evolve again, if humans were no longer around to prevent this. And other primates already have the pre-reqs for our brand of intelligence, those being the opposable thumb, a social structure, and the ability, and least part time, for bipedal motion. The benefit of developing intelligence is obvious for primates, as the number of habitats and biomass of modern humans far outweighs that of other primates. And note that the Homo genus is only around 2.5 million years old, so that could evolve many times between now and the next mass extinction. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, there is no reason to assume that another intelligent primate will ever evolve on Earth. The number of random steps needed to develop advanced intelligence that allows one to build radio telescopes isn't known and can't be duplicated, nor has any other species on Earth shown this ability during the "short" duration within the habitability and stability window of the Sun. The limited time frame available for intelligence to advance within these constraints points to the validity of the one shot deal over and above any appeal to a "ladder" of evolution. This is consistent with the Fermi paradox, regardless of its flaws. When I read your argument, I'm really seeing a lot of anthropocentrism. There isn't a single good reason to think primates will ever evolve advanced intelligence again. This is it. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to the OP's original question though, no it is certainly not a new idea. Noted evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould talked and wrote about this quite regularly. Gould would often bring up the point how, unlike many other structures found in different lineages on Earth, intelligence did not seem to show convergence; therefore it may well be that we are the single 'experiment' down this line in the universe (conversely he also pointed out that for all we know, on another planet intelligence may well be as convergent as eyes or jaws are on Earth). I'd recommend you look through his back catalogue (unfortunately I can't remember many specific titles where he wrote about this off the top of my head, although I do seem to remember a chapter on it in the very good and very readable Wonderful Life (book)). I also seem to remember that other great populariser of science from the 70s and after Carl Sagan bringing it up too. I bring it up at times myself in the course of my job.

Getting onto your second question, there's a number of interesting evolutionary 'accidents' that helped humans evolve the intelligence that they did. If not for basically sheer luck we could never have created our technology, etc; I recall Gould discussing these in some depth. For example, an obvious one is our opposable thumb, a consequence of our primate ancestry but not necessarily something that need be associated with intelligence. However, if not for the opposable thumb, we would not be able to grip things, make and use tools, and have ever done thousands or millions of other things that eventually led to where we are today. Consider a dolphin for example; they are considered quite intelligent, but there's no real possibility they could ever do what we've done with only their flippers to work with no matter how good their brains got. This type of thing contributes to humans being able to do what they've done, and if high levels of intelligence evolved in other lineages they may never be able to exploit it in the same way (past or future). --jjron (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there is much literature on all these topics, ranging from scholarly books to science fiction (David Brin's Uplift books, for example). I tend to be dubious about any conclusions about the likelihood of intelligence, as we are working from one known instance in which a planet that had life evolved intelligence, and if it had not, we would not be having this discussion. It's too early to tell if the dice are loaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Noting that dolphins have been known to use tools, and to teach other dolphins to do the same. So this discussion depends a bit on how one defines the use of technology. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's already assumed. We're talking about technology in terms of the Fermi paradox argument. Namely, the first civilization to develop advanced technology needed to explore their Solar System, eventually colonizes their galaxy exponentially. The fact that "they" aren't here is the paradox. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. Star travel will not be easy to develop, but it's surely trivial in terms of geologic time, and we have no reason to believe the Sun or Earth particularly exceptional by galactic standards, or early developing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, all, these were very helpful. Meelar (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And, in addition to the opposable thumb, bipedal locomotion was also important, in that it freed our hands to use tools (it likely first developed as a way to see above high grass). Other body configuration, like that of the mythical centaur, could also accomplish this. Cephalopods appear to be intelligent, probably in part because they also have "free arms" to use tools. Other factors which seem to select for intelligence are being social animals, omnivores, and prey for carnivores. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To see over tall grass? What is your basis for saying this is the "likely" explanation for human bipedal motion? I've seen a lot of theories, and a lot of just-so stories, but I don't think I've ever seen that one, even from old works that uncritically accepted the Savannah hypothesis. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There are current primates, and other mammals like prairie dogs, meerkats, and bears, which hop or stand on their rear legs when trying to see farther, which provides an obvious evolutionary advantage, so it's hardly a stretch. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright in US judicial decisions

Since it's an established principle that US federal government works are in the public domain, rulings of federal courts are free to copy, sell, modify, etc. How does this work in cases such as this story or Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., in which the rulings include works created by others? I'm just guessing that someone copying these images or song lyrics would not have a substantial argument in saying that s/he was just copying part of a federal court decision, but I can't understand exactly that would stand up; on the other hand, it doesn't seem likely that these works would be considered to be in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There would be no trouble reproducing it as a part of the court decision, or a substantial part thereof. On its own, I don't think you'd get away with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A notable instance was the Fishman affidavit; in this case some Scientology materials were sort of dumped into a massive court filing, making them publicly accessible. The affidavit was later sealed, but it is still readily available on the Internet... Wnt (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The rule is that US institutions cannot hold copyright; it simply never accrues to them. (Note that to the best of my knowledge there is no active process of "public domain"ing already copyrighted works.) Thus federal employees such as judges do not hold copyright over materials they create (judgments) but whilst they are still free to quote other sources in their judgments, those sources remain copyright by their authors. Reproducing judgments that include quantities of quoted material is undoubtedly problematic; it's really a case of seeing how much infringement you can "get away with" under the doctrine of fair use rather than pure and simple immunity. (Realistically, I think the judge him/herself does operate under conditions of de facto immunity, but not, I think, de jure. By way of a side note, the same applies in the UK in some interesting cases such as examination papers.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The government can actually acquire copyrights; I've run into that in getting Antonin Scalia to FA; the justice's official portraits were done at government expense but by private photographers, rights to which the government purchased. The Court offered us the images on condition they not be used commercially, but that's a license we can't accept and instead we cropped Scalia from a group shot taken by the Court's employee photographer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Intriguing. (Come to mention it, I remember a similar thing with the whole "seizing the copyright of states you're at war" with thing, the official name of which I forget.) So yeah, it probably is best to leave it as "no copyright accrues to the federal government" and leave everything else the same (i.e. there is still the risk of infringing copyright when reproducing federal judgments). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

rights of a tenant

Does a tenant of privately rented accommodation have the right to know the identity of a stranger entering his/her home? For example; If the landlord decides to sell his property and sends a potential buyer to view the property, accompanied by an estate agent representative, has the tenant a right to know the name and occupation of the stranger entering his/her home? (identity presentation as per; passport/driving licence82.12.88.52 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It would depend on what the contract said, and what the law is in your state. We can't answer that, it is giving legal advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I gather on second reading that you are non-US. It is still dependent on the local law, and what the contracts say.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In the UK my experience is that they give 24h notice of a viewing, but that may just be a kindness, and as Wehwalt says, you can't take this as legal advice. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about occupation (irrelevent as far as I am concerned), but it's just common sense to ask for ID from anyone entering your home anyway. I don't know if they legally have to show it, but you, as a tenant, have the right to turn anybody away. However, IANAL, so if you think you need legal advice on this matter, consult a lawyer, or the CAB, or the Housing Association, or your estate agent. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not that easy. If the real estate agent has a bona fide right to be there, does the occupant have a right to demand ID from the people with the agent? It is a complicated matter, but I suspect it's being asked for use with a specific application.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The real estate agent? As opposed to an imposter? This is partly what we are talking about here :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

real estate agent--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You should check the terms of your lease. Most leases in the United States have a provision allowing the landlord to show the property to potential renters or buyers with reasonable advance notice (often 24 hours) to the tenant. The tenant does not have the right to decline entry to the property in such a case and may even be required to make the property presentable, though the wording of that last requirement is usually vague and difficult to enforce. I have never heard of a right of the tenant to demand identification from the landlord or anyone visiting a property on the landlord's behalf. However, laws protecting tenants may be stronger where you live, so please consult an attorney or tenant's organization that will have information specific to your jurisdiction on your rights and obligations. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have experienced, as a landlord in the UK, the situation where the tenant repeatedly refused a prospective buyer entry. Actually, I found out that despite making appointments with at least 24 hours notice, the tenant always seemed to be out what ever the appointment time. It would have been so much better if the tenant had cooperated, but I eventually had to evict the tenant (a two month process in the UK) just so the estate agent could easily gain entry and show prospective buyers round. Astronaut (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

History

Hi, at school we had an assignment to write an analysis of a specific or general piece of history. I uploaded mine to Wikipedia in the hopes that you guys could review it for me and tell me if its any good or not? I know your policy is to do your own homework but technically its already done I just need a few pointers. Thanks here is the essay User:Hadseys/The State of the World. --Hadseys (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit long for me to want to read. However, here are a few pointers:

1) I don't see a "thesis statement" at the beginning about what you hope to show.

2) Anything that long needs to be split up into chapters. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a whole collection of "don't"s there. (a) Your topic ("The State of the World") is far too broad; you need to narrow it down. (b) A strong essay is usually based around a problem or question, and should begin by exposing as quickly as possible what the problem or question is. Then everything else in the essay should contribute toward solving the problem or answering the question. (c) You would benefit greatly from a "pyramid" structure in which you begin by summarizing in your first paragraph the structure of your essay. (d) Your paragraphs lack coherence. A good paragraph should almost always begin with a topic sentence that expresses the point the paragraph is intended to make, and then every other sentence in the paragraph should clearly work in support of that topic sentence. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My view, although, like Stu, I couldn't read the whole thing: really brilliant in many ways, but too long, and way too ambitious. Edward Gibbon published the Decline and Fall at about 37 years of age, and even he attempted less in several thousand pages than you are trying to accomplish in 40 paragraphs. Basically, your writing is great, but it needs a bit of editing, as there is some incorrect use of commas, and a few typos which I'm sure you'll figure out. Your individual paragraphs didn't seem too bad to me, but the connection between them was vague, largely because you are trying to write such a broad essay. It looks erudite, and is interesting for a while, but it is just wearying reading generalisations without a clear overarching purpose. Also, your beginning seems somewhat irrelevant to the essay, and stylistically, points like this, making a superficial connection between the culturual origins (Greece) and a recent venue (Beijing) of the Olympics, are best suited to journalism. But you have a lot of talent, and we would benefit from your increased participation on this Ref Desk. You'll also learn a lot about addressing specific questions, if I may say so. IBE (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a general point about writing assignments, check that you have completely met the specifications your teacher gave you. If the teacher said your essay was to be 1500 words long, and you have written 15,000 (or 1501 for that matter), then you have failed! If the teacher said your essay was to be about a general piece of history, and you have given you opinions about the state the world is in today, then you have failed! Make sure you have met the original brief. That is possibly the most important piece of advice regarding writing any form of essay I can give you (as a retired teacher myself). --TammyMoet (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't resist checking - it's 10,000+ words long. I was told an honours thesis can be around 15,000 words, although I admit that sounds short. So, Hadseys, you have written about half an honours thesis, but it was a pretty fine effort anyway. I would like to revise some of my earlier points - I think the structure is clear enough early on, then it wanders (in my understanding) when you start talking about the Greeks, then medicine, then violence, etc. Also, you double a few words, so you need to proofread it again. Then some of your sentences start off sounding really professional, but go on for too long. IBE (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks everybody for the constructive criticism! --Hadseys (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be tempted to load it into a word processor and run the spell checker (and a grammar checker if available). And then get someone else to proofread it for you. I too think it is rather long. Are you sure the assignment was for such a lengthy piece? - if so, that's quite unusual. Like Tammy hints at above, you could be penalised if it is way too long though I disagree that you would fail if you are only a few words over (or under). Astronaut (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - +/- 10% is a fairly common rule of thumb. Remember, whoever marks it isn't likely to actually count the words. They will just go on roughly how long it seems. --Tango (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a relationship between the analysis of King Lear and the contemporary culture wars?

I was reading the article on King Lear, and judging by the wording of the analysis and interpretations on Wikipedia's article, I found that it represented a characteristic of contemporary culture wars. Now, I may be misinterpreting what it says, so I am wondering there is any analysis out there that compares King Lear and the contemporary culture wars. It appears that both of them are arguing this: pure reason vs. pure emotion. 164.107.190.95 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand the connection between "contemporary culture wars" and "pure reason vs. pure emotion". Taking one contemporary culture war: 'western' lifestyles versus hardline fundamentalist Islamicism, neither of the two seems particularly pure, neither is very well reasoned and both come with ladelfuls of emotion. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"O Lear, Lear, Lear!/Beat at this gate, that let thy folly in" (King Lear, Act I, scene iv, ll 225-6). Lear was nevertheless Teh Epic FAIL in terms of insight and self-awareness. Is that what you are asking about? Hmm. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bengalis in former British colonies

is there any history of former British colonies in Africa(Gambia, Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Egypt, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia, Libya, Somalia, and Malawi, Seychelles and Mauritius) have labor workers who were Bengali from British Raj? i have a feeling most of them were from Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.116 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles you may find useful to answer your question:

• Asian South African
• Indian South Africans
• Asians in Africa
• Indian diaspora in East Africa
• Coolie
• Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin

There are no Wikipedia articles titled "Bangladeshis in <blank>" where <blank> is a former African colony, so that may be a clue that there are not sizable numbers of Bangladeshis specifically in those places, but British Bangladeshi may give you some leads as well. --Jayron32 19:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See also Indian indenture system which includes a table of Colonial British Indian indentured labour transportation by country. However, there is no break-down for which part of the Indian Empire these labourers came from. I may be generalising, but Bengal was known for being densely populated and not very wealthy, so you are probably right that a good proportion of them may have been Bengalis. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Bangladesh didn't exist as such until the early 1970's. Before that it was East Pakistan or East Bengal. It's likely that no distinction was made between migrants from eastern or western Bengal. Rojomoke (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Give It Your Best!

I'm interested in learning more about this WWII poster. It happens to be "Give It Your Best!" What's the history behind it? I also learned a new version was created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What's the significance between the two versions?24.90.204.234 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It was commissioned by the Office of Emergency Management in 1942 in an effort to boost factory production[5]. It was designed by Charles Coiner [6][7] - NOT Charles Coiner that we have a Wikipedea page for! He died in 1989 at the age of 91 [8] and also designed Roosevelt's 1933 "Blue Eagle" poster for the National Recovery Administration, although Wikipedea doesn't credit him for it. Looks like enough ammo for an article, if anybody is bored. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Full name was Charles Toucey Coiner, (1898 - 1989) [9][10]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My ears are burning. I guess I'll have to give it my best. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Voilà: Charles T. Coiner. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But I'm still trying to find the significance between the WWII version and the 9/11 version.24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a short rummage through Google last night looking for any mention of the 2001 version of the poster, but failed miserably. From my (British) side of the Atlantic, it seems that anything prominently featuring the Stars and Stripes and an upbeat slogan would have gone down well at that time. Oh, well done Clarityfiend, I knew someone would take the bait ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

number of men who had membership in puritan church who sign mayflower compact

of the settlers traveling on the Mayflower, how many were adult men? how many adult men were "saints", having membership in puritan the church? did women qualify to be "saints"? did all the adult male "saints" sign the Compact? if not, why not? where there any non-English among the settlers? aboard mayflower? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.220.207 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Our list of passengers on the Mayflower provides (linked) names and information on all of the passengers on that ship. All of the passengers were English. I do not think that any of them were Puritans, or Englishmen who wanted to purify the Church of England of pagan or Catholic elements. Instead, the Pilgrims were separatists, who wished to break from the Church of England altogether. Not all of the passengers on the Mayflower shared the religious views of the Pilgrim leadership. Apparently, however, all adult male passengers on the Mayflower signed the Compact, not just those who shared the religious views of the Pilgrims. Marco polo (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, those settlers onboard the Mayflower who were emigrating for "religious" reasons were the ones identified in that article as "Leyden congregation and families". The original settlers would have identified this group as "the Saints". All of the other passengers would have been considered "the Strangers", and included anyone who was not part of the "Pilgrim" religious group. See also Plymouth_Colony#English, which has a good explanation (or, generally I think so, as I wrote most of it). --Jayron32 20:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

accounts of 17th century weddings

Can anyone point me to 17th Century accounts of aristocratic weddings? - especially ones in France, though in English please - and with emphasis on the decorations of the place where the wedding was set, too, if possible.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a famous painting of the wedding of Louis XIV and Maria Theresa in 1660; there are a few versions of it on Commons, if that helps. There is also a book titled "Scenes from the Marriage of Louis XIV: Nuptial Fictions and the Making of Absolutist Power" (see Amazon for example). Is that perhaps too aristocratic? You may be looking for a more, well, normal ceremony... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Louis is fine - thanks, Adam, I'll follow up those leads. Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)