Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}}
[[Category:Wikipedia help forums]]
[[Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers]]</noinclude>

{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 16}}

{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 17}}

{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 18}}

== Liliuokalani's desire to behead people ==
{{archivetop|result=[[WP:NOTAFORUM]]. If you have a specific question, feel free to post it, but we don't do "a discussion on the topic itself" here. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}}
Did [[Liliuokalani]] really stated she wanted to '''"behead"''' the people who overthrew her? I find this piece to be highly offensive and unlikely. Was it just a ploy to blacken her name and portray her as a bloodthirsty tyrant Queen? I'm guessing since this ''was'' the age of [[yellow journalism]]. She denied the accusation in her autobio, but what does other say? And the reason I find it highly unlikely is the fact that the [[Kingdom of Hawaii]] never practice decaptation, at least not during the age of constitutional monarchy, and only practiced hanging, confiscatining property, and exiling people who commited treason.--[[User:KAVEBEAR|KAVEBEAR]] ([[User talk:KAVEBEAR|talk]]) 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
:Liliuokalani's autobiography is "yellow journalism"?!? The source for the statement in the Wikipedia article is [http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/liliuokalani/hawaii/hawaii-5.html#XLII here] (search for the word "beheaded") and the Wikipedia article fairly faithfully reports what it says, which is from the work ''Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen'' written by Liliuokalani herself. Wow. You could, you know, check the sources before raising an objection. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 01:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::What?!? Did you read my question? I never said Liliuokalani's autobio was "yellow journalism". I was asking if what people said about her wanting to behead the revolutionaries was "yellow journalism". The people as the newspapers that came from the mainland that Liliuokalani mentioned in her biography. How can an autobio be yellow journalism to began with?! I talking about the newspapers and what the Americans said about her beheading the revolutionaries. I am perfectly aware of what her autobio said, she said that she never stated that, it wasn't up to her as a constitutional monarch, she was shocked that Minister Willis would use that word after their informal meeting and that a lie can spread far but the true is always misunderstood. Using an autobiographical source is okay but I was wondering if there is any historical analysis on this controversial aspect of her ever saying such a word. I'm on the Queen side on this but I'm always want to be sure.--[[User:KAVEBEAR|KAVEBEAR]] ([[User talk:KAVEBEAR|talk]]) 02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, and the wikipedia article says that she says that she never said it. So I am confused as to why you are so offended by the Wikipedia article? --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm not talking about the article. I trying to start a discussion on the topic itself not what wikipedia says.--[[User:KAVEBEAR|KAVEBEAR]] ([[User talk:KAVEBEAR|talk]]) 02:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Ah, my bad. I thought you were offended that the Wikipedia article was spreading "yellow journalism", not that the contemporary journalists of Lilioukalani's time were guilty of it. I only note that modern "news organizations" (and I use the term [[Fox News|very loosely]]) are guilty of [[Birther|the same level of stupidity]] as those spreading silliness about the former Queen. Unfortunately, I do not know what the source of the Lilioukalani rumor was. Sorry for the mixup. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

= July 19 =

== Will India become a communist country? ==

The Maoist Rebels have taken control of 30% to 50% of India. It seems that the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency is winning against the Indian government. Will India become a next communist country? And why the U.S. is not supporting the Indian government to fight the maoist rebels? [[Special:Contributions/174.114.236.41|174.114.236.41]] ([[User talk:174.114.236.41|talk]]) 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:Do you have a source that states that "The Maoist Rebels have taken control of 30% to 50% of India"? Nobody seems to have noticed... [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 04:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, there are two "legitimate" communist parties which participate peacefully in democratic elections, being [[Communist Party of India (Marxist)]] and [[Communist Party of India]], and they each have a few elected officials here and there. The [[Communist Party of India (Maoist)]] appears to be the most radical group, having claimed some terrorist attacks. There is also the [[Naxalite]] movement, which appears closely allied with the Maoists. I don't know how active they are, but I don't think any of these groups, either the participating parties or the radical militant groups, represents a threat to take over India, either by democratic or violent means. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 05:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:The rebels control large areas of rural India; the BBC claims "Maoists and affiliated groups are active in more than a third of India's 600-odd districts". The map on [[Naxalite]] shows affected areas; the "seriously affected" are far less than 30%; and because they focus on rural areas it will be an even smaller percentage of India's population. They are based in remote forests and mountainous areas where the police and armed forces can't go (and the police action seems to have been notably inefficient). Although they launch regular terrorist attacks they don't seem to be centrally organised and they're not likely to be able to defeat the world's third-largest military, the [[Indian Armed Forces]].[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12640645][http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/world/asia/29india.html] --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 09:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that the Communist parties (which have a coalition under the name of the [[Left Democratic Front (Kerala)|Left Democratic Front]]) that are quite powerful in the southern states of Tamilnadu and Kerala aren't ''very'' Communist; they wave hammers and sickles about but they actually run the best-governed states in the country, with high literacy rates, high employment, low mortality etc. They're probably more what we'd call socialist in actual fact. (Most of the Keralan 'Communist' candidates that I met earlier this year were far too fat to qualify as real Communists anyway!!) <font color="#C4112F">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">belonger</span>]]─╢</font> 09:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::You may be surprised, but the defining ideological goals of a communist party are not ''low'' literacy and employment and ''high'' mortality. It's absurd that achieving good results should automatically disqualify a party from being called "communist" (see also [[No true Scotsman]] fallacy). Not to mention the fact that most of the "real", Stalinist communist parties, unsympathetic as they were, ''also'' achieved high literacy rates (and high employment, for what it's worth, and affordable basic health care ensuring relatively low mortality) - despite dictatorship, initial periods of political terror and economic catastrophes, inefficient economies etc..--[[Special:Contributions/91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] ([[User talk:91.148.159.4|talk]]) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:There are a huge number of communist parties in India (see [[:Category:Communist parties in India]]), most of which are insignificant in national politics. Some of them compete in elections and, of those, the [[Communist Party of India (Marxist)]] is by far the most important. However, the fronts it leads lost control of both Kerala and West Bengal at the last elections, and politically it is not supportive of the Naxalite uprising. I expect that the original question regards the [[Naxalite]]s, but, as the article states, "As of 2009, Naxalites were active across approximately 180 districts in ten states of India accounting for about 40% of India's geographical area" - 'active in' is very diferent from 'taken control' of. Even if the Naxalites were to somehow manage to take control of much of this area, they have very limited support in much of the country, and are not a single, unified force, so I can't imagine any circumstances under which they might make the whole country communist. I expect that the U.S. government has not shown any particular support for the Indian government in this because it is an internal matter with no serious international implications, and the Indian government has not (to the best of my knowledge) asked for outside assistance. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] ''[[User talk:Warofdreams|talk]]'' 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::Have you tried asking a magic 8 ball? We don't have the ability to see the future or we would not be here, but rather relaxing at our mansion in St Barts from all the billions we made in stocks. [[User:Googlemeister|Googlemeister]] ([[User talk:Googlemeister|talk]]) 13:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:Are any of the vaguely popular parties actually communist, advocating a 100% property tax, or are they merely socialists calling themselves communists? How are the relations between the ''bona fide'' communists and socialists? Would you say the Indian Maoists are more totalitarian, fascist, communist, or socialist in terms of their policy planks? [[Special:Contributions/99.2.148.119|99.2.148.119]] ([[User talk:99.2.148.119|talk]]) 03:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::Whoever told you that [[communism]] is about "a 100% property tax" was wrong.--[[Special:Contributions/91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] ([[User talk:91.148.159.4|talk]]) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that in order to understand the Naxalite rebellion, and why it is spreading and increasing in strength, we need a socio-economic backdrop. In the interior of India, stretching from Nepalese border to northern Tamil Nadu, the is a belt of relative economic underdevelopment. To a large extent, this region consists of dense forests and hills, difficult terrain to access. Since many centuries, this unaccesible terrains are home to [[adivasi]] peoples, culturally diverse and markedly of different cultures than the peoples living in plain areas. The adivasi peoples have been largely unicorporated into British colonial system and the modern state. However, as India has reached a higher degree of economic development in recent years and prices of natural resources has gone up there is a wide process to exploit the forest, mining and land resources in the adivasi lands. A frontal attack against the adivasi communities. The Naxalite movement, which existed prior to this development but was largely dormant in many areas, was able to reignite through mobilization of adivasi demands. Thus when looking at a map the zone of Maoist influence might appear very wide, but in reality the zone of influence has clear limitations. Unlike the mainstream communist parties the Maoists lack support or ability to mobilize support amongst the wider sections of peasantry (and yet less in the working class and urban poor). So even if they come to dominate the entire tribal belt from north to south, it is highly unlikely that they would capture power natuinally any time soon. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 20:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

== "Austria" in Austria ==

(Whilst the question is overtly a language one, I'm guessing the answer is historical or political, hence raising it here.) I recently visited Austria, and was a little surprised to find the word "Austria" used frequently in the name of [[Telekom Austria]], a bank, and a couple of sports teams. In fact, in many ways it was more prominent than ''Österreich'' except in an adjective sense. Why the adoption of the English term? I'd be surprised to find any such institution in the UK called ''Vereinigte Königreich'' (even considering the greater spread of English compared to German). I considered that Österreich with its imperial feel might be unfashionable, but surely avoiding the name of your country would be a big step? <span style="color:#3A3A3A">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray">([[User:Grandiose|me]], [[User_talk:Grandiose|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Grandiose|contribs]]) </span> 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_June_8#Austria.3F|Link to discussion the last time this came up]]. By the way I'm an English expat living in Austria and I can attest to da troof of what you are saying. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 11:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

:(ec)''Austria'' is a Latin name. See our article [[Name of Austria]] which says, amongst other things, "The name "Austria" is a latinization of German ''Österreich''. This has led to much confusion as German ''öst'' is "east", but Latin ''auster'' is "south". It is first recorded as ''Austrie marchionibus'' (Margrave of Austria) on a deed issued by Conrad III to the [[Klosterneuburg Monastery]] in 1147. On the [[Privilegium Minus]] of 1156, the name of the country is given as ''marchiam Austriae'' ([[March of Austria]]) and as ''Austriae ducatum'' ([[Duchy of Austria]]). In English usage, "Austria" is attested since the early 17th century." Hope this helps. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 11:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::You give a poor example, cf England or Angleterre, Schottland or Écosse, Nordirland or Irlande du Nord, Wales or Pays de Galles. Austria must look novel or quaint to the German eye.
::I thought ''ost'' was east.<br>[[User:Sleigh|Sleigh]] ([[User talk:Sleigh|talk]]) 11:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::"East" is ''Osten'' as a noun, but the adjective "eastern" is ''östlich'', so ''öst-'' is also associated with the meaning "east". I think a lot of the use of "Austria" you're seeing has to do with wanting to be international. ''Austria'' isn't just English and Latin: go to [[wikt:Austria#Translations]] and click "show" and you'll see how many languages call it "Austria" or something very close to it. People all over the world will recognize the name "Austria" even if they have no idea what "Österreich" is. (Of course, many of those who recognize [http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/funny-graphs-how-people-view-me-after-i-say-im-austrian.jpg will confuse it] [http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/129162509113841100.png with "Australia"], but that's a different problem.) "Austria" is also easier for foreigners to pronounce than "Österreich". "Austria" just makes for a better internationally recognizable and marketable brand name. [[User:Angr|Angr]] ([[User talk:Angr|talk]]) 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::If "east is ''Osten'' as a noun", what's the difference between ''der Osten'' and ''der Ost''? --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Hmm, good question. There's certainly no significant difference in semantics; to judge from [[wikt:de:Ost]], it's a matter of how they're used. ''Ost'' is used in navigation and meteorology, and as a prefix in place names like ''Ostdeutschland'' and ''Ost-Berlin''. All the main directions have a form with and a form without ''-en'': Nord/Norden, Ost/Osten, Süd/Süden, West/Westen. I'm not a native speaker, so I don't have a very good feel for when to use each; personally I'd probably never use the short forms except in compounds (not just place names like those mentioned above but also words like ''Ostwind''). [[User:Angr|Angr]] ([[User talk:Angr|talk]]) 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Well, my German is a bit rusty but I would avoid using 'Ost' on its own, which is a prefix (as Angr explained above) or an abbreviation. Ostwind = East wind/Eastern wind. Osten is the proper word. Der Osten = the East. Er kommt aus dem Osten = He comes from the East. AFAIK no German-speaker is going to say: Der Ost. Er kommt aus dem Ost. [[User:Flamarande|Flamarande]] ([[User talk:Flamarande|talk]]) 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Sure, except that, as Angr's link to the German Wiktionary makes clear, ''der Ost'' can be more than either a prefix or an abbreviation. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 13:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I agree that it's wise to use "Ost" rarely for a noun meaning "the east", and I can't think of a good example where you'd use the definite (or any) article as in "der Ost", unless you're writing about the wind in a maritime poem. Ost without article can be seen in juxtapositions such as "[http://www.gwu.edu/gelman/spec/kiev/treasures/ost.html Ost und West]" or "West begegnet Ost", and it's used when discussing a compass for example "eine Drehung von Nord nach Ost". While you will find examples for "Richtung Ost", you'll find at least tenfold the number for "Richtung Osten"; the former sounds a bit military or technical or something (?). English Wiktionary's entry, simply defining it as "the East", is a bit too concise. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 01:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
[[A.E.I.O.U.]]--[[User:Rallette|Rallette]] ([[User talk:Rallette|talk]]) 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

== Map of Italy ==

I quite like and have made some use out of this map of Germnany c1000 AD, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heiliges_R%C3%B6misches_Reich_1000.PNG
but I was wondering if there was any chance of finding a similar map showing Italy around the same time and in the same level of detail, with the towns and cities and rivers marked and divided up into its various regions?

[[Special:Contributions/79.66.101.168|79.66.101.168]] ([[User talk:79.66.101.168|talk]]) 14:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:Maybe there's something at the [http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_europe.html Perry-Castañeda Map Collection] that will strike your fancy. [[User:Pais|Pais]] ([[User talk:Pais|talk]]) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

::[http://www.google.com/search?q=historical+map+of+italy&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1R2ACGW_enUS398&biw=1024&bih=573&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qJ8lTr66IqnL0QHQo53CCg&ved=0CDsQsAQ Google Images] gave me [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/11citaly.jpg this map] which looks to be roughly of the same scale, level of detail, age, and time period as the one of Germany above. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

== Inheriting royal houses in Europe ==

Why were the decedents of Queen Victoria of the UK members of her husband's House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and not her House of Hanover? Is it because the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha outranks the House of Hanover or because houseships can only go down the male line? If it's because the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha outranks the House of Hanover, how are the ranks of houses determined and why didn't Victoria's titles of Queen and Empress make her house higher-ranking? If it's because houseships can only go down the male line, then if a female queen-regent married a commoner, would her child become a king or queen with no house? --[[Special:Contributions/174.91.8.226|174.91.8.226]] ([[User talk:174.91.8.226|talk]]) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:In all but a few rare cases, the house name always follows male lines. (One major exception I can think of is the [[House of Romanov]] which didn't change names in common usage even after [[Paul I of Russia]] inherited the throne, his own father wasn't a Romanov but a member of the [[House of Holstein-Gottorp]]). Thus, Victoria's children become members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because that is the House of Prince Albert. Pre-supposing the next question, the reason that [[Charles, Prince of Wales]] is considered part of the House of Windsor rather than the [[House of Glücksburg|House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg]] (which is is Father's House) is simply that the Queen declared it to be so. Otherwise, however, noble houses follow male lines. As far as what would happen if the queen married a commoner, it may just be that the Husband's surname would become the House name; though since I literally can't think of a single time of it happening, so the best we can say is that it is an unresolved problem; that is since it has never come up, there is no official solution. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 16:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::So Elizabeth II just unilaterally declared that her children would be in her hourse instead of her husband's house, and that's enough to break the male preference of houseship inheritance? Do we know why Victoria didn't do the same thing for her children? Was it just the culture of her time? --[[Special:Contributions/174.91.8.226|174.91.8.226]] ([[User talk:174.91.8.226|talk]]) 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::The answer to #1 is yes. The answer to #2 is we don't know why, we can only note that she did not. Its kinda like asking why you didn't eat ham and eggs for breakfast this morning. People don't often make copious note of why they didn't choose to do some random act. Positive action is usually much easier to assign the "becauses" to; since people usuaully have justification for actions they take. People "don't do" an infinite number of things in any given second of their lives, and thus there isn't often justification for why we are not doing something. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::If anything, Victoria's behavior in this regard is less surprising than Elizabeth's. Noble children inherit their father's house the way commoners' children inherit their father's last name. If a commoner named Victoria Hanover married a commoner named Albert Saxe, no one would be surprised that their children bore the surname Saxe. But if a commoner named Elizabeth Windsor married a commoner named Philip Mountbatten, people would be surprised (perhaps less so today than 60 years ago) if the parents decided the children would bear the surname Windsor. It probably never occurred to Victoria that her children would belong to any house other than their father's. [[User:Angr|Angr]] ([[User talk:Angr|talk]]) 18:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::I would have thought that Victoria wasn't subject to the same anti-German sentiment that caused [[George V of the United Kingdom]] to create the [[House of Windsor]] in [http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#German_titles_1917 July 1917] and she felt no need to do anything but follow custom. And when his granddaughter made her [http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#Apr_9_1952 proclamation] in 1952, she had only been queen for two months, it may have also been due to anti-German feelings. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] ([[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|talk]]) 07:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Does this mean that Charles and Anne, who were both born before this edict, spent the early parts of their lives as members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg? -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::No because [[Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh|prior to the official engagement announcement, he renounced his Greek and Danish royal titles, converted from Greek Orthodoxy to Anglicanism, and became a naturalised British subject, adopting the surname Mountbatten from his British maternal grandparents.]] [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: I knew all that, but didn't he nevertheless remain a member of the House of S-H-S-G? Couldn't he claim to be a member to this day? -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Genealogically, '''yes''' (because the emphasis of [[genealogy]] is identifying an individual in terms of descent from ancestors -- Charles is [[patrilineality|patrilineally]] an [[House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg|Oldenburg-Glucksburg]]); dynastically, '''maybe''' (because, on the one hand, application of a formula of inheritance to descendants {[[dynasty]]} of one particular ancestor is how monarchies select a monarch -- and Charles is the [[Succession to the Crown Act 1707|heir-eventual]] to the UK's [[Sophia, Electress of Hanover|Electress Sophia]]. But on the other hand a nation (UK) which uses a dynasty (Glucksburg) as the source of its monarchs usually ignores whether other nations (Greece, Denmark, [[Grand Duchy of Oldenburg]]) also use that source unless [[personal union|convergence of crowns]] becomes likely. Each nation defines membership in its own dynasty, and nothing prevents those definitions from overlapping -- [[Paul I of Russia|Paul, Emperor of Russia]] was both a Romanov and a [[Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp#Titular dukes|Holstein-Gottorp]]. [[Albert II, Prince of Monaco]] is required by Monegasque law to bear the name of [[House of Grimaldi#Monaco|Grimaldi]] but he is also a member of the House of [[Polignac]] as a remote ''male-line'' heir to the [[Duke of Polignac|dukedom thereof]], his [[Prince Pierre, Duke of Valentinois#Marriage|grandfather's]] change of surname being irrelevant to current [http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/noblesse.htm#Name French law on titles]); and legally, '''no''' (because the name (e.g. Mountbatten-Windsor) and family (e.g. Windsor) to which one belongs is determined by the laws which govern one's transactions in any particular nation (UK for Charles), e.g. marriage, voting, taxation, property ownership. But one could be legally married to several women in [[Riyadh]] yet simultaneously only to one in [[London]], divorced and single in [[Las Vegas]] but still married in [[Rome]]: one nation's laws don't automatically override another's. Incidentally, dynasties have often been named for ''non''-royals who acquire a throne by inheritance, conquest or election (e.g. [[House of Bernadotte|Bernadotte]], [[House of Bonaparte|Bonaparte]], [[House of Karadjordjevic|Karadjordjevic]], [[House of Stuart|Stuart]], [[Tudor dynasty|Tudor]], [[House of Vasa|Vasa]]. [[User:FactStraight|FactStraight]] ([[User talk:FactStraight|talk]]) 04:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::: Thanks for that excellent reply, Fact Straight. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 12:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

==What kind of culture is America?==

What kind of culture is America? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:StoamchtoothMMX|StoamchtoothMMX]] ([[User talk:StoamchtoothMMX|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/StoamchtoothMMX|contribs]]) 17:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:America is not a culture, it is a country. Why do you ask? [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 17:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::America does ''have'' a culture, however, and if the OP is interested in reading about it, the article [[Culture of the United States]] has a good overview, and they can follow links from there as they wish. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 17:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

:::[[The Americas|America]] is not a country either, it is a whole quite large landmass, over there somewhere. [[Special:Contributions/79.66.101.168|79.66.101.168]] ([[User talk:79.66.101.168|talk]]) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::In English, the word "America" as a singular without an article usually refers to the United States of America, unless contexts suggests otherwise. If you want to refer to the landmass comprised of the two continents of North America and South America, the more common term is "the Americas". --[[Special:Contributions/174.91.8.226|174.91.8.226]] ([[User talk:174.91.8.226|talk]]) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::In fact, it has more than one culture. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] ([[User talk:Marco polo|talk]]) 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

::::The question is too open-ended. Can the person posing the question give some examples of the kinds of cultures that are to be considered? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 21:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:Western. [[Special:Contributions/99.2.148.119|99.2.148.119]] ([[User talk:99.2.148.119|talk]]) 05:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

== Soldiers firing bullets in the air to celebrate ==

News footage from Libya often shows the rebels firing automatic weapons in the air to celebrate reports of a troop advance, or reports of Nato bombing some Qadaffi asset. [http://leagueofindia.com/article/nato-air-power-helps-rebels-capture-five-towns-libya March 28, 2011: "There were several rounds of firing in the air by jubilant rebels who vowed to bring an early end to the 41-year-old Gaddafi regime."] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8508488/Libya-rebels-celebrate-seizing-Misurata-airport.html May 11, 2011: "..convoys of machine-gun trucks paraded past with their occupants cheering and firing in the air. "God is great!" they chanted. "] Even the Libyan government troops fired in the air to celebrate: [http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-29 April 29, 2011: "The Libyan government sent text messages to mobile phones of its armed supporters, urging them to stop firing in the air in order to save ammunition for "our crusader enemies,""]This would seem to be a bad idea, since the ammo might be needed if they actually fought a battle, and since money is reported to be short and a AK47 ammo costs $230 per thousand rounds retail. A bullet that goes up must come down and might hit someone or something. Was it a habit of soldiers in major wars of the 19th or 20th century to celebrate thus? Or would they quickly be disciplined for wasting ammunition? Is it a Middle Eastern thing, or a "improvised untrained rebel army thing?" Is it a characteristic of "soldiers" who have not actually been in combat? Or did German US, British, and Japanese soldiers do it in WW2, or UN and Korean forces in the Korean Conflict, or the US and allies and the Vietnamese/Viet Cong do it in the Vietnam War, or the opposing forces in Libya and Afghanistan? A Google News Archive search for "celebratory gunfire" from 1939-1945 produced [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=celebratory+gunfire&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=1939&as_user_hdate=1945&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a no results]. A similar search limited to Libya for 2011 produced [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=libya&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=celebratory+gunfire&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=2011&as_user_hdate=2011&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a 45 results]. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:It's a Middle Eastern thing -- in the parts where everybody is armed, any sort of celebration will provoke lots of shooting into the air -- even weddings and things like that. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 18:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::They do it in some parts of North America, too, but it's a terrible idea. [[Special:Contributions/99.2.148.119|99.2.148.119]] ([[User talk:99.2.148.119|talk]]) 21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

:Did you look at [[Celebratory gunfire]]? --[[User:LarryMac|<font color="#3EA99F">LarryMac</font>]][[User talk:LarryMac|<font color="#3EABBF"><small> | Talk</small></font>]] 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::I love how Wikipedia has an article on almost everything. Is there an article on [[Wasting ammunition]]? I guess notm, because it comes up a red link. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::Shooting your guns into the air in celebration was also something gangs of "Cowboys" did in "Wild West" (at least according to Hollywood... reality may have been different). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

::: It seems to be a particularly male thing, and perhaps a testosterone-fuelled male thing, and may be symbolic of shooting ... other kinds of "bullets" ... behind closed doors ... if you get my drift. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 20:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::: I think you mean [[ejaculation]], but I am just taking a wild guess here. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 21:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::: You got my drift. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 21:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Actually, I think it has more to do with the noise than the bullets. It is a "gun-culture" equivalent of ancient warriors banging their swords or spears on their shields (or priests ringing bells for that matter). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Again, is it an activity of rear echelon military fakers, pretend soldiers, as opposed to something soldiers who are on, or have been on the battlefront do? (In 1964 the Laotian army fired most of their ammo at the Moon because there was an eclipse, but at least they imagined they were frightening away an evil spirit). [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 04:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Think fireworks, if you have guns and bullets to hand, way more convenient. [[User:Richard Avery|Richard Avery]] ([[User talk:Richard Avery|talk]]) 07:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Rather more hazardous though: see [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10908830 bridegroom in Turkey accidentally kills three relatives while firing an AK-47 in celebration at his own wedding] and [http://www.globalnews.ca/Gunfire+kills+least+people+across+Yemen/5071700/story.html Gunfire kills at least 11 people across Yemen after president's first appearance since injury]. I'm sure that there are many similar stories out there. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 14:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I was going to say to me it seems like a similar thing to setting of fire crackers. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::My father, who was a British soldier in Calcutta from 1944 to 1946, was trained there in riot control. There was no special riot equipment and they were instructed that if they ever had to fire their rifles to disperse an angry mob, it was much safer to fire at their legs than to shoot into the air. What goes up, generally comes down somewhere else. In the event, the sight of a few [[Ghurka]]s drawing their [[Khukri]]s was always enough to persuade the citizens of Calcutta that they had urgent business elsewhere. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The bit of the OP's statement that interested me was ''A bullet that goes up must come down and might hit someone or something.'' A bullet fired straight up in the air can and has killed people. It depends on the calibre of the bullet which in turn affects the terminal velocity. It is unlikely that a .22 bullet would kill but a .45 would almost certainly kill if it fell directly on the head. Bullets fired at an angle are even more dangerous as they still carry some of the muzzle velocity when landing whereas the vertically fired shot reaches the point at which velocity is zero and so on falling back to earth accelerates due to gravity only. Its been calaculated that the Kinetic Impact Energy of a .45 round is over 20 times greater than that of a .22 round. --[[User:Billreid|Bill Reid]] | ([[User talk:Billreid|talk]]) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:I was taught in gun safety training that a 22 long bullet can travel over a mile and still kill someone. Rarely will it go exactly straight up. If handheld, it will likely travel in a parabola, continuing its stabilizing spin, with a higher terminal velocity than a bullet dropped from an extreme height and tumbling to the ground. Certainly a military round is likely to be more massive and to have a higher muzzle velocity, with greater lethality even if fired at a high angle. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

= July 20 =

== Did Britain ever try to take over Europe? ==

Seems like other major European countries have tried at some point to take over Europe like France or Germany, but did Britain ever attempt this? If not, why not? [[User:ScienceApe|ScienceApe]] ([[User talk:ScienceApe|talk]]) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:They certainly tried to take over France (see [[Hundred Years' War]]), and they also conquered Ireland (see [[Tudor conquest of Ireland]]). Attempting to take over other countries would have been problematic due to the distances and transportation requirements. You'll notice that almost all of the Europe conquering was done in more-or-less a geographically contiguous way. England wouldn't have skipped over France and started to invade Austria, for example. Even trying to conquer Norway would have been problematic due to the long sea voyage. -- [[Special:Contributions/140.142.20.229|140.142.20.229]] ([[User talk:140.142.20.229|talk]]) 03:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:{{ec}} (first part reply to the OP) Depends on what you mean by "Britain". At one point, the ruling dynasty in England (the [[Plantagenet]]s) controlled vast parts of France directly, and even laid claim to the throne of France itself. Maybe you've heard of the [[Hundred Years War]]? The term [[Angevin Empire]] (Angevin after [[Anjou]], the region of France where the family originated.) is sometimes used for the continental possessions of the English Royal Family at this time; however this was ''long'' before the concept of the [[nation state]] ever existed, so speaking of "countries" as we mean them in the modern sense doesn't work here. (post EC reply to 140.142) Excepting that the Norse invaded and took over England, see [[Cnut the Great]]. There's nothing problematic about that, it actually happened, just in the other direction. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 03:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:It would seem that England, and later the UK, actively followed the colonial policy that many ascribe to them: let the foreigners bicker around on the continent, and focus on the colonial empire. Such a policy meant a natural double role for the navy: support the colonies, and prevent an invasion. This would have been supported by the fact that several French attempts at invading England and [[Spanish armada|one very famous Spanish one]] had been unsuccessful. Similarly, Britain was often defeated on the European stage: the [[Seven Years' War]], for example, saw several losses in Europe (and in general, the leaving-the-war-there-to-someone-else policy). Britain's [[personal union]] with the [[Kingdom of Hannover]] would have allowed European meddling, but the British clearly had no appetite for such complicated politics. So I think the story is of a line of thinking that became gradually reinforced; from the times the the Tudors lost Britain's remaining lands in France, and before that had spent vast sums attempting to maintain them, through to a colonial period characterised by the Seven Years' War where British colonialism was seen as a great success, and so a priority. <span style="color:#3A3A3A">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray">([[User:Grandiose|me]], [[User_talk:Grandiose|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Grandiose|contribs]]) </span> 10:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::Building on some of the earlier comments, a long string English monarchs (some of whom were also British monarchs) would have perceived their claims over France as reconquest of what was rightfully theirs, rather than the POV-laden "take over" of the question. But I don't think any of them can genuinely be regarded as having made a genuine stab at taking much more than a bit of the continent at a time. The closest is probably [[Edward I]]. He owned England and a chunk of France, conquered Wales, came close to taking Scotland and at the time of his death, was trying to arrange for his son to not only get all of that, but also the norse inheritance of [[Margaret, Maid of Norway]]. But he failed. And that's still a long way short of "Europe". The OP should also consider that Britain, even in Empire days, has for centuries seen itself predominantly as a [[maritime]] power - see [[Rule, Britannia!|Britannia rules the waves]]. As an aside, [[User:Clio the Muse]] would have loved this question, if not my answer. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 10:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

== Article 5 of ICJ Statute ==

Article 5 of the [[Statute of the International Court of Justice]] prescribes:

<blockquote>"At least three months before the date of the election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a written request to the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration belonging to the states which are parties to the present Statute, and to the members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2, inviting them to undertake, within a given time, '''by national groups,''' the nomination of persons in a position to accept the duties of a member of the Court."</blockquote>

Can anyone please explain this provision in normal language to me? I've read it repeatedly but I still don't clearly understand it. Especially, I don't understand why the phrase "by national groups" is there; not knowing what is the function of that phrase (to deal with the phrase "within a given time" in order to express the meaning that such time is given by the national groups?).

Thank you so much. --[[User:Aristitleism|Aristitleism]] ([[User talk:Aristitleism|talk]]) 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

:I don't really understand it either, but I'll have a go. My reading is that "by national groups" is independent of "within a given time", and it means the nomination is to be carried out by national groups. As best quick googling can tell, the national groups are the up-to-four people each state has on the [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] or has appointed by Art 4 para 2 which basically says "exactly the same conditions apply". [http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=360] is an Irish Foreign Ministry page sort of indicating that. [http://www.alfarhanattorney.com/File/Chapter3.pdf] seems to be about the (proposed?) similar organisation for the Arab League, and section 3.2.1 is a discussion of the system of nomination to the ICJ. Does that make any more sense? [[Special:Contributions/95.150.23.60|95.150.23.60]] ([[User talk:95.150.23.60|talk]]) 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:: But I understand that the Secretary-General requests both (1) the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and (2) the members of the national groups to make the nomination, isn't that correct? I also think that "by national groups" is independent of "within a given time" because there is comma between them. However, I still don't know the truly purpose/function of the phrase "by national groups". That's why I don't really understand this provision. --[[User:Aristitleism|Aristitleism]] ([[User talk:Aristitleism|talk]]) 07:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:::No I think the national groups are the only ones who make the nominations. This includes the national groups who are part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and some other national groups. Perhaps some of the confusion arises because of the part about 'members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2' which reflects the fact the article shouldn't be read in isolation. If you read article 4 paragraph 2 [http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0] it's clearly referring to national groups appointed by UN members who are not a part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
:::The 'within a given time' is I presume either instructing the SG to give a time frame or indicating that the national groups have a limited time to make the nominations and aren't supposed to try to hold up the process by refusing to nominate anyone.
:::Note that [[International Court of Justice]] also says it is the national groups who make the nominations. See also [http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1041] which discusses the national groups in the PCA and how they can nominate members for the ICJ. BTW from the above linked article on the PCA, only 112 out of the current 193 (well I've included the newest member [[South Sudan]] for the 193 but not the 112 but it's possible they've already joined the PCA, Sudan was part) indicating somewhat why the Article 4 Paragraph 2 thing is needed.
:::[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 08:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

::::So, the function of the phrase "by national groups" (after "within a given time") is to merely emphasise that the "nomination of persons in a position to..." is to be made "by national groups" (those requested by the UN secretary-general according to such provision)? --[[User:Aristitleism|Aristitleism]] ([[User talk:Aristitleism|talk]]) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::Probably yes. This would be opposed to the nomination by the various members ambassadors to the UN or some other such person/s and would also be opposed to each member of the PCA giving their own individual nominations (perhaps the more important point). Note that since there are up to four members who are part of a national group, there is obviously a big difference between each member and each national group making nominations. And there are limits on the nominations (no more then four nor double the members that need to be elected and no two from one country). BTW I've made some minor changes to my above comment which I only saved after you replied. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 08:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Maybe it's talking about the [[United Nations Regional Groups]]? -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

== Forming one's own country ==

How to establish one's own country? --[[User:Mango0099|Mango0099]] ([[User talk:Mango0099|talk]]) 08:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:Perhaps [[Declaration of independence]] and [[Micronation]] will be of interest. [[Special:Contributions/130.88.73.71|130.88.73.71]] ([[User talk:130.88.73.71|talk]]) 10:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::Of course, none of the Micronations are actually "recognized" as countries, they're basically composed of members of fringe political groups who decided that they didn't want to follow the laws of the countries they were residents of. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:::The argument that I have heard some micronations make is that Article 3 of [[Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States]] (an "accepted as part of customary international law," according to our article) states that [[:s:Montevideo_Convention#Article_3|"The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. "]] Ergo, "recognition" should not be required. However, in practice, I believe this tends to be overlooked by most countries. <sup>[[User:Avicennasis|<font color="red">Avic</font>]]</sup>[[User talk:Avicennasis|<sub><font color="blue">ennasis</font>]]</sub><small> @ 06:44, 19 Tamuz 5771 / 21 July 2011 (UTC)</small>

== Queen proposing ==

Who made up the rule that Queen regnants had to propose to their husbands? And has all European queen regnant in modern age proposed to their husbands like Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II, ie. Portugal, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (although only Grand Duchesses)? Did Queen Mary I propose to Philip of Spain or was it the other way around? --[[User:Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy|Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy]] ([[User talk:Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy|talk]]) 11:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:Do queen regnants have to propose to their husbands? A number of sources say Philip proposed to Elizabeth.[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-494715/Queen-Prince-Philip-recreate-honeymoon-photo-mark-60-years-wedded-bliss.html][http://www.hellomagazine.com/brides/201004273381/iconic-weddings/queen-elizabeth-ii/prince-philip/][http://www.royalmint.com/Discover/prince-philip-duke-of-edinburgh.aspx] --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::Although Elizabeth wasn't queen at the time, if that makes a difference. --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::There is no evidence that Victoria's decision to propose marriage to her cousin [[Albert, Prince Consort|Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha]] was anything other than her own personal sense of majestic responsibility. If she was observing any "rule" it was, rather, the pre-20th century custom that restrained persons of inferior but dignified rank from approach their betters to beg boons. The situation was awkward because by the time of their [[courtship]], affection was expected to play a part in the betrothal, so it was no longer left to court ministers to simply negotiate an international marriage treaty. Yet it would have seemed importunate for a petty princeling to make a request of a powerful monarch that was at once so important, intimate and aggrandizing. Plus their mutual [[Leopold I of Belgium|Uncle Leopold]] probably nudged her along. I've never heard of any other female sovereign, before or afterwards, doing likewise. But I admire her for it. [[User:FactStraight|FactStraight]] ([[User talk:FactStraight|talk]]) 05:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:<small>Aside: "Queens regnant" is better usage than "Queen regnants", since ''regnant'' is an adjective rather than the noun. Compare [[United_Nations_Secretary-General#Secretaries-General|secretaries general]]. [[User:Brammers|Brammers]] ([[User_talk:Brammers|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Brammers|c]]) 08:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)</small>

== American liberals vs socialists ==

What is the difference between American liberals and socialists? --[[User:79df|79df]] ([[User talk:79df|talk]]) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:Liberals are generally linked with [[Democratic Party (United States)]]; see [[Liberalism in the United States]]. The [[Socialist Party USA]] is socialist(!) and the article has a little info on its policies: widespread public ownership and workers' control of corporations are key, as well as publicly owned free healthcare; its official website has more details[http://sp-usa.org/]. --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 11:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::<small>(after edit conflict)</small> "Socialist" is a very vague term nowadays, because many parties in Europe retain their names from a more leftist period. The OP should explain whether s/he means "socialists" as in the [[French socialist party]], for instance (just left of centre, not too different from American liberals), or "socialists" in the sense of "proponents of [[socialism]]", i.e. proponents of an economic system different from [[capitalism]], where factories, companies and land aren't [[private property]] (like [[Socialist Party USA]]). People who call themselves "socialists" in the USA are likely to be of the second type, I think.--[[Special:Contributions/91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] ([[User talk:91.148.159.4|talk]]) 11:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::By socialist, I mean anti-capitalist people who advocate public ownership of key industries, public ownership of healthcare and education sector, free healthcare, free and compulsory education (these are controversial issues and I'm not interested in the debate whether these so-called "free" something are good or bad) for poor, and maximum "redistribution of wealth" by imposing maximum taxes on riches. Private business, if exist, according to them should be taxed heavily. They also advocate maximum "minimum wage", rigid labor laws, oppose hire and fire policy, opposed to property rights. Socialists also believe that owners of capital exploit the workers, this is why public ownership is the solution to stop "exploitation", as they call it, of workers. Do American liberals have these beliefs? --[[User:79df|79df]] ([[User talk:79df|talk]]) 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Your definition of "socialist" is a rather weird hybrid, an attempt to combine the two distinct types of "socialism" that I mentioned and seems to be influenced by right-wing propaganda. It doesn't exactly match any existent type of "socialist". Lumping together moderate positions such as high taxes and free education with radical positions such as the confiscation of all private property is completely artificial. A "socialist socialist" does not focus on taxes on the rich, because, in view of the public ownership of the economy, the rich wouldn't exist. Saying that taxing the rich to provide education is the same as abolishing private property is absurd.--[[Special:Contributions/91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] ([[User talk:91.148.159.4|talk]]) 12:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::The positions I described above are democratic socialist positions, as opposed to classical socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat). Classical socialists advocate forceful confiscation of private property, democratic socialists do not. Their means of achieving socialism and eradication of capitalism are different, but their fundamental view is same. --[[User:79df|79df]] ([[User talk:79df|talk]]) 12:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::A modern day "democratic socialist" is afraid of the very word "nationalization". I don't know what you mean by "forceful" confiscation - classical socialists were not united in wanting a revolution, confiscation or even buying by the democratically elected state could have worked, too (though I suppose that specifically Marx wouldn't believe in that possibility). The fundamental view is not the same - European "reformed" socialists and American liberals want to keep capitalism and inequality and just mitigate their negative effects a bit by occasional interventions of state policy. Classical socialists don't want any capitalism and any inequality. The difference is enormous, although if one is located in the opposite end of the political spectrum, both will seem like anathema to one. --[[Special:Contributions/91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] ([[User talk:91.148.159.4|talk]]) 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Free health care and compulsory education are not socialist positions, except in the rhetoric of US right-wingers. They are entirely mainstream in most developed market democracies. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} To OP's questions immediately above Stephen Schulz's response: In that case, no. On the political continuum, the Democratic Party (America's "Left-Center" party) comes closer to that than the Republican Party (America's "Right-Center" party) does, but that's not saying much. Generally, some of those issues are well supported by both parties, some by neither, but in general the Democratic Party comes closer. For example, both parties in general fully support free and compulsory education (A very small number of Republicans and some members of the Libertarian Party, a small "third party", oppose it) and both parties support major health and welfare programs like [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] and [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]]. That is, even the conservative Republican Party has no desire to dismantle these programs, and supports them fully. Neither party supports completely free or government provided healthcare (though the Democrats support implementing Medicare-like programs for a greater number of people). Neither party AT ALL supports government ownership of major industrial sectors, or oppose property rights, and neither party supports "redistributing wealth", though the Democrats generally favor meeting budget shortfalls by increasing the government's income, usually through increased taxes, while the Republicans generally favor doing the same by reducing expenditures instead. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 12:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::The GOP has put forward certain proposals, which have been cited by its opponents in accusations that it wants to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, even though it avoids these exact terms.--[[Special:Contributions/91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] ([[User talk:91.148.159.4|talk]]) 12:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::{{ec|2}}Part of the problem is that your assumptions about Socialism aren't actually Socialist views. They sound more like classical [[Communism]], which no nation has ever actually achieved.
::::Some socialists endeavor to implement communism, but not the majority. The American brand of liberalism ''generally'' accepts our [[Mixed economy|mixed-market economy]], with more emphasis on social programs than conservative ''[[Laissez-faire]]'' economics. The majority of American liberals are ''still'' conservative by European standards. There are a few on the fringe who could be called actual Socialists, but the majority of American liberals are still pretty centrist with their policies. American politicians are very unlikely to be truly "anti-capitalist," nor are they for true "redistribution of wealth." &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::I think you have misconception on the meaning of communism. Do you know what does communism mean? Communism is a social system which is be both ''classless'' and ''stateless''. The term "communist state" (which is widely used in popular culture) is an oxymoron because communist social order and the state can't co-exist.. Soviet Union was a socialist state. As Marx said, socialism will be the transition phase from capitalist social order (society divided among capitalists and workers) to communist social order (classless and stateless society). Classical socialism (USSR) is dictatorship of the proletariat (single-party rule by a workers' vanguard party), democratic socialism is socialist economic policies within a democratic political framework (multiparty electoral system). The positions I described above are democratic socialist positions, as opposed to classical socialism (USSR). --[[User:79df|79df]] ([[User talk:79df|talk]]) 12:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::79df, HandThatFeeds uses "socialism" and "communism" in the sense of political ideologies/groupings (of "socialists" and "communists"), not the narrowly Marxian use of the terms in the sense of different stages in the development of a society. The same applies to my response to him. Both uses of the terms are "correct", just in different contexts.--[[Special:Contributions/91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] ([[User talk:91.148.159.4|talk]]) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::HandThatFeeds, classical socialism was the same as communism. The current "pro-capitalism socialists" are a recent phenomenon. When the term "communist" came to be used to denote something distinct from "socialist", it was only to designate members of Lenin's [[Third International]] as opposed to other socialists. Both groups had public ownership of the economy as the ultimate aim, and that aim had been characteristic of all socialists long before Lenin.--[[Special:Contributions/91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] ([[User talk:91.148.159.4|talk]]) 13:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Right, both classical socialists (violent overthrow of capitalism) and democratic socialists (gradual overthrow of capitalism) believe owners of capital exploit the workers. This ''is'' the main diagnostic feature of a socialist. Thus both classical and democratic socialists are two sub-species of the same species. Some democratic socialists advocate public ownership of all means of production, other democratic socialists advocate imposing high taxes on owners of capital, implementing rigid labor laws, and then redistribute the wealth among the workers as an alternative to government ownership. These two kinds of democratic socialists (advocate of absolute public ownership and advocate of moderate public ownership with strong redistribution mechanism) are phenotypically different, but genotypically similar. --[[User:79df|79df]] ([[User talk:79df|talk]]) 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::{{ec}} @IP91, classical socialism was a step ''towards'' communism, but not one-and-the same. Yes, you're correct that public ownership of the economy was the ultimate aim, but socialism veered away from that very quickly. Hence, my distinction between socialism and true communism (which would be the end-product of those goals).
::::::::@[[User:79df|79df]] you miss the distinction. Or, you're applying a '''very''' strict definition of socialism. If that's the case, American liberals have nothing to do with socialists as you understand them. They lean towards social programs & tighter regulation, but have no desire to sublimate all commerce & property into government hands. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::"Very quickly" is a relative term. The non-communist socialists didn't have to renounce the ultimate goal officially, since they could just postpone it constantly in view of their "reformist", gradualist strategy. I recall reading that as late as the beginning [[Mitterrand]]'s presidency, the French socialists were seriously thinking of nationalizing industries. About that time, the great rightward change began, and now the European "socialists" are often even seen privatizing instead of nationalizing.--[[Special:Contributions/91.148.159.4|91.148.159.4]] ([[User talk:91.148.159.4|talk]]) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Do not American liberals have similarity with the second type of democratic socialists (implementing a "redistribution" mechanism by imposing high taxes on riches and then using that tax money for "social welfare" polices as an alternative to common ownership of property)? --[[User:79df|79df]] ([[User talk:79df|talk]]) 13:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
{{out}}
Not really. Calling taxation "redistribution" is a bit of a stretch, as the taxes are used for far more than just social programs. And, under the current circumstances, it's revoking the tax ''cuts'' for the rich that are being discussed, not new taxation. The thing to keep in mind is that American liberals (and some conservatives) support social programs like federal parks, basic education and health inspection. But, there's no attempt to make "common ownership of property" at all. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 14:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:''"[[Redistribution of wealth]] is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare."'' BTW, progressive taxation is violation of equality before law because it discriminates against the riches. --[[User:79df|79df]] ([[User talk:79df|talk]]) 14:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::Mainstream American liberals are not really interested in redistribution of income per se. They are interested in making sure that, in a rich society, nobody goes hungry or is denied needed medical care. They think that the cost of achieving those goals should be shared according to people's ability to pay. They are not opposed to inequality of wealth or to capitalism, per se. They do see a role for government regulation where the market has failed to meet society's needs, in areas such as financial intermediation or healthcare provision, but this hardly amounts to opposition to capitalism as an underlying economic system.
::As for the notion that progressive taxation violates equality before the law, that is debatable. Everyone at a given income level is treated equally, according to law. Laws by their nature have to discriminate. Should children under the age of 5 be allowed to drive? Aren't laws preventing them from doing so a violation of equal treatment? The fact is that people over the age of 16 or so are better able to drive. Similarly, people over a given income level are better able to pay. Another example would be a law regulating a military draft during a time of national emergency. Such a law would target people within an age range best able to provide the service needed. Would the draft law's exemption of people under the age of 16 and over the age of 65 count as a violation of equality under law for those aged 16–65? Few people would make such an argument. [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] ([[User talk:Marco polo|talk]]) 14:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::[[False analogy]]. Barring children from driving is based on the [[harm principle]] with which taxation has nothing to do. Just as you can't fly an aircraft without proper training (because there is possibility of crash killing the untrained pilot and other innocent people), children can't drive and they can't be trained unless they reach maturity. And conscription is involuntary servitude, which is a more formal term for slavery. Proponents of conscription justify draft using [[social contract]] theory. ''"American liberals are interested in making sure that, in a rich society, nobody goes hungry or is denied needed medical care. They think that the cost of achieving those goals should be shared according to people's ability to pay."'' - it is also based on social contract theory. Whenever a government forces someone do something against their will (violates [[free will]] of an agent), whether it is draft, taxation, abridgement of personal freedom, anti-terror laws, or violation of privacy, they justify it using social contract theory. It is a matter of broader debate whether social contract a valid theory or not, but it is not the right place for that. --[[User:79df|79df]] ([[User talk:79df|talk]]) 17:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::You're right that this is not the right place for debate. But, you seem to have made up your mind on certain things (ie. "conscription = slavery"), so I wonder what you're actually wanting us to answer. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::[[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] sums it up very well. There's no legal basis for the claim that a tiered or progressive tax is discriminatory, and the phrase "redistribution of wealth" has been turned into a pejorative phrase used by American anti-tax proponents. American liberals aren't anti-capitalist, but they are ''for'' regulations that protect consumers & workers. To pure Capitalists, I'm sure this appears to be an abridgment of freedom. Most Americans don't see it that way, though. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 15:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's sum it up: The ''traditional'' definition of socialism is belief in the public ownership of the means of production, like when the UK nationalized its steel industry. Nowadays, a lot of "socialist" parties, so named because they or their predecessors once advocated that position, no longer believe in it. Today's socialists sometimes say they believe in "a market economy but not a market society." In other words, they're just people on the left wing. It gets more confusing when you bring in the word "liberal." Originally, and to this day in most of the world, a "liberal" is one who supports a free market and human rights. In the U.S., a "liberal" is someone on the left (although probably not as left-wing as socialists in Europe, American politics generally being far to the right of other developed countries). For the U.S., we can say a liberal is a moderate left-winger and a socialist a more hardcore left-winger, but those definitions are not necessarily the only ones. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:So the conclusion is socialists are in the fringes of American political spectrum, right? --[[User:79df|79df]] ([[User talk:79df|talk]]) 01:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::Generally speaking, yes, true "socialists", under any normal definition of the word, lie pretty far outside of the mainstream of American political thought, and the main platforms of the two major parties don't include a whole lot of socialist doctrine. Though both parties have a few tenuous connections to actual socialism, neither party would properly be described as "socialist". It may be better to think about both parties as essentially captalist, free marketers, with the Democrats favoring economic supports for labor, and the Republicans favoring economic supports for management: neither one supports socialism, per se, but both find their base in different parts of the free market. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::However, Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] of Vermont is a Social Democrat (probably more social democrat) who runs as an independent, though he does caucus with the Democrats. [[User:The Mark of the Beast|The Mark of the Beast]] ([[User talk:The Mark of the Beast|talk]]) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::However Sen. Sanders (Independent) thinks, acts and votes in practice, he's always called himself a socialist or democratic socialist. That doesn't, of course, exclude his being a social democrat, too. (I've always thought of myself as both a democratic socialist and a social democrat.) [[User:Shakescene|—— Shakescene]] ([[User talk:Shakescene|talk]]) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

== Ramayana: Disambiguation ==

Recently I came to know about the largest Indonesian departmental stores chain called Ramayana.
Since Ramayana is a Hindu epic and Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, I think it is of interest and a disambiguation could be relevant.
I want to know about your decision in this matter.

Also, though I have done some editing, I don't know how to handle a disambiguation.
Can some editors handle it if I send you the text (if the suggestion is Okayed)?

Thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Shillog|Shillog]] ([[User talk:Shillog|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shillog|contribs]]) 12:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:this question is really for the [[Wikipedia:Help desk]] instead of the reference desk. That said, it's really not necessary to do a new disambiguation page for it. If the store chain has enough references, you can create [[Ramayana (store)]] and use [[Template:Redirect]] at the top of the main [[Ramayana]] page to let people know about the other option, or just add it to [[Ramayana (disambiguation)]]. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 13:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

== Where do scriptures say that ancestors' sins are inherited? ==

Some argue that [[aborted babies go to Hell]] because of the [[original sin]]. I haven't seen any verse saying that ancestors' sins are inherited? --[[Special:Contributions/70.179.165.67|70.179.165.67]] ([[User talk:70.179.165.67|talk]]) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:[[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] 20:5,6 − ''"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."'' (part of the [[Ten Commandments]])
:[[Book of Ezekiel|Ezekiel]] 18:1-3 − ''Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, 'The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge'? As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."'' &mdash;'''[[User:Akrabbim|Akrabbim]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Akrabbim|talk]]</sup> 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:I don't think you'll find any serious theologians espousing the view that aborted babies go to hell. The modern conception of original sin is more akin to "imperfection". Humans are created with free will and so have the ability to choose to be less than they were intended -- hence, we can choose to deviate from our divine origins and so to introduce imperfection (i.e., sin). As for "inheriting sin", the modern interpretation is not that sin is a genetic abberation, but that it is a socially commnicable disease. When one sins, one damages community and (by example) encourages others to do likewise. [[User:Wikiant|Wikiant]] ([[User talk:Wikiant|talk]]) 15:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:: Aborted babies may not go to Hell, but live-birth babies who die before being able to be baptised go to Limbo, not to Heaven. So says the Catholic Church's teaching on [[Original sin#Catholicism|original sin]]. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Actually, no it doesn't. Some Catholics have taught that unbaptised babies and children go to Limbo, but Limbo for the unbaptised is not official Church teaching: it is not in the Catechism. There are been official statements stating that it is not official dogma. The Church actually says that we can't know what happens to unbaptised babies and children, although if their parent wanted them to be baptised they may have the so-called 'baptism of desire' at death. Since we know the ordinary situation requires someone to be baptised to enter Heaven ("No one can enter Heaven unless he is born again of water and the Holy Spirit"), but we also know God is not bound by his sacraments, we can simply hope, and baptise babies whenever possible to be safe. We do know (according to Catholic teaching) that God will make a just and merciful decision, whatever that is, so we can hope that the unbaptised children are in Heaven. [[Special:Contributions/86.164.72.255|86.164.72.255]] ([[User talk:86.164.72.255|talk]]) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:::: Thanks for that correction to my long-standing misconception, which came from what I was taught by my [[Congregation of Christian Brothers|Christian Brothers]] school and my priests, and reinforced by my parents. My sister was born very premature and was not expected to live, so she was immediately baptised in the hospital to ensure her passage through the pearly gates, as otherwise she'd have remained in Limbo for eternity, or so the family story has always gone. In the event, she pulled through and is very much alive. I must inform my mother that she and my late father are guilty of having unwittingly spread theological inexactitudes, and may technically be heretics. I doubt she'll lose any sleep over it, though. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 21:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::The "unbaptised infants to Limbo" idea was commonly espoused and taught until recent decades. There was a TV documentary shown in the UK about people in Ireland who are trying to get the Church to help them find the unmarked and unconsecrated spots where their children and relatives are buried. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 10:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks, Itsyoujudith. I knew I wasn't mis-remembering what I thought I was taught. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The argument laid out by the IP is the Church's current teaching, much more humane. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Romans 5:12 ''Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--'' [[User:Cuddlyable3|Cuddlyable3]] ([[User talk:Cuddlyable3|talk]]) 17:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:On the other hand, ''"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."'' (Ezekiel 18:20) [[Special:Contributions/99.2.148.119|99.2.148.119]] ([[User talk:99.2.148.119|talk]]) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::It looks like you didn't get [[New Testament|the update]]. [[User:Cuddlyable3|Cuddlyable3]] ([[User talk:Cuddlyable3|talk]]) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Ah, but interpretations of the NT vary, especially books outside the Gospels. Also, there's Jews, Muslims and other assorted religions based off the OT to consider. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:This is a not-so-uncommon belief, especially in the [[Southern United States]]. People who hear this opinion espoused can be turned away from God, disgusted by this injustice. The matter of fact, though, is that God is "perfect... all his ways are justice" (Duet. 32:4). [[The Bible]] also promises [[everlasting life]] to righteous ones; even more so '''"a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous"''' (Acts 24:15). In a relatively short time period ([[Judgement Day]] (hint: it's not one day)) these righteous and unrighteous will have 'proved his or her worth,' so to speak, whence the unrighteous will be cut off, i.e. destroyed forever. </br>The point being here is that the belief in a torment in [[Hellfire]] teaches a perverted form of everlasting life, wheres [http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm The Bible] teaches the exact opposite. [[User: schyler|<span style="color:#324F17;">Schyler</span>]] ''([[User talk: schyler|<span style="color:#FFA812;">one language</span>]])'' 00:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::As has been pointed out to you numerous times, it is disingenuous to stealthily present [[Jehovah's Witnesses|JW]] doctrine as if it were consensus Christian doctrine. Per our [[Christian views on Hell]] article, hell rather than obliteration remains the theological majority view (if not literal "hellfire"; I've no real idea there), and the Watchtower bible has significant deviations from mainline translations. &mdash; [[User talk:Lomn|Lomn]] 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::<small>Since the questioner didn't specify ''which'' scriptures they are asking about, we might as well have a variety of perspectives. [[Special:Contributions/99.2.148.119|99.2.148.119]] ([[User talk:99.2.148.119|talk]]) 07:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)</small>
::::@92.2.148.119: The problem here is not that Schyler is presenting the Jehovah's Witness perspective on the issue. That perspective is more than welcome. The issue is that he presents that perspective ''as though it were the only perspective'', or presents it in such a way as to mask that he is speaking for a single faith, and instead represent that he is somehow speaking for all faiths. Its fine to present the perspective of different faiths, it is not fine to present those perspectives as if it were self-evident that all people should believe them. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 17:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Traditional Jewish interepretation of the Exodus verse is that if you hate God, you get punished for your forefathers' sins as well as your own. If you love God, however, you're off the hook of ancestral sin. I have no idea if [[progressive Judaism]] has a different view or not, but it's an interesting counter-point to the Christian concept of [[Original sin]]. Does anyone know if there is a single Muslim view on the subject or if it is the subject of debate? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 10:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

= July 21 =

== [[Mark Anthony Stroman]] ==

Mark Anthony Stroman is set to die at 6 p.m. (7 p.m. ET) today. When and where will the execution (or a last-minute reprieve) be announced? [[Special:Contributions/88.8.79.148|88.8.79.148]] ([[User talk:88.8.79.148|talk]]) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

:The [http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-prisons/inmates/mark-anthony-stroman/44357/ criminal in question] is being held at [[Allan B. Polunsky Unit]] ([http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-prisons/units/polunsky/ 3872 FM 350 South, Livingston, TX 77351]). [[User: schyler|<span style="color:#324F17;">Schyler</span>]] ''([[User talk: schyler|<span style="color:#FFA812;">one language</span>]])'' 00:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

::I mean, would they announce the execution on one of these web-pages? [[Special:Contributions/88.8.79.148|88.8.79.148]] ([[User talk:88.8.79.148|talk]]) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

:::It looks like the TDCJ is very good at updating [http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm this web page], putting the name of the executed on the list the very next day. [[User: schyler|<span style="color:#324F17;">Schyler</span>]] ''([[User talk: schyler|<span style="color:#FFA812;">one language</span>]])'' 00:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

:::::* You are right on that. The list was updated with the execution nr. 472. [[Special:Contributions/88.8.79.148|88.8.79.148]] ([[User talk:88.8.79.148|talk]]) 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Doesn't Texas twit about the executions? Come on, ''everyone'' is on Twitter nowadays. Otherwise, try CNN.[[User:Quest09|Quest09]] ([[User talk:Quest09|talk]]) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm guessing the department has a spokesman or spokeswoman whom the media can reach in the evening. The AP would call, make sure the guy actually died and put it on the wires, at which point other media would see it. Or maybe the department sends out press releases on these occasions? -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 01:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14227014 Here's] an article from BBC about his execution. [[User:BurtAlert|BurtAlert]] ([[User talk:BurtAlert|talk]]) 05:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/kdaf-texas-inmate-mark-arab-slayer-stroman-executed-20110720,0,7398086.story He was executed at 9:53 p.m. Eastern]. [[Special:Contributions/99.2.148.119|99.2.148.119]] ([[User talk:99.2.148.119|talk]]) 07:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

::Some might call it linguistic pedantry but I would like to insist that he wasn't executed. The sentence of death was executed. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

== Franz Joseph I of Austria ==

Is there any photo or portrait of [[Franz Joseph I of Austria]] as a child or young man? It seems like all you ever see is the old Emperor with his handlebar beard.--[[User:Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy|Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy]] ([[User talk:Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy|talk]]) 08:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:The [[:commons:Franz Joseph I. (Österreich-Ungarn)|corresponding category on Commons]] has a couple of him as a young man, including [[:File:KaiserFranzjosef1853-1-.jpg|this one]]. <span style="color:#3A3A3A">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray">([[User:Grandiose|me]], [[User_talk:Grandiose|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Grandiose|contribs]]) </span> 08:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

== Rationale of not letting people leave a socialist country ==

What explanation did (or do) socialist or communist countries gave to explain why they didnt let people emigrate? If it was paradise, it would be possibly a quite difficult idea to defend... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.8.79.148|88.8.79.148]] ([[User talk:88.8.79.148|talk]]) 12:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:In the case of East Germany, you can read their explanation in the article [[Republikflucht]]. But note that forbidding people from leaving is a mark of authoritarian countries in general, not just communist ones (Nazi Germany was pretty strongly anticommunist, but it was as difficult to get out of as East Germany was a few years later), and some communist countries (like the PRC) have no problem allowing their citizens to emigrate. [[User:Angr|Angr]] ([[User talk:Angr|talk]]) 12:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

::It should be noted that even freedom-loving democracies have denied passports for dissidents. During the McCarthy years it was not uncommon for prominent leftist scientists and activists to have their passports revoked so that they could not spread "anti-American propaganda" or "help the Communist cause" abroad. Examples of this that come to mind include [[Linus Pauling]] and [[Frank Oppenheimer]] (in the latter case, it essentially forced him to stop doing research science, as his admission to having once been a Communist kept him from being employable in a US university, whereas India and Brazil would have happily taken him; he had to become a cattle rancher, in the end, and wait out McCarthyism). Freedom of travel from the USA is not guaranteed — passports and exiting country are done at the discretion of the Department of State, and can be (and have been) influenced politically. --[[User:Mr.98|Mr.98]] ([[User talk:Mr.98|talk]]) 14:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::In theory, I think, you don't need a passport to leave a country, only to be admitted somewhere else. The text starts out with the Secretary of State praying all those to whom these presents shall come to give all lawful protection yada yada yada. So if India had sent a ship for Oppenheimer and he had kayaked out to the three mile limit to meet it, I don't think any US law would have been broken. Can't say I'm sure though. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 20:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::True... it is really a matter of scale. In non-authoritarian states, a specific individual may have the right to emigrate restricted or denied, but the norm is to allow emigration without restriction. In authoritarian states this is reversed... a specific individual may be granted permission to emigrate, but the norm is to deny. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Of course, "[http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a13 Everyone has the right to leave any country, ''including his own'', and to return to his country]" (emphasis mine), according to the sometimes inconvenient [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 16:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::[[Paul Robeson]] was another that had his passport revoked. Has the legality of doing this under the US Constitution ever been challenged? [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 16:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::This is not to say that it is applicable for the Paul Robeson case; but in general "universal rights" are revoked all the time in free societies as part of the [[due process of law]], for example persons accused of serious crimes may be denied freedom of movement, everything from being placed under travel restrictions and/or placed in jail without bond until the trial. Such revokations of a person's individual liberties are not supposed to be taken lightly in a free society, but it is also expected that a person's freedom is not limited by his fellow persons either, and if a society does not restrict the movements of, say, serial killers and armed thugs and other elements of society, then who is left to be free? Again, nothing in specifics here, just that "universal" rights are never really "universal" in the sense of "every single person can do these things for their entire life from birth to death and no one can ever stop them for any reason." --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Comparing it with criminals is a straw man. The UNDHR does not stop people from incarcerating non-political criminals ("This right [of asylum from persecution] may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."). Anyway, in the case of US passports, it's not clear there is any due process involved in these cases. There are no organs for appeal, there is no overview, there is no transparency, there are not even any standardized guidelines about what disqualified one for a passport in these cases. It was an arbitrary political decision without any process whatsoever other than "He wants a passport? Fat chance!" As to the Constitutionality of it, courts [[Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law#Revocation_of_international_travel_rights_as_punishment|have affirmed]] some recent versions of this (with more due process than the McCarthyism, and related to child support payments, not politics) as legal, claiming that international travel is not (!) a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution. But it is controversial. --[[User:Mr.98|Mr.98]] ([[User talk:Mr.98|talk]]) 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

:Then there's the perspective that you may be able to leave, but not to go to certain places. Not aware of any such restrictions in my country, but I believe it's difficult for Americans to leave home if their plan is to visit Cuba. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

== No earnt income, but living off....? ==
== No earnt income, but living off....? ==


Line 287: Line 6:
::By the Queen? Your certainly mean by the UK tax payers... [[Special:Contributions/88.8.79.148|88.8.79.148]] ([[User talk:88.8.79.148|talk]]) 19:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::By the Queen? Your certainly mean by the UK tax payers... [[Special:Contributions/88.8.79.148|88.8.79.148]] ([[User talk:88.8.79.148|talk]]) 19:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::No, he means by the Queen. Please start your own thread for your trolling. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::No, he means by the Queen. Please start your own thread for your trolling. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::The civil list article and [http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Factfiles/Royalfinances.aspx] suggests you may be mistaken. Only the Queen (and possibly Duke of Edinburgh) receives payments from the civil list (there's some confusion over this, see my comment on the article talk page). Parliamentary annuities are used to meet office costs of the Duke of York although these are repaid by the queen from her private funds. In other words, the Duke of York doesn't receive anything from the civil list, some funding comes from parliamentary annuities (which are repaid by the queen) but these are only used for office costs, his other funds e.g. for personal expenditure either come from elsewhere I presume either his savings & investments (e.g. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8378172/Did-Prince-Andrew-avoid-a-6-million-tax-bill-when-he-sold-Sunninghill-to-his-Kazakh-friends.html]) or the queens. (Well I presume some funding is met directly by government departments particularly in his former role as special representative (and actually I suspect most of the costs for that role including travel came from the government in some form). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

== ''[[The Times]]'' newspaper emblem/crest ==

Can anyone direct me to a website or source discussing the [http://www.scissorsforlefty.com/Press/TheTimes-SFL-LPRvw-050107%5B1%5D.jpg emblem or crest] used by ''The Times'' newspaper in the UK? I've not managed to find anything on this topic... <font color="#FFB911">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">assemblyman</span>]]─╢</font> 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

: Apologies for stating what you might already know - the motto [[Honi soit qui mal y pense]] and the lion&unicorn heraldry is in common with the [[Order of the Garter]]. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] ☻ [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 17:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

: A Times article about its use, including the lack of official status for the arms, is on their own website [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article639659.ece here] -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] ☻ [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 19:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

== Advertising of [[Habitat (retailer)]] UK ==

Did Habitat advertise itself in recent years? I cannot remember the last time I saw an advert for Habitat, and had forgotten about it even though I had shopped there in the past. Does anyone know if the amount of advertising for Habitat was less than what it was when it was well known? [[Special:Contributions/92.24.138.86|92.24.138.86]] ([[User talk:92.24.138.86|talk]]) 19:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

: [http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2009/09/23/11453-habitat-prepares-to-reveal-new-pan-european-advertising-campaign/ This story] talks about a new campaign they were going to run in 2009; so they apparently were advertising. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] ☻ [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

== List of 16 major world currencies ==

On the radio today I heard a news report referring to "the 16 major world currencies". I couldn't find any such list in Wikipedia. Searching Google News I found recent articles talking saying, for example, "The dollar depreciated against 14 of its 16 most-actively traded currencies" (source: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/13/bloomberg1376-LOAM306K50Y401-1LSG0PRI3IF7IAQ67925AAHMBG.DTL#ixzz1Slrg7bT0 San Francisco Chronicle]) and "The UK currency dipped against 13 out of the 16 most actively traded currencies" (source: [http://www.moneyex.co.uk/news_print_version_504.htm moneyex]) so does that mean there is some standard list of 17 currencies? Or are there only 16? And what are they? [[User:Mathew5000|Mathew5000]] ([[User talk:Mathew5000|talk]]) 19:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:[http://www.forextraders.com/forex-analysis/forex-fundamental-analysis/currencies-traded-in-the-forex-market.html this page] groups the most traded currencies into three classes: Major, Minor, and Exotic as follows, based on volumes traded in the [[FOREX]] markets:
:*Major:
::*Euro
::*US Dollar
::*UK Pound Sterling
::*Japanese Yen
::*Swiss Franc
:*Minor:
::*Australian Dollar
::*New Zealand Dollar
::*Canadian Dollar
:*Exotic (top exotic currencies listed there, actual list would include anything not listed above)
::*Russian Ruble
::*Chinese Yuan
::*Brazilian Real
::*Mexican Peso
::*Chilean Peso
::*Indian Rupee
::*Iranian Rial
:That's 15 currencies. The sixteenth probably comes from the nation with the highest GDP not covered by the above, which according to [[List of countries by GDP (PPP)]] is probably South Korea, which would make it the South Korean Won. Other possible candidates would be Turkey (the Turkish Lira), Taiwan (the Taiwan Dollar), Indonesia (the Indonesian Rupiah), or maybe the Hong Kong Dollar. If I were pressed to make a guess, I would put South Korea and Hong Kong as the most likely, given the amount of manufacturing and international business that goes on in those places. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 20:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Our [[Currency pair]] article lists the 15 most actively traded currencies, as of 2010. The data apparently come from [http://bis.org/publ/rpfxf10t.pdf this report], which gives a more extensive list on page 12. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

== Horn of Africa famine ==

Reading about this Horn of Africa famine, I have to wonder: What are the underlying causes that perpetuate this? The awful climate? The lack of industrialization? Corruption up the wazoo? Terrorism?

A related question: When one thinks of Africa they can't help but think of tribes immediately. What has caused these people to continue living like this? What has caused Somalia to have so much trouble with piracy? How many other countries have this problem? -- [[Special:Contributions/150.135.91.203|150.135.91.203]] ([[User talk:150.135.91.203|talk]]) 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

:Poverty plus drought plus overpopulation plus lack of effective government. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 21:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

:I wouldn't say Somalia has so much trouble with piracy, it's more that it ''makes'' trouble with piracy. It all started when Somalis were trying to defend their fishing industry, and continued when they discovered how much well paid piracy is. [[Special:Contributions/88.8.79.148|88.8.79.148]] ([[User talk:88.8.79.148|talk]]) 21:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::There is a lot of useful information at [[Economy of Africa]]. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::The proximate cause is drought and that crosses national boundaries. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:14, 21 July 2011

No earnt income, but living off....?

According to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14235330 he earns no income. So who is he living off? 2.97.212.150 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Earned income" or "income from earnings" is a defined term in most tax systems. It refers (usually) to pay from employment. If Prince Andrew is not employed, if he doesn't have a job with a pay cheque, then he does not have earned income. He may, however, have income and/or dividends from investments, including real property, income from a family trust, an allowance from his parents, or off his wife's income. Please note: these are just possibilities. I don't follow the royals closely enough to know wherefrom he derives his funds. Bielle (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He receives payments from the Civil list (which are then reimbursed by the Queen, so in reality he is supported by the Queen). --Tango (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the Queen? Your certainly mean by the UK tax payers... 88.8.79.148 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, he means by the Queen. Please start your own thread for your trolling. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The civil list article and [1] suggests you may be mistaken. Only the Queen (and possibly Duke of Edinburgh) receives payments from the civil list (there's some confusion over this, see my comment on the article talk page). Parliamentary annuities are used to meet office costs of the Duke of York although these are repaid by the queen from her private funds. In other words, the Duke of York doesn't receive anything from the civil list, some funding comes from parliamentary annuities (which are repaid by the queen) but these are only used for office costs, his other funds e.g. for personal expenditure either come from elsewhere I presume either his savings & investments (e.g. [2]) or the queens. (Well I presume some funding is met directly by government departments particularly in his former role as special representative (and actually I suspect most of the costs for that role including travel came from the government in some form). Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=440731324"