Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 3

Humanities desk
< July 2	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 4 >

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

July 3

Do you think an article about the monthly press conferences by the European Central Bank would work?

Perhaps this sounds ridiculous - but if so that may be precisely the point, and what would make the article interesting! There are all sorts of cunning code words used to signal what is being thought (nothing is straightforward)... there have been a few surprises along the way... there are a couple of regular characters amongst the journalists as well as the panel (although pretty much it's only trichet/head of ecb at time talking from the panel) and so on... Anyhow I want to sound out a bit of opinion before I write it, and might as well ask at the ref desk as it seems a good place to look for people interested in "things". Egg Centric 01:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if it's not long enough to merit it's own article it might be better as a section under the European Central Bank article. One strategy might be to start it there, then break it off as it's own article if it gets too big. StuRat (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're really into this, you might experiment (perhaps on a trial page created by adding a slash to your user name followed by a title, e.g. "User:Centric/Sandbox 1" before exporting to a new main article) with comparing European Central Bank announcements, press releases and press conferences with those of the Federal Reserve Board, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (and if they give such conferences, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan). The periodic statements, occasional interviews and recent minutes of the Fed's chairman, board and Open Market Committee often give rise to comment and movement on the markets. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This post on alphaville would be the kind of content that I would be referencing, for what it's worth. Incidentally (since this is the reference desk) the Fed have these conferences, but not after every meeting, same goes for BOJ. BOE don't have post meeting confverences but have quarterly inflation reports and various other events where they communicate with the media - and both BOE and FED release minutes, which can be market moving (as can the FOMC statements). It's very rare that I've seen IMF stuff move markets in the same way as a central bank announcement (Greece a notable exception but that's hardly exclusively IMF and it certainly doesn't relate to a press conference) and I've never seen World Bank move them. More I think about it I don't feel I'm perfectly focussed yet on what exactly I want to write... I'll keep on thinking Egg Centric 15:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember that such content (whether in its own article or not) is permitted only if it is based on reliable secondary sources, written about these press conferences, not about the conferences themself. In particular, these "cunning codewords" must not be written about unless they have been written about in secondary sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Talking about something = healing wounds?

Psychologically speaking does talking about something over and over again heal wounds? if so why? Shouldn't it depend on the feedback been received? Wikiweek (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That would depend on what happens when you talk about it. Some people just get angry when they bring up "old business", while others are able to move past it, once they fully understand what happened. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Carl Rogers's Person-centred therapy is the type of therapy you seem to be referring to. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The evidence I've seen has indicated trying to write about something bad that has happened is much better for getting over it than talking about it. Talking about things is not necessarily a good thing and may actually stop people getting over it and coping in some cases. If it isn't causing problems just putting on a brave face getting on with things seems to work quite well. Dmcq (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A relevant concept is the Catharsis, a purification of the soul of its excessive passions, that may be a benefit for some from church Confessionals. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Talking about something painful or traumatic can help in the healing process. Feedback is very important, and for trauma, a sense of safety is paramount: if the patient confronts a trauma that has been long repressed too quickly, it will just retraumatize her. Talking with a good friend or spouse can certainly relieve day to day stresses, but for highly emotional or traumatic issues, a good therapist is highly recommended.

Monaco regency

Why is Prince Albert of Monaco not King Albert? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Because Monaco is a Principality, not a Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

George W. Bush was chatting to Queen Elizabeth II one day. He said he wouldn’t mind being a king, to which the Queen replied “You would first need to have a kingdom. The USA is not a kingdom”.

• “Well then, couldn’t I be a prince?”
• “No, sorry, Mr President. You would need to first have a principality”.
• “Oh, I get it, Maam. Looks like I’ll just have to settle for being a president”.
• “Well, you do run a country”, she suggested. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that the four-letter-word in question is _not_ generally applied to males in the USA, therefore our American readers may not get this joke. Tevildo (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully understand the "four-letter-word", and I still don't see the joke. Unless you're playing with "country" somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to come across a joke where the punchline is other than at the end. And a certain word was italicised for a reason. That should answer your query. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an obscure play on "country". If that's the best joke the queen can come up with, she'd best not quit the day job. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: "I didn't get the joke" does not equal "it was obscure". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I do "get" the joke; it just doesn't make logical sense. Where does the "ry" ("ree") part figure into it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The classic form of the joke (which I associate, perhaps erroneously, with Kenny Everett, although his political views were diametrically opposite to the sentiment it expresses), is: "Once we were an Empire, and we had an emperor. Then we were a kingdom, and we had a king. Now we're a country, and we have Margaret Thatcher." Is that a little more obvious? Tevildo (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes logical sense. You have to already know the Thatcher joke in order for the other joke to make sense. Obscure to an American, not so obscure to a Brit. Also extremely rude. But Thatcher was a tough old broad, and could take it and dish it right back out. 14:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between this one and the Bush one, unless it's that Bush is male. --Trovatore (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A variation sometimes told in Australia is the story of a member of parliament representing a rural electorate declaring "I'm a country member", with the response "Yes, we remember." HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That was attributed, perhaps apocryphally, to Fred Daly. But back to my joke. Like Trovatore, I don't see the difference in punch between the 2 versions above. I honestly, for the life of me, can't understand Bugs's problem. Isn't it the same thing in both jokes: a kingdom is run by a king, a principality is run by a prince, so a country must need a ..... ? Isn't that where the "ry" part figures in it? What's so illogical about that? One's a -dom, one's an -ipality, and one's a -ry. The word endings themselves are not consistent, and that is completely beside the point of the joke. Aaarrrggh, there's nothing worse than explaining a joke, particularly one you've told yourself. Nothing. So, thanks for nothing, Bugsy!  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Along similar lines, John Cleese was on Keith Olbermann's show the night of the 2008 election, and read a poem about Bush in which the "punch" line, rhyming with something else of course, called Bush a "Berk" or some such. Also a fairly obscure joke except to a Brit who knows rhyming slang. And as I recall, Cleese had to explain to Olbermann that "Berk" was short for "Berkeley Hunt". At that point, the light went on, and Olbermann quickly cut to a commercial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

-- Hamlet: ' Lady, shall I lie in your lap? '

-- Ophelia: ' No, my lord.'

-- Hamlet: ' I mean my head upon your lap? '

-- Ophelia: ' Aye, my lord.'

-- Hamlet: ' Do you think I meant country matters? '

-- Ophelia: ' I think nothing, my lord.'

-- Hamlet: ' Thats a fair thought to lie between maids legs.

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A king can't raise a principality to a kingdom. The Emperor of France or the Holy Roman Emperor never raised Monaco to a kingdom because it was too small and unimportant.
Sleigh (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A sovereign can do whatever they like. That's what it means to be a sovereign. Monaco's sovereignty is a little confusing. It certainly wasn't completely sovereign in the past and even now France has significant say in who the Minister of State is. The Prince may need France's consent to re-designate Monaco as a Kingdom and himself as a King, but otherwise there is nothing stopping him. Other countries wouldn't have to recognise the new title, but I can't see why they wouldn't. Monaco has traditionally been a principality, though, and the Prince and his people are probably happy with that tradition. --Tango (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The sovereign of a country can do whatever they want. Zog of Albania just made himself King of Albania one day, on the legal principle known as "because-I-felt-like-it". --Jayron32 13:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No way can the sovereigns of constitutional monarchies "do what they like"; certainly not when it comes to changing the status of their country. Do you guys get your information about how monarchies work from The Wizard of Id? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was simplifying slightly. I was talking about national sovereignty more than individual sovereignty. The constitution is an internal thing and (apart from the weird stuff with France) doesn't affect what the country can do. --Tango (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose Monaco could declare independence and initiate a war with France, which would progably last about 5 minutes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The level of wrongness in this response is astounding. The French work some 38 hours per week, which often includes their unworked lunchtime. In the case of a war between Monaco and France, talks would immediately be initiated: the negotiations would be fierce and prolonged, with the French working overtime, up to 39 or even 40 hours per week, setting up committees to elect representatives to choose delegates for elevated discussions, and within 8 or 12 weeks you would have firm resolutions regarding whether either country was, in fact, at war, and another 6 months and everyone would know exactly why. The forces, meanwhile, would be eyeing each other menacingly, or rather squinting at each other, with the French camped a respectful 5-6 kilometers from the border, lest anyone rush the matter. Monaco and France would both spend $1-5Billion (more, since it will be in Euros) electing flags and displays, so that anyone within, well, 5-6 kilometers, would be able to see exactly who was camped there. Within one year, by which time the members of the delegates to conduct talks would surely have been moved on to squabbling over the logistics of the coming hostilities, real munitions will have begun to roll off of French factory lines, run at a blistering pace and in double shifts: 80 hours per week. The productivity is not going to be very high, so even at that pace soldiers on the France-Monaco front will only begin to receive 1 bullet every three days, compared with a kilo of exquisite French cheese during the same period, but soon the pace will be up to a bullet a day. Monaco will be pretty smug, as its soldiers will have each come with several weeks' worth of bullets by that calculation: however, they will envy France's generosity with its cheese. As Monaco waits for the French soldiers to start getting enough bullets that they can start to fight (this is further delayed by a prolonged strike at the aforementioned French bullet factory: picketing means that for several month fighting must cease) both sides decide to make the best use of their time that they can, and start digging trenches. The soldiers on both sides unite in a brief strike of the trench conditions, and French and Monaco forces (the latter in solidarity, being, themselves too, after all, paid soldiers, and having great sympathy for the French) join a picket line against cruel digging conditions: within 1 week a ceasefire is agreed with the union leaders, and both sides trudge back to their respective fronts: in the case of the Monaco forces, this itself takes two weeks, as they celebrate their labor victory on behalf of France by frolicking through the French countryside with the cheese and wine rations their French brethren have been kind enough to share. Just as digging of trenches is supposed to have commenced again at the just-agreed 16 hour per week, one week on, two weeks off, worker-friendly pace, news comes that France and Monaco have been able to negotiate their way out of the war! At first this is chalked off to French diplomacy, but later it will be a considerable scandal when it comes to light that France lavished upon the entire principality of Monaco a number of sex workers (both male and female) that amounts to one for every man, woman, and child, all costing taxpayers some 2 billion euros. Stuck between either admitting that the children of Monaco may have been exposed to the services of French sex workers, or else admitting that many citizens of Monaco may have made use of the services of more than one sex worker at the same time -- an affront to the rights of sex workers (this being exceedingly degrading) and to women's rights in general (for the case that two or more women sex workers were in use by a single man, though obviously two male gigolos used by a single woman of Monaco was a clawing back of some of the historical outrages suffered by women) -- France argued that the local culture did not make the latter anything out of order. France spends some 500 million euros on a PR campaign equating 'menage a trois' with the Enlightenment (a French export), and the issue seems to simmer down. Environment groups lobby for France and Monaco to fill in the trenches it has started to dig for the war, but the budget has already been depleted by the aforementioned activities and public relations campaigns. At any rate, it is argued, the trenches might be needed in some future war, whereupon digging could resume. In the mean time, anarchist squatters, many of them not citizens of the EU at all, make use of the trenches, or rather, the housing, lighting and sewage systems built up by both countries to service soldiers digging the trenches -- and neither France nor Monaco want to disturb this precarious peace by cutting off electricity. A committee is appointed to come up with an appropriate name for this cost on the annual budget, however it has yet to meet... As is the entire embarrassing war, its existence at all is quickly forgotten... 188.29.88.52 (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's two jokes in one thread that haven't worked. See cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Tevildo (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Even the United States had an Emperor. --Jayron32 14:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Monaco is independent. It has some strange links with France, but it is recognised as a country in its own right. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What Bugs may have meant is that Monaco could repudiate the treaty that currently provides for Monaco's absorption into France should it fail to produce an heir. I suppose we could say Monaco has a sort of "conditional independence", which is almost a contradiction in terms. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if Monaco were truly independent, this would be a non-issue: The Prince of Monaco could call himself King, Emperor, Tsar, or Jijjiboo J. O'Shea if he wanted to, not that anybody else need care about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

See also Principality. The multiple different meanings of the word Prince are explained in its own article. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Sleigh's comment — there's at least one instance in recent history that a sovereign prince became tired of being a prince and decided that he wanted to become a king. See Nikola of Montenegro. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Townships in Newfoundland

Hi all - I've been sorting stub articles on Newfoundland and Labrador, and a lot of them contain the line: "This settlement was depopulated in 1965" (1966, 1967...) What happened? Did the local government simply decide to shunt people from lots of small hamlets into larger towns? Grutness...wha? 03:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Newfoundland entered the Canadian Confederation in 1949, thanks to Premier J.R. Smallwood. He wanted to industrialize Newfoundland's use of natural resources. In the 1950s the provincial government tried to diversify the economy to reduce its dependence upon its cyclical natural resource base. Public funds were used to finance new industries that, once successfully operating, were to be sold to private enterprise. Few buyers emerged so the government tried to lure foreign capital through an offer of 50 per cent funding of loans to start up new factories. Most of these ventures failed and by the mid 1950s the provincial government’s cash surplus was exhausted with virtually no permanent jobs or other economic benefits to show for it. ref. To this end, he also conceived the British Newfoundland Development Corporation in 1952, and stated the fisheries development program to help local fishermen. (This it did too well - it helped to contribute to the later Collapse of the Northern Cod Fishery.) It helped fishermen get modern technologies like high-powered boats and affordable freezing systems. refs. This led to overfishing during the 1950's and 60's. ref. This probably is what caused a lot of smaller fishing communities like Lally Cove Non-RS ref. to dry up. With so many of these little communities, it was thought the best thing to do was to resettle them into more urban areas. In a press release, dated Oct 29, 1957, Premier J.R. Smallwood estimated that as many as 200 settlements in Newfoundland “with no great future” and involving as many as 50,000 people could be resettled (Stacey Collection, CNS). ... Between 1954 and 1965 110 communities were abandoned, with a population of about 7,500. ... A new federal-provincial resettlement programme was introduced in 1965, administered by the Department of Fisheries. ... Between 1965 and 1975 some 148 communities were abandoned, involving the relocation of an additional 20,000 people. ... Overall, some 307 communities were abandoned between 1946 and 1975, and over 28,000 people relocate. ref. (This ref also cites Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador, which was commissioned by Premier Smallwood.) Following this link from List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador will take you to the Newfoundland and Labrador Abandoned Communities Index, were a quick look gives some extra information that's not in our articles (e.g., the Batteau article mentions it was depopulated, but doesn't give a date, whereas here it's shown as abandoned 1966.) See also: a nifty Google Map of Abandoned Communities in Newfoundland and Labrador - you'll notice almost all of them appear around coastline.

TL;DR (in short) Overfishing caused smaller communities to all but disappear, and the provincial government decided to help finish that via resettlement.

(Forgive me if the above isn't the clearest - I'm a little under the weather and drugged at the moment.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 11:21, 1 Tamuz 5771 / 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that answers things nicely. Get well soon! Grutness...wha? 01:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

South California Proposal: Tax Diversion Unique to 4 Riverside County Cities?

Per this news article, the backer of South California proposal claims the purpose is that the vehicle tax is diverted from Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar specifically. Is this because this is his district as Supervisor and its happening to other cities within California or its a unique problem for those four based on a decision made by recent budget legislation signed by Jerry Brown?--98.112.224.106 (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

is there any culture with a national sleepy-time?

Is there any culture where there is a national "sleepy-time" (I don't mean government mandated, I mean cultural, a de facto fact), so that, for example, every single day between 2 PM and 3 PM everyone in the whole country is taking a nap? (It can be a smaller community than a country if there is no such country). Also obviously it doesn't have to be EVERYONE, every single person - I am asking about a cultural trend, like watching prime time TV in America. Thanks. --188.28.126.11 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read over Siesta#Siesta in other cultures? ^Avic_ennasis @ 14:42, 1 Tamuz 5771 / 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I was trying to follow the redlink sleepy-time. Interesting, thanks! --188.28.220.179 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you looked for it, I've blue linked it - you're probably not the only person who thinks like you! Egg Centric 15:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sleepy time should probably be a dab (redir-ed from sleepytime, sleepy-time, Sleepy Time too) which links Bedtime, siesta, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, Sleepy-Time Tom, Sleepytime Trio, Sleepytime Pig, and maybe to Psalty. Also, for some reason, Sleepy-Time redirects to SpongeBob SquarePants: Battle for Bikini Bottom. 87.113.82.26 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'll make a go of it in a couple of minutes once I read the guidelines on making a DAB (or you can do the honours now if you wish!) Egg Centric 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Quickly scanning guidelines, perhaps not per WP:PTM. Other thoughts? Egg Centric 16:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say all those links are reasonable entries on the proposed Sleepytime (disambiguation) - WP:PTM is to cover more extreme examples, such as linking The Presidents of the United States of America (band) from USA (disambiguation). NOTE: Be sure to create the DAB page with (disambiguation) in the title, they'll get into a tizz at WP:DAB if you don't. And am I the only one to find the track listing at Psalty#Kids' Praise! 3: Funtastic Family (1982) rather - disturbing? Tevildo (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not the only one. Such indoctrination amounts to child abuse that must be counteracted by the liberating gospels of Saints Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa-Laa and Po. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Another item for the disamb page is Sleepytime Tea: [1]. StuRat (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I think I have a bit of formatting and loose ends to tidy up, but supper calls and I am also on the final table of a poker tournament, so I shall take my time, others welcome to get stuck in! Egg Centric 18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaaaargh. Somebody needs to read WP:PTM and WP:MOSDAB. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

9/11

Okay, we all know that American Airlines Flight 587 was an accident. However, would Flights 11, 77, 93, and 175 be accidents? Everyone knows that these were hijacked and had targets (although we didn't know the target for 93). 161.130.178.7 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Accident is generally reserved for things which were not done deliberately. That is, (based on official findings after lots of research and analysis), it was determined that flight 587 wasn't intended to be crashed into a neighborhood in Queens, no one wanted that result. The 9/11 attacks were intentiononal acts, that is the crashes were the intended outcomes (excepting, if you really wanted to stretch it, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania). --Jayron32 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

According to ICAO, [2] an "accident" is "An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of being in the aircraft, [...] except when the injuries are from natural causes, self inflicted or inflicted by other persons [...] or b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure [...] except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories." So, the deaths of the passengers weren't accidents, as they were deliberately inflicted, but the damage to the aircraft _were_ accidents, as there's no similar exception in clause b of the regulations. Tevildo (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I'm not sure my brain is capable of the twists of logic to allow that deliberate deaths can be caused by accidental crashes, though the official agencies involved must be composed of people who are smarter than I, because apparently they can make such insane convolutions work. For those of us who use English which is unconfined by bureaucracy, I think we can allow that nothing involved in the 9/11 crashes was "accidental" (excepting, as I already noted, the crash in Pennsylvania, and then only on a technicality). --Jayron32 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Had a similar debate to this on another page recently. It's obvious that ICAO's definition of accident differs considerably from that used by a lot of users of English in normal speech. We have some editors here who argue very strongly that Wikipedia should use ICAO's definition when we're talking about aircraft incidents. I very strongly disagree. C'est la vie. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless specific qualifications are made overtly in the text (according to ICAO, the incident was ruled an accident) Wikipedia articles should use common English, that is word defintitions and usage should reflect what people, without any specific technical knowledge, would expect them to mean. Also, per WP:SYN, it is not permissible to apply the ICAO defintion of "accident" to an incident based just on the specifics of the indicident, i.e. if I read about an incident, and if in my opinion the speicifcs match what the ICAO calls an "accident", I can call it that. No, what we need is specific connection that the ICAO has called the specific incident an accident. In summary, one always defaults to common, non-technical English usage when possible, unless the non-standard usage is specifically and overtly cited, and even then only when using the non-standard usage is justified by prior usage, and doesn't require original research to make the connection. Capice? --Jayron32 21:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is there are two common definitions of "accident": something bad that is no one's fault, or any "unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance," as Merriam-Webster says. Some people use the word "crash" to describe car accidents to avoid confusion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but neither of those describes 9/11. It was neither "no one's fault" nor was it "unplanned". The crashes were planned, and fault can be assigned. --Jayron32 23:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on this particular issue, but how would you describe KAL 007? The navigational error was a mistake, but the Soviet pilot did intend to shoot down the airliner. An accident? Tevildo (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that word; the plane was shot down because of a deliberate act; that is some Soviet in charge of deciding to fire a missle at the plane deliberately fired a missle at the plane. He did so based on the commands of his superiors to do so. It was hardly accidental. --Jayron32 01:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My earlier discussions on this were at Talk:Qantas Flight 32, which involved an exploding engine, ultimately found to be caused by faulty manufacturing by Rolls Royce (and they knew it), who have now paid near $100 million compensation to Qantas. Hardly an accident in my book. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Being accidental and someone being responsible aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Accidents can be caused by negligence; that is Rolls Royce didn't necessarily make the decision to kill people. Avoidable accident is sort of the rudimentary definition of negligence anyways. --Jayron32 03:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It was unplanned and unforeseen by the airline and regular passengers, so it fits the definition above from their perspectives, so it could be classed as an accident to them. Mingmingla (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

KAL 007 was accidental in the sense that the Soviets in charge were not intending to, nor did they predict they would, be shooting down a commercial jetliner. (They thought it was an American reconnaissance plane.) I agree that just because someone is responsible does not mean it cannot be accidental. It is not analogous to 9/11 (which was purposeful). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I say KAL 007 was an accident. No one wanted to violate the Soviet Airspace, and when 007 did enter the area, the Soviets were doing their job, sort of like Iran Air 655. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

curiosity and hatred

Is it possible for someone to have a pervasive curiosity about all aspects of the world coupled with a deep-seated hatred of everything within it? --188.28.0.141 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. You may want to read Misanthropy for the second set of beliefs, but any two sets of beliefs are never really mutually exclusive. If you like learning about stuff, but still dislike it, I don't see that as being any sort of impossibility. If disliking things makes you happy, have fun! --Jayron32 21:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those phrases actually means anything, they are just rhetorical. If you think they have a definite meaning, answer this: if a man has a deep-seated hatred of everything, does he enjoy seeing people suffer? Or does he hate it? Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they do though. I don't think it's appropriate of you to understand "hatred of" as "enjoy" suffering. I don't think hatred = enjoy suffering. Let's take an example. Normally when a Unix hacker comes over to the Windows world, they hate everything about the way Windows does things, its architecture, etc. And they are not at once curious - they want to stop having to work with it! On the other hand, as they get more and more curious and learn more and more, it seems the hatred withers. . My question is. . . can you be very curious about something, and want to learn more and more about it, while absolutely despising that thing and all aspects of it? And this extended to all aspects of reality? I mean, when I imagine people showing genuine hatred (the Nazis of Jews), I do not see any genuine curiosity on their part into Jewish culture and history. On the other hand, when I see genuine curiosity (by University professors of a subject), I don't see an abiding hatred of all parts of that subject to them. So it seems to me that there could very well be ZERO people in the intersection of "People intensely curious about all aspects of the world" (of whom there are many) and "people with a deep-seated hatred of all aspects of the world" (of whom perhaps there are as many). Any counterexamples? --188.29.120.206 (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Counter examples? How about police detectives who hate murderers, but spend their lives tracking and studying them? Or feminist academics who hate the repression of woman, but study it in nevertheless? There is no reason one can't want to learn about things which you find distasteful.

Yes, but I'm asking about EVERYTHING. Not hating and learning about one thing in particular. I do agree with you when it comes to studying one odious subject - my question is a more expansive one however. 188.28.160.38 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Look under "narcissist" - someone who cares only about himself, and will learn as much as he can about the world, in order to further his earthly gains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Although only fictional, Captain Nemo from Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea fitted this description. 92.28.244.187 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)