Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 22

Parallel tracks on seafloor? File:2003-3d-hawaiian-islands-usgs-i2809.jpg

What are the parallel tracks on the seafloor in File:2003-3d-hawaiian-islands-usgs-i2809.jpg? Cracks in the Pacific Plate? Lain cable? SPECTRE?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Could they be artifacts from compositing several imaging runs to create the image? After all, the sea floor was mapped using Side-scan sonar, and not directly observed all at once. --Jayron32 02:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

These are acquisition artifacts, and are common in geographic data-sets. See this chapter from Geophysical Image Estimation, called "Eliminating noise and ship-tracks... for a mathematical overview of the data-processing in sea-floor bathymetry. Such artifacts are common in lots of data-processing - here are satellite orbital tracks near Madagascar, and here are similar tracks due to ship trajectories in the Sea of Galilee. "The pertinence of this data set to our daily geophysical problems is threefold: (1) We often need to interpolate irregular data. (2) The data has noise bursts of various types. (3) The data has systematic error (drift) which tends to leave data-acquisition tracks in the resulting image." Nimur (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dutch West India Company.

I have in my possession a badge. It is cast in lead and then brass plated.I think it dates from about 1700.On the left side is a fur trapper.On the right side an indian.On the top is an eagle.In the centre is a windmill under which are barrels and casks.On the reverse are six small circles of brass through which a pin went to hold the badge to a uniform.It is three and a half inches wide and four inches high.I wrote to the Manitoba Museum because I thought it was Hudson Bay Company, but the curator said no and she thought it was Dutch West India Company because of the windmill.Can you help me please? J.Beckett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.179.102 (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds very much like the Seal of New York City. I don't know that the Dutch East India Company ever used a similar seal, and our article states that the eagle was added to the NYC seal in 1784, to replace the crown, so to me that says NYC.--Rallette (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The seal of the Dutch West India Company can be seen here[1]. It has a beaver on a shield surmounted by a crown. Looks like your badge is from NYC. Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian Motorways

Looking at my Michelin Europe 2009 road atlas, and reading the description of the Russian federal motorways in Wikipedia, it appears that Russia has got almost no freeways/expressways (similar to American Interstate highways, for example). Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.44.134 (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Historically, there was a strong emphasis on railways, and of course ordinary people had very little access to personal cars... AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Google Maps, I can easily see there are some freeways/expressways (ie. roads with a divider separating the lanes and grade separated intersections) spreading out from Moscow. The Russian federal highways that are numbered with a "M" are generally of motorway standard until about 50-100 km from Moscow before they revert to regular 2-lane roads. For example, the M9 is of motorway standard from the Moscow ring road until just past the town of Volokolamsk ~100 km to the west. Here ia a photo of the M9 from near Volokolamsk. Astronaut (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Super-Injunctions in the UK

Recently in the UK press, there has be at least 3 cases of England footballers and one golfer, taking out super-injunctions in order to prevent publication of stories about their private lives.

My questions are:

1. Can these "stories" be reported outside of the UK, e.g. Irish versions of UK newspapers, or American publications

2. If these injunctions only apply to the UK, then can the stories be published on websites hosted outside the UK?

3. If yes, then why has no British newspaper done so? (Set-up a website outside and run the story, or printed it in their non-UK version)

Thanks Jaseywasey (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not give legal advice, but that said, 1 - Yes and no; see 3, 2 - Yes, 3 - We're on more dodgy ground. If a UK domiciled company uses a US website, for instance, to circumvent a court order, then I think the UK company would rapidly find itself in trouble with the court. In short, if the publisher has no UK base or holdings, then it is outside the law of the UK. If it has either of these things, it may well be within the grasp of UK law. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - Obviously I wasn't asking for legal advice, just general information on how these injunctions work

Based on your answers, I am still confused why the person or people who are trying to sell the stories/photographs have not tried selling them in other countries.

I am sure a wholly Irish-owned newspaper would increase their circulation by running these stories about the England players and as the golfer is well known in America, I would have thought that some US publications would have been interested in him. Jaseywasey (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the person or people trying to sell the stories/photos still within the grasp of UK law, usually? If the "targets" of the stories can convince the courts that a certain photo was - with sufficient certainty - supplied by someone in particular, then they could hold them as having violated the injunction, couldn't they? It would seem odd to write super-injunctions that strongly prohibit any publication, but don't also prohibit the spreading of the source material with the intent for it to be published, even if that publishing happens abroad./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Depends upon whether they're aware of the court order. If so - at least by this example (Trafigura versus The Guardian, point 18) - then they're bound by the injunction and must not do anything to assist or permit the injunction to be broken. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

advice for starting a wiki with porn images

Okay, I like to start a wiki that would have images that not only contain nudes such as these in Wikicommons, Commons:Category:Nude women; but stuff that would be more sexually explicit, and unlike Wikicommons, the purposes could be as gratuitous as possibly educational. Also, I might want to post images other than CC-SA, and perhaps employ a more liberal interpetation of fair use than Wikipedia. Indeed, this wiki seems to stretch such a bit. Encyclopedia Of Stupid:Copyrights.

It's not that I'm trying to start a porn site, but rather one that would allow porn, erotica, sexual topics that WP, for it's wealth in such, wouldn't allow for reasons of NPOV, OR, not encyclopedic, etc.

So how would I do it, particularly in regards to explicit nude and sexual images, model releases (likely few due to difficulties in obtaining them), and copyrights. What countries should I have them hosted, served, or whatever the expression is? US? Canada? Scandanavia? Portugal? other?

Thanks for any help.  :-)
206.130.174.42 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains plenty of quite explicit images. Pearl necklace for example. Wikipedia is not censored.--92.251.176.105 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sexual content "Wikipedia is not censored, which in practice means that we permit sexual content in many areas. Any material which serves an encyclopedic purpose should be preserved," and again, the copyright issues.205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're just trying to create a wiki warehouse of porn...

1. The technical issue is nothing too difficult. Get server space (or host your own), get a domain name, install MediaWiki, set it up as you see fit.
2. The legal issue depends on what you are worried about. If it's an obscenity issue, the USA is a pretty safe place to host things. With a few important exceptions (e.g. child pornography or anything resembling it), the US courts have generally held that porn is more or less protected speech and nobody spends much time trying to shut down porn websites along those lines. This is not legal advice, but it's pretty common knowledge (and quite in evidence) that this is the case. The copyright issue is more tricky. Fair use is a defense, not a right. What that means is that if you host things that someone else thinks is covered by their copyright, they will send you a nasty letter saying, "take this down." If you say, "but it's fair use!", they can sue you. Then you have to tell a judge, "it's fair use!", and the judge then is the one who gets to make the call as to whether you are infringing or not. Will you get away with it? It depends on the use, of course. But the site as you've described it probably won't cut the mustard. This is not legal advice, but you should know that fair use claims are hard to make and that there is a significant case law that even limits how much it can be used for "educational" purposes, which is not as infinitely large an exemption as even people on Wikipedia believe it to be. A talk with a copyright lawyer would definitely be worthwhile before sinking time and money into this sort of venture. I don't know the copyright laws of other countries or whether that would make this easier.

All of this is separate from whether Wikipedia allows sexual topics, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be careful about the 'anything goes' when it comes to the US. I was looking for something a few days back and came across Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 15#Fisting in American porn where it was mentioned how the George W. Bush administration took a harder line on pornography (or said they did), notably the case of United States v. Extreme Associates and also how one thing to be mindful of in the US is that federal government only needs to convince a jury in one state (and I presume survive any appeals) and your in trouble. I'm not denying the US is relatively more tolerant then many other countries, for example here in NZ things like stimulated rape, lolicon, bestiality are generally consired problematic. I think the UK, Canada, and Australia are somewhat similar to NZ. Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. This is why I'm a little concerned about hosting it in the US. I understand that some countries are more liberal. Indeed, for what it's worth, I understand that Afghanistan has no copyright laws, though yes, I suppose the sex thing would be a problem. Some content shouldn't be a problem copyright-wise. Unlike Wikipedia or Wikicommons, if I'm presuming correctly about the two, I would allow CC-NC, CC-ND, "I'll-allow-you-to-post-my-stuff-here-but-not-anywhere-else," and perhaps others. I also wonder if if violations of copyright are more an issue of crime or civil stuff. I presume in the latter, the burden of evidence would be greater ("But your honor, I didn't know it was copyrighted"), whereas, in the case of civil, I doubt the litigant could prove that, say, a 30 year-old picture, that was degraded, attributed, and was unlikely to have been, is currently, or will be much of a revenue maker, could present a compelling case.205.189.194.208 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Obscenity actually has a fair amount of info on US cases. Another interesting example given there is the owner of Red Rose Stories who was charged solely for stories (there appears to be some disagreement about whether it's solely because of stories involving children or not). While it's possible some of these cases won't survive appeal to the Supreme Court if that were to happen, they do highlight the problem. Even if what you're doing may be okay, you may need a lot of money and take a lot of risk in finding out. Nil Einne (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

and yet we have slavesinlove, sexandsubmission, pet girls, and society SM (warning: these sites are pretty intense); none which most jurors would think, at least not immediately, serve a redeeming purpose under the 1973 definition. So how do they do it? Lots of lawyers?205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well no one said the government was suing everyone possible. (And the Bush administration is also no more.) In fact, if you refer to the earlier discussion, one of the issues raised was that there are a lot of theoretical areas that may fall foul of a jury like 'interacial' porn. The government's decision to take a case against any particular site or person is likely to be a complex interplay of different factors. Notably they may choose some that they feel they would be successful against and perhaps that are fairly prominent and long running to try and set a precedent and get people to think twice. For example, in the story site, it may have partially been that the stories involving children were a catalyst, but having decided to take a case they threw on as many things as they think might stick to test them Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Of note is that the US lost United States v. Extreme Associates. Again, just because something is occasionally a legal issue doesn't mean it's worth pulling your hair out over. The US government occasionally tries to prosecute pornography, but I'm fairly sure it hasn't been successful in the last 50 years as long as the porn in question didn't touch on that third rail of children. There are so many porn sites in the US, especially those which involve "extreme" scenarios, that it seems unreasonable to worry about being the sole site that would get singled out unless one was doing something particularly unusual. In such a case one would probably enjoy some nice legal representation as well from the Larry Flynts and ACLUs of the world. I would personally be less worried about a US court overturning a porno site than I would almost anywhere else in the world, specifically because the US legal obsession with precedent is so high and because the amount of case law vindicating pornography is so established. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how

On March 11, 2009 Extreme Associates and its owners pled guilty to the reinstated obscenity charges to avoid trial effecting shutting down the company. Extreme Associates also apparently took its website down concurrent with the plea.[8]

The couple was sentenced on July 1, 2009 to one year and one day in prison.[9] In late September they began serving their prison sentences, Zicari at La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution in Texas and Romano at Waseca Federal Correctional Institution in Minnesota.[10]

counts as having "lost". At least for me, if I have to spend a year and a day in prison and my sentence isn't even overturned (in other words I'm still considered a convicted criminal), I wouldn't be so happy to conclude the government lost. Perhaps you didn't read the article properly, as it's true the goverment lost initially, but this was reversed on appeal and then the couple basically gave up. (If the article is outdated and in fact the couple did eventually win a further appeal either to the Supreme Court or the government gave up, feel free to update it.)

On a related note, while it's true there are usually a number of parties interested in providing support, the EA case doesn't exactly support the idea you don't have to worry since there will be plenty of people jumping in to help defend you:

As stated in several adult trade publications including AVN, due to the company's economic failing, Zicari and his wife decided that they were not able to retain the legal counsel needed to successfully fight the reinstated charges with a lengthy court fight. Several attorneys involved with the case denied their lack of interest to represent Zicari.[7] However none of these same lawyers stated they would engage in a long term trial pro bono when asked.

It's possible the fact that a commercial company was involved, one which apparently still had funds, made parties less willing to give their services for free then if it was just some poor shmuck running a free website.

The Red Rose Stories is another case where the person involved pled guilty because, amongst other things, they felt they survive the long trial or prison sentence they risked [2]. (I initially mistakenly claimed they felt they couldn't afford it but reading the source it doesn't support that claim).

There's also the case of Max Hardcore who is currently spending time in prison. In his case, it appears from the article and other sources he plans to appeal so his case may eventually reach the Supreme Court [3] so he may eventually win (i.e. watch this space), but he'd still spending the time in prison.

In other words, it seems to me these cases support what I was said at the beginning as taken from the earlier discussion. There is a definite possibility you will get in trouble for obscenity if you try to push the boundaries (the chance for any specific individual is low but there) in the US. While it's possible that you will eventually win in court, it's potentially going to be a very costly for you to find out, you may even spend time in prison. If you have the finances (don't be sure you're going to be able to convince someone to represent you pro-bono) and don't mind the risk then fine. But if not, it's something you'll want to bear in mind.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You linked Encyclopedia Of Stupid:Copyrights. That page has no more sense to it than anything else on that site. It's important to understand that (1) the absence of any profit motive is not enough to make something count as fair use (I think you realize that, but surprisingly many people don't), and (2) it's your responsibility to prove that a work is free to use, not the copyright owner's to inform you that it's not. Copyright owners usually put copyright notices on their works and send cease-and-desist letters before they sue, but that's because lawsuits are expensive and risky and they'd much rather stop the infringement in some other way. Any newly created work is copyrighted, even without a copyright notice, unless the creator explicitly releases it into the public domain. -- BenRG (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If he is letting other people upload the images, then he'll get the cease and desist letter before a suit because of the safe harbor provisions in the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, if he is in the USA. That's part of the lawsuit procedure under that law — you have to send the letter first, and can only sue if it is ignored. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Lots of good responses people, and thanks to all. I will check out all the links. I will be interesting how long EoS lasts.   ;-)   I understand that RationalWiki has become a foundation partially for such purposes. Again, the wiki I'm thinking of might not be primarily a porn site. I'm not going to call it "Porn Wiki," "Sexy Wiki," or "Red Hot XXX Wiki." The name will likely be mundane. There will likely be no ads, much less flashly ones with pop-ups and loops to other sites, and definately not to porn sites. I might even require passwords if starts to get popular (and accessable to some puritan agents). The purpose would be for stuff that I, and other members, couldn't, for varying reasons, post on Wikipedia, sister projects, 2nd tier wikis like RW, or scatter it all over the minor wikis. Much of it will be political, musical, essays, etc; but there will also be a collection of images, not all, but likely most, of a sexual nature. Some may range from the relatively innocent--nude nymph tripping where the bright streams play (happy as the daisies that dance on her way) (the nude versions of her might be found here  ;-) ), to maybe a few from the above links (perhaps with copyright issues resolved). By the way, I've never set up a web-site. Do I have to use my real name? Could I have someone sign for me (and yes, I'll let them know of the risks). Again, thanks to all for your input.206.130.173.55 (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually at some point you have to use your real name for the purposes of billing, assuming you aren't somehow magically hooking directly into the 'net for free. If you hosted it on your own, at-home server, you'd still have to set up an account with your local internet service provided, and would provide a name. If you hosted through a server farm (e.g. Bluehost or Dreamhost or whatever), you have to provide credit card and contact info. But it doesn't have to be visible; your DNS entry (the .com registration) can be "anonymized," usually for a small fee. It means that "the law" could get your name if they wanted it, but the average user could not. I don't think anybody cares if someone else does the payment/registration information, no. As far as I know it is pretty loosely regulated on the whole. The main requirements for truly accurate data are just related to whomever is billing you, not the internet registrar (ICANN), who doesn't really care very much if you have fake/wrong data on file (and never checks it, anyway). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Any examples of successful legal ban that has eliminated a crime-ridden "social problem"?

I have read and heard about how attempts by western democratic governments to criminalize activities such as drugs, alcohol, firearms or prostitution have been unsuccessful in achieving the goal of eliminating supply and demand of the commodity in question. Invariably, it seems the supply and demand is driven underground, but still exists, usually associated with organized crime, often making the situation worse.

Are there any examples of a legal ban being implemented in a modern western democracy that has successfully eliminated a crime-ridden “social problem”, reducing supply and demand of the commodity and any linked crime to insignificant levels? --FemWriter (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Britain's ban on slavery? But it took awhile and had to be combined with smart economic polcies. Wrad (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It included British warships picketing the African coast and capturing slaving ships, so it was not just policies. The book Memoirs of a slave-trader by Theodore Canot and Brantz Mayer gives details. 92.15.27.8 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think duelling (at least in the US) would be one good example. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Eliminated? No. Reduced to insignificant levels? Many. Prostitution, handguns, cocaine, the Numbers game, cockfighting, dogfighting, child abuse, slavery, unsanitary food processing, and spitting indoors all were much more common before various governments banned them. --M@rēino 01:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

From a 21st century perspective, the employment of children during the Industrial Revolution and the working conditions they were exposed to are criminal. That's one area of society that has been drastically improved by the intervention of government. The Masked Booby (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your interesting and thought-provoking answers. --FemWriter (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's election promises; unemployment under National Socialism

Is it true that Hitler never made any election promises in his election campaigns? --92.244.142.54 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Also, is this claim true: "National Socialism within a few years made unemployment, that terrible specter of modern humanity, into only a nightmarish memory. Roosevelt, despite the new deal and billions of dollars, was never able to bring the unemployment figure under ten million."

Thanks --92.244.142.54 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) Of course he made promises. (2) Hitler did greatly reduce unemployment, in large part by going to a virtual wartime economy early in the 1930s, as part of his rearmament strategy. Roosevelt also nearly eliminated unemployment in the US when he brought the country into the war in 1942, though. Looie496 (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see the kinds of promises that were used in the 1932 election, this article by Goebbels is pretty instructive. The Nazi slogans in this period were generally pretty vague — freedom, work, bread for the people, a re-united and stronger Germany, a strong leader, etc. etc. Not so much things like, "I'll enact this specific program." --Mr.98 (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As for U.S. unemployment, this graph shows its lowest point post-Depression, pre-WWII is something like 14%, against a population of around 130 million, so that's over 18 million unemployed. Economists are fairly split as to whether the New Deal helped or hurt the U.S. economy. Nobody really doubts that getting into World War II helped it, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The section 25 points#German Party program ("National Socialist Program") explains some commitments of Hitler, and does some way to explaining whether or not they count as election promises. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I googled your quote, but I couldn't follow the links it provided, as the computer I'm using is barred from accessing hate sites. However, I wouldn't be too surprised of the low credibility of the person who made it. Articles on the Great Depression, Weimar Republic, and Economy of Nazi Germany might help.206.130.173.55 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That US unemployment graph is not worth very much. Despite their uselessness for almost all purposes, the unemployment figures most commonly seen, as in that graph, are the Lebergott numbers, which until 1942 counted people employed by the Works Progress Administration and other government programs as being unemployed. The correct numbers are the Darby numbers shown in table 2 of our New Deal article. See James Galbraith[4] based on [5]. There are people who doubt the efficacy of the WWII stimulus Austrian economics - and pretty much the debate about the New Deal is between a reality-based community and an ideologically driven one.

Here is a handy table, unfortunately using the incorrect numbers. Unemployment is a fraction of the labor force, not the total population, so is calculated on the basis of about 50,000,000 workers during the Depression. Even with the invalid Lebergott numbers as in that handy table, unemployment was under 10,000,0000 for much of the New Deal, and else only a bit above it; with the right Darby numbers, it was under for essentially all of FDR's presidency. So the claim in the OP's PS is false. There was a reason FDR won 4 elections.John Z (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One of 1930s Germany's biggest problems was an acute labor shortage. "Solving" the unemployment problem would be a very easy promise to keep! DOR (HK) (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

September 23

Religion

I am looking for sources/references/ information/ validation/ discussion/ refuting on the information provided by Phillipe Van Rjndt in the "Tetramachus Collection", pertaining to theft of documents from Vatican Archives, if and when this actually took place. any pertinent information would be greatly appreciated. Cbre4229 (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

American Revolution

The American Revolution inspired all other democratic revolutions, so does this mean that if the American Revolution had failed, then the world would still be ruled by Divine Right Absolute Monarchs? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

a) What basis do you have for your claim that the American revolution inspired all other democratic revolutions? b) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Marnanel (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And we hadn't had "Divine Right Absolute Monarchs" in Britain for a while before the American War of Independence. We had an undemocratic revolution (led by part of parliament) in the mid-17th century, and a slightly more democratic one (led by rather more of parliament) in 1689, which established that our monarchs rule by law, not by some sky god's fiat. From then on we've managed to avoid such vulgarities. DuncanHill (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And the theory of a "divine rights" monarch had largely been abandonded by all scholars in Western Europe by the second half of the 18th century anyway, basing the theory of monarchies on Natural and legal rights instead, a theory which only has a few steps to the idea of a Social contract (and thus also to The Social Contract). --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

a) The revolutionaries in other countries used the American Revolution as their example of how a revolution could work; without it, people wouldn't have thought that they could succeed, so very few people would have revolted. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true that some revolutionaries looked to the US revolution as an example of a colony throwing off its imperial power, but many looked elsewhere for inspiration as well (e.g. the French Revolution, which was itself partially inspired by the US revolution, but not quite the same thing at all). Not all revolutions inspired by the United States were democratic, though. Ho Chi Minh was famously inspired by the US war of independence, for example, and he did not prove to be much of a lover of democracy. Anyway, we can't know what would have happened if you re-ran history a different way. It's possible, for example, that the French Revolution might have happened without the US one (in some form), and would have been "the Revolution," or what have you. Certainly the revolutions of the 20th century had more going on to them than just being democrats vs. absolute monarchs. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There were many prior democratic revolutions, actually, but most notably, the English themselves had already decisively rejected absolute monarchy in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Looie496 (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Even if the American revolution had failed, it seems reasonable that the Batavian revolution and French revolution still would have happened more or less on schedule. All that the "failure" of the American revolution would have proven is that the British military was stronger than realized -- America would have still been a liberal oligarchic democracy, just as it was before the revolution, and the Dutch and French would still have the native-grown philosophies and common problems that inspired them. --M@rēino 01:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

History in general, and revolutions in particular; is a complex mix of many different factors, circumstances, and motivations. We do have an interesting Philosophy of history article that at least sheds some light on how people approach history. It is of course impossible to say for sure how history would have been different had the American war of Independence not taken place (or not been won), though people can make guesses.

There are people who do think about such things; it's often called "Alternate history". There are places on the internet where people discuss this type of thing (AlternateHistory.com, for example. Their FAQ lists some other good online resources for this type of thing). Uchronia has a pretty good list of alternate history literary works. I used it to find this essay, which discusses pretty much exactly this question. Buddy431 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also see counterfactual history. Although, as Slavoj Žižek has pointed out, it is a genre fairly dominated by right-wing writers, who fantasize about how peachy thigs would have been had some left-wing event failed to happen (the Russian revolution), or some right-wing project succeeded (the Russian liberal land reforms), etc. Or how horrible it would have been if the armies of darkness had snuffed out the light of the world at the battle of Poitiers. But it is a legitimate genre of literature, even if some historians consider it frivolous.--Rallette (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Mr. Žižek got his analysis completely wrong, by either intentionally or accidentally limiting himself to right-wing examples. For example, for every story I've read about how the world would be great if the South had won the Civil War, there are three times as many depicting the horrors of a North America hobbled by institutional racism and ceaseless warfare. --M@rēino 14:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite think so. Very many counterfactuals deal with military events (Waterloo, Battle for Britain, ACW, American Revolution), and these are indeed often written by fairly right-wing authors. On the other hand, Harry Turtledove, probably the preeminent and almost certainly the most productive author of alternative history, can hardly be described as right-wing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly a legitimate genre of fiction. But one should not confuse its occasional allusions to non-fiction as somehow making it any less fictional. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Roman Republic was established when Lucius Junius Brutus overthrew the last king of Rome. Surely that counts as a revolution? It's possible, though, that this story is a simplification of what happened in Athens, suspiciously coincidentally in the same year (c. 510 BC), when the Alcmaeonidae overthrew Hippias. Nevertheless, the Athenian and probably also Roman democracies were established after revolutions, and the leaders of the American revolution were fully aware of this. The Federalist Papers were signed "Publius", after Publius Valerius Publicola, one of Brutus' co-revolutionaries. The Americans were also fully aware of other developments in British constitutional history, such as the aforementioned Glorious Revolution, and the Magna Carta, which were supposed to provide checks on the king's power; they thought George III was particularly abusive of his powers, but if he has been a better king, would they have bothered to start a revolution at all? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Novus ordo seclorum

Difficult to know what a better monarch might have done. But the American Revolution article has this about the first steps in the conflict: "[The Americans] first rejected the authority of the Parliament of Great Britain to govern them from overseas without representation, and then expelled all royal officials." Giving the Colonies representation in Parliament might have helped some. But probably not enough, as one of the root motivations was an interest in re-structuring society along more fluid and equitable lines -- ie., without any aristocrats. (Anyway, it was a Freemasonic conspiracy and They would have done it one way or another eventually ;). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the English Revolution - they executed the king! 92.15.8.96 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're thinking of the English Civil War in which Charles I lost the use of his head; in the English Revolution, James II was sent off to France and took up religion. Both kings attempted to govern without the aid of Pariament; an example that has not been forgotten by their successors. Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The OP might find this article of interest: American exceptionalism. TomorrowTime (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What police incident was this?

I remember a case of a large African-American Man wearing a hat outside of a fast food restaurant being killed by police. This incident was caught on a police car camera. I believe the police were called because the man was acting disruptive. The police start talking with him, and then he sucker punches one of the cops sending his hat flying. The cops then proceed to hit and subdue the man. The man died shortly afterwards. I think the victim might have been on drugs, not sure. I believe this happened between five and seven years ago. This was also on a cop show World's Wildest Police Videos or such. 204.184.80.26 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

question about if america ever had a planned invasion of Europe in case their relationship turned hostile??

question about if america ever had a planned invasion of Europe in case their relationship turned hostile?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.104.7 (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason "america" is not capitalized but "Europe" is? Are some continents more deserving of capitalization than others? Edison (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well "Europe" is a fairly big region with lots of specific countries in it, and there were no plans to "invade Europe" in a broad sense. But there was a plan for the US to wage war against the UK in the early 20th century: see War Plan Red. There were of course all sorts of specific plans as to what to do if the USSR invaded Germany or attempted to roll across Europe. But I gather that is not what you have in mind when you are asking this. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! Just think. Had the US gone to war against the UK —we might all be speaking English today!--Aspro (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

...and Shakezpeare [sic] would be turning in his grave --Senra (Talk) 20:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not with the nukes there. France and weapons of mass destruction and List of states with nuclear weapons. These days US only bullies uses legitimate force against small developing countries barely capable of fighting a superpower rogue states these days.205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Though it's of note that the plans for possible invasion were long before any European states, or the USA, had nuclear weapons. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In the 1890's the US seized Spanish possessions such as Cuba and the Phillipines in a big festival of imperialism, but had no appetite for invading, say France and Belgium as Germany often delighted in doing. War Plan Black was a US plan in the early 2oth century for war with Germany, but it focussed on fighting German forces close to the US. The US really did not have the troops and ships needed pre WW1 to invade Europe. They did lend a hand in WW1, but began with a tiny standing army which would have ranked very far down in numbers compareed even to smaller European countries. The US invaded far Eastern Russia post WW1 in concert with other world powers to try and defeat the Communists, but that ended badly, and I would not call the contested area "Europe.". Even in the 1930's, the US focus was on defending the Americas rather than invading European countries, and once again had only a miniscule standing army, with negligible numbers of tanks and combat planes, and really had no capability to invade Europe until after Hitler easily defeated British, French and other European powers on the European continent mainland in a few weeks in the summer of 1940. Edison (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Archangel is in western Russia though. See the Polar Bear Expedition of 1918. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Right up until December 1941, when Hitler semi-inexplicably declared war on the U.S., most Americans most of the time wanted nothing to do with intervening in European disputes. What reason would there have been for the U.S. to plan for a logistical nightmare of launching an invasion across the Atlantic in the face of a hostile British navy? AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Americans wanted nothing to do with European disputes, but they have often been involved... April 6, 1917... for example. America (and the other allies) have (more than once) planned, and succeeded, at invasions of Europe, June 6, 1944 for example. Shadowjams (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But only with significant logistical assistance from nearby locations. I don't think the US ever contemplated something like D-Day without British assistance, for example. D-Day was more of a "liberation" than an "invasion" — the US wasn't trying to maintain control over an unwilling populace except in the case of Germany, and even then they had help from the British and the Russians. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an invasion of a different kind than the OP asked, but by 1944 both sides were in it together. France, Canada, Poland, Britain, and maybe some others all participated in Normandy, not just logistically. The allies occupied territories for varying amounts of time (as did other allied powers), including West Berlin (arguably France for a few weeks in late 1944)... the intentions were certainly different, and they didn't start the war, but the allied powers occupied Germany until the East and West German governments took power, both in 1949. Germany was divided into zones, American, French, Russian, and British. Each of those powers invaded and occupied Germany and other areas.

I suspect the OPs question is actually about early American ambitions though, not 20th century ones. Shadowjams (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It would have been far more likely for the U.S. to want to seal off the Western Hemisphere from European influence than to try to conquer Europe, and in that case the logical move would have been to invade Canada (not to try to invade across the Atlantic). I'm sure that there have been U.S. contingency plans for invading Canada at various times... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr 98 linked to War Plan Red above, which was exactly that. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Very true. See Monroe Doctrine. Shadowjams (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• One of the hallmarks of military organizations, especially those as sprawling as that of the USA, is planning for every possible contingency. You don't want to have to come up with something when the Fecal Matter Hits The Rotating Oscillator, you want to reach for the FMHTRO Plan and execute. I would be frankly astonished if, buried somewhere in files at the the Pentagon, there were not detailed invasion and defence plans for every nation on the planet. → ROUX ₪ 17:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The early US attacked and defeated pirates in North Africa ("to the shores of Tripoli")who were ignored or even encouraged by European powers. The US in the first half of the 19th century tried to seize portions of Canada, which ended badly for the US, and invaded Mexico convincingly ("from the Halls of Montezuma") in the 1840's, but had no realistic hope of or incentive for loading troops on ships and invading and occupying, say, Germany, or Sweden, or Denmark even through the 1930's. The war plans were aimed at keeping European conflicts out of the hemisphere where the US resided. The US, in the first early 20th century, was happy to use Marines and gunboats to maintain "friendly" dictators in Central America. Edison (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

September 24

Assonance Picture

Removed per policy because this is a duplicate of a question asked on the Language reference desk. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the UN General Assembly

Why does the UN continue to invite Iranian President Ahmadinejad to address the General Assembly? What is the UN's policy about inviting controversial or "disruptive" people to address it? Could the US prevent Ahmadinejad from speaking by denying him a visa to NYC? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The US imposing its will on the UN by refusing the right of out-of-favor heads of state to address the body would totally violate the spirit of locating the UN in the US post WW2. Khruschev, Castro, Arafat, Ahmadinejad or any other head of state must be free to address the General Assembly. The proper response to such an action as refusal of access to the UN by the US to some head of state or some UN delegation would be to relocate the UN headquarters to a neutral country such as Switzerland. The UN is as irrelevant as the League of Nations the day it becomes a puppet body of any US regime. Edison (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but if they stop inviting him, not deny his right to come, but just not invite him, could he still show up unannounced with no repercussions? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Iran still a member of the UN? With membership in an organization, there usually comes voice and vote in assemblies. Edison (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Who would draw the line, anyway, around "controversial" leaders or countries? Would that mean excluding Russia and China? How about the US itself? Is "disruption" related to speeches really such a problem? If the US started to have the ability to determine who got to give speeches at the UN, it would be a clear sign that the UN headquarters should be moved somewhere other than the US. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not many leaders promt mass walk-outs. Grsz¹¹ 13:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel could be considered more "problematic" than in just that way. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(Good question. ;)

There have been some impressive antics by world leaders addressing the UN, and Ahmadinejad is not the most "disruptive" speaker they've had address them:

• Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez actually called then-President Bush "a devil" on the floor of the General Assembly!
• Yasser Arafat famously addressed the UN wearing a gun holster (without the gun, but still) while he was still considered an "active" terrorist by US authorities! (see the #Terrorism in the 1970s and official recognition section of his article).
• And then there was the Shoe-banging incident, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe in anger against the rostrum while in the General Assembly -- in 1960, at the height of the Cold War, when the US and the USSR were busily striving to out-do each other in their capacity to blow each other up, and all of civilization could have been destroyed within twenty minutes of someone on either side hitting the wrong button! (Note though that Krushchev's movements were highly restricted while in NYC).

OP, why do you think the UN let's this sort of thing go on there? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

One note: I'm pretty sure that all of civilization can still be destroyed within twenty minutes of someone on either side hitting the wrong button. We just gloss over this fact since the end of the Cold War. The fact itself hasn't really changed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations General Assembly convenes its regular session each year beginning on the third Tuesday in September, and one of the opening agenda items is the "General Debate" lasting for two weeks, in which each Member State is invited to present a high-level address to the Assembly. Virtually all Member States' member speeches during this occasion are presented by the Head of State or Government, or occasionally a Foreign Minister or the equivalent, rather than by the country's U.N. Ambassador ("Permanent Representative") who represents the country on all other occasions. There is, to my knowledge, no precedent for denying the leader of a Member State the right to address the General Assembly during the General Debate (or at any other time). In fact, for better or worse (and for me it is worse because I live and work a couple of blocks from the UN Building and have been caught up in the heightened security), it would be a violation of the United States' international treaty obligations as Host Country under the Headquarters Agreement to deny entry to a Head of State or Government or to an accredited Permanent Representative. I believe that several years ago, the U.S. refused to admit Yasser Arafat to the U.S. to address a session of the General Assembly on behalf of the PLO, contending that he was not entitled to privileges under the Headquarters Agreement, and the General Assembly session was moved for a day to the U.N.'s other location at Geneva so that Arafat could speak. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat#Terrorism in the 1970s and official recognition has "Arafat became the first representative of a non-governmental organization to address a plenary session of the UN General Assembly. Arafat was also the first leader to address the UN while wearing a holster, although it did not contain a gun." Are you saying that did not happen in NYC?! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That did occur in New York City. The incident I'm recalling happened later. (Poking around, I see that his initial speech that you are citing was in 1974, while the one I am thinking of was in 1988.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for being late to the party that I started, but WikiDao, the examples you cited were all one-time incidents. Ahmadinejad does this sort of thing all the time. Disrupting the assembly once can certainly be forgiven, but doing it several times over, I think it's pretty clear that the guy is basically a real life version of an internet troll, right? So why keep bringing him back if you can't even have his word that he won't deliberately say highly inflammatory things that will piss off other world leaders to the point of making them walk out of the assembly, and thereby grabbing the spotlight away from the real issues at hand? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So, again: why do you think they'd do something like that? You seem to have some very strong feelings about it. Why not get involved, and write your Congressperson, Senator, and/or President to ask our UN Ambassador to raise the issue the next time she gets a chance? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad's hijinks are really nothing compared to the general "disruption" that takes place regularly in the UN and has for decades. There is a reason that it has a reputation as a place for grandstanding rather than action, but that's been part of the original set up from the beginning. The entire point of an international deliberative body is to allow different nations, however kooky, to have a place to present their view of the world. Attempt to declare some points of view out of bounds and unmentionable is a slippery slope that nobody really wants to go down, and for good reason. Part of having open communication is putting up with stupid communication.

Both the USSR and USA did things throughout the Cold War that resulted in walk-outs. Ahmadinejad is an elected (with some irregularities) leader of a member state in full standing. The idea that the UN as an organization would remove him from diplomacy altogether because what he said is offensive to some members (but hardly all) is kind of ridiculous. Arguably Ahmadinejad's offensiveness is at worst a distraction, nothing like the misinformation that far more consequential states have distributed to the UN in recent years. In any case, a strong argument can be made (in the Lockean tradition) that giving someone like Ahmadinejad a pulpit is better than trying to shut him up. If what he says is really so outrageous, it is better to have it coming out of his own mouth and clearly identified with him, than to give him the honor and prestige of being censored. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to comments above about the state of things during the Cold War, this item appears in today's "On This Day" list: Soviet nuclear-weapons duty officer Stanislav Petrov refused to launch a counter-strike despite his system telling him that as many as four US missiles were already in the air and on their way, narrowly averting a completely devastating global catastrophe. I don't think anyone is hovering over "the button" that vigilantly anywhere today, but it's still astonishing to think how quickly all of this could be gone (and even just "by accident," arising out of mutual distrust and failure to communicate). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stanislov Petrov didn't decide not to launch missiles. The Soviets didn't give lieutenant colonels the chance to start World War III. He decided not to tell his superiors about the missiles showing up on his satellite early-warning system. That wasn't supposed to be his call to make. He was supposed to tell his superiors, who would realize that none of the other warnings systems showed any incoming missiles and decide not to launch a counter-attack. There is a chance that, considering how freaked out everyone was at that time, the Soviet command would have launched an attack anyway based on that one warning. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bicep chain

Is there a religious significance (in any popular religion) to a silver chain worn around the bicep? -- kainaw™ 04:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of a cilice? It is sometimes worn around the bicep. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 05:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, JW. What you have in mind is something far-different. You are talking about the thing the villain (a Christan fanatic) wears in Da Vinci Code  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Those look purposely uncomfortable. The ones I've seen (that I am wondering about) look like simple jewellery chains fastened around the upper part of the bicep. It is under the sleeve, but part of the chain hangs down and, if the guy is wearing a short sleeve shirt, the dangling part of the chain is visible. I don't want to assume these men are Hindi. But, it is only an assumption that this is religious and not just some cool fashion accessory from India. -- kainaw™ 12:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on Keyur. You can do a google image search of "baju bandh". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are worn in a similar manner - just far more decorative that what I've seen. Further, it appears to be more fashion than religion, which is what I was wondering about. -- kainaw™ 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Searches on the World Wide Web are probably more successful with the correct spelling. The singular is biceps, and the plural is either biceps or bicepses. (http://www.onelook.com/?w=biceps&ls=a).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

See Five K's#Kara. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Wave. The ਕੱੜਾ, this → you have in mind is an iron bangle worn by Sikhs on wrist. Maybe what OP has in mind this, it's called a tabij in India, sometimes worn around the bicep (but mostly around neck), it's made of silver so someone may use it with a silver chain, though typically a black thread is used  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Republicanism in Australia versus Canada

I realize that we seldom penetrate to the "why" of things, but I've always been curious as to why republicanism has always enjoyed much stronger support in Australia than in Canada. It's not as if Canada is a right-wing Protestant stronghold. Canada is famously liberal, certainly to a greater extent than Australia, yet Australia is much closer to becoming a republic. What is the cultural difference that makes Australia more prone to republicanism? LANTZY^TALK 06:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Australia isn't as close to the United States? -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Better the devil you know than the other devil you know, eh? In the various essays I've seen, it seems that there's a lot of love for ol' QE2 - enough to overcome the republican sentiment in people who would otherwise be in favour of removing the link to the monarchy. I've personally never understood that argument - you can still appreciate and honour, say, Gandhi without having him politically linked to your country at all. I don't understand it, but I've seen it trotted out enough to wonder what public sentiment for republicanism will be like when she dies. Mostly, though, I think it's because things are going good - Canada didn't suffer the kind of hit the US did in the recent economic and real estate hiccup and it's hard to foment support for sweeping political change when people have jobs, access to health care, and homes. Matt Deres (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Canada is "famously liberal"? That's not a widely known fact where I live (for either sense of "liberal"). Maybe this is just an impression for USians who live in close proximity in a less liberal system, but who have little experience with e.g. Australia? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's something more than just a figment of my Usonian imagination to say that Canada's political environment is well to the left of Australia's. To take just one issue: In Australia, even the principal party of the left is opposed to same-sex marriage. In Canada, even the reigning conservatives have thrown in the towel on that issue. It may be that Australians themselves are as liberal-minded as Canadians, but their political culture has yet to catch up. That's why I find it odd that republicanism is a viable position in Australia but entirely off the table in Canada. LANTZY^TALK 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "liberalism" (however you want to define it) really has to do with it anyway; that might be a red herring. What does someone's opinion on gay marriage or gun control or whatever really have to do with abolishing the monarchy? Matt Deres (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Monarchism tends to be a conservative viewpoint. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is why the US is a republic and the Netherlands and Sweden are monarchies ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions proving the rule. But bear in mind that in the USA, even the most liberal of mainstream viewpoints would be considered hopelessly conservative in Europe. → ROUX ₪ 01:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I suspect there may be some exceptions to that rule. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, especially if by "Europe" you mean "Europe", rather than "Western Europe". Eastern Europe is considerably more benighted and bigoted than even the southernmost bowls of the United States. And western Europe isn't exactly Shangri-La. The French, whom Americans stereotypically associate with limp-wristed liberalism, are fully as xenophobic and homophobic as Americans, notwithstanding their greater tolerance of trade unionism and adultery. LANTZY^TALK 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Canada is extremely liberal compared to the USA, and about on-par with many European nations (though not quite as far as say Sweden). Were even the most conservative of Canadian politicians to be active in the USA, they would almost all be considered left wing. In terms of republicanism here, part of the issue is that the institution of the monarchy is embedded in the constitution. As we have seen in the past couple of decades, attempting constitutional amendment is no small issue and would require a political unity at both federal and provincial levels which is unlikely to happen. Yes, a large part of HM's popularity is quite simply that she herself is an institution; there are comparatively few people alive who even remember a time when she wasn't the Queen. Add that to the general Canadian attitude of keeping things as they are and making changes slowly (yes there are exceptions), particularly when it comes to issues that address our national identity, and we are unlikely to see change in the near future. That notwithstanding, I firmly believe, sadly, that whoever accedes to the throne next will probably be the last. If it is Charles, we will almost certainly be a republic by the end of his (likely to be rather short, compared to his mother's) reign; if he somehow does not accede (which wouldn't be hard; Camilla used to be Catholic and all the Palace needs to do is seed some rumours saying she still is, giving him the ability to step aside in favour of William), we will see another long-reigning monarch which may give the monarchy the lasting sort of gravitas that HM has brought. Further, Australians have been by nature much more independent-minded than Canadians; we were settled voluntarily for the most part, while Australia was in many cases settled by criminals--they were booted out, which tends to lead to a much more independent state of mind. Being on the other side of the planet from your Queen may also be a factor, though apparently not in New Zealand which is (according to my stepfather and his family) quite staunchly pro-monarchist. → ROUX ₪ 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"...the general Canadian attitude of keeping things as they are and making changes slowly" - isn't that the very definition of a (real) conservative? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. In a dictionary definition sense, yes... but in real terms, conservatives (note the small c) are generally in favour of maintaining the status quo. Canadians, generally speaking, are fine with change. We just like to think it through first. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand and her people are sometimes characterised as "more English than the English". Many of Australia's early settlers were indeed on the wrong side of the law, but they weren't "criminals" in the sense we understand that term today. Often they were guilty of nothing more than petty theft. Very petty. Like stealing a loaf of bread. They're better described as "convicts". We do have an independence of spirit in many ways, but when it comes to amending our Constitution, that has usually proven to be a tough nut to crack. Referendums in Australia says there've been 44 proposals in 110 years, of which only 8 have ever passed. Conventional wisdom here is that a referendum needs bipartisan support to have a chance of getting through, but most issues become politicised, sometimes for no better reason than an opposition sees an opportunity to make some political advantage out of an issue that previously they didn't care much about either way, so they'll oppose whatever change has been proposed, no matter how reasonable or sensible. Sometimes they'll agree it's an OK idea in essence, but it should be implemented this way rather than that way, and that's enough for them to advocate a NO vote. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was using 'criminals' in the definitive sense; people who have been convicted of a crime. I make no judgement as to the severity of the sentence being proportionate.→ ROUX ₪ 21:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, Canadians seem in perpetual anxiety about their "national identity" and worry about remaining distinct from the larger, "aggressive" culture of their neighbor to the south. The monarchy is something that marks Canadians as different from the Yanks. Australians probably aren't that worried about being absorbed into the USA. For them, ditching the Queen might help people tell them apart from New Zealanders. —D. Monack ^talk 03:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The only time Canadians (or at least the Canadian media) talks about ditching the monarchy is when the Governor General does something expensive and everyone finds out how much taxpayer money she spent. If we didn't have a Queen we wouldn't need an expensive Governor General...but that's really as far as it goes (and I suppose no one stops to think that we would still have an expensive head of state as a republic, with a different title). When the Queen herself was here a couple of months ago, there was some grumbling about the expense, but not as much. Everyone loves the Queen! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Most Canadians don't seem to have very strong opinions about the monarchy, although there are exceptions. The monarchy simply isn't a hot-button issue like healthcare, gun control, taxes, spending, crime, and the like. The fact that there's a picture of the queen hanging in the courthouse doesn't really have that much of an impact on people's lives. Not enough, anyway, as to encourage people to try to start what would be a monster political and constitutional effort to change the status quo. Note that the Canadian Constitution requires all 10 provinces to agree to any amendment messing with the monarchy. The Australian Constitution didn't make the monarchy an entrenched clause, perhaps because no one in 1900 could ever imagine people wanting to get rid of it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

London Mayoral Elections

Hello, I checked the pages to do with the Mayor of London and elections to that post, but I did not find the answer to my question. How is the date of the election determined? The date of inauguration is 4th May but the election date has varied from 10th June, almost a month following the change of incumbent, to 4th May, one day before. Why the difference, and who decides when elections take place? I imagine they are synchronised to fit in with local elections and the British tradition of Thursday elections. Sam 17:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

I find myself quite confused by your question. How can 10 June be "almost a month earlier" than 4 May? On the face of it, it seems to be almost a month later. But how could an election be held weeks after the office-holder commences their term? And how can 4 may be one day before 4 May? Am I missing something? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I have muddled my months, of course June is after May. Which of course, leads to another question: if the inauguration date for the Mayor of London is 4th May (the date Livingstone took office in 2000, and the date Johnson assumed control in 2008), why did the 2004 election take place more than a month after the date of the inauguration? (I have italicised parts of my original post where I have altered it to correct my mistake at putting June before May.)

Is it not possible that the election was 10 June, Year 1, with the inauguration 4 May, Year 2? For example, the monarch's coronation is often quite some time after accession, partly out of respect for mourning the previous sovereign and partly because of sheer logistics. HM was officially crowned some 16 months after her accession. Even more likely is someone on the article playing silly buggers with the dates or merely misunderstanding. It is not in fact possible to have an inauguration before the choice of candidate. On a careful reading of the articles in question, it seems that there is no set date for the inauguration. → ROUX ₪ 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the London Mayoral election is held once in 4 years on the regular date of English local elections. Generally that is the first Thursday in May, but in the year of the European Parliament elections (fixed Europe-wide for early June) the local election date moves to be held on the same day. As the Euro elections are at 5-year intervals, it is a different set of local council elections that are moved each time. Sussexonian (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So Livingstone's second term was shorter than his first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Archie and anti-Oshoism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

Long time back I read an Archie comics, of course I can't recall exact wording of each character but the moral of the story was that ideal American youth should keep away from such cults. In it Jughead somehow gets entangled with Osho (did he wear an orange robe and a mala? don't remember, it's been a really long time), but nevertheless becomes a "victim" of the cult and starts saying things like -"we're all on a long journey", and "to a flower it's fall is end of the world" and other such nonsensical things. Everyone including Archie, Veronica, Betty and even Reggie is really worried about what will become of him. Then Archie makes up his mind to do something about it, perhaps he goes to a library and finds a bigbook of ridiculous quotations or talks about it with Mr.Weatherbee and in the end they somehow manage to cure Juggie by convincing him that anyone can thinkup and say such things like "to a toadstool even a butterfly is an airplane" and there is really no need to be impressed by such cult-leaders. And in the end-frame all the gang is shown with their arms around shoulders of each other, proudly addressing the

small

American youth to keep away from the silly Indian guru "who preaches from the backseat of a limo". (Osho or Rajneesh is never referred to directly but only as "the guru who preaches from the backseat of a limo").

Does anyone remember reading this comicbook and please recount the exact story, i.e. how they "cure" him etc. ? Were there any other Archie comics targeted against Osho. Thanks.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It might help if you could find an online link to the comic-book issue, or a synopsis of it, that you are referring to. By "Osho" you mean "Bhagwan" right, the same guy that was involved in the largest bioterrorism attack in US history? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, WikiDao. Sadly yes. But the same guy was hardly responsible for that. It were the people living under him. Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely as her guru he had some responsibility for her actions on his behalf? That any of his followers were involved suggests that perhaps Jughead's pals were right to be concerned! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If they could find an online link to the issue, surely they wouldn't need to ask if anyone else remembers it and can tell them details they cannot remember? 109.155.33.219 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have failed to find any such source.Do they have any blog etc. about arcihe where some comic-freak had scanned all comics, might be. It would be copywrong... Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely Jon might? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, supply of Archie comics to India was awfully limited even in golden age of comics ( now, thanks to Internet, its ceased altogether ). But maybe some Archie fan, I hope mostly US guys are on RD, may recall it. Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it was an actual, official Archie comic, and not a spoof, satire, look-alike or outright unauthorized ripoff? --Jayron32 03:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Jay. I am quite sure it was actual, official Archie, nothing less. Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Archie characters were at one time licenses to Spire Christian Comics, so maybe you are misremembering that (although it would be a huge stretch to remember that as a Rajneesh-ish cult...) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing me. I have just seen Spire Christian Comics. It says Other comics were based on true stories, Christian novels, or Christian movies.What the hell does the word "Christian" mean here ? Are we talking about Christian Religion...? Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I have seen their talk page after I wrote above text. (It comes under Wikipedia Christianity etc.) I was hoping "Christian" to be author's surname ! In that case it's surprising for me.What can have Archie (I have read enough of it to understand it's basic spirit)to do with religion ? And then Christian religion of all ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The connection is noted in the article at Al Hartley, who is the connection between Archie comics, for which he was a prominent illustrator and writer, and Spire Christian comics. It directly mentions his religious beliefs and how it informed his writing and work. --Jayron32 05:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Here is one involving a cult (although not with the Archie characters, so probably not the one you are thinking of). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I failed to open that link (technical problem). What it is, just please give me brief description. Adam, what is the difference between this Spire Christian Comics and mainstream Archie comics...?

The article's in question discuss this, but to restate it a different way: Spire Christian Comics was an independent comic company which produced Christian-themed comic books. Al Hartley was an writer and illustrator who worked for both Marvel Comics (Archie Comics parent company) and Spire Christian Comics. According to his article, Al Hartley started introducing Christian themes into Marvel-published Archie Comics, but this became discouraged. After this, he asked for and received permission to use the Archie characters in Spire-published comics, thus generating a series of Spire-published Archie comics, which were writen and illustrated by Hartley, but otherwise had no connection to Marvel, which still published their own Archie comics. I hope that makes things clearer. --Jayron32 05:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's it. That seems to be the answer. Osho was overwhelmingly critical of Christian religion. It's only natural that an author with Christian bent of mind oppose him.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Lots of others who were not overtly Christian wrote things which where critical of Bagwhan Shree Rajneesh or which spoofed him. Berkeley Breathed ran a story line in Bloom County the early 80's with Bill the Cat standing in as "Bagwhan Bill" and which lambasted the entire Rajneesh movement; Breathed is a self-avowed atheist. It's not hard to find people critical of a movement whose members poisoned some 750 patrons of Oregon-area restaurants, and they don't have to be Christians. --Jayron32 06:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There was a full anti-Osho, justified, feeling in US then 06:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

However, the Christian Archie comics were from the 70s and Rajneeshpuram was not created until the 80s. (Plus, the one comic I linked to about the cult takes place on a tropical island or something.) So I wouldn't consider this quite resolved yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If it was in the 1970s, references to orange robed cults were probably related to the Hare Krishnas, which were a common pop-culture staple at that moment and regarded warily by the "mainstream" as "brainwashers". (See the "issues within the society" section of the article.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Military might of Iran compared to Iraq

How does the current military capability of Iran compare with that of Iraq just before it was invaded? 92.15.27.8 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Iran now, or Iran at that time? Googlemeister (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read the fourth word. 92.15.27.8 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by number of troops will get you the current comparison in terms of man-power. I don't know what the pre-invasion numbers were. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

From our articles Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraqi Air Force and 2003 invasion of Iraq, It was estimated that the bulk of Iraq's army was made up of thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions and some sub-divisional special forces units. roughly 250,000-400,000 total people. Iraq's air force had about 200 fighter type aircraft (though a large number of those were not actually mission capable). Iran currently seems to have roughly 500,000 personnel and around 300 fighter jets (though again a fair number of these do not seem to be mission capable). From this, I would estimate that Iran has a 20-30% larger army and significantly larger air force then Iraq did in 2003. Numbers don't tell the whole story though, as the US was technically outnumbered around 2-1 when it invaded Iraq. Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The question was about military capability, not troop numbers. Numbers don't tell the whole story; in fact they tell you relatively little. Technology plays a huge part. As does experience; raw conscripts simply do not compare to professional well-trained veteran soldiers. Armed forces that are tested in conflict are much more efficient than those that are not. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So do you have an answer? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We have articles on Equipment of the Iranian Army and List of countries by level of military equipment. My very limited understanding of this leads me to think that Iraq in 2003 had poorer equipment than Iran does currently, mostly because Iraq was under a pretty strict sanctions regime since the 1990s whereas Iran has been doing considerable arms trading with Russia, China, and North Korea since then. Compared to the United States, though, I don't know if that matters. The Iraqi tanks were really no match for US capabilities and the US air dominance is unchallenged. Any frontal assault would probably result in a relatively quick US "victory", but as we have seen that is hardly the mark of whether the conflict in the long run would be seen as a "successful" one or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Difference between Cape, Mantle and Cloak ??

What's the difference between Cape, Mantle and Cloak?? Historically speaking is what interests me, back in the middle ages. Coz i guess the words' meanings might have changed in modern times. But mainly i'm interested in how these garments varied from each other particularily during 1000-1400.

I know quite well what a cloak is, and I know they're supposed to be long, usually reaching down to your boots or ankles. And often they have hoods attached to them. They're supposed to cover your back, however if the cloak is big enough you might wrap the entire thing around yourself and stay warm.

But when it comes to mantle and capes, i'm unsure where the differences goes... you could of course simply tell me to search these words here on wikipedia but i already have, and i'm still unsure. Cape and mantle are said to be shorter than cloak, and capes often attached around the neck rather than over the shoulders and mantles are more of a female garment. wikipedia's sites says so, but often have i seen knights, nobles, men of the church, templars and kings of old, or depictions of them in the very least dressed in long cloak-like garments reaching down to the boots or ankles, sometimes attached over the shoulders and sometimes around the neck. And these are often called both capes and mantles.

An example; The knight templars (as seen in pictures, paintings, movies etc.) often had atop their white surcoats with the red cross another garment (also white with a red cross), looking much like a cloak without a hood. And I have often seen these being called both mantles and capes. So I'm unsure what is right and what is wrong, and what really is the difference between these garments.

One difference i tend to notice is that cloak-like garments of thin fabric which doesn't seem to protect from the weather so much and perhaps are worn more for symbolic purposes tends to be called either cape or mantle. or perhaps i'm wrong...

I guess opinions on the matter can vary, but hearing other people's opinion or knowledge about it can only be helpful.

So, Enlighten me?? :)

84.49.182.137 (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OED Online has:

cloak, n.: "A loose outer garment worn by both sexes over their other clothes."

mantle, n.: "A loose sleeveless cloak." The word was formerly applied indiscriminately to the outer garments of men, women, and children; at times it referred to various specific pieces of clothing. Its application is now chiefly restricted to long cloaks worn by women and to the robes worn by royal, ecclesiastical, and other dignitaries on ceremonial occasions.

cape, n.: "A cloak with a hood; a cloak or mantle generally; an ecclesiastical cope."

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

September 25

Numbers Game

I need a bit of help with this article, as you can see here. Firstly, my library doesn't have The Autobiography of Malcolm X, so I'll need to wait about a week for it to be sent from another library: if someone has access to it now and could check the reference, that would be very helpful. Secondly, reverting my original edit isn't enough, as the information I removed is almost certainly wrong. As I mentioned on the talk page, the problem seems to be an edit that removed the word n***er (without asterisks) despite it being a direct quote of what this was actually called (assuming the ref. checks out). I cannot add that word back in without logging in, and I have reasons not to log in :(. Without that word, the sentence is nonsensical. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of references to be had. Example: [6] even more here:[7].Even mentioned in a 1934 edition of the New Yorker. [8]Guess the editor that deleated it lives out-side the US --Aspro (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, fantastic! Could you edit the (full) sentence back in with 2 or 3 of those sources for refs? As I said, I can't edit it in without logging in because of the 'n' word. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you edit it? Just properly cite it and you should be ok. Here's some more refs: [9] WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are bots, and possibly edit filters, that automatically revert or disallow IP edits that contain certain "trigger words". Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean vandal patrollers? If it is properly sourced, it'll stay. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly there are automated processes that use trigger words; that's what the editor's running afoul of. Acroterion _(talk) 17:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well those automated processes should not be preventing an IP user from making properly sourced relevant contributions to an article! Which bots are guilty of that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The main vandal-reverting bot is User:ClueBot, but there are also a number of edit filters that disallow edits that look problematic. You can learn more about them at Special:AbuseFilter. Looie496 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is a problem! Who'd a thunk it? It all worked out in the end, though. Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "N word" is not on any edit filter and probably never will be, because of the many legitimate uses. —Soap— 20:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. But, in any case, this worked out. Thanks guys! I'll format a couple of the best extra refs and add them in tomorrow, when I can use a proper computer. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

DASHBot doesnt use the edit filter. Actually the edit filter was originally designed to go for the things that DASHBot and others wouldnt be able to catch. I understand that it's easy to confuse the different anti-vandal programs because they're deliberately kept with sparse documentation, though. —Soap— 22:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Italian town map - Pavia

If one were to guess, from what century would this Flickr "Historical map of Pavia" be from? The resolution is very high under Flickr's Actions, "View all sizes" for Original (8598 x 7151). Details can be read for the street names and at the bottom of the map the names of the numbered places in ancient Pavia. Looking at the medieval wording I would imagine someone could come up with approximate century. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonecortesi/4229016791/sizes/o/in/photostream/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonecortesi/4229016791/

The map proclaims that it was printed by Pieter van der Aa. That gives a fairly narrow range of dates and the bibliography would suggest that 1728 is the best guess. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. Searching of van der Aa or "La Galerie Agréable du Monde" will find similar stuff such as London, Paris. Surprisingly, given the number of cut out pages for sale, someone has a complete (?) copy of of the atlas: here. If you need to ask what it costs (single pages sell for hundreds of dollars/euro), you probably can't afford it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Pavia's historical center is so little changed that, by opening Google Earth and the map together, and working away from the Duomo ("Eccl. Cathed. Civit." on the map) and Piazza Grande (""Platea magna civit." on the map) you can identify modern street names for the streets on the map.--Wetman (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe I am a relative of the founder of Miller Arkansas

My Grandfather John Miller III was the son of John Miller II whom was married to Grace Pearl Baker. Grandpa said his Grandfather was in some way responsible for the formation of Miller Arkansas. Would like help learning the history. Miss Bakers father was nicknamed Tic. And this is most of the information I have before Grandfather passed away at the age of 84 several years ago. My name is Robert Miller Jr the son of Robert Miller Sr the son of John Miller III. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.46.61 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any information on the web whatsoever about anything called "Miller Arkansas". Can you clarify what you are talking about here? Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We have articles on Miller County, Arkansas, Miller County, Arkansas Territory and Miller Homestead (Pea Ridge, Arkansas). Is one of these the subject of your question? Karenjc 18:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

September 26

Business day

Who first decided that business could only be officially conducted Monday to Friday? Is this universal or are there cultures with other ranges? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

See Workweek and weekend for a lengthy, though often poorly cited, treatment. The brief history is that many religions have a day of rest and prayer (traditionally Sunday for Christians and Saturdays for Jews), and in the 20th century it became a standard part of collective bargaining agreements to have the weekends off. Plenty of commercial businesses do conduct business on the weekend, though, as you've probably noted. There are cultures with other ranges though in general the five day workweek has become pretty standard. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything: 4-Day workweek, 2-ply toilet paper. schyler (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian religion gave us our obsession with time (monks not wanting to be late for those morning prayers) and our 7 days per week with 6 days of labor and 1 day of rest—}we only got an extra one when enough people complained. (There is, of course, the "disagreement" on whether the Sabbath or Sunday are the "correct" day of rest, fortunately we've got both covered.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What about a more worldwide perspective? Our Workweek and weekend mentions that Muslim-majority countries typically have Friday off (although there is a considerable amount of variation on what the official work-week is, and whether it's five or six days). On a slightly different note, I know that France has recently moved to a four day school week (with Wednesdays off), where it used to be typical to have school on Saturday mornings [10]. It's interesting that our Education in France article doesn't mention this; maybe I'll find a good source and work it in somehow. Such a week would be unthinkable to a student in the United States (though I was surprised to find that some districts are moving to 4 day weeks to save money [11], so maybe it's not as surprising as I'd thought). Buddy431 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read that until the mid 20th century the work week in Britain was commonly 5½ days, including Saturday morning. --Anonymous, 04:35 UTC, Sunday, September 26, 2010.

Sunday is a regular weekday in Israel (8th paragraph, beginning with "The blast went off at 8:30"). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also of interest: Soviet calendar. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

When I was at school in the UK in the late 1950s and early 1960s (actually at Hastings Grammar School) we worked on Saturday mornings and had Wednesday afternoons off. Such an arrangement would probably be unthinkable today as everyone expects to have a full two days off at the weekend. --rossb (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Reopening a closed corporation in California

I dissolved my corporation and submitted the final tax return, but I need it again. Can I open up the same corporation? Does anyone know the form name or number? Or could I re-apply with the same name? Thanks to all for the help :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The California Secretary of State's office can probably answer this for you. I don't see the question in their FAQ but they are the ones who process the forms so they should know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it even True ?

I heard somewhere, and cannot remember where, that a totally new US flag is hoisted on the White House every single day. Is this true, and if so, how expensive is that, and what happens to the " old " flags ? Are they given to schools or someone honoured, and if so, are they recorded with the date they were on the White House ? I don't think we could afford that for the Beehive. Thanks The Russian Christopher Lilly 06:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

When I made Eagle Scout, I was given a US flag that had flown over either the White House or the Capitol. So, yes, they're given to people who are honoured for one thing or another. Dismas|^(talk) 06:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And I found some ordering instructions here. It looks like my troop had to pay for the flag and not the American taxpayer. Dismas|^(talk) 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's more than once a day, for both the White House and the Capital building, otherwise there's no way they could keep up with demand. I'm sure they hand out far more than 730 flags every year. --Ludwigs2 07:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What I was told at the time by my (pedantic and buzz killer) father was that they have a number of flag poles and put flags up on each one. Then go back to the first, take it down, and put another up. They continue on to the second and so on. "Cool! A flag they flew at the Capitol!", "Well, you know they only fly them for a few minutes.", "Thanks, Dad." Dismas|^(talk) 07:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it's the social obligation of fathers to make certain that their sons have a proper degree of self-centered cynicism. Can't send a bunch of idealistic hippie-types out into the world, you know; very embarrassing. --Ludwigs2 08:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

His father spoke the truth, though. You can see it happen in this documentary, from 54:25 on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

When my elementary school received from our Congressman a US flag which had "flown" over the US Capitol, I did research (in the pre-internet age) which informed me that such flags "flew" for a few seconds only, just enough time for the wind to unfold them. after which they were lowered and folded by the hard working military detachment charged with such "flying." They could probably "fly" hundreds of flags a day over the Capitol or the White House. Edison (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've spent a fair amount of time in downtown DC, and I must say I have never seen anyone hard at work out there at such a task. What would the tourists think of groups of military personnel running flags up and down all day outside the Capitol or White House?! I don't know how they work it, but I have a hard time seeing it produce "hundreds of flags a day"! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And I'm counting only four flags flying above this picture (the fourth is not visible, behind dome;). Note that there is no one in the vicinity of the flag-poles. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks ! That was more than I expected ! Fancy that ! For sure, and one would rather have a flag that flew a whole day, or if the President or some other national hero gave it them in a ceremony, but I guess even a few seconds and they can say, " It did still fly at the Capitol, or George and Martha's ( Mt. Vernon ), or something. Are these flags like embroidered as well ? I have a US flag on my wall at home - under my New Zealand flag, and for six dollars, it was a pretty good buy, but it is not fancy. It appears the flags they give widows of service men killed - or at least from what I have seen on fictional TV type portrayals thereof - are like as if each star is sewn on and such. ( For sure she would much rather have her husband ), but that is an interesting custom also. Would they do so at the Washington Monument, which I understand has fifty flags round it ? I can imagine in a country of 300 million the demand could never cease, but then, if too many people got them, where would the rarity be ? Doubtless flag makers are the ones not complaing at all - a very worthy profession. Thanks again. The Russian Christopher Lilly 03:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the page of the Capitol Flag Program. It's clear that the flags that people can get are not the giant big flag from the middle of the Capitol dome but smaller flags that presumably fly from smaller poles above the building. The site says there are 100,000 requests a year, which equals 274 a day. So presumably the Architect of the Capitol has someone raising and lowering flags on a regular basis. With 2,600 employees, I guess the AoC has the manpower to do that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait, here's this: US Capitol#Flags (which claims to explain it, but I do not see where that alleged patch of flagpoles is up there). Note that there is no huge flag flying from the dome, there is only Freedom. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak about the flags that are given out (sold) now but when I got my Eagle US flag (about 20 years ago), it was a nice stitched one and not simply a piece of cloth with the flag pattern printed on it. It's a good sturdy flag. Dismas|^(talk) 04:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is in a similar vein of furious government souvenir manufacture. --Sean 15:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rosenberg map

I found this map File:Reichskommissariats-rosenberg.jpg showing the final Reichskommissariat plan by Alfred Rosenberg. It shows parts of the borders of Reichskommissariat Ostland, Ukraine, Moskowien, Kaukasus and Turkestan. Is there a map with the entire subdivision of Russian Lebensraum? Maybe with Reichskommissariat Ural, West-Sibirien, West-Nordland and Ost-Nordland. I'd like to find a map as complete as possible. --151.51.48.46 (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did a bishop "reign" ??

In Medieval europe, in what kind of areas would a bishop have power and influence? maybe it varies from various types of religions, but let's say bishops in the catholic church, which was very widespread in medieval europe.

Would a bishop be elected bishop of a city, meaning all cities had their own bishop, or would they be bishops of each their county, or some sort of region, or a province? or would every church have their own bishop?

Although not sure (and that's why i'm asking) i would think a bishop were bishop of entire regions, meaning he was seen as bishop in all churches and cities etc within that region, but i don't know. I'm trying to find answers.

Answers and thoughts on the matter will be much appreciated :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Each Bishop would have a Diocese, in the same way each Church was the centre of a Parish. He would be responsible for communion, ordainment and other duties in that area. They were arbitrarily defined to give each Bishop a manageable workload, so in a highly populated place they might be small while in a sparsely populated place they would be quite large.--92.251.191.21 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Prince-Bishops of Durham had more power than most. Mikenorton (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ordainment = ordination. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Our Bishop (Catholic Church) article has some more information about your question, and you may also want to see Catholic Church hierarchy. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Things were different in the middle ages. For one thing, land was not owned in the way it is today. Instead, people held large estate on behalf of the King. They where allowed to received the income from this land provided they paid the taxes and supported the king. Bishops often held great estates of land called manors and so where very wealthy individuals. As Lord of the Manor they also were the local law, thus welded much power that was quite separate from their ecclesiastical power. The OP would do well I think to read up on the social life of medieval England and the feudal system if he wants to understand this aspect. --Aspro (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There were also decidedly ecclesiastical princes like the archbishops of Trier and Cologne, which in fact ruled the cities themselves. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for lots of helpful answers ! ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, in many parts of the Holy Roman Empire, prince-bishops were the effective rulers over areas that extended well beyond the cities where their cathedrals stood. See, for example, the Archbishopric of Mainz. Marco polo (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The situation in the HRE let to the Investiture Controversy, since bishops had both theological and secular domains, there was a conflict between the Pope, who claimed that he had the right to appoint bishops exclusively, and the Emperor, who claimed that since those bishops would be directly ruling chunks of his land as his vassals, that HE had the right to appoint them. --Jayron32 04:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Even today, the Bishop of Urgell is a Co-Prince of Andorra, along with the President of France.John Z (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

academic citation

How would I cite a paper by Galileo in an academic paper? Our article's citation just gives Galileo's name, comma, and the title of the book in English. Is this sufficient? Should I find a page number? 85.181.146.8 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Our Citation article links to several resources on how to formally cite a paper. You may be able to find publishing information, etc, for your citation online, see eg. Galileo at Google Books WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You should, of course, only cite a paper you have read. Since Galileo originals are very rare, it's probably in some collection. In that case, I'd cite it as "G. Galileo, "Sidereus Nuncius", 1610, in Jorkelman, Schrivenden (eds.), "Collected writings of Galileo", p.151-167, Someplace, 19XY", or similar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I haven't read it, but I'm stealing an idea from it. (I know, because the place I read the idea cited it.) Should I steal Galileo's idea without attribution? Should I cite the secondary source? I could just steal the idea and get away with it you know, I don't have to give it to Galileo, I'm being nice to him. So, how do I do it? I am NOT digging out his ms85.181.146.8 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

? "the place I read the idea cited it" -- so why not just cite that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also: "Our article's citation just gives Galileo's name, comma, and the title of the book in English." Could you point to the instance of that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't cite it because it's Wikipedia. We have a whole article on the book I would like to cite. The bottom of that article does not cite the book. Another of our articles does, as: "Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" 85.181.146.8 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Yes, you don't want to cite Wikipedia academically! Last time I heard... Here's this for now in case it helps any: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems at Google books. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually in academic circumstances, most people would frown far more on someone citing a work they obviously didn't read, then someone citing what they actually did read, even if it is wikipedia. At the very least, you should make clear you didn't actually read the work, but are relying on a citation of said work in another source, see [12] & [13] for example. If you don't what you're doing could easily be considered plagiarism. Note the idea is that wikipedia as an encylopaedia/tertiary source is not something normally suited for academic works (although it does depend on the circumstance), but you may use it as a starting point to find sources that you can use an actually read and use. The idea is not that you use wikipedia and then pretend to have read and be using the cited sources when you didn't and aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I added the link above to the article: you may well want to buy that book or check it out from your library. The external links section of the article may also be helpful. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The "responsible and respectable" thing to do is to take a look at the original book in question to confirm that the Wikipedia article is a faithful accounting of it. (Don't just trust Wikipedia on this. It's often not a good source and can have a very idiosyncratic reading of old books. If it is wrong — as it often is, in my experience — the fact that you got your information from Wikipedia but didn't attribute it as such is grounds for academic misconduct charges.) If it is, cite the original book. If it isn't, well, at least you know. I write this as a tired reader of many bad student papers that crib from Wikipedia without properly attributing it. A Wikipedia-style point of view is pretty easy to spot if you know the subject matter in question. If you think your grader doesn't know or can't easily look up Wikipedia, you are almost certainly wrong... --Mr.98 (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's too pretentious; that's what "original research" actually is. For Wikipedia, which is just a readers' guide, after all, this will do just fine: "Galileo, Title (date), noted in Name, "Article" Journal Vol. (year:page)" You also make no false claims this way.--Wetman (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it needed to cite Galileo at all? Surely his works are out of copyright by now. Googlemeister (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be getting confused. In response to Wetman The OP referred to an academic setting so 'original research' is often welcome and what should be the normal way of citing here on wikipedia isn't likely their concern. In response to Googlemeister, it is needed to cite whoever you got your ideas (or whatever) from, particularly in an academic setting but even on wikipedia. Copyright has nothing to do with it. If you're wondering why it's necessary to cite Galileo (or whatever) when you've taken the idea from another source who is citing him, well again copyright has nothing to do with it. It will depend precisely on the case, but usually if what you're taking is an idea (or whatever) which another source has summarised from a primary source, then what you're actually interested in is the idea from the primary source even if you're citing it from another source. If you're interested in citing what another source has said, you don't have to cite the references they use since you're actually citing that source not their references. Either way copyright never comes in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't matter for source material (except that it might prevent you from reading it in the first place). Research papers don't take text from their sources, they take ideas, which aren't copyright-protected. The information provided by citations is vitally important for other reasons; they tell the reader whether some assertion has been peer-reviewed, they make it possible to navigate the literature, and they allow the writer to gloss over details that the reader will know to look in the cited source for. Paul (Stansifer) 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Founding documents of other nations inspired/derived from the U.S. Constitution?

I vaguely recall reading/hearing the occasional reference growing up to other countries who copied from the United States Constitution or modeled their equivalent document on it, but am having difficulty finding a list. I'm quite curious just how many such countries there really are and who they be... The Masked Booby (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's see... there's the French Constitution of 1791, the Constitution of Uruguay, the Swiss Constitution of 1848, the Argentine Constitution of 1853, the Cuban Constitutions of 1901 and 1940 (source: [14]), and just about every other constitution in Latin America for that matter, the Constitution of Japan, the Constitution of India, and of course the constitution of the United Federation of Planets. LANTZY^TALK 22:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

See also Constitution#Modern_constitutions, which has

The United States Constitution, ratified June 21, 1788, was influenced by the British constitutional system and the political system of the United Provinces, plus the writings of Polybius, Locke, Montesquieu, and others. The document became a benchmark for republicanism and codified constitutions written thereafter.

and discusses the historical influence of some other national constitutions, too. (The Constitution of Japan was largely written at MacArthur's behest after WWII, probably the instance of the most direct US involvement in another country's constitution, but even still it is far from being a just a "copy" of the the US Constitution). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the text of the "British Constitution," as ratified. Or does such a thing exist at all? Figment of the imagination, much? Edison (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the phrase "British constitutional system" I quoted above may refer to what began with the Magna Carta, the article for which says: "It influenced the early settlers in New England and inspired later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We do, you know, have an article on the British constitution. It is not written down, but most Britons, I believe, consider it to exist. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Many national constitutions are similar in form to the U.S. Constitution, with separate articles for the executive, legislative and judicial powers and an equivalent to the Bill of Rights. Considerably fewer countries have adopted the same system laid out in the U.S. Constitution for their own government. Many of those are in Latin America, where U.S. influence is strong. See presidential system. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also important to remember that there is a distinction between a little-c "constitution" and a big-c "Constitution". Just as The White House is different from a white house, so are the difference between the constitution of a government, which is the set of foundational principles under which the state operates, and The Constitution, which is the document that defines those foundational principles. All countries, by definition, have a constitution, insofar as they have a government which operates by a set of defined principles. Not all countries have, or have always had, a Constitution, that is a single document which defines those principles. Even in the U.S., where there is near hagiographic worship of The Constitution there are foundational principles, which are not written down in the Constitution, but are still considered constitutional principles, such as judicial review and the right to privacy. --Jayron32 04:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Scott Brodies's "Our Constitution" (Brodie, Scott (1999). Our Constitution. Franklin Watts Australia. ISBN 0-9585649-0-6.), Australia did borrowed some ideas from the US:

The delegates [of the Constitutional Convention] were inspired by both the British Westminster system and the American Congressional system. Aspects of the American system were borrowed because the USA was a federation of states, just as the new Australia would be; the most obvious examples being the way in which the Senate is elected and the names of the two houses. Also the former colonies were to be called states, just as they were in the USA.

Mitch Ames (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some elements of the current German constitution from 1949 was also heavily inspired by the American ecquivalent. The Federal Constitutional Court for example. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you can provide sources stating that it was heavily inspired by the American equivalent. Both articles (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany and Federal Constitutional Court of Germany) don't mention this issue at all. Flamarande (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

September 27

Lost license

Hello. This is not a request for legal advice, it's just something I've been curious about. When a doctor loses his or her license, how can s/he get it back? Does he need to go through med school again, or can he just reapply to the certification board or something? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say "loses his or her license", I presume you're referring not just to cases of misplacing their physical license certificate, but to situations where the doctor's permission to practise has been removed due to professional misconduct or worse. If the authorities took action to deprive the doctor of their license to practise, I can't see them giving it back again in a hurry, unless it was just some abstruse technical issue that had no bearing on their general professional standing. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Doctors can lose their licenses to varying extents, so to speak. For some serious infractions the revocation is irrevocable, but a license may also be suspended temporarily. Sometimes a license may be recovered just by paying a fine, performing community service, and appearing before a medical examining board. One may also recover a license by challenging the examining board in court. Generally speaking, it's much easier to get a new medical license than to be readmitted to the bar. LANTZY^TALK 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to some foreign place, since here in the United Kingdom, doctors don't have licen[c/s]es. They can however be struck off the Medical Register (though the article that links to doesn't have any information about the process, unfortunately). --ColinFine (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There is some information on the process in the UK in the General Medical Council article. Warofdreams talk 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What makes a musical performance great?

What makes a "great" musical performance "great", and not just merely "skillfully executed?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.80.119 (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Ultimately, it's entirely subjective. You might think a particular performance was one for the ages, while I might be quite unmoved. However, if a group of listeners all agreed it was great, it would be interesting to ask them what exactly it was about it that made it great. I suggest there would be a variety of answers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It also depends on what type of performance it is. A rock musician, for instance, might be thought highly of for their interaction with the crowd whereas a classical performance would have very little, if any, of that. Dismas|^(talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rate of growth: population vs. investment

If a normal portfolio grows 7% each year (or maybe, 5%), and the population of a region grows at a rate of 1% year, does it mean that every family can be millionaire, provided they save some money and keep it invested? Quest09 (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, eventually everyone will be a millionaire as currency depreciates. Not all families share their wealth, and not all portfolios grow at even 5% per year, and some families grow at a very much faster rate, but yes, in many countries, many extended families are already millionaires collectively (including the value of property). The problem is that the value of portfolios can go down as well as up (in fact they have done so in the last ten years), and by the time every family is a millionaire, the cost of living will probably have risen to the point where a million in any local currency is not really a large amount. There are too many variables for answers to be precise. Dbfirs 10:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) if you mean real growth (more than inflation) then "yes, it can grow forever, and everyone can be a millionaire". Especially if you live in 1999, or at least more than 2-3 years ago with this financial crisis. If you don't mean +7% or +5% above inflation, if you only mean inflation, then the problem is by the time every family is a millionaire, it is not worth so much to be one. It's like if in 1882, you asked, "Is it true that in 200 years, every family can have 100 dollars just by working hard for 1-2 days???" Well, yes, but a hundred dollars is not what it was in 1882. 89.204.139.66 (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

is a zippo lighter supposed to turn on when you open it?

I just got a use zippo lighter and had it refilled. Is it supposed to turn on when you open it? (it makes a click). How do you use it? 89.204.153.235 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the model of lighter that you have. The generic silver one does not turn on when you open it. -- kainaw™ 13:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in our article on it: Zippo (which unfortunately however does not seem to go into the many flashy ways of lighting a Zippo practiced by the the initiated, and the bored.;) Generally, you must turn the wheel to cause a spark to light the wick. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that the questioner is confused by a common "trick" of opening the lid while also spinning the little wheel at the same time in the hopes that someone will be impressed. -- kainaw™ 15:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ideology

What is that makes people think their ideas are the answer to existence's problems? Possibly this is a question for the science desk, for I am interested in the neurological reasons, as well as the sociological, cultural, and historical implications. It would almost seem that if everyone agreed on one course of action that it would all go smooth, but it seems too that one ideology's solved problems open another set of disadvantages, e.g. socialism or theocracy. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you what the behavioral phenomena is known as: positive illusions. You can take this to be right as I am never wrong about these things;-) --Aspro (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical corrections that do not advance the discussion need not apply — Lomn
Please. It's not a phenomena; it's a phenomenon. Write "This phenomenon is..." or "These phenomena are...". One is singular; the other is plural. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Illusory superiority? --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The OP also seems to be asking where on the nature/nurture axis it comes. I think it is the result of a neurological weakness (like say, being very bad at maths) which in some circumstances be reinforced by experience (say having overly uncritical parents who do not consider that anything little Johnny does can be wrong, so, if anything goes wrong it must be someone else's fault). Then a Authoritarian attitude or personality appears to develop.

A psychologist called Professor Bob Altemeyer has carried out some interest experiments on his students about the later personality trait. He explains this (in a very long winded fashion but well worth the effort) in his free download called The Authoritarians . Dominic Johnson maybe exploring the same thing in his new book, only I have not read it yet. Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions. [15]--Aspro (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal types of WHAT?

The article titled normal type is incomprehensible. I read the whole article. I'm guessing that it may be about types of people, but I can't tell from the article. I put a comment on this on the talk page in May and no one's answered! Can someone here shed some light? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)