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 15

Cloak

Are cloaks completely dead as serious garments? I imagine that a strong waterproof cloak would be a quite versatile piece of clothing. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all OR. A cape requires a lot of material, much of which is flapping around your legs. It weighs a ton because of all that extra material. It gets caught up between your legs, unless you can afford silk or cotton clothes and a silk or cotton lining on the cape, just with noraml walking. Forget trying to run unless you can bundle it up in your arms before you take off. You certainly can't ride a bicycle in one. Even sitting in a car, it is bulky and interferes with the operation of seat belts and gear levers. It is too big for the overhead rack on an airplane. If it is waterproof, the rain drips down onto your legs or footwear (including inside your boots). If it isn't waterproof, it gets soggier and soggier the whole length and then weighs two tons. The hem is always covered in muck if you wear it full length, and if you don't, everything drips and splashes right at the place where the cape ends. It is a lovely elegant garment when made of velvet or silk or satin and can be whirled about with great style and panache. It does, however, require a wardrobe mistress, a servant and a very leisurely lifestyle in order to show it off. You can hide things -and perhaps another person-under it and use it for a blanket or a pillow. For most practical purposes, it is a complete bust for modern life. That means, however, it is likely prime for a new fashion trend. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The last man who rocked the cloak the way it was meant to be was FDR. If he were here today, he could still rock the cloak. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a man who 'rocked the cloak' at least as effectively since FDR: Pierre Trudeau. this is the only picture I can find but I'm sure there are others. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In the developed western world, cloaks seem to survive mostly in uniforms, formal evening wear, and fancy dress outfits (wizards, Hallowe'en, etc.) but in some other parts of the world, such as Africa, you do still see them in everyday use - for instance, see burnous and bernos. Strawless (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that cloaks haven't gone anywhere, but like everything else, it has evolved. Look at the trenchcoat (or coats in general). That's essentially a cloak with holes for the arms. Name one advantage that a waterproof cloak has over a trenchcoat? 195.58.125.39 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They're still popular in some circles - especially amongst historical reconstructionists, folk music afficionados, some goths and the like, but definitely more for women than men. Steewi (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ponchos (the kind for girls/women that was recently in fashion, and then quickly out of fashion) might count as a cloak, as would a sort of a wrap to go with an evening gown. They've just changes style, perhaps? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 00:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of common use, yes; but dead? Try telling that to the girl in my year at school (along with her parents) who exhibit wonderful green velvet cloaks about 30% of the time. Freedomlinux (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would a Georgian minister say this?

I'm always hearing about the "Israeli-Georgian" connection in the 2008 South Ossetia War, but I don't believe it. But how do I explain the following?

From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010187.html

' Jewish Georgian Minister Temur Yakobshvili on Sunday praised the Israel Defense Forces for its role in training Georgian troops and said Israel should be proud of its military might, in an interview with Army Radio.

"Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers," Yakobashvili told Army Radio in Hebrew, referring to a private Israeli group Georgia had hired.

Yakobashvili, Georgia's minister of reintegration, added that this training provided Georgia with the know-how needed to defend itself against Russian forces in the clashes which erupted last last week in the separatist region of South Ossetia.

Yakobashvili said that a small group of Georgian soldiers had able to wipe out an entire Russian military division due to this training.' Haaretz.com, 11 August 2008

I'm trying to understand the political motivations behind these statements. Who are these statements directed to? Was he trying to rally Georgians? Or was he trying to encourage more military support from Israel? Was he trying to say to the Russians that Georgia is well trained and equipped? 203.217.36.198 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Western press, the Georgian press, the Russian press and the Israeli press all report that the Georgian army received support from Israel, perhaps it is time to stop being skeptical and accept that this is probably true. And why did Yakobashvili say these things? Well, he was interviewed by the radio station of the IDF, what else is he going to say, "your support didn't help us one bit"? DAVID ŠENEK 16:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Georgia receiving arms from Israel. I already know that this is true. I'm talking about the particular statement quoted and the political reasons for saying so.

I guess what you're saying is that Yakobashvili was trying to gain empathy from the Israeli audience listening. He was trying to build up support for the Georgian cause. Does anybody else have anything to add (or correct)? 124.171.166.27 (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a hopeless task to disentangle the confused and self-contradictory pronouncements of the Georgian leaders anxious to gloss over their ignominious defeat. As may be inferred from the Russian press, Yakobashvili is a Georgian Jew who recruited several recently retired Israeli generals to lead the Georgian units into South Ossetia. Quite a few Russian soldiers were killed with Israeli-made weapons. As a result, Russia offered to sell its high-tech weaponry to Syria. The Syrian leader visited Moscow immediately after the conflict to finalize the deal. That will make Israel think twice before selling their weapons to rogue regimes in the future. Naturally, Yakobashvili is anxious to retain Israel as a valuable arms supplier, hence his statement. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider along with Ghirla's remarks, the need to distinguish the "players": the Government of Israel (arms dealing), and these trainers (former IDF personnel now employed by private companies) are not equivalent to "its military," a.k.a. the IDF. Here's another source with more extensive content (including what's in the Haaretz link above), from the online English "ynet news" published by mainstream daily Yedioth Aharonoth. It distinguishes between the private companies' activities and those of the Israel Ministry of Defense. Of note in this type of reportage is the description of Georgian Defense Minister Davit Kezerashvili as "a former Israeli who is fluent in Hebrew" – but not long ago in the Israeli press I read that he attended one year of high school as an immigrant teen, then returned to Georgia. (The Israeli identity card is issued at age 16 while the age of majority is 18, so it may be techically true he's a "citizen who returned to his native Georgia.") I'm translating this from the Hebrew Wikipedia to correct the citation on his page here, as just because it was published in a newspaper article doesn't mean it's authoritative or reflecting reality; see the variety here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ghirla and Deborahjay. I believe that sometimes I can get a better understanding of an issue when I hear different viewpoints on the matter. Any further comments would be much appreciated. 203.214.118.24 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stadium music

In the US, if a stadium for an NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL team plays a popular song over the PA, do they have to pay royalties to a record company, like radio stations do?97.118.170.250 (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m sure they do, and the royalties are almost certainly paid to ASCAP or BMI, not to “a record companie." Radio stations don’t pay the record companies directly either incidentally. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, these things depend on how long they play the song for. I think under a certain number of seconds doesn't require payment, but once it gets beyond a point they have to pay. I remember this featuring in a Charlie Brooker Screenwipe episode where he explained loads of stuff about how much it costs to make even a basic tv show. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Recession and Depression

Are recessions and depressions absolutely necessary (to clean up after the market tested some options) or just residual risk (thing that get wrong even if we do our best)? Mr.K. (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See Business cycle. Some people argue that recessions serve the purpose of "cleaning the fat" out of the economy to "make way" for the following exansion. They put weak companies out of business thus ensuring that only the stronger ones survive. The employees (and other resources) from the bankrupt companies are put to use more efficiently in the stronger companies. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

History of science question

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Science Desk, but it feels more arty/historical than scientific, so will give it a go. Somewhere, maybe in a Borges story, I read that natural philosophers used to believe that where there was a disease, there would also be the plant that cured it - a kind of sympathy between the two causing one to grow in proximity to the other (I suppose like quinine easing the symptoms of malaria, both deriving from the tropics). Can anyone tell me the term for this school of thought and point me to an article about it?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sympathetic magic doesn't sound quite like what you're after, but it turns up in Traditional Chinese medicine. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Doctrine of signatures fit your requirements?--droptone (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The theory of humorism included plenty of ideas that are very similar to sympathetic magic. Scholars from Antiquity until the Renaissance made many "intuitive" associations between health conditions and the foods or drugs (the difference between the two were not particularly strict) that could fix them. Medieval medicine has more information on the application of humorism in the Middle Ages. See for example "Theories of medicine" and the example of the use of the plants skullcap and lungwort.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone - lots of grist for the mill - maybe I was wrong, maybe there was no such theory, about proximity linking disease and cure - still, got lots of grist from the mill from you guys. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what was that British battle?

Hello all. Came across an interesting question at WT:MILHIST, which has failed to get an answer there, and so I advertised the wonderful ref desk. So it's now up to you all to prove your worth! Gwinva (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I read a quote once, moons ago, about a British battle, probably WWI, with appalling losses for the British. It was so appalling that... if I remember the quote correctly.. some politician or general or other was trying to rebuild the British army, and someone remarked, "Can't you see, you're fighting against X?" where X is the name of the battle... sorry so vague. Thanks in advance. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There's the Battle of Fromelles fought North of the Battle of the Somme, with appalling losses for the Allies including the British. Could that be it? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are stats for battles here[1] which outrank this unless it's for a single charge, including the Battle of Passchendaele (80K British) in a summary here[2]. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the actual casualty figures Battle of Passchendaele is the one deeply enough embedded in the British psyche that someone is likely to have made the above remark. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the battle either, but I remember hearing a quote like that in the beginning of My Boy Jack (film). — jwillbur 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ovo vegetarians

Do ethical ovo vegetarians actually exist? I have a sneaking suspicion that ovo vegetarianism is, in practice, nothing more than a logical possibility. I have never met or heard of anyone who considers eating eggs ethical but drinking milk and eating cheese, yogurt, etc. unethical. At best, ovo vegetarianism may exist among people who in principle would be lacto-ovo vegetarians, but are lactose-intolerant, allergic to milk, etc. Has anyone else ever encountered someone who rejects meat, fish, and dairy products on ethical grounds, but accepts eggs? —Angr 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there is someone, perhaps someone who keeps hens in ideal conditions in their back-yard, but I have never heard of any organisation or religion that advocates this diet. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else ever encountered someone who rejects meat, fish, and dairy products on ethical grounds, but accepts eggs? See our article on this very creature! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My sister, believe it or not, is an ovo vegetarian (and i never thought it was especially weird until now...). She doesn't eat diary on ethical grounds however, more becuase she thinks it bad for her. but still, doesn't change the label..82.22.4.63 (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a close relative who doesn't see eating dairy food as unethical, but does not eat any dairy food, although she does eat eggs. she is not lactose-intolerant. There's a tendency to assume that all vegetarians have some ethical basis for their diet; it's not always an accurate assumption. Consider, in the non-vegetarian world, the kerfluffle over dolphin-safe tuna (a concept with little sympathy among tuna), or the many Americans who down hundreds of pounds of beef per year but are adamantly opposed to the human consumption of horsemeat. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware there are people who are vegetarians for other than ethical reasons. (I myself mostly eat vegetarian food, but not for ethical reasons -- you could call me an unethical semi-vegetarian!) But this question was specifically about "ethical ovo vegetarians", people who exclude dairy for ethical reasons, but include eggs. The anon's sister excludes dairy for health reasons; your relative excludes dairy for some unspecified reason that isn't ethics. So we still don't have an example of an ethical ovo vegetarian. —Angr 07:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake -- I didn't catch the "ethical" in the original question. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This question is impossible to answer with complete certainty. As you suggest, they probably do not exist; but who knows? There could be some person out there who loves animals but absolutely hates bird ova (the existence-of, not the taste-of). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, my first question, "Do ethical ovo vegetarians actually exist?" is probably impossible to answer with complete certainty, but my last question, "Has anyone else [here on the RD reading this question] ever encountered someone who rejects meat, fish, and dairy products on ethical grounds, but accepts eggs?" should be answerable. —Angr 08:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Consequences to acceptance of risky or bad debt by Federal Reserve

In recent months the U.S. Federal Reserve System (or the Fed) has agreed to accept billions of dollars worth of risky or bad debt from investment banks and other financial institutions, including the failed investment bank Bear Stearns. After the failure today (or yesterday) of Lehman Brothers, there is discussion of possible Fed intervention (further extension of credit). With the news today that AIG, a huge insurer in serious danger of bankruptcy is asking the Fed for a bailout, and with other major corporations likely to follow, I am wondering whether there are limits to the Fed's ability to prop up or resuscitate failing megacorporations. What are the possible consequences of the Fed accepting perhaps more than a trillion dollars of supposed collateral that may in fact be worthless? What are the consequences of lending hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations that may never be able to repay? And if there are no consequences, why doesn't the Fed just send a check for $1 million to every U.S. citizen? I have some understanding of finance but am a little baffled by the role of central banks. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The possible consequences would be losing the money... --Tango (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, they don't have an unlimited purse. Expect the foreign debt to balloon in the coming years. Also, sending a million dollars to every US citizen would be a bad idea even if they could. Inflation would skyrocket. 90.235.8.202 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

True. Even sending $300 to every American was a stupid idea. —Angr 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at pages such as inflation, national debt. There will be a limit to the number of firms a government can 'realistically' bail-out. The consequences of lending money that may never return could be positive (if it helps prevents a longer/harder depression) or negative (if it ends up that the depression happens anyway and taxpayers end up with a big loss with no notable upside). The value of money is not in the number itself, but in its purchasing power. If everybody was given $1m it would ruin the value of the dollar, having a horrific impact on the local and international economy, would hugely affect imports and exports and would make problems much worse. It's important to remember the value of a dollar (or any money) is in its perceived worth not in the amount written on the bill itself. (see Fiat currency, and gold backed currency - if that article is titled that) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, forget my question about $1 million to every U.S. citizen. Obviously the purchasing power of each dollar would then be much smaller than at present. But nobody has answered my main question, namely, what are the limits on action by the Federal Reserve and the government? Can they bail out every failing corporation and then everything will be hunky-dory? Or do they face any constraints? Marco polo (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The fed would be limited by its own balance sheet. Note that in some cases (like Bear Stearns), other banks also provide some of the capital to protect depositors. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It's not as much about the money itself as it is about Moral hazard. Mainly, if the feds starts bailing out some corporations, other corporations will, at the least, raise the probability of their being bailed out as well and will take more risks. With the Lehman call, the feds may be saying, we're not going to do this again. (IMHO, they should have kept their fingers out of Bear Stearns as well!) The money is an issue but, in the worst case, they can just go ahead and print more of it (devaluing the dollar of course) or go out and acquire more debt or some such not so good thing. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ba in finance, and good question. First of all, your thinking is slightly a Loaded question. The limits? I do not agree that there are limits. Its a hugely complicated issue. You could look at this from a legislative angle. What if congress passes a bill, and the president signs it, that says the limit of government bailout shall not exceed 10 billion dollars per year. Now that you have a limit, do you really think exceptional circumstances won't necessitate emergency bailouts? So if the limit on paper is $10B, and the de facto limit is undefined, what am I supposed to tell you?

The most logical way to look at this, is that government spending for these types of financial doomsday prevention, are best resolved on a case-by-case basis. In business school, we had to do a case study on Long-Term Capital Management. read that article, and it has some great links under the See Also section. The government should handle everything on a case by case basis, and only give out bailout funds when it is "worth it". They should not give bailouts when they're not worth-it. But you're question is way to advanced for me to properly answer it. Maybe you have an interest in politics? Sentriclecub (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentriclecub is obviously much more knowledgable on this subject than me, so listen to him :) Just to add a little bit to his answer: the federal reserve can't wave a magic wand and make money out of nothing (well, they could, but inflation would reduce the value of the US dollar so they would not be adding actual capital value), it has to come from somewhere, whether it is from taxes or from foreign lenders. But realize that the US government first of all has a pretty darn huge income stream, much higher than any single coorporation. And they can borrow huge amounts money without any problem at all. So to answer you question, what's the limit, well, the federal reserve can borrow as much money as it needs to. It doesn't have the kind unpassable limit you're thinking of.

However, as I said, they can't wave a magic wand and get cash. They have to pay interest on the loans it gets, which will come from tax-payer money in the future. So they can't go completely crazy. But the bigger issue is (as someone already said), moral hazard. Companies need to be able to sustain themselves, and if they think that the government will just bail you out anytime you run into trouble, companies will not make responsible choices. The actions the fed are taking right now are emergency tools. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were allowed to go under, it would seriously destabilize the world economy and very possibly lead to a new depression. Together, they hold a debt of around 5 trillion dollars. If you sum up what the entire world spends in a day on stuff, it's about 50 trillion. So the fed had to bail them out. They really had no other choice. 195.58.125.39 (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Charles Ponzi's operation illegal even without the Ponzi scheme?

In light of the recent financial troubles Wall Street is suffering through, I started to meander through Wikipedia articles (as you do), and I came upon the fascinating article on Charles Ponzi (I was reading the article on Goldman Sachs, and in the history section there was a link to Ponzi scheme). I knew about his Ponzi scheme and how it worked, but I hadn't heard about where the income stream from his company was supposedly coming from. The article states that he had built his business on the idea that in Italy (which had a very weak currency compared to the dollar), someone would buy lots and lots of international reply coupons cheaply, and send them to the US where they would be exchanged for postage stamps, which would then be sold at a profit. The article states that "[t]his was a form of arbitrage, or buying low and selling high, which is not illegal".

My question is this: how can this possibly be legal? Setting aside the fact that his business was failing and that he was using his eponymous scheme to make it seem that it wasn't, how can this fundamental business model be allowed to exist? I mean, he's basically taking huge sums of cash from the United States Postal Service, and not giving anything back. I mean, all money is paid to the Italian post-service. Why would the USPS allow that? It's basically stealing money from the government! And this part of his business wasn't kept from the public, it was well-known that this was what he based his business on (well, it wasn't, but supposedly it was).

In the article on international postal reply coupons, it says that "in practice the overhead on buying and selling the very low-value IRCs precluded profitability", and that since then, prices for the coupons have been adjusted so as to make this type of thing impossible. But my point is this: it's not completely infeasible that he could have built a business on this practice in the 1910s and 1920s, and in fact most people were convinced that this was actually what he was doing. And nobody was stopping him, not until his wider criminal actions were revealed. So why didn't the US government shut him down sooner, and saved all those poor people from losing their life-savings? 90.235.8.202 (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Without truly understanding the workings of this system, from what you state where is the illegal activity? If the US government is foolish enough to offer a product that can be redeemed for something that has a higher value than the purchase-price of the original product then anyone taking advantage is simply operating within the boundaries of the system. I don't see where in your details it amounts to stealing? They offered these coupons for sale at price X, they can validly be redeemed for stamps at price Y, if someone can find a way to make X cost less than Y then they can turn a profit. examples of arbitrage occur all over the place - the bookmakers who accidently set odds that make it possible to bet on all outcomes and still turn a profit, the company offering free air-miles that work out being worth more than the cost of the product itself (see the film Punch drunk love), the company offering vouchers that are worth more than the minimum-contract period required to obtain them. It sounds to me like this is much the same thing, an oversight that few people would A) notice and even fewer would go to the effort to exploit. Though i'm bound to be misunderstanding something. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But this is different. The coupons purpose was to allow people to send a letter from overseas and provide postage so that the recipient can respond. The purpose was never to allow large-scale trading of these coupons, Ponzi was clearly abusing the system for his own profits, to the detriment of the government of the United States. Certainly, one can argue that what he did wasn't technically illegal since he had found a loop-hole in the system, but it would take congress (or indeed, the post office) all of ten minutes to close this loop-hole (by, for instance, making it illegal to change the coupons in above a certain value).

And remember, this wasn't a private enterprise he was scamming, this was the US government. Different rules apply. If a bookie makes the boneheaded error where someone can bet on everything and make money, that's certainly unfortunate for the bookie, but it doesn't go much further than that. If a company offers frequent flyer miles with their products that exceed the value of the products, then they are only responsible to their stockholders.

But the profits that Ponzi generated (well, supposedly generated) came straight from the pockets of the taxpayers! His whole business model was to cleverly exploit a flaw in the system to steal money directly from the taxpayers! What sane government allows this to happen?

As for anyone not noticing, he had thousands of customers, and was personally made a millionare within six months, which he very publicly claimed came straight from the exchange of these coupons (it didn't, as it turned out). You'd think maybe someone at USPS or the Department of Justice would perk up and say "Hey, this dude has apparently stole millions of dollars from us! Maybe we should do something about it?" 90.235.8.202 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Or even "Hey, this dude says he's stolen million of dollars from the postal service, yet we don't see any loss of money on our balance sheets. Maybe we should investigate were he got the money". But they didn't, it was the media (thank god for the free press, huh) that exposed him. 90.235.8.202 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it was the intended use of the system is irrelevant, the system they produced evidently had a hole in it and some people exploited it. Different rules don't apply to taking advantage of a poorly considered product/policy. Certainly it 'feels' worse because innocent tax-payers are made to pay for government inability, but similarly innocent share-holders would pay for inept management/price-setting in the bookies example. A government is just a liable to stand by its fine-print as other firms. As unintended a consequence as this may be, until the loop-hole was closed 'exploitation' will continue. The government doesn't so much "allow" it, they simply don't disallow it. Obviously once enough attention has been raised it will eventually be stopped, but the problem with people exploiting weaknesses in systems is that they will always find new ways to do it. Benefit fraud is a huge problem for governments, though in many cases that includes breaking the law, but from the sounds of it was Ponzi did (in the coupon department) didn't go against the rules that were laid out - that it was against a government (and that taxpayers felt the pain) is a mute point, they are just as responsible as business for the ineptness of their decisions. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If coupon resale is not explicitly illegal (under the jurisdiction where it is being sold) then there is nothing illegal in buying it at the low asking price and selling it at the higher price. Arbitrage traders explicitly exploit these price inefficiencies and often, if the market is imbalanced but the low initial price has to be maintained, legal prohibitions against resale are necessary. Ticket scalpers are a good example of arbitrage traders and ticket scalping is prohibited by law in many areas (not that the prohibition works very well!). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 17:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting in Indiana

Hello, I am a student at Indiana University, and I am from Missouri. I registered to vote in Indiana, and I voted in the Democratic primary last spring. I plan to vote again come November, but I do not have any documentation of my voter registration with me in Indiana. What can I do, or what do I need to get, to ensure that I can vote in the coming elections? Thanks, 156.56.171.157 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to mail off for a absentee ballot from your local Missouri clerk. You wouldn't be allowed to vote in Indiana even if you had your registration as you are not a Indiana voter. If you qualify to vote in Indiana (I'm not sure) the deadline to register is Oct. 6 [3] - this link also recommends visiting the canivote.org website. Rmhermen (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's registered to vote in Indiana, why not? He should call the County Clerk of the county in which the campus he attends lies; if he's at Bloomington, this would be Monroe County, Indiana, and the County offices are in the local phone book - and linked to from our article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally, full-time students are eligible to vote where they attend school... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You do not need documentation of your registration to vote. If you registered and voted, then you are still registered at whatever address you used when you registered. The precinct workers often do not check people's identification at polling places, but that's the most they generally will do. So, if you haven't moved, just go back to the same polling place where you voted last time (unless you've received a notice that the polling place has changed). You might want to bring identification and some proof of residence, like a recent utility bill, if you're concerned that you might be challenged. You should be able to vote there. If you have moved since last spring, then you need to register again using your new address. You should do it immediately, as the deadline for registration for voting in November is probably very close. You can register with your town or county clerk or board of elections and perhaps at some other government office. Do some research in Google using the terms "voter registration Indiana" to find out your options for registration. Once you register at a new address, they will typically send you a postcard with your new polling place. Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's state-dependent, which is why you should talk to the county clerk; in some states, moving from one dorm room to another would not require reregistration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, voting in the Democratic primary does not indicate that the questioner is registered to vote. Primaries are run by the policital parties. The real elections are run by the states. It is trivial to vote in both Democratic and Republican primaries without being qualified to vote in the real elections. -- kainaw™ 18:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, this depends on the state. In my state, as in Maryland, primaries are run by the counties, under state authority, just like the general election. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am a former chief election judge in Maryland. (That means one of the two people in charge of a voting precinct.) I believe the practice here applies to Indiana as well. With that disclaimer: If you voted in the Democratic primary, you certainly were a registered voter at that time. The difference between a primary and a general election is that some states have closed primaries in which, for example, only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary. A registered Republican who wanted to vote in the Democratic primary would have to change his party affiliation by the cutoff date (usually several weeks before the primary). In other words, when you show up to vote in a closed primary, you get the ballot for the party listed with your name in the voting registry.

In an open-primary state, you will be asked which party's primary you want to participate in. Your registration doesn't matter, but you can't vote in more than one primary at a time, so you have to choose which party.

(None of this applies if you actually participated in a caucus, rather than voting in a primary. Did you have voting machines, a voter registry, all that jazz?)

In Maryland, the primaries are run by the state board of elections, not by the parties. (Election judges [precinct workers] are commissioned by the state.) That's true elsewhere: you will recall the flap in Michigan and Florida, where the party would have had to reimburse the state for the cost of re-running the Democratic primary. I believe but cannot say for certain it's true in all states.

The board of elections where you registered in Indiana (it's probably a county board, even if you voted in a city) should still have you on its rolls. Check with them ahead of time to be sure; your having voted in the primary tells me you're registered, and your name will appear in the voting register for the precinct where you voted in the primary.

If you show up at the polling place and for some reason are not listed in the register, you have the right under federal law to cast a provisional ballot. This is something like an absentee ballot; it will be compared against the lists of actual voters to ensure that you didn't go to more than one precinct and attempt to vote. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And, more importantly, to make sure you are registered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OtherDave got it. Also, there is no penalty for registering more than once, or in more than one place. The only restriction is that you can only vote in the last place you registered, and you can only vote once per election. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(original user here) Well, that was a bigger answer than I anticipated! I found this Indiana Statewide Voter Registration System, and I found my name in it under search results. I think this shows that my registration applies to both primary and election. It also had a note, "no additional documentation required", so is my driver's license pretty sufficient? I also changed addresses from my IU residence last school year, so do I need to update my address or is it no big deal? Thanks, 98.223.188.95 (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess that you'd have to update your residence: when I took an American government course a few years ago, my professor spoke of a close vote here in Pennsylvania that was overturned because tons of college students (who had voted for the measure) had moved addresses since registering, making their votes invalid; the vote was overturned because the margin without the disqualified students was a majority against. I'd definitely update it; there's no real reason not to, at any rate. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And if you don't, you will have to, at least, spend time on election day affirming your change of address. No reason not to do it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Law 109-2005 requires Indiana residents to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day, says the Indiana secretary of state. The link includes the requirements for valid ID.

<editorial>This is the bogeyman of voter fraud, a near-mythical crime feared mostly by political parties who can't sign up enough folks. I'm glad I'm not working a precinct in Indiana. As check-in judges for the 2004 election, my partner and I handled some 50 voters per hour -- that's about 70 seconds from "next, please" to "next, please"." Add 20 - 30 seconds for people fiddling with their ID, and you're going to need a lot more precinct workers. (The head of the Baltimore County board of elections, asked about the demographics of her workers, said that their average age was "deceased.") If you have nothing to do for 15+ hours on election day, plus set-up the night before, plus mandatory training, volunteer to be an election judge. If not, don't grumble at the lines. Blame your state legislature.</editorial>

You may want to look at 'a resident of another state attending college in Indiana' as well, especially the third and fourth paragraphs. Though if you already registered and voted in Indiana, then I guess they think you live there permanently. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say North Korea is a socialist republic?

When they are obviously communist? Also their official name is, Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But they aren't democratic, nor a republic. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Their view is that their society has reached the level of socialism and is now heading for the ideal state of communism. Obviously, neither applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And the natural extension of my colleagues answer is that they get to pick their own name ;) SGGH ^speak! 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a republic. North Korea doesn't have a monarchy. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So any government that doesn't have a monarchy is a republic by default? That's not correct. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Anarchies don't have monarchs, and they aren't republics. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there can be oligarchies and pure democracies, for example, but as the common people don't all make governmental decisions (it's not like ancient Athens or traditional New England town government), it's not a pure democracy, and as the government is officially all elected, it's not officially an oligarchy. "Republic" doesn't necessarily mean that the people get to choose who is in charge: even in the Roman Republic, most people didn't have a say. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a hereditary republic ;-) Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As was Florence.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Syria under the Assad dynasty is a "hereditary republic" (apparently)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that there are different kind of monarchies. Just because something is a monarchy, it doesn't mean that the people aren't in charge: look at the UK or Sweden, for instance. 195.58.125.39 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And now, for the umpteenth time on the ref desk, here is, the chart! Hopefully, it will serve its purpose and provide some understanding./Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The democracy/republic chart

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Brunei

Except that you'd have a hard time convincing everyone just exactly where North Korea fits in the table. There could be arguments for all 4 spots. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How would one argue that North Korea is democratic? 82.36.179.20 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They have elections therefore they are a democracy. Of course it's a one party system, but that is irrelevant in terms of describing a democracy. You still get to choose which member of that one party represents you (Though you really don't as it is an uncontested list system, the problem lies with the definition of Democracy). Fribbler (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The official title of the country asserts that it's a democratic republic. Some people might actually believe that; others see it as an undemocratic republic. In its choice of leaders it has operated more like a monarchy than a republic, and again, both democratic and undemocratic could be seen to apply. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree totally. I was just responding to the IP's question on how it could be considered a democracy. Fribbler (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Republic" has sounded good since the time of the Romans, and in today's world even kleptocracies, megalomaniocracies, and crime syndicates with pet parliaments find it necessary or useful to pretend that they have actual elections. And the Lincoln Rule applies to "democracy" much as it does to "leg." (If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four -- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.) --- OtherDave (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (added sig after noticing I hadn't added it)

Just trying to clear this up a bit:
• Republic - this only means that there is a body of legislators who each represents a constituency, and which convenes to discuss legislation and the nation's budget. Calling a country a republic does not mean that the legislators would have been elected, or appointed, or inherited their position (although each of these methods of selection are possible in a republic) - it only indicates that there is a legislation present. However, in order - technically - for a country to be considered a republic, the laws that its legislation passes should be upheld as the law of the land. Whether the executive ruler of the country adheres to these laws is another matter entirely.
• Democracy - indicates that at least some of the political leaders are chosen through some kind of an election in which at least some of the nation's citizens are allowed to vote. This doesn't mean that all of the people in the country get to vote, nor does it mean that all the country's political leaders are elected, nor does it mean that those who are selected to run for office were chosen through a democratic method, nor does it mean that any citizen may run for office, nor does it mean that the elections are held on a regular basis. All it means is that at some time in the recent past that there was an election in the country, regardless of whether there is another planned election in the future.
• Socialism - this means that a country has economic policies in which the government (state) actually owns and controls at least some of the country's institutions that produce goods and/or services. However, it goes beyond just maintaining a postal service, an education system, police and firefighting departments, and a standing military, among others. A country would be considered to be socialist when its government owns most of the nation's health care network (but not necessarily the health care networks for the needy and/or military veterans), the public utilities such as gas and electric (but not water and sewer utilities), airlines (but not airports), and banks (but not treasuries or certain housing mortgage firms such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Some countries that are considered to be socialist still allow private ownership of some businesses, while other socialist countries only permit state-owned businesses. If this definition seems arbitrary and silly, it probably is... The label of socialist is a very vague and confusing one.
• Communism - since North Korea is "supposed" to be following the teachings of Karl Marx, specifically his doctrine of Historical Materialism, a country may only be considered to be truly communist if it has passed through the phases of being capitalist and socialist first, which North Korea has not done, apparently. Or, at least it hasn't done so according to whoever in North Korea is in charge of giving the country its official name. Indeed, there probably has not yet been a nation that has fully realized Marx's vision of being a truly communist society. However, because there were countries that became controlled by a "Communist Party", they have been called "communist" as a result, even though technically they were not communist according to Karl Marx's definition.
So there ya have it - even after that explanation I would still not be surprised if you were as confused as much as before. Saukkomies 08:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't those definitions kind of pointless though? Because then technically almost every country in the world would be a democratic republic and a few are socialist, none are communist. It's not really helpful in understanding what these governments are actually like though. Saying you are going to spread "democracy" to other countries becomes a meaningless phrase. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not pointless, but it is complicated. People enrol for courses in political science to learn more. Saukkomies' definition of republic needs refining because a constitutional monarchy also has a body of legislators. On the other hand Saukkomies made a good job of explaining the definition of "communist". Even so, let me try to state it once more. There are two distinct definitions of "communist". 1) a highly egalitarian society (Marx's definition) and 2) a country run by a communist party (an everyday usage). North Korea doesn't fit under 1) but it does fit under 2). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I do totally agree that the definitions are pointless ... mostly. Because the whole subject of what constitutes a democracy, a republic, a socialist or communist state is so fraught with subjectivity and controversy. As per a constitutional monarchy, I'm sorry, but for better or worse, it actually IS a republic! A country may have a republican form of government and still have a monarchy. I do agree totally with what you say about communist countries, Itsemejudith. Saukkomies 23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi's hair

Was Gandhi bald later in life, or did he shave his head? The pictures I've seen of him in early years show hair, but never does he have any in later photos; and our article on him says nothing that I could find on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi voluntarily shaved his head in honour of those martyred in the name of non-violence in 1921.--Shahab (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting, Shahab. Is it possible to cite a source for this, though? Thanks in advance. Saukkomies 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The only source I could find on the net was Q27 in this online quiz. This is a reliable site so the information must be correct. I must add that probably another source can be found in this movie. I saw this movie many years ago, and in it there was a scene in which Gandhi shaved his head and stated that he was doing so in memory of the first martyr of the non-violent protests he initiated in South Africa. (Not sure about the date 1921 though; if he had shaved his head in South Africa that would have meant before 1915). I do not know the answer to RegentsPark question. Regards--Shahab (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Shahab. The reason I wanted to get this as solid fact is because I happen to teach high school history, and I cover the life of Gandhi quite thoroughly. I wanted to know whether this piece of information about his bald head was accurate, as it would be a great thing to help hold the students' attention. Saukkomies 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(Follow up Q) So did he keep shaving his head or did he go bald later in life? (Just curious!) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this article he kept on shaving his head, ergo didn't go bald--Shahab (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Only his hairdresser knows for sure. —Tamfang (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could ask at the Science Desk if hair contains salt: if so, perhaps we could say that he shaved as a precursor to the Salt March :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Returning to a Room from Childhood, How Small it Seems...

I feel like it was Proust, but I cannot find the source -- an author who wrote about the phenomenon - many people have experienced this - that when you return to your old home after many years it looks so much smaller than you remember.

Is there an author who wrote of this? Or is there a name for this psychological / phenomenological experience? Thanks Saudade7 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The phenomenon is known as 'growing'. A room from childhood appears smaller because the last time you saw it, you were smaller and took up much less space within it.82.36.179.20 (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. No. Saudade7 03:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Wolfe, You Can't Go Home Again. Or the singer/songwriter Charles Anzavour, in his La Bohème (video in French, with less-than-ideal English subtitles), with an artist recalling the past:

Quand au hasard des jours      When, by chance

Je m'en vais faire un tour     I made a visit

A mon ancienne adresse         To my old address

Je ne reconnais plus           I didn't recognize anything...

Ni les murs, ni les rues       Not the walls, not the streets

Qui ont vu ma jeunesse         Where I was young

En haut d'un escalier          At the top of a stairway

Je cherche l'atelier           I looked for my studio

Dont plus rien ne subsiste     But there was nothing left

Dans son nouveau décor         In its new getup

Montmartre semble triste       Montmartre seemed sad

Et les lilas sont morts        And all the lilacs were dead

--- OtherDave (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC) , who has forgot to sign comments three times today.

Yes, really, it's just because you're bigger. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought there'd be a word or simple phrase for it, either way. Steewi (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks every-helpful-one. I love Charles Aznavour, especially that mean-spirited "Je bois" song that I first heard on the Bob Dylan Theme Time Radio Hour. I, too, think there has to be a word for the phenomenon. I don't think it is just a result of growing bigger, because I have experienced this phenomenon since I have "become fully growed" -- for instance just last year I visited the Gustave Moreau museum in Paris and when I went back a few months later it seemed so much smaller than I remembered. A friend of mine tells me that the passage I am looking for might be in Proust's Swann's Way which I have just downloaded Here -- I will let you know the results of my quest. P.S. That La Bohème video is heartbreaking - the story of my life! Ciao Saudade7 22:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to write a geography essay on Rio de Janerio.

There are no specific things that I have to write about. Just Rio. What should I write about? Can anyone leave their, e-mail, msn or skype to help me further with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.147.129 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at Rio de Janeiro? This is a public page so I don't think anyone will provide you with any private contact details. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not nitpicking, just forestalling unwelcome comments from your teacher: You'll definitely get better marks (or at least you won't lose marks) if you spell Janeiro as Janeiro. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing a text

Is there anyone here who is ready to edit and considerably shorten a geography text which I have just written. If yes, please leave an e-mail or msn or skype id. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.147.129 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you're under the impression that wikipedia is the tip of a mountain filled with OCD dwarfs heigh-hoing 24/7 to fix mss from all over the universe in an attempt to bring perfection now, I have to say it isn't but I wish you luck. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think actually it is. Edison (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The correctly edited phrase would be "I actually think it is." DOR (HK) (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is "Actually, I think it is.". :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It actually is. Or it is, actually. What isn't so, is that the dwarfs are not drones in that some of them will choose not to snap up such an offering and will obsessively edit pedia things instead. Mebbe. Is there a difference between slave and volunteer? Should this be on the language desk? ... ∞ Julia Rossi (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm a suspicious bastard, I have to say that I'm having trouble with buying the idea that in the space of a couple of hours you went and wrote a geography text that's just so long that it needs editing and "considerable shortening" that you just can't do yourself. You wouldn't have, oh, I don't know, just copypasted our article (or some other article) on the subject and now need someone to weed out all of the unrelated crap from it, would you? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Travelling with friend

Hello. I'll be travelling with my son and his friend to the US in February from the United Kingdom and was wondering if it is okay with US Customs to allow my son's friend through with us even though she is not considered a family member? I ask because of the strict rules when travelling with children. All three of us are British citizens, will be travelling under the Visa Waiver Program and my son and his friend will both be 17 by the travelling time. Thanks, 86.145.104.161 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend calling a US embassy near where you live. They would probably have better information. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm wary of answering this question because it could approach being a legal question. The contact information for the U.S. Embassy in London can be found at http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ukaddres.html. —Angr 20:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would echo the advice to call the embassy. When I worked for an international railway company, we used to recommend that in similar situations, the parent of the child concerned should give a "letter of consent" to the responsible adult in the travelling party, stating that the parent has given their consent for the child to travel with them. DuncanHill (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The embassy has that information, but I would recommend having a letter of consent, even if it's not required, just in case someone tries to make a fuss. When I did an exchange program (from Australia, and not to the US), not only did we need a letter of consent, but it also had to be cross-signed by all custodians (even - or especially - if divorced) and by a notary lawyer. The worry was that there are often cases where a child is taken overseas by one of their parents after a divorce, but never come back. Steewi (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Country Names-- Czechoslovakia

Why is it that so many English speakers, even people in their thirties, are still calling the Czech Republic "Czechoslovakia"? It's rather strange to me, since it's been gone for 15 years and counting. It's also interesting that meanwhile, a Czech I know (citizen/national or not, anymore I mean) gets the name right. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, McCain's also got it wrong several times. (See National Missile Defense#Recent Developments.) I thought he was supposed to be an expert on foreign policy. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's partly because a lot of people haven't noticed that it's changed, and partly because there is no accepted one-word name in English for the Czech Republic. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Old habits die hard. Not only did they separate countries, but new languages were officially born. No more Czechoslovakian language, now it's the Czech language and the Slovak language. Steewi (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I was over thirty when the combined state ceased to be, but don't remember hearing of a Czechoslovak language. —Tamfang (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There was never a "Czechoslovak language". Czechoslovakia was always considered to have two main languages, Czech and Slovak. I think Steewi is confusing it with Serbo-Croatian, which is a language that got broken up as the country it was spoken in broke up. —Angr 07:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's plausible. —Tamfang (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The usual tendency is to minimise the number of syllables the speaker has to laboriously get through. That's why the abbreviations USA, UK and USSR (or Soviet Union, rather than Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) etc are/were in such common use. During the Soviet era, many people referred to the USSR by the (syllabically speaking) even shorter name Russia (usually not realising that this was a large part, but still only a part, of the whole Soviet Union). Czechoslovakia presents an exception to the usual rule, because it contains 6 syllables as against only 5 for "the Czech Republic" and 4 for Slovakia. I heard some commentators at the recent Olympics referring to athletes from "Czechoslovakia". I know that these particular people know that the country broke up years ago because I've heard them get it right on many occasions. But in the white hot heat of the final seconds of a closely contested race where the commentators are approaching paroxysm (in some cases, almost orgasm), I guess the brain goes into automatic and the old program's still in there. (Oh, there was never any such thing as the Czechoslovakian language). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's inertia. See also "England" rather than Britain or the U.K., and "the Ukraine" for a country whose language doesn't have the word "the." --- OtherDave (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there are still people whom I have met who refer to the whole region as Bohemia! Specifically, descendants of Czeck immigrants in Chicago, where there is a considerable and tradition-rooted community of Bohemians, refering to the fact that they are from Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic/Bohemia, and not that they are wild, rebellious, artsy youths. Saukkomies 08:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you English speakers introduce the toponym Czechia into your language? Is there any other European dialect that lacks this one-word term? --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because English has a phonological rule that -ia can be added only to stems at least two syllables long. —Angr 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Russia or India? :) The root of the problem is that most Slavic speakers use adjectives to denote their countries, e.g., Česko for Czechia, Polska for Poland or Rus'ska for (Kievan) Rus. But you have to come up with a noun if you want to render it in English. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Notably, Russia and India form their adjectives by adding -n, not by dropping -ia. If Czechia were a word, the adjective (and the name of the language) would have to be *Czechian, not Czech. But since the adjective is Czech, it can't come from Czechia. —Angr 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, on a linguistic level you may be correct. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples where the adjective have no regular connection to the name of the country, e.g. dutch, ivorian, chechen, so there is nothing preventing the convenient but irregular combination of Czechia/Czech . /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly heard the country called Czechia, and called it that myself. Algebraist 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have an article Names of the Czech Republic... AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think English speakers are having difficulties with Czechoslovakia/the Czech Republic, imagine the confusion between Czechia and Chechnia. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If we introduced Czechia, what would we do with the Central African Republic? Centrafrica? Before we start coming up with Czechia, we would have to recognise that in English we use Polish orthography for a country that has nothing to do with Poland. We don't do the same with Anton Chekhov (it's not spelled Czechov), yet his name is a cognate of what we call "Czech". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like saying "the Czech Republic" more than "Czechia". I have a feeling that the word "Czech" comes from Polish, seeing that "Czech" means a Czech man in Polish. Incidentally, (though this is vaguely related) I wonder how names (eg. Václav ==> Wenceslas, Jan ==> John) get translated. Interestingly enough, the name "Marie" seems to never be translated, or, at that rate, pronounced correctly. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 09:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh it's from Polish alright. We've had this discussion at least twice before in my time around these parts. I'd be fairly confident in believing that Polish is the only language in which "cz" is regularly pronounced "ch". English has borrowed "Czech" and related words from the Polish language. We've also come up with "Czar" (but that's a bastard of a word if ever I saw one; and I mean that in both senses of the word - and it's not pronounced "ch"). -- JackofOz (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We aren't introducing Czechia; it's already the prefered short English name as promulgated by the Czech government. And if we want to shorten the name, what's wrong with calling the CAR 'Central Africa'? Sure, it's imprecise, but a lot less so than America. Algebraist 14:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that, so ta for the info. However, a country that speaks a certain language doesn't get to decide how its name or any forms of its name will be rendered in other languages. It might suggest or request, but its promulgation cannot extend beyond its own territory. I know some anglophones do use the word "Czechia", but it hasn't achieved widespread use or any sort of formal recognition in anglophone countries, as far as I'm aware. And I doubt that it ever will. Czechia might sound ok to a czechophone (have I just coined a word?), but it sure doesn't sound ok to my anglophone ears. Not that my opinion is necessarily representative of anyone but myself; but if I think it's an extraordinarily ugly word - and I do - there's an even money chance others would have the same opinion. I honestly can't see it ever catching on, despite whatever the Czech government might have to say on the matter. (Famous last words, probably). -- JackofOz (talk) (or, for my New Zealand friends who may be watching this conversation, CzechofOz :)

Ha ha. Gwinva (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about Czechland? We call it Tékkland in Icelandic. Haukur (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reason we English speakers don't adopt the word Czechia into our language is because so many of us American English speakers (I can't speak for other English speaking nationalities) are barely aware that there had ever even been a country called Czechoslovakia in the first place, let alone that it broke into two separate countries, each with its own name. If you were to ask the typical "man (or woman) on the street" somewhere in the United States if they knew that a country called Czechoslovakia had existed, you'd be lucky to get 50% of the people to know about it. And to ask them if they knew that Czechoslovaki had broken up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, you would just get a blank stare about 99% of the time. Part of the reason for this is due to the fact that America is just such a huge country that it takes a lot of concentration just to keep up with what is going on in the US, let alone what is happening in other continents elsewhere. But another part of it is that a lot of Americans were simply not taught about world history very well in school. Be that as it may, don't expect Americans to be able to use the new name of the Czech Republic - or Czechia - any time soon. Saukkomies 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But even with the National Missile Defense stuff? At least McCain should get it right... Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 06:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Saukkomies, I can readily accept that "a lot of Americans were simply not taught about world history very well in school". But the bit about "America is just such a huge country that it takes a lot of concentration just to keep up with what is going on in the US, let alone what is happening in other continents elsewhere" - that does not wash with me at all. Not these days. It might have been true in 1950 (although even then I'd have difficulty accepting it); but certainly not now. If I'm wrong, what does it say about American journalism, Americans' ability to use the internet (for other than the latest fan gossip), the general impact of the information revolution on the USA, and Americans' propensity to undertake overseas travel? Not to mention Wikipedia's penetration of its home country. Has the Prague Spring been forgotten so completely? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually I have to reiterate it: I do perfectly believe that one of the reasons many Americans are ignorant of events occurring outside the borders of the US is due to the enormity of the country, and the sheer amount of information it requires just to keep up with events transpiring within the country. Think about it: there are 300 million Americans, making it the third largest country as far as population. The physical size of the country is enormous, too. There are fifty separate states - each with its own political and social tapestry that is constantly in motion. Quick - how many Europeans (or Australians) could name all fifty states, their capitals, and would be able to point them out on a map? If there are people in Sydney or Prague who would have difficulty coming up with the correct answers to these questions, then perhaps it might be easy to understand how it would also be difficult for people in San Francisco or Dallas to be able to do the same with questions about European countries that are smaller than most US states... There is only so much an average person can take in, and the relevance factor for most people is limited to what will most directly impact their immediate lives, and unfortunately the entire country of the Czech Republic fails that test for typical Americans... Saukkomies 13:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional Paradox

Does anyone know of an example or examples of inconsistancies in the U.S. Constitution? An example of what I mean would be something like one article that prevents another being fully enactable.

Thanks. --Rixxin (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Three-fifths compromise may be of interest - it isn't that it is inconsistent, per se, but rather it is a specific exemption to another segment. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have expert opinion that there is, but what the inconsistency actually is is not known; but it may survive: not all his papers have been read. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the 21st Amendment is incompatible with the 18th, but I imagine you're looking for subtler examples than that. —Angr 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the Gödel angle here is the source the article mentions: "What might have bothered him, though, was Article V, which places almost no substantive constraints on how the Constitution can be amended. He could have interpreted this to mean that, as long as an amendment is proposed and approved in the prescribed way, it automatically becomes part of the Constitution, even if it would eliminate the essential features of a republican form of government and obliterate virtually all the protections of human rights" (source).--droptone (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the Constitution was ratified by the original states in a manner that was inconsistent. Technically, it really should not have become the law of the land. The reason for this is that the law of the land of the early United States was based on the Articles of Confederation. The ratification of the Constitution should have therefore been done according to how the Articles of Confederation dictated. The 13th Article of these discusses how the Articles of Confederation would be changed, and says that: "...the Articles are perpetual, and can only be altered by approval of Congress with ratification by all the state legislatures." However, when the state legislatures convened and discussed whether to ratify the new Constitution (between the years 1787 and 1790), not all of the states supported it! Indeed, what really happened was that the Congress of the Confederation (the federal congress at the time) used NOT the Articles of Confederation to determine whether the new Constitution was to be the new law of the land, but rather they used the Constitution itself to determine this! Precisely, in the new Constitution, it states in Article Five that there were two methods that Congress (or a national convention requested by the states) could take in order to change the Constitution. Under the first method, Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Under the second method, two-thirds (2/3) of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments.
The Congress of the Confederation should have used the law of the land that was in effect at the time when the Constitution was being ratified by the various 13 states in order to determine to accept the new Constitution as the new law of the land, which would have been the 13th Article of Confederation. Instead, what happened was that the Congress of the Confederation used the 5th Article of the Constitution to determine its own ratification! Specifically, once two-thirds of the 13 states' legislatures had voted to ratify the new Constitution, the Congress of the Confederation approved it as the new law of the land - even though this was acting against the Articles of Confederation, under whose law they were supposed to be acting, which would have required that every one of the states would have had to have ratified the new Constitution before it would have legally become the new law of the land.
So, on June 21st, 1788, New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify the new Constitution, and this meant that at that point 2/3 of the states had ratified the new law, and so the Congress of the Confederation moved to incorporate the Constitution as the new law of the land, even though Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island had still not ratified it! Indeed, there were people in these four remaining states who had serious misgivings about the new Constitution, and there were those who were very upset that Congress had acted in this way, claiming that the new Constitution was illegally adopted.
Eventually, over the next 2 years, the four hold out states did vote to ratify the new Constitution, making it unanimous. However, the point is that at that time it was accepted as the new law of the land, it did so not under the rules that were governing the nation at the time. This would perhaps be an example of a paradox in the Constitution. Saukkomies 09:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Consideration of the Article of Confederation is a good slant but I disagree b/c as far as I am aware, the Confederation was a loose grouping to address common problems. It was virtually powerless. The Confederation did not incorporate English common law or current political theory. The framers of the Constitution were very aware they were establishing a new government based on British constitutional theory but bolstered by philosophy and classical literature. For instance, some patriots were rightly concerned about loss of state power to a more centralized and powerful government. The records show great deliberation and consciousness of what was happening in Philadelphia. Did the framers live within their apparent authority when they were sent to negotiage changes to the Confederation and immediately tabled improvements to the Confederation? No. Somehow, though, their actions were viewed as legitimate. Imagine the ACLU if a group of delegates decided to table the U.S. Constitution (imagine George Bush and executive power towards foreign policy and terrorism.) 75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with your summation that the Articles of Confederation were a "loose grouping to address common problems". The Articles of Confederation were accepted by the duly elected representatives of the people of the burgeoning republic of the United States of America to be the basis for the law of the land. It is true that there were some significant problems with the Articles of Confederation, but that is irrelevant to the point that they still were the foundation of the law of the land. If you would examine the Wiki link to the page that discusses the Articles, you will find that they indeed do spell out precisely what the process would be in order to amend or to change the law of the land - to adopt a new constitution. This process, however, was not adhered to by Congress. Additionally, it may be worth your while (if you're at all interested in this subject, and are not just trying to create argument for argument's sake) to read some of the newspaper articles that were published collectively as "The Federalist Papers". These were written under pseudonyms by three men who all served in the Constitutional Convention, and who were trying to convince the American people to adopt the newly drafted Constitution. The arguments they lay out are quite fascinating, and discuss the issues that Americans were concerned with at the time. Contrary to what many people are taught in school, the adoption of the Constitution was actually a rather difficult sell - there were many people who opposed the idea of Big Government, and that was what they saw the Constitution was creating. Also, it was not the framers of the Constitution who were responsible for what I was discussing, namely the method that was used to ratify it. And additionally, I must also disagree with what you said that the men who were sent to the Constitutional Convention lived "within their apparent authority when they were sent to negotiage changes to the Confederation and immediately tabled improvements to the Confederation". They were free to come up with whatever document they managed to agree upon, regardless of the outcome. In fact, looking at your posting there, I really wonder whether you actually bothered to read what I had written before criticizing it. It seems to me as if you were completely missing the main points in order to push forward your idea that the Constitution was an inspired document, which was really not the issue being discussed... Saukkomies 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All these were exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks people. Rixxin (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Any bit of law is bound to have loopholes and inconsistencies. I was amused by Analysis of the British Nationality Act from 1986 using a logic programming language. You'd have though nationality at least could be determined without contradictions and omissions but no way. I believe they get round it to some extent now by asking on what basis citizenship is claimed and only checking that, and you can't change your basis for a claim. Dmcq (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't even begin to give a better answer than the ones given above, but I have a little favourite among constitutional paradoxes: presidential succession. If the president and vice-president is killed, the speaker of the house would be the next in succession. But no person can hold office in two different branches of government because of separation of powers. So the speaker would have to resign from the house of representatives. But then the speaker is no longer the speaker, so she's (I'm using the female pronoun because of the current speaker) no longer the successor! So really, the next person in line is the Secretary of State! (the same issue would arise with the pro tempore of the Senate, thus skipping him too) 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion's Description of God/Universe

I know that some religions describe God as simultaneously immanent and eminent but which religions in particular do that? Also are there any religions that look at God as simultaneously a root cause and an emergent property? How about simultaneously personal and impersonal? 71.113.3.76 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are all sorts of people who believe contradicting things about God (e.g. that he is both personal and impersonal). I personally see this as incoherent as God cannot contain contradictions. However, to answer your question, I am wondering if you are thinking of the word "transcendent" to go with immanent? Christianity teaches that God is both transcendent (i.e. above all and thus not entirely explainable) and immanent (still ever-present and capable of revealing himself to humanity). This is not a contradiction but a complimentary thing. As for God being the root cause and emergent (also contradictory, but anyways), check out process theology. 68.31.82.188 (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As per your second question: you will find a fascinating give-and-take pursued by the early church and the Neo-Platonists of the opening centuries of the common era. Key thinkers are Plotinus, Origen, Porphyry and Augustine. Apparently, the early Christians appropriated pagan ideas of First Principle and Logos and gave them new names. The amalgamation of competing ideas about the godhead in centuries 1-4 is the reason that God is "simultaneously a root cause and an emergent property."Dukesnyder1027 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

September 16

Mexico's Independence

I am curious; didn't Mexico win independence from French this very day? If not, then what had happened in Mexico that they celebrate today? 66.230.106.85 (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

France? You mean Spain: Mexican War of Independence Fribbler (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

France came later; see French intervention in Mexico. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking possibly of the Battle of Chapultepec? 68.31.82.188 (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read Grito de Dolores? That's what is commemorated on the dieciséis de septiembre. —Angr 08:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing Sept. 16 with Cinco de Mayo. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

pattern of human

pattern of human, that called is 423 what is 4? what is 2? what is 3? everybody will passed this. maybe from philosophy tibetian. please explain to me..thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.93.37.88 (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the riddle: What walks on four legs in the morning, two legs in the middle of the day and three legs in the evening? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That most likely refers to the old riddle, "what walks on four legs in the morning, on two legs in the day, and three legs in the evening?" The answer is "humans" -- we crawl around as children (4 "legs"), walk upright as adults (2 legs) and lean on canes when we get old (3 "legs"). I doubt it has a lot to do with Tibetan philosophy, but then again, it's not like I know much about Tibetan philosophy. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a Greek riddle, see Sphinx#Greek traditions about sphinxes. It could have pre-dated it's appearance in Greek plays, but I've never heard of it being Tibetan. --Tango (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sphinx was Theban not Tibetan. DAVID ŠENEK 12:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Next you're going to tell me that Shakespeare didn't write his plays for lesbians! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be Claude Pepper. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says that he did? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fed's balance sheet

Pursuant to my question from yesterday, I read the section on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve System (Fed). If you look carefully at the assets and liabilities listed on the balance sheet, you find loans under the Term Auction Facility (mostly to shaky investment banks backed by questionable collateral) listed as assets. Because these loans (which look more and more like handouts) are listed as assets, they only make the Fed's balance sheet look stronger. So the Fed's balance sheet sets no constraints on the amount of money the Fed can use to bail out financial firms. (The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Treasury is a separate issue.) What I am trying to figure out is, how can there be a financial crisis if the Fed has an unlimited ability to bail out any financial firm? I sort of understand the issue of moral hazard, but why is it even an issue? Why doesn't everyone continue to play high-risk financial games, and why isn't the Fed playing backstop, boosting its balance sheet (on paper) with hand-outs to all of the players? What might happen if the Fed did this? Is there a concern that foreigners might not want to hold dollar assets if the Fed hands out dollars too freely, or is there some other practical constraint on the Fed's action? Thanks again. Marco polo (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If people don't pay back the loans, the Fed loses money. The state doesn't have unlimited funds - if would end up having to raise taxes or cut public spending to cover the losses. The Federal bank isn't creating new money to hand out, it's lending existing money - printing billions of new dollars would cause hyperinflation (which would be roughly equivalent to a tax on people holding cash). --Tango (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fed is different from the state. I don't think it's state-funded. Also, I am fairly certain that the Fed can create new money. I am hoping that someone on the desk will be able to answer my question. The world's most important central bank should not be so mysterious! Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Federal Bank can make new money, but that's not what it's doing in this case. You're right about the Fed and the state being separate, I'm not entirely sure what would happen if the Fed went bankrupt, but I expect it would end up costing the public money in some form or other (via either tax or inflation). --Tango (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Federal reserve notes (i.e. money) are backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government". See Federal Reserve Note#Value. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Which means almost exactly nothing - it's fiat currency, it has value because people believe it has value. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear this criticism of the Fed a lot and it makes no sense to me. Nothing has value unless people believe it has value. More fundamental is supply and demand. The dollar and other "fiat" currencies are valued because they are kept relatively scarce (or not depending on monetary policy). —D. Monack ^talk 00:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Most things have value because they serve a purpose. A brick has value because I can use it to build a house. A dollar only have value because the person selling bricks is confident that the person selling him his dinner will accept it as payment, and so on ad infinitum. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it means that the government may levy taxes or borrow to pay the fed's debts (if the fed goes bankrupt). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What debts? The only thing the Fed has to redeem a dollar for is a new dollar. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on central banking but I disagree with your comment that "the Fed's balance sheet sets no constraints . . .". If the fed (or anyone else) lends money (to anyone) then it will take cash out of its bank account and give it to the borrower (so the fed's assets will decrease) and then record the loan as an asset (so its assets will increase again). The net effect to the balance sheet will be zero (calm down, nitpickers). I think you perhaps understood the handing out of a loan to strengthen its balance sheet, right?

If the loan is not worth the cash that was handed out then you would expect its balance sheet to deteriorate (assuming the loan value is recorded correctly). So when I said earlier that the fed is limited by its own balance sheet, I was saying that if the fed buys risky assets and loses more than $40bn (its capital) then it will be unable to meet its own liabilities, which are primarily federal reserve notes and deposits from other banks. Defaulting on these liabilities would really be an extreme event. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Although the US government could, in theory, default on its liabilities when they fall due, I think it would be far more likly to raise funds by issuing more bonds, in effect rolling over the debt (this happens all the time), or by increasing the money supply (metaphorically "printing more money"). Of course, this is not a "get out of jail free" card, because if a government does this too much and too often it fuels inflation, devalues its currency, and will eventually lead to its bonds being downgraded. There is no rule that says government bonds must be AAA rated, and the Main issuers table in our List of government bonds article shows a correlation between a government's financial liabilities as % of GDP and the rating of its bonds. So there are constraints on national debt, but they are soft rather than hard constraints. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all, and particularly to Zain Ebrahim and Gandalf, whose answers were enlightening. Marco polo (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bible

Hi! Is New Testament also part of old Jewish literature or not? I think that only Old Testament is part of it? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See Tanakh. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the Tanakh (called the "Old Testament" by believers in the "New Testament") is the basic Jewish scriptures, what Jews call "the Bible." The "New Testament" is not Jewish scripture, and it is not Jewish literature; it is not part of the Jewish religion. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, most of the authors of the New Testament (except Luke) were Jews. —Angr 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without splitting hairs nor delving exhaustively into the "Who-is-a-Jew?" issue: The noun "Jew" or adjective "Jewish" can mean either an ethnicity or adherence to the religion Judaism that does not avow the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and still awaits the [first] coming of the Messiah. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, wait a minute here. Luke was a Jew. He was a Jew with a classic Greek education, but that does not mean he was not Jewish. It's just like comparing him to a modern Jew with an education in a public high school in the United States, who would still be considered a Jew. Saukkomies 18:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to split hairs that far, technically, Jesus himself was a Jew. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course he was. What else would he have been? Saukkomies 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's nothing to do with splitting hairs. Jesus was totally, completely, 100% a Jew. Some Christians (and I stress "some") seem to conveniently forget this when it suits their anti-semitic arguments. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Jesus was God, and therefore not human, then he wasn't really a Jew, was he? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that the dogma says he was simultaneously totally human and totally divine. In his humanity he was a Jew. In his divinity, he was of no ethnicity or religion; rather, the source of all ethnicity and all religion. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all dogma says that; monophysitism for example. I can never sort out who believes what kind of christology but debates over Christ's exact nature is pretty much why there are so many types of Christian churches. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's put it this way. As far as the Romans were concerned, he was a Jew. And as far as the other Jews of the time were concerned, he was a Jew. It was his alleged claim to be King of the Jews that saw the Jews and the Romans collaborate to have him put to death. And what was put on the cross - a sign with the Latin initials INRI, which stood for the Latin equivalent of "King of the Jews". The sign was also in 2 other languages just so that nobody had any doubt what his crime had been. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here. Was Jesus considered Jewish at the time? The answer to the question is surely yes. In Christian theolology, was Jesus Jewish is however a different question. Aside from the issue of monophysitism there is also the issue of did Jesus actually inherit any genetic material from Mary? I'm not sure if there is any consensus on this even among the modern Chalcedonian believers. If you believe Jesus did not have a father then it's conceivable you can believe Jesu's birth mother was not his biological mother. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject at hand, I have given this some considerable thought. My first reaction was, of course - the New Testament is NOT part of old Jewish literature. But then after some thinking, and delving deeper into Angr's comment, I could see how one could argue that the books of the New Testament do belong to the broader category of writings done by ancient Jews, and could therefore be considered to be part of the legacy of historic Jewish literature. On the other hand, even though the authors of the New Testament were Jews, they were also Christian, and there is a difference between these two things. It would be similar to saying that Gautama Buddha was a Hindu, which he was, but he was also the founder of Buddhism. And his teachings belong to Buddhism, not to Hinduism. So, to come full circle, I have to return to my original presupposition that the books of the New Testament are not Jewish literature, but Christian. Interesting quesion, Atacamadesert. Saukkomies 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: some of the New Testament is Jewish literature (i.e., written by Jews and reflecting a Jewish world view) but it is not Jewish scripture. Keep in mind, that while Jesus and most other early Christian figures were Jewish, authors of the various books of the New Testament may or may not have been Jewish. —D. Monack ^talk 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, every single author of all of the books contained in the New Testament were Jewish - that is, if they actually existed. Saukkomies 05:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The authors all existed (that is, someone had to write them), it just may be that they are not who the Christian establishment thinks they were (that is, not Matthew the Evangelist, Mark the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, John the Evangelist, Paul the Apostle, Saint Peter, James the Just, Jude, brother of Jesus, etc.). -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Saukkomies, it is not at all certain that Luke was Jewish, at least by birth. According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, "many considerations support the early Christian tradition that the author [of the Gospel according to Luke] was the physician Luke, a Gentile convert and friend of the apostle Paul (Col 4.14; compare 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 24)." Now if Luke went through the procedure of converting to Judaism in order to become a Christian (a common practice at the time), then he counts as a Jew; but some people were content to baptize Gentiles as Christians without making them officially convert to Judaism first. If that's how Luke became a Christian, then he doesn't. —Angr 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edification, Angr. Certainly I must have overlooked that in my studies of the New Testament. However, I still hold that your previous statement, in which you said that: "most of the authors of the New Testament (except Luke) were Jews", is inaccurate. The most you could say would be that there is some speculation that Luke was not Jewish... Saukkomies 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. —Angr 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Help me identify my vacation photos

I photographed this statue in the gardens of Chirk Castle and I can't find any information about it online. Does anyone know who sculpted it or who it depicts? There are more pictures at the Language, Miscellaneous and Science desks. Thanks, BenRG (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not obvious in the thumbnail that she's clasping flowers to her chest and her foot is stepping on a snake. The snake especially made me think the statue alludes to some particular legend. I just had the bright idea of searching Wikipedia and the web for "stepping on a snake," which turned up a few references suggesting that it's symbolic of the Virgin Mary. I'm still not sure about the flowers, though. -- BenRG (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is one of four bronze nymphs introduced into the gardens by Lord Howard de Walden, who leased Chirk from the Biddulphs from 1911. "These were modelled by Antonio Luchessi, a leading sculptor of the Victorian age" says Garden Guide, but the name seems misspelled: either Antonio Lucchese or Lucchesi would be possible, but this name is unfamiliar to me.--Wetman (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Very cool statue. Saukkomies 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly Andrea Carlo Lucchesi (1860-1925), a London born and trained sculptor of Italian / English parentage. There is a sculpture of his, depicting Queen Victoria, in Bath (the city, not the tub for royal ablution). I can´t find anything about an Antonio L. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrea Carlo Lucchesi's father was also a sculptor. From this [4], it appears that young women in their scanties were very much his (the son's) thing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I found the Garden Guide page but I couldn't make it fit with what I'd seen. I saw a total of four statues in the garden: two that could be described as "naked nymphs," this one, which wasn't naked and didn't look much like a nymph, and one of Hercules which was even less nymph-like (though he was nude). I thought I'd missed two of the four nymphs and this statue was unrelated. But maybe Garden Guide got the description wrong (they got the sculptor wrong, after all) and this was one of the four Lucchesis. Or maybe there are only three. -- BenRG (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I googled together a starter entry for Andrea Carlo Lucchesi, using your illustration!--Wetman (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes me think of Eve, with the flowers and the apron. Stepping on a snake brings to mind Genesis 3:14-15: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." --Masamage ♫ 04:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thread bookmark

You know how some old books come with a thread attached to the spine that one can use as a bookmark. Any idea if that thread has a name? Thanks. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article calls it a "bound bookmark". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee, all I had to do was look (lazy son of a ..., that's me.) Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 19:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

US Constitution on creating new gov't departments

Does following the constitution have any implication on the ability of congress to create new departments, such as the Department of Education?

I was having a discussion with someone who was supporting the proposal to get rid of the Department of Education, and he supported his argument by saying "Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to establish the dep't? Don't you want [your candidate] to follow Constitutional limits on government?"

Is this person's argument logical? If not, what is the best response to this? My first inclination was to say "If the constitution doesn't mention it, the constitution doesn't apply to it," but I wasn't sure if 1) this was true, and 2) even if it were, if this would be the most accurate way to put it.

Any help much appreciated, thanks!

— Sam 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless the constitution (presumably of the US) specifically limits the ability of the DOE (as in "thou shalt not set up a dept. of education"), there is no bar on having a dept. of education. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:41, 16 September 2008 (UTCC

Congress needs no express authority or permission to establish a cabinet level executive position. The framework of the Constitution implies powers to carry out the responsibilities. There is no limit in the Constitution express or implied setting up the Department of Education. The argument is almost comical. No one has even challenged its constitutionality by filing a lawsuit. Democrats, Republicans and Independents, legal scholars on both sides, the present Court agree on the DOE's constitutional status. A much more persuasive argument with some credibility would be that it is not politiically wise to have a DOE. The remedy is through the political system. Courts are barred from making such judgments.75Janice

I believe the Constitution is silent about all specific departments. Article II, section 2, says that the President may require the written opinion of "the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments." Article I, section 8 gives Congress the power to make all laws necessary to carry out its powers, those of the government, and those of any "department or officer thereof."

So there's as much (or as little) rationale to abolish the Department of Agriculture, or State, or Justice. But leave Homeland Security alone; it's four years and counting, and they've got enough problems. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In Canada there is a section that says anything they didn't think of in 1867 is up to the provinces in the future (so, education, highways, stuff like that). Is there something similar in the US? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The tenth amendment says that powers not delegated to the United States (meaning the nation), nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. Education was traditionally a state and local function; that's one source for the contention that the Department of Education is unconstitutional. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; see also Wickard v. Filburn, which eviscerated the Tenth by making the Commerce Clause a blank check. I'd say Congress can erect executive departments and call them whatever it likes; but schooling is neither its proper concern nor constitutional. That no one has sued to abolish the DoE may be because the courts (appointed by the same officers they're supposed to restrain; whose idea was that?) have ruled that mere taxpayers have no standing to sue for misspending of our money. —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See also: Enumerated powers. —D. Monack ^talk 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering I owe the U.S. Department of Education over $14,000, I wish the Republicans would hurry up and abolish it already. —Angr 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Congress has been establishing new Departments since the 18th century (e.g. United States Department of the Navy). Your friend might as well argue for the abolishment of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and so forth as well, by his argument (I see no reason that education should be any special case). In any case, it seems rather unreasonable to me (not a Constitutional scholar, mind you) that the federal government would be expected to be disbarred from creating additional departments and agencies as needed for its own administration. Whether the departments or agencies have any specific power seems to me to be the Constitutional question—and one that has come up quite a bit—not whether the agencies or departments can exist. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

--98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust

This sounds really dumb, but when did it begin? Did it begin in April 1933 when organized boycotts against the Jewish people began. Did it begin in 1935 when the Nuremberg laws were introduced. Did it begin in 1938 when Kristallnacht and ghettoization occurred. Or did it begin in 1941 when mass murder was introduced as a method of eradicating the Jewish population. Also why does our article state that the Holocaust is generally regarded as the genocide of the Jews? Do they have a rationale for not including the very many other groups who were killed by the regime? --Thanks, Hadseys 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article Holocaust? Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(Corvus and I got here at the same time.) When it began is a matter of judgment; the Holocaust was not a discrete event like the sinking of the Titanic or the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. You could make a case that it started when the Nazis came to power in January, 1933. Hitler himself wrote, "Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews." When the official government advocates murder and has the means to carry it out, things like discriminatory laws, intimidation, and the technical aspects are tactics, not strategy. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the Nazi regime persecuted and killed its opponents and those considered "undesirables" on a variety of grounds (political, sociocultural, ethnic, etc.), and those on the basis of ethnicity ("race") could arguably be termed genocide. The use of the capitalized term Holocaust in reference to the extermination of European (or world) Jewry was chosen to reflect the pervasive, extensive, and fundamental scope of Nazism's antisemitism in theory and practice, word and deed, and the immense scale on which this genocide was enacted as "the answer to the 'Jewish Question'." -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So far as the Jewish victims are concerned it could be considered to have started as early as Kristallnacht or to have started after the Wansee Conference. I do not see why it should be limited to Jewish victims of the Nazis, since other groups were designated for genocide and also have millions of victims. Edison (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to have to have a definite year, I'd say 1942 when the policy of the Final Solution (this was when the Nazi goverment made the decision completely exterminate the Jews) was finalized, and the extermination camps were set up. But I agree, it's kinda silly to set a solid date, by 1942 one million Jews had already been killed. But that's as close to a definite date as you're gonna come. 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

September 17

World Food Prices

What's the status of world food prices right now, are they still unbearably high compared to...Oh say, 2 years before? 99.226.24.150 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Complex subject. I'm going to point you here for better analysis than we could give. But the short answer is, for some, prices are unbearable. For most in the west, they're merely a slight annoyance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the IMF (annual data back to 1980: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/WEOApr2007alla.xls), the big run-up in wheat and rice prices was in 2004-05, barley in 2006-07, and most other grains in 2007. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Xidan

Any sources for the shopping area in Beijing?Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This search may help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regional Government in England

The provincial governments in Canada have certain roles and responsibilities separate from the federal government in Ottawa. This is also true of the US states. I am curious how it is broken down in England. As there is no provinces or states per say, are there regional government responsibilities that differ from county to county? Does for example Somerset have a rules or laws that would be different from Norfolk or Kent in terms of maybe health care, education or tax rate? I am not interested in every law - just an idea on how responsibility is divided in England overall.142.177.144.118 (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You may find the article Local government in England helpful for an overview. Nanonic (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Local authorities in England & Wales don't generally get to make laws - they can only make (relatively trivial) bye-laws. They are mostly concerned with the administration of local services (education, transport, waste disposal, social services etc) and have some control over the budgets and policy for these (within national limits). They also have some control over the rates of tax (Council tax and Business Rates), but again these are subject to national regulation, and in any case a large part of local revenue is in fact from central government. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Check whether you actually mean England or the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales now have much more autonomy than they once did. And Scottish law and Scotland's education system have always been different from the equivalents in England. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also look at Regional assembly (if an article exists?) - there are regional assemblies in the Uk. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

London is the only English region to have an elected regional assembly, the other 8 Regions of England do have regional assemblies, but these are unelected bodies composed of councillors from counties and boroughs within the region, and they don't actually have much authority - they're mainly a method of passing central government funds down to the local authorities. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to be too much of a pedent how do we define 'authority'. Regional assemblies certainly have a lot of power to influence and impact upon local-government policy. Power in the country may be formally quite centralised but in practice that is not especially the case. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

poem by douglas macarther

looking for a copy of a fathers prayer attributed to general macarther, any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.216.68 (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you are [5], it appears it wasn't by MacArthur though. DuncanHill (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Goverment buying bad debt

What is the point of buying bad debt? Can't the government simply let these people fall? It could also help the poor with some sort of bonds it that is the matter. If I personally run into too much debt with my credit card, it is my fault, isn't it? It would only mean that the guys at Wall Street aren't the smartest guys on town. Mr.K. (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Because not buying it may have potentially worse consequences for the economy. See Too Big to Fail policy. Remember that a bank's liabilities are its promise to repay depositors (and policyholders for insurers). Some reasons for the recent AIG bailout are given here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What about a preemptive intervention? It would have potentially less consequences for the finances of the government. Mr.K. (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that, in this case, rely on time travel? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bailing out a big bank is a very drastic action, so governments don't want to do it unless it's clear they have no choice - that means waiting until the last possible moment. --Tango (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Related to Zain's answer, these financial giants are parties to a huge number of derivative contracts. Greatly simplifying, these are contracts between Party A and Party B, which say something like "Party B pays Party A $X. Then, if Event Q happens, Party A pays Party B $Y." These can be bets on stock prices, oil prices, credit defaults, whatever. The total amount of money at stake is staggering—possibly much, much larger than what either company is worth. Normally, this is OK, because a company's portfolio of such contracts will be largely offsetting—some contracts will pay off if oil goes up, and some will do the opposite. Now, if Company A, which is worth $10B fails, but is a party to derivatives contracts that involve $100B or $1T, there's a lot of other companies—the counterparties to these contracts—that are well and truly screwed. AIG, in particular, wrote a lot of contracts that pay out in case of credit defaults. We now know that there's going to be a lot of credit defaults. If AIG can't pay out in a default event, then all those other companies could end up going under, as well. This problem is called counterparty risk, but our article is weak in the context of derivatives. The point of a bailout is not really to help AIG, it's to keep it from taking a lot of other companies down with it. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@Zain: very funny, but no, I was not asking about a concrete case like AIG.

It is understandable the huge amount of wreckage that a bank can make. And that is exactly why the government should intervene when the banks start to take more risk that they can cope with. The question is what instruments of early intervention does the government have.Mr.K. (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See Bank regulation and Capital requirements in particular. But these are clearly not enough. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another factor affecting this decision is that BIG MONEY people have a lot of political clout. Saukkomies 08:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Consequences of government buying bad debt

So, once again, the government (or in this case its unelected quasi-arm, the Federal Reserve) has propped up the house of cards of derivatives by bailing out another megacorporation, justifying its action by saying that the risks to the economy were too great for it to do otherwise. Clearly, the risks were high for the ultrarich who have parked their money in hedge funds that have bought the risky derivatives backed by AIG. What nobody seems to address is the risks or consequences of government (or Fed) bailouts to the taxpayer or the long-term health of the economy. What are those risks or consequences? Could these bailouts have a long-term net benefit for the ultrarich at a long-term net cost to the ordinary taxpayers who will have to foot the bill? Marco polo (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the ref desk. If you have a genuine question, then ask it, if you just want to rant, go elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a tangent, one reason for buying bad debt (meaning debt that doesn't look like it'll be 100% repaid) is that you pay a discount because you expect to make a profit based on your outlay. If MegaStore has $100,000 in past-due bills, it might be willing to sell them to me for $50,000 in order to avoid the expense of trying to net more than that itself. Meanwhile, I've got skilled collections people and believe I can net $10,000 after my expenses. If I manage that within a year, I've got 20% return on my initial investment. (Not that the government is doing this -- but what the heck is with the 79.9% figure for AIG shares?) --- OtherDave (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the expense of collecting, it's the risk. MegaStore may not be willing to take the risk of people defaulting whereas you are. You are basically offering MegaStore insurance - in exchange for them paying you a fixed amount (in the form of the discount on the debts) you will absorb any losses incurred, that's exactly what insurance companies do. --Tango (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First Survey of Wikipedians

Does anyone know when the recent survey of Wikipedians will start reporting its findings? This survey is a collaboration between the Wikimedia Foundation and UNU-MERIT, and was announced as starting this January. It was said that preliminary findings would be reported to the Wikimania conference held this summer in Alexandria. I have tried emailing both the institutions doing the survey, without any answer. Dano'sullivan (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Elton John

I am planning to dress up as this rather flamboyant musician for Halloween, and (I am female and it's going to be awesome and) I would like to be able to plop down and play at least one of his songs if I am challenged to do so. I do have a small amount of piano-playing ability, I can read sheet music, and I have a lot of time to practice. What I don't know is which of his songs would be the easiest to learn and play. Any suggestions? Or alternatively, better places to ask? --Masamage ♫ 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I can play "easy" versions of Candle in the Wind and Can You Feel the Love Tonight. I'd recommend the first of those, naturally. I can't remember what books I got them from though, sorry, but I'm sure google knows. I'll post back if I remember &/or find it. AndyJones (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I found Your Song to be fairly easy to learn. --LarryMac | Talk 18:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is of course terribly subjective. I'd suggest Rocket man, Daniel, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Nikita or Crocodile Rock. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the music to any of his songs, but I was also going to suggests Daniel. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! Goodbye Yellow Brick Road is my favorite, but it's got some tricky little flourishes in it, so I'll look into all the rest of these, too. Whatever the case, though, I can always just leave the hard stuff out. X) --Masamage ♫ 17:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

20 most important world dates

From christs birth to the present day, any takers? --217.227.96.141 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few possible considerations:
• May 20, 325 - The First Council of Nicaea is convened under orders from Emperor Constantine, the result of which will become the Christian Church.
• March 31 to April 25(?), 627 - The Battle of the Trench in which the supporters of Muhammad defeat a confederation of their enemies, the Meccans, some Arab tribes, and a few tribes of Jews. The result of this battle was a permanent weakening of Muhammad's enemies, and the military ascendancy of the Islamic forces.
• October 14, 1066 - The Battle of Hastings, in which the English language eventually doubled its vocabulary with many new French loanwords, among other consequences.
• April 12, 1204 - The sacking of the city of Constantinople by Crusaders from Western Europe, thus permanently weakening its ability to fend off Muslim Ottoman Turk invaders
• April 5, 1242 - The Battle of the Ice (also known as the Battle of Lake Peipus), which checked the eastward advance of the Teutonic Knights and the spread of German/Prussian influence, thus preserving Russian independence.
• October 12, 1492 - Christopher Columbus discovers the New World.
• October 31, 1517 - Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, thus beginning the Protestant Reformation.
• July 14, 1789 - The storming of the Bastille in Paris, inaugurating the French Revolution
• June 28, 1914 - Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria inaugurating the beginning of World War I.
Saukkomies 20:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quibble - I don't think an assassination qualifies as an inauguration. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Saukkomies 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think an assassination lacks the sense of occasion that an auguration involves. My Merriam-Webster defines inaugurate as

1: to induct into an office with suitable ceremonies

2 a: to dedicate ceremoniously : observe formally the beginning of <inaugurate a new school>

b: to bring about the beginning of. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So, what would be so wrong to use the word "inaugurate" according to the definition 2b above, namely, that Archduke Ferdinand's assassination brought about the beginning of World War I? It seems as if you're just digging yourself a deeper hole... A piece of advice here, Wanderer57: before you go out of your way to criticise someone, make sure you have solid facts behind you, otherwise you may end up appearing to be a bit foolish. Saukkomies 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Saukkomies: By labelling my comment as a quibble, I thought I signaled that I was raising a small point. I'm sorry you took it as anything more.

Would it be petty to go searching for support for my point of view on the "inauguration" issue? ... Yes, I think it would. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your compassionate response, Wanderer57. How about we make a pact where we will trust that each other is not out to criticize the other, even though such an interpretation may be warranted from initial superficial reading of a particular comment? I tell you what, I actually do sort of like how I used the word inaugurate in the context that I did. I had no idea that it would be conroversial at all. However, if it really bothers you that I've used it in the way I did, I'll strike it out and put in another word that will satisfy your preferences better. Saukkomies 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree to your proposed pact.

Please do not alter anything you have written, or write in future, in response to a quibble of mine. It would be an overreaction. (Moreover, in this instance, changing "inaugurating" to something else would render this entire discussion well nigh incomprehensible. I expect you would agree that that would be a loss.) Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh! Well, actually what I was proposing was to strike out the word, which would give me the chance to use the fancy strike out feature in the Wiki editor. Hee hee! Saukkomies 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Corvus, I see you beat me to the Battle of Hastings, which I later added after my first post. Saukkomies 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

October 14, 1066 - the Battle of Hastings. The Norman Conquest meant that the small, isolated Germanic kingdom of England would become tied to the continent, leading to the Anglo-French wars. Corvus cornix_talk 20:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

September 28, 480 BC: the Battle of Salamis - Persia was prevented from conquering Greece, thus insuring Athenian independence and keeping Greek thought, philosophy and democracy alive. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, from Christ's birth. That would negate the above. Sorry. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at some of the examples above, I see that the importance depends on which part of the world you come from! --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so give us some ideas, not just criticism! Hey, I was just shooting from the hip. If I'd really wanted to make this a scholarly treatise, I'm sure I could have come up with some more events and places that would have been more well-rounded in scope. Saukkomies 20:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just kidding! But, since you want me to put my money (what little is left of it after the last few days!) where my mouth is, then I notice that the date of Buddha's enlightenment is not included anywhere. The birth of Buddhism is certainly an important day in world history.--Regents Park (one for sorrow) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't fit into the OQ's timeframe. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks, RegentsPark, for the effort. (grin) Saukkomies 07:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are only two memorable dates in history. DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another quibble-like comment: I don't think that Columbus can be said, in any sense of the word, to have "discovered" the New World. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Columbus did discover the New World, just as others had done so before. Discovering something does not specifically imply that you were the first person to do it. At any rate, I do concede to the spirit of your argument, if not to the letter. ANd of course (believe it or not) I was fully aware of the Scandinavian discovery of North America, as well as its possible discovery by Brendan the Irish Monk, the Basques whale hunters, the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Book of Mormon Israelites, and even the Native Americans themselves. However, Columbus' discovery of America was very important and significant because it came at a time when some European societies were poised to launch an era of discovery, conquest and settlement of the vast lands in the western hemisphere. Columbus' discovery provided the direction for these countries to exert their efforts in expansion. If Columbus had not come along, it is theoretically possible that the Spanish Conquistadors (who had just that same year finally completed their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula) would have crossed the Straights of Gibralter, and would have continued to have waged their age-old war against the Muslims, spreading eventually across North Africa and perhaps even so far as Egypt. Instead, they went west to the New World, along with many other Europeans. This was a very important historical turning point. Saukkomies 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of that list, but I'd probably think about inserting October 10, 732 somewhere in there, as the crux of the conflict between the Christian and Islamic worlds. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was looking for that, and couldn't remember the damn name of the battle.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good choice, GeeJo! I would only amend it by saying it was the crux of the conflict in Western Europe between the Christian and Islamic worlds. The Crux between the Christians and Muslims in the East took place somewhere else. Dang. Now I'm going to have to look it up! Saukkomies 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the date of Jesus Christ's own crucifixion, or, more particularly, the date (whatever it was) of his alleged resurrection 2 days later (by our reckoning). That - or, at least, the belief that it happened - changed the world far more than any military or political event. Also, what about 11 September 2001? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought about including the crucifixion of Jesus, but decided against it. The reason is that there is no objective, historically verifiable proof that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. To include his crucifixion as an historic event would, therefore, be controversial and not necessarily accurate. Instead, I included the Council of Nicaea, since it is pretty solidly clear that that event did take place, and moreover, it was during the Nicaean Council that the doctrine of Jesus' divinity was firmly esconced as official Christian doctrine - which it wasn't before, being that there were quite a few people who called themselves Christian who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, even in spite of the fact that Jesus' resurrection was recorded in some of the books that later were incorporated into the New Testament. Saukkomies 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice answer. My only comment is that the question did not explicitly ask for dates involving people historically proven to have existed. It asked for "the most important world dates". No matter how long the process took, the resurrection ultimately came to be believed by billions of people, and there is no question that the belief in that event led to the course of history being altered more profoundly than probably any other single event. Of course we cannot say that the resurrection actually happened, because we cannot say that JC even existed to begin with. But if he existed, and if the resurrection took place, it took place on a specific date. We may never know what it is, but that's not the issue. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

JackofOz, this is an interesting discussion about the actual impact of the belief in Jesus' resurrection. I think that Christianity has indeed had a significant impact on world history, but what I'm wondering is whether the effects that Christianity had on history would have mostly taken place whether Christianity was around or not. What I'm getting at here is that from a certain perspective Christianity - and by that I mean the kind of Christianity that emerged from the Nicaean Council and was accepted as the state religion of the Roman Empire - whether it would have been just as influential had the state religion been Mithraism or some other religion. What I see about this is that Christianity was a way for some of the basic precepts and practices of the Greco-Roman civilization to be spread out beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. But would this have happened anyway, had Christianity not been made the state religion? Perhaps I'm being biased in favor of the inevitability of the spread of Western Civilization, thinking that such a process was inevitable. I do think that religion gets blamed or credited with a lot more of historical significance than it probably ought to be. So, for instance, the conflict between people in the Middle East and the West would probably have happened anyway, regardless of religious differences. The conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland was really more of a conflict between different ethnic groups than that of religion. The list goes on. I'm not saying that religion is not a part of these conflicts, but is it the major foundation for the conflict that many wish to attribute it to? Perhaps not. And so, perhaps the actual impact of Jesus' possible crucifixion is not as significant as it might seem. On the other hand, this is just a fun little discussion we're having so why not include it? Saukkomies 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Sept 11th...Did it change anything, really? Will people remember or care about it in 500 years time? Anyway, more for the melting pot:

4 September 476: traditional date given for the fall of the Roman Empire]] when Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor was deposed. Odoacer.

18 June 1815: Battle of Waterloo, ended long-running wars in Europe, redrew map of Europe, ushered in long period of peace, last of the "old style" warfare.

1 September 1939: Hitler's invasion of Poland, which precipitated WWII.

9 November 1989: fall of the Berlin Wall, ultimately symbolising the end of the Eastern Bloc and the Cold War. Gwinva (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it changed quite a lot. Whether it will be remembered in 500 years' time is neither here nor there, mainly because nobody alive now can possibly know the answer to that question (with the greatest respect to my esteemed colleague). History is by definition a backward-looking discipline, and we can only view past events through today's prism, not tomorrow's prism. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Some additions: from the Roman Empire, I think we should count the Ides of March in 44 BCE (although technically, that was before Christ, I guess) and whatever date Diocletian decided to split the empire in half and install Maximian as emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire.

I think many of the most important things that have happened in history can't be pinned down to a specific date, but nevertheless changed humanity for ever. Some examples:

Thomas Newcomen inventing the steam engine, thus laying the foundations for the Industrial Revolution

Galileo rolling two balls down an incline and realising that they actually accelerated and weight didn't have anything to do with it, thus creating science.

Norman Borlaug creating new types of crops that would eventually save a billion people from starvation. This is probably less known that many of the other things mentioned, but in my mind there is nothing in history that have had such an effect on humanity. A billion people, in just about fifty years. Imagine how many people will have lived in 2500 because of it. Jesus may have fed a few thousand people on some loaves and fishes, but Borlaug fed the entire starving nations of India and Mexico, just using some wheat. Jesus ain't got nothin' on Borlaug!

From these three examples, you may discover where my biases lie :) As for dates that aren't so Euro-centric, I can't really think of any (I was going to say Qin Shi Huangs unification of China, but that fails the not-before-christ-was-born test). Most of the other good ones that I can think of have already been taken, so I'll stop there. 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dare I suggest the above reflect a bit of a Western bias? ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that is a valid criticism, I believe. However, it could be argued that Western Civilization has had a more profound and significant impact on the course or world history, and has affected the lives of more people, than any other. As such, events that take place in Western Civilization have a stronger impact on history. Not that I'm saying that this is the correct interpretation, but it is just one argument in support of a stronger Western bias for such a list... Saukkomies 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but no. I'm just saying, if you lived in China, you'd see a different engine pushing the world. It's all about your perspective and what you consider to be influencing what. Remember that for a huge amount of time, Europe was a backwater of civilization. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Europe was a backwater for quite a long time. However, there was one thing that makes Europe different from China - a very important thing - Europeans expanded outside of their homeland, while Chinese (with a few minor exceptions) did not. The end result of this is that today European culture dominates the world, while Chinese culture has yet to really make as significant an impact on the world. I am sure that for people living in parts of the world that are mostly cut off from outside influences that European influence is not as important as it is in most places, but what the op is requesting here is a list of events that are important not just for Brazilian rainforest natives, or for Siberian reindeer herders, or for other groups of people who are isolated from the outside world, but a list of events that effect the greatest number of people in the world. Chinese isolationism is therefore the reason why most of the events listed are not Chinese - even though they were actually the original inventors of many important discoveries and such. But without contact beyond their borders Chinese influence was just limited to their immediate neighbors mostly. So, like it or not, European/Western Civilization simply has a greater impact on more people in the world today than any other, including that of China, in spite of the fact that most Europeans were covered with lice and filth and eating with their grubby fingers in manure-covered houses just a few centuries ago... Wait - that sounds like some of the people who live here in America today! Saukkomies 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of serious dates here. My candidate for the Top 20: September 3, 1189. This is the date at which time immemorial came to an end in England, according to the Statute of Westminster of 1276. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of later additions to my list:
• July 16, 1945 - The first Atom Bomb is detonated at the Trinity Site at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Thus, E actually does equal MC².
• July 20, 1969 - Apollo 11 lands on the moon, and Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin become the first human beings to step foot on another planetary-type celestial object.
Saukkomies 23:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Moon landing, splitting the atom, end of China's dynastic system (Oct 10, 1911), manned flight, transoceanic communications . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. I hate to do this, because I really don't want to be a "quibbler", but I think I would choose another way to describe the change that took place in China on October 10, 1911, than to call it the end of the dynastic system. The reason being is that I believe it can be objectively and intelligently argued that the Communist Revolution was actually the beginning of a new dynasty in China's history. It is different in some respects, but there are many similarities with the current government in China and other dynastic governments that have seized power during interim periods of chaos between dynasties. And although Mao outwardly spoke against Confucianism, again, it could be argued that Maoist communism incorporates many Confucian ideas in its application as well as the philosophy that underlies it. Again, I do not wish this to seem as a criticism, because I think that the events that took place in China during the last 100 years ought to somehow be marked in a list of top 20 most important - but I would urge prudence in how to label such things... Saukkomies 23:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Have to add another ... September 9-11, 9 A.D.: the battle of Teutoberger Wald, the high-water mark of the Roman Empire: the place where they reached, were overwhelmed, and died. That the Romans never conquered Germany, and that for two thousand years there has been such an enormous cultural fault-line on the Rhine, I think is one of the most momentous events in world history (yes, the world, not just the West). The subsequent history of Europe, and the world, would have been incomprehensibly different had Germany developed a Romance language and culture (imagine, for a moment, Gaul as Celtic as Ireland). There's a good collection of essays collected by Robert Crowley entitled What If that covers these kinds of scenarios. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." (Leon Trotsky) Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Antandarus. Yes, I would support including Teutoburg to the list. Saukkomies 10:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

20 most important world dates - arbitrary section break

A couple more considerations:
• February 3, 1868 - Emperor Meiji declares himself supreme authority for all of Japan, thus formally beginning the Meiji Restoration.
• August 15, 1947 - India gains its independence from Great Britain, becoming the largest democracy in the world. Saukkomies 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the birthday of the Internet? Or computers? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought of several, most of which have already been mentioned, but here are some that haven't been yet:

• 4 July 1776 – the beginning of the end for the British Empire
• 17 December 1903 – the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight. I never cease to be amazed that humans landed on the moon only 66 years later. I wonder how much sooner it would have been if two world wars hadn't intervened.
• 6 August 1945 – the first use of nuclear weapons in warfare
• 9 August 1945 – the last (in the sense of most recent, and hopefully in the sense of final) use of nuclear weapons in warfare
• 12 April 1961 – the first human orbits the Earth

As for 11 September 2001, it seems very important to us today, but only time will tell if it is of long-term importance. Actually, the same is true for the beginning of the end of the Cold War on 9 November 1989 – in 300 years, will the Cold War even be remembered by anyone but highly specialized historians? —Angr 08:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the British Empire was at its largest extent in 1919, the America-centric date 4 July 1776 really is just a bit too early to be "the beginning of the end for the British Empire". 80.254.147.52 (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It was the first time citizens of the British Empire said, "No thank you, we'd rather not be citizens of the British Empire anymore." No one had dared do such a thing before, and it was a very long time before anyone dared do it again. The American Revolution was also an inspiration for the French Revolution, suggesting that 4 July 1776 is a more important date in world history than 14 July 1789, already mentioned above. Not everything that happens in America is irrelevant to the rest of the world. —Angr 10:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it "the beginning of the end". The end of the beginning, perhaps. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to fall on the side of not including July 4, 1776. There had been many previous instances when people under the rule of the British Crown had tried to rebel and kick the Brits out, albeit unsuccessfully - specifically Scotland and Ireland. Indeed, one could make a case that the American Revolution was actually the grandchild of the English Civil Wars, in which English commoners tried to get rid of the monarchy (among other things). Many of the early settlers of New England were among some of the most radical rebels of that event, and their grandchildren inherited much of their misgivings over being under the rule of a monarchy. I think instead of looking at American independence as the beginning of the end of the British Empire, it would be better to look at the impact it had on how the people seized power away from a monarchy. This inspired the much more significant French Revolution.

No, I would say that the beginning of the end of the British Empire took place when Britain declared war on Germany in World War One. This embroiled many of Britain's far-flung colonies, and the result of this was that local colonial subjects were for the first time given weapons and uniforms and taught how to be soldiers. For many of these people it was the first time they'd ever held a rifle, and the personal empowerment it gave to these colonial subjects was something that could then not later be taken back once the war ended. The end result of World War One was that there were trained militaries among the indigenous populations in many of Britains colonies, where there had been none before. And the result of that was from that point on, these colonies began the struggle for their independence from the Mother Country. Saukkomies 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Saukkomies, I disagree that the French Revolution was "much more significant" than the American Revolution (on a global scale, I mean, of course it was much more significant in France), and if you agree that the FR was inspired by the AR, I don't see how you can consider the Storming of the Bastille more important to world history than the signing of the Declaration of Independence. —Angr 11:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence was probably signed on 2 August 1776 anyway. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Margin re-adjusted. Okay, let's look at this business of the American and the French Revolutions. Which was more significant, both for its time and for the overall impact on subsequent history since the late 1700s? I suppose it could be possible to devise a method that would objectively measure just how much of an impact each of these events had, thereby allowing us to have an empirical answer at hand. However, I cannot myself think of how such a method could be devised, so we're left with purely subjective, if not rational, analysis, which of course is ... well ... subjective. Let's compare what happened as a result of the two revolutions: American Revolution:
• created a democratic republic. However, there were other democratic republics already in existence in Europe at the time (notably the Dutch Republic, and the Old Swiss Confederacy, but also the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the semi-independent French Department of Goust, the recently defunct Corsican Republic, the small Italian states of Lucca, Republic of Genoa, Republic of Venice, San Marino and Cospaia, the Dalmatian Republic of Ragusa, the Russian Pskov Republic).
• gave the Middle Class power. However, this was happening anyway.
• got rid of the monarchy.
• created a new country that would eventually become the most powerful on earth.
French Revolution:
• created a republic.
• gave the Middle Class power.
• got rid of the monarchy.
• inspired the French to export the ideals of the revolution across all of Europe, thus changing the history of almost every other European country to some degree.
So, which of these two events had the most immediate consequences for the most number of people? Obviously it would be the French Revolution, since the American Revolution directly affected the lives of just a few million people who lived in the United States, while the French Revolution directly affected the lives of tens of millions of people thorughout all of Europe and elsewhere. However, which of these two events had bigger consequences over the subsequent years is a matter of debate. Assuredly an independent United States has proven to be a very powerful influence in world affairs - especially in the 20th Century up to now. However, the reason that the US became powerful was due largely to the fact that it was the only industrial power to emerge virtually unscathed after the ravages of World War II, which could easily and safely be argued was a product of the Treaty of Versailles, which was a result of World War I, which was a result of the shortcomings that were built into the Treaty of Vienna, which was a result of the Napoleonic Wars, which were a result of the French Revolution. This direct line of descent of cause-and-effect domino-like events going from the French Revolution down to the major wars of the 20th Century is quite easily delineated, and therefore if one looks at the causes for why the US emerged supreme on the world stage after WWII, one must attribute this in large part to the chain of events that began at the storming of the Bastille in Paris in 1789... Therefore, the result of America being a powerful country is only partly due to the American Revolution giving the US independence, but also due to the French Revolution insuring that Europe would self-destruct within a hundred and some odd years. It is, therefore, apparent from this analysis (in my opinion, at least) that the French Revolution was the more important and significant of the two events. However, I'm open to further discussion on the matter... Saukkomies 14:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
One more addendum to your comments above, Angr. It is true (perhaps) that the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, but that does not necessarily indicate that due to this inspiration that the American Revolution was more significant. For one thing, the French Revolution would have almost assuredly taken place regardless of whether the American Revolution would have occurred or not. Look at it this way - the American Revolution was inspired (at least in part) by the English Civil War. So, would that mean that the English Civil War was more significant than the French Revolution? I doubt it. Saukkomies 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the English Civil War was 120 years before the American Revolution, any influence must have been extremely indirect. (You might as well say the American Revolution was "inspired at least in part" by Caesar's civil war.) Certainly English Civil War#Aftermath says nothing about any influence on the AR. American Revolution#Worldwide influence, on the other hand, makes it clear that it affected the lives of far more than "just a few million people who lived in the United States". —Angr 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at some of the things that took place between 120 and 140 years ago, to see whether they might have some influence in our lives today... 1) 120 years ago - the Spanish American War - hmmm. There's a possibility that that conflict might have some influence today, no? 2) 127 years ago - Edison invents the Kinetescope, thus paving the way for motion pictures and television. Hmmm, influences? 3) about 130 years ago - invention of the teletype machine, which led to the invention ultimately of the Internet. 4) about 140 years ago - the US Civil War - hmmm. do you think that this could still (after lo these many years) be having some kind of an influence on our lives today? I do agree with you that the Americans were probably inspired in part by the Roman Republic when forming their own. However, the fact that the Wiki article about the English Civil War does not mention that it influenced the American Revolution obviously must mean that such a connection must not exist - after all, how could it be true if it's not in a Wiki article? [/sarcasm mode]. Here's the facts: the Puritans who settled New England in the 17th Century were the very people who supported overthrowing the Monarchy and establishing a republic under the leadership of Parliament. Their grandchildren were the people who ended up overthrowing the British Monarch's rule, and established a government that was led by congress. So, you are saying that there is no connection between these two things? Interesting indeed. As per the reference to how the American Revolution affected the lives of people, you were misquoting me. I stated that the American Revolution directly affected the lives of just a few million people at the time that it took place. Saukkomies 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure there's influence in a subconscious "this is the way the world works" kind of way, but not the immediate, direct causation within the space of less than thirty years seen in the Atlantic Revolutions, which were started off by the American Revolution. —Angr 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, other than saying we disagree about this, I don't know what else to say about it. I did write a 30 page article about the influences of the English Civil War on the American Revolution, which I presented at an AHA conference held at the Montana State University in Bozeman back in the 1980s, in which I dug through scores of primary source material (journals) and secondary source material to uncover what convinced me was a direct link between those two events. However, if you insist on maintaining that there is no direct connection I will just have to say that we're basically done here, right? Because you are really not going to convince me otherwise, and there's only so much pounding a dead horse can take before it becomes absolutely pointless. Additionally, it was NOT the American Revolution that inspired most of the Atlantic Revolutions of the early 19th Century, but rather the French Revolution. Simón Bolívar, who was very hugely influential in many of the Latin American revolutions of that era spent some of his formative years serving under Napoleon Bonaparte's French Army! The Brazilian Revolution occurred as a result of Portugal's king fleeing from Napoleon's invading army, and the Brazilians took heart from the French revolutionaries and seized the opportunity to get out from under direct Portuguese control. The Mexican Revolution of that period was also directly inspired by the French Revolution - most specifically, it was actually inspired as a reaction against it! Napoleon had siezed control of Spain, and replaced the Spanish King with his own brother, Joseph Bonaparte. It was a reaction against this new king that led to the Mexican rebellion - which had absolutely nothing to do with the American Revolution. Even the Irish Rebellion was mostly connected with the French Revolution, which did a lot more than the American Revolution to inspire the Irish to rebellion. Indeed, I hardly see how you can make a statement that the Atlantic Revolutions were "started off" by the American Revolution, other than the American Revolution happened to have taken place chronologically before the others did... Saukkomies 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Angr, having re-read through my postings, and having given it some cogitation, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps I may be pushing my own agenda about the influence that the English Civil War had on the American Revolution, seeing as how I presented a paper on this very subject once. And so, instead of trying to present this debate in terms of what my own ideas about the subject may be, I'd like to say that what I have proposed - i.e.: that the Puritan settlers of New England influenced the American Revolution a century later - that it is a subject open to debate, and that one should not take what I am proposing as "the truth" about the matter. Of course I still am convinced that such a connection exists, but I am just one voice of many. If someone wants to disagree with this idea, I won't mind. But all I ask is that if someone were to disagree, to support his or her argument with solid evidence and sound logical points. Saukkomies 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See my response to Gwinva above. I really don't quite understand why people are wanting to qualify the current importance of 9/11 by reference to events that haven't happened yet. They haven't done it for any of the other dates suggested in answers. Right now, it's a significant date in the history of the world. That may not always be the case, but, as far as this question is concerned, so what? -- JackofOz (talk)

Interesting. Would it be correct then to say that the question is flawed because it asks us to compare the relative importance of dates when the importance of some of those dates is currently unknown? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point Angr is trying to make is that it's far easier to look back at an event 50+ years ago and say it was truly monumental event then it is to look back at a 7 or 19 year old event and say the same thing. And I would have to agree I don't really think September 11th is anywhere near in the top 20 world events. Perhaps time will prove me wrong but I'm far from convinced. I suspect this has a lot to do with how people see history. For some, September 11th was the catalyst for the Iraq war and made an dent on the US and/or world economy we are still reeling from today. For others, the Iraq war was probably always going to happen and definitely can't be primarily attributed to September 11th (or at worst, it was a convinient excuse) and while the US economy was badly affected by September 11th, a lot of things contributed to it's current problems and September 11th is not the primary cause of it's current problems. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But, but... after 9/11, everything changed! That's why we can ignore international law, start wars without cause, torture our prisoners, abduct people without due process, violate national sovereignty when it is convenient, shred the Constitution.... if 9/11 doesn't justify all of that, what does? ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Nil Einne. I had a history college professor back many years ago who once said that events cannot be properly understood until at least 20 years after they took place. Indeed, even people who were directly involved in some events are not necessarly the ones who are best equipped to understand what happened. History is like a pond which is surrounded by children throwing rocks into it. Some rocks are larger than others and will make larger waves and ripples. A particular place on the pond's surface will have ripples pass over it from all the various rocks being tossed hither and yon, and some of those ripples will be bigger, depending on the proximity of the rock's splash, as well as its size. If you happen to be located right next to a splash it will seem to be large, but once its ripples spread out for a while it may not be as large as it seemed right next to it. Measuring these splashes and the impact they have over the entire surface of the whole pond is what we're basically attempting to do here by making a list like this. Which splashes made the biggest ripples over the largest part of the pond? Perhaps this analogy is not the best way to look at history, but I thought I'd just put it out there in the hopes that it might help some get a handle on this thing. Saukkomies 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree you: recentism plagues history analysis as much as it does WP! To Jack, I must say that my comment regrading 9/11 was not qualified by "reference to events that haven't happened yet", but to things which have. The Iraq war, the current economic recession and so forth have roots far deeper than 9/11. I have no wish to belittle the suffering of those involved, or the impact it had on the community, but I'm not sure it was unique, or world-changingly influential: there was plenty of rhetoric and flag-waving, of course, but I'm not sure how much cause and effect can be directly attributed to it. I'm happy to listen to any who can present the case, of course: I have mounted no soapbox, just musing on how it might be perceived in the context of the late 20th / early 21st century. I have a suspicion that it cannot be isolated, but forms part of the picture of "terrorist" activity which has occured throughout the period: just thinking of the events affecting the UK there are myraid examples, of which the IRA bombings of the 70s-90s, and Lockerbie are particularly memorable (but by no means the only ones). A browse of Category:Terrorism by country will keep you busy for hours. (I was going to move on from the UK, for other examples but then decided I didn't have the hours to spend.) I'm not sure it's possible to rank the significance of such events, and certainly make no attempt to place 9/11 on any scale, merely to mention that terrorism, and governmental response to terrorism has existed for quite some time. 9/11, however, is certainly one of those "collective moments" we discussed a few days ago, and perhaps achieves significance because of its symbolism; after all, I did mention the Berlin Wall, as representative of the fall of the Eastern bloc... Gwinva (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, I must say I've been considering it form the perspective of "20 events in history since the birth of Christ", and thus comparing it against the fall of Rome, and such like. Now, if we were to exclude the 20th century from our considerations (on the basis that significanc can't be judged as such a near interval) and set up a separate debate regarding the 20 significant events of the 20th/21st centuries, then that would allow a different approach, given different benchmarks. We are already 20th-century heavy: I can't beleive that of the 20 most significant events of the last 2000 years, the majority have occured in the last 100 years.Gwinva (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts: 1) the end of the explorative period in the Ming Dynasty, when large ocean-going expeditions ended. However, from the article it seems that there is no definite date for this, more of a gradual process. 2) The event of June 30, 1908 could potentially have made the list if it had not happened in the middle of nowhere. Jørgen (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

True; the eruption of Krakatoa on 26–27 August 1883 also had world-wide impact. It was probably far more global in its effect than the vast majority of the political events discussed above. —Angr 11:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point about Krakatoa; it struck my mind when I wrote the above but didn't stick stick for long enough to make it into the post. Jørgen (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oooh Saukkomies, i was almost your biggest fan for a second. Just to quibble, Scotland didn't reject the British empire. Scotland is british. Had you said English, of course we'd have no issue82.22.4.63 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! I do stand corrected. Would it help rectify things if I said that I'm married to a Scottish lass who's family's from Skye, I love Scotch whiskey, and that Robert Burns is my favorite poet? Saukkomies 20:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No true Scotsman would spell whisky with an E. Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Double Ouch! Okay, well, at least in this case I can beg amnesty, since I'm not only not a "true Scotsman", but am not even an untrue one! However you want to spell it, though, good single malt Scotch whisky is like nothing else on earth. I'd say it was ambrosia, but that isn't quite accurate - it's ambrosia distilled and kicked up a notch! Back in 2001 when many of we Americans received "Bush Bucks", I took my wife to a very nice pub in Chicago and spent my $300 on Scotch whisky. That might sound like we would have had to been taken home in wheelbarrows, but see, we were buying TOP SHELF Scotch, which at $35 to $50 a shot doesn't take much to add up fairly quickly. When you get to that level of quality in Scotch it is an entirely different thing than the sort of Scotch one typically finds in a regular ma and pa type liquor dispensary... Some of that stuff is like you're sipping from clouds. It was a memory I'll cherish all my life. Saukkomies 07:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on that subject, Scotland didn't fail in their attempt to reject the English. During the Wars of Scottish Independence in the late 13th / early 14th centuries, Scotland responded to an English take-over bid, and eventually won. They remained completely independent for another 300 years, until the Scottish king inherited the English throne. They followed their own path during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. People have different views on the Acts of Union 1707, when the parliaments merged, of course. England's parliament taking over Scotland's, or the forging of a partnership? But Scotland hasn't "rebelled" since. The Jacobite rising was not an attempt by Scotland to throw off English rule, but a civil uprising of some English, Scots and Irish aiming to restore a Stuart king to the throne. They didn't want to break from the Empire: just have a different head. There were Scots and Englishmen on both sides, and certainly wasn't "England v Scotland". Gwinva (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So you'd be a fan of the song "Both Sides the Tweed" then, no? Saukkomies 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Followup to the Holocaust Question From Yesterday

Someone asked about the dates of the Holocaust, and after reading the responses and looking at the Wiki article, I have a question myself. Am I to take it that the Holocaust is strictly to be taken as concerning ONLY those who were victims of the Nazi death camps and extermination programs who were Jewish? Would someone who had been killed by these programs during that time who was gay or Romani or had a birth defect be considered to have been a Holocaust victim? Or is that status only reserved for the Jewish victims? Saukkomies 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends who you ask and the context. Personally, I would include the extermination of non-Jewish groups in term "the Holocaust", but there are many who would not. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This question has been reviewed and discussed a lot in the Talk page of The Holocaust. Look in the current page or the archives. The consensus is given at the beginning of the article. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wanderer57. I really ought to have taken the time to have peeked at that page's discussion before posing my question here. Saukkomies 23:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Grim Reaper

Where did the concept originate from, or what is it from? The classic dark robes, skull face, and scythe look. Death (personification) mentions him, but never actually states the origins of the entity other than saying it's a western concept. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the Grim Reaper the one who was playing chess with that 14th Century Swedish knight? Oh, sorry, that was just a movie... Saukkomies 16:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, this takes me back - I wrote an essay on this at college years ago! (What a cheerful course it was...)

As I remember it, the Grim Reaper is supposed to have evolved gradually from a combination of older personifications of Death going back to prehistory, who all contributed a bit of the image. There's the Jewish Azrael, the Angel of Death who must cut the body away from the soul, and also from his alternative coworker Samael, who has a poison-tipped sword for that job. There's also an evolution from the "coach driver" role he's supposed to play, transporting the soul away after it's been separated. See Ankou, for instance. And there is the actual "harvester" role - Sucellus or Silvanus was a Celtic / Gallic entity who in some traditions turned up with a scythe when you died in order to harvest your soul. I had a quick google about and this seems to be quite a useful piece with a roundup of all kinds of Death archetypes and their origins. Karenjc 23:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the attire of the plague doctor didn't affect the robes aspect of things? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As a completely unfounded hypothesis, I would say that old Hades and the horsemen of the apocalypse probably had some influence. Also, lets not forget Odin. Odin was a psychopomp (which is essentially what the Grim Reaper is), which means that he had the task of shepherding the dead from the land of the living to the land of the dead. It seems to me that Odin closely resembles the image of the Grim Reaper, as a large hooded man on a scary-ass horse. He didn't have a scythe, but he did have a spear.

I'm not saying all of these old gods were direct inspirations of the Grim Reaper, but I do firmly believe that they all play into the same archetype, the large, dark, mysterious psychopomp who guided souls to the underworld. If you study mythology, it blows your mind how often extremely similar figures or stories arise in completely unrelated systems of belief (these are sometimes called mythemes or archetypes). As an obvious example, almost all religions have some sort of trickster, whether they be Norse, Christian, Greek, West African or Native American. No one quite knows why this is. Maybe they all arise from the ur-religion that developed when humanity was young, and while changes happened over the ages, the essential core of the story remains the same. More likely though is that these stories reflect real concerns or thinking patterns that all humans share.

Compare for instance the story of The Death of Baldr (possibly my favourite myth of all time) and the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Both detail the death of a beloved figure, and both detail the quest of superhuman people to revive that person (Odin and Frigg in the case of Baldr, Orpheus in the case of Eurydice), and they both just barely fail, just on the finish-line. Odin and Frigg gets the whole world to cry for Baldr except Loki (I've always been curious how they got the rest of the giants to go along with it, but whatever), and Orpheus looks back just at the final second to see his bride, dooming her to spend an eternity in Hades.

In some ways, it is baffling to consider that two such separate religions could have such a similar story, but in another way, it's completely understandable. In all of human history, one of the very few things that have been constant is the inevitability of death, and the impossibility of reversing it. People want to know why, why can't your loved ones be brought back, whether it is your son or your spouse. Are the gods just that heartless? I think these myths offered people an explanation where there really is none: even the gods, the most powerful beings in the universe, are helpless in the face of death. And if the gods can't do it, why should we be able to?

I think this is what's going on with the reaper. It may come from some definable source (well, it does come from somewhere), but maybe that's not the point. It may be that this sort of figure scares the bejesus out pretty much anyone, so that it makes a good symbol for death and for that reason many mythologies adopt it (I certainly can't imagine anything scarier than an unstoppable hooded man that brings death wherever he goes, uncompromising and unbeatable). It speaks to a deeper place in our psyche that we don't really have access to.

I realise it's sort-of an unsatisfying answer, but it's the best one I can offer you :) 90.235.13.101 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant, but "Grim" is actually the alternate name for Woden, the Anglo-Saxon version of Odin. It might add weight to the idea of a connection between Odin and the Reaper. Then again, it might not. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I should also have mentioned that we have a pretty good article on Danse Macabre, which talks about the development of the skeletal Death personification from the "talking corpses" type of story and artwork that were known from early mediaeval times onwards. You know: three healthy young men in the prime of life meet three rotting corpses which tell them "We were once like you, and one day you'll be like us". Very salutary for reminding you that all earthly life is vanity. (See also Vanitas.) Remember, "You may be a king or a little street sweeper / But sooner or later you'll dance with the Reaper." Karenjc 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What happens if the electoral college ties?

I happened to be reading this nice summary of the polls and possible scenarios for the election, and the author states that there is a not unlikely chance that the electoral college will tie at 269-269, since the electoral college is composed of 538 electors. The wisdom of the electoral college is obviously questionable, but even if you accept that it's there and not going away, it seems to me to be mindnumbingly, monumentally stupid to have an even number of electors. At least the senate has a tie-breaker. What would happen if this scenario played out (I understand that it's not all that likely, but it seems to be possible this time around)? Certainly it would be one of the biggest (if not the biggest) constitutional crisis the US has ever faced. I realise that this is unprecedented so there is no road-map. Would congress make the deciding vote (either the shiny new one or the old stodgy one)? Would there be another election a few months later and Bush would remain president? 90.235.13.101 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See Electoral_College_(United_States)#Joint_session_of_Congress_and_the_contingent_election. The House of Representatives picks the president if that's the case. It would not be a Constitutional crisis—it's pretty explicitly described in the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment). It has happened twice already, but both times in the 19th century. There is no tie-breaker—the House must come to a compromise. It would certainly be pretty ugly, I agree, though it hardly seems more ugly than having the Supreme Court make the final decision. At least the House is made up of people who were actually elected, and are made up of people who are actually accountable for their decisions. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification, I should have read the article on the electoral college more carefully :) (in my defense, it's pretty long). Kudos on the constitution-writers by the way, that's just solid planning. Although I still think it's utter foolishness not to have the number of electors be even. 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I only know about it because someone asked a similar question a week ago. :-) I think part of the danger in mandating even or odd electors is that somebody is going to gain or lose an elector one or another under such a requirement, and debates over representation are pretty nasty. The odds that both the electors and the House vote would be dead-even seems pretty low. (Especially since the House is an odd number of representatives.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but to solve that problem, just make the number bigger: 1001 electors will more fairly represent the nation than 538 will (and 300 million of them even more so, but that's another discussion :) 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How would just multiplying the number make it more representative? In a winner-take-all system all that really matters is the percentage of the total. That doesn't change if you multiply the entire thing by 2X or something. (Which isn't a defense of the electoral college. But I'm just saying. In the existing system it wouldn't matter if you increase the number if the proportions were the same.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This section began as a discussion of the effects of a tie vote. The likelihood of a exact tie diminishes as the number of voters/electors increases. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really as long as it's largely a winner takes all system. If you have 5380 electors but who they are supposed to elect is chosen in the same way (winner takes all), you're still going to end up with a tie (ignoring the increase likelihood of faithless electors). Since there are two states which are not winner takes all, an increase in the number of electors will make a small difference but the bigger difference will come if you remove the 'winner takes all' component (and even the congressional district component) from all states and instead make their vote completely proportional (so if people vote 55% Democrat, 45% Republican in California then ~55% of the electors from California vote Democrat, 45% vote Republican) even without increasing the number of electors. The trouble is, states may be reluctant to change their system from a winner takes all system to a proportional system if other states don't do likewise since it gives an advantage to the person who receives a minority in their state. Something like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is what's probably needed. Of course, I expect the chance of an exact tie is not actually that high if you do the sums, since ignoring Nebraska or Maine (or counting them since they've never split their vote) only certain combinations of states can actually produce an exact tie and many of the cominations are probably not likely. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming has about 500,000 residents, Montana has about 950,000 residents, but they both have 3 electors in the electoral college. That means that an voter in Montana has less influence (almost half) over the electoral college than one in Wyoming. It's inherently unfair. The problem is that there are 300 million people in the United States, and there are only 538 electors to divide between the states, so there's going to be pretty severe rounding-off errors (Nevada has 5 electors, California 55, but California doesn't have exactly 11 times the population). The more electors there are in the college, the less of these rounding-off errors there will be. That is, the more electors there are, the better they will represent the people of the united states. I brought up the concept of increasing the number of electors because then there could be an odd number of them, so that they wouldn't tie, and 98.217 argued that then people would complain about the fact that either a "republican" state or a "democratic" state would get an extra elector. That wouldn't happen if you increased the total number of electors significantly, no one could complain about that. No sane person can honestly say that more electors doesn't represent the people more fairly. They clearly do. 195.58.125.53 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned that if you simply multiply existing numbers that doesn't change anything. In any case, in a winner-take-all system the issue of fair representation is pretty murky. If 51% of California favors one candidate and 49% favors the other, is it "fair" to give 100% of California's populational representation to the one that is favored? Adding more electors doesn't affect that basic fact very much. (And as for fairness—a citizen in Montana still has more proportional influence than a citizen in California. If things were "truly" "fair" in this respect people in Montana would have really no say at all—the state has only .3% of the total population.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that when the House of Representatives meets to choose a President in the event of an Electoral College tie, that each state gets one vote. That means that California gets the same number of votes as Wyoming. Now, I don't know if they will divide that vote up proportionately (say that 45% of the California Representatives were Republicans and 55% Democrats, would they give .45 of a vote to the Republican candidate and .55 of a vote to the Democrat, or would the Democrat get 1 vote (assuming party line voting)). Corvus cornix_talk 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

September 18

How long have "Humans" been on the earth?

I'm having trouble pinning down a reference for this number of years so that I can fix the intro to this article-to-be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The concept you're looking for is "anatomically modern humans".--Wetman (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You can look up the information within the subject of "Anthropology" at the public library or at a university library. A main campus university library is often better than any public for up to date text books of different subjects. Subject titles such as Hominid origins, Paleo-anthropology archaeology, early man, or perhaps East African archaeology. Archaeology (the British spelling) is also spelled as Archeology (American spelling). For professional journals start with Science and Nature. Even a current Paleontology university text might have the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.204.243 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens have been on this planet 200,000-300,000 years. All the species that have descended from the genus "homo" have lived here much longer. Australopithecus is the oldest ancestor that we know of so far. ScienceApe (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Poetry by Federica Garcia Lorca

I am looking for the poem "The Balad Of The Sea " By Federica Garcia Lorca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.79.164 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This might be what you are looking for ("La balada del agua del mar") -- Ballad of the water of the sea. Antandrus (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Australian author Paul John Radley

Some years ago, I stumbled upon a book Jack Rivers and Me by Paul John Radley. It was set in a (fictional) small Australian town called Boomeroo, and thus was the first book of Radley's "Boomeroo Trilogy". The second book, My Blue-Checker Corker and Me was easy to find and just as enjoyable, and then it took me a long time to get my hands on the final book Good Mates, which I finally had shipped to me (in the US) from an Australian used book seller. Said bookseller alluded to some scandal related to the author, perhaps the books were not the work of a 24 year old after all or something . . . I've thought perhaps that might explain why the third book didn't seem to have been published in the States. Anyway, I've never found out any details and was wondering if any of the erudite Ozzies round here might know more. --LarryMac | Talk 14:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"This is a good book, but in 1996, Radley admitted that his uncle wrote it. "Jack" was published under Radley's name so it would qualify for the first Vogel Prize competition for young Australian authors. (Radley's uncle was too old.) "Jack Rivers" went on to win the first Vogel Prize. And then to become a full-fledged Australian literary scandal." According to an Amazon.Com review. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wonder why that didn't show up in my search results? In any event, I'd love to find something more reliable than a random Amazon customer. --LarryMac | Talk 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We have mention of it in The Australian/Vogel Literary Award. This google search seems to pull up some reliable sources, as does this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I bow to your superior google-fu; it's an interesting and sad story. I guess it's too bad that uncle didn't write more, because I really enjoyed those books. --LarryMac | Talk 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Honorary academic degrees

Anyone have an idea where (presumably off Wikipedia) I could find a list of honorary degrees granted to various people, sorted by name? I'm working in an archive where we have objects related to a certain person, including hoods that he received when being given honorary doctorates; while most of the hoods are labelled, one isn't, and it would be helpful to be able to discover what doctorates he was given so we could determine the other one by process of elimination. 63.172.28.202 (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're not saying who the person is? It would probably be easier to search from the person to the degree. The chances that there's the resource you're looking for is vanishingly small. Who would coordinate the collection of such information from the hundreds of universities around the world who make thousands of such grants each year? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You might try contacting the Intercollegiate Bureau of Academic Costume, which is the organization under the American Council of Education that oversees the standards of the academic costumes worn at commencements in the United States. Saukkomies 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(You may know this already.) In some, if not all, cases the academic dress pattern is unique to a particular university. Eg, the color bands used on the hood, and the order of the colors "identifies" the university. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

When I was a boy, we had a general encyclopædia with colour plates of academic dress. DuncanHill (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some useful information at the article I linked, but alas no gallery that I can find. DuncanHill (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Another encyclopaedia is better than WP? Shocking! We have all failed... Gwinva (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was jolly good, my mum's still got it. If I knew its copyright status (published sometime in the 20's) I'd be copying loads of stuff from it into the Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting. What's it called, Duncan? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

obama and 9/11

what does barack obama think about the documentary "loose change"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.237.101 (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you would be better off asking Barack Obama himself, rather than Wikipedia editors who are not even running for president. Astronaut (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's a little out of line. People are more than welcome to ask questions about what politicians have said their opinion is on various issues. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he has seen it. Even if he has, I doubt he would admit it. Even if he did, I doubt he would say he felt anything other than it was BS. Because he's a guy running for political office. Obviously. Use your head! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, be civil, please. But I do agree with your first reply; we are just editors of an encyclopedia and don't know Barack Obama's personal tastes.

The 2 x 98.217.8.46s seem to be different persons. One asks for civility, the other displays incivility. How odd. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Especially since it was done in one edit. Maybe we're dealing with conjoined twins with radically different personalities? Matt Deres (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

September 19

Michigan History Magazine 8, no. 29 October 1924

Does anyone have access to Michigan History Magazine 8, no. 29 October 1924? I'm wanting to track down page 476 to get clarification of the domain in which sales of Ben King's verses exceeded any other single volumes of poetry for 25 years. As you do once you've been on wikipedia long enough. See talk --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are at least a half a dozen libraries within a 10 minute drive from where I live that have this issue. However, I'm lazy and cheap, and instead of hoofing it myself, I would suggest why don't you go to your own local library and request the page in question through their InterLibrary Loan service? It's free or very cheap, and they'll get the information for you. The other solution is to call a library that owns the issue and ask for their Serials or Reference Desk. Call early in the morning just after they open when they'll be less likely to be too busy to go out of their way for you. Ask if it is possible that the librarian could locate the information and tell you over the telephone. If you want to know which libraries own this, go to WorldCat and search for "Michigan History Magazine", and then after selecting the right record, click on the button that says "Libraries worldwide that own item", and you'll get a list of the libraries that own it. Saukkomies 01:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, yes, thanks. Good try. Appears there are 2 copies available in the UK, both in university libraries. IIRC, these will not interloan to public libraries. Perhaps you made the assumption that I was anywhere near Michigan? I'm neither lazy nor cheap, but am working on the assumption that someone on Humanities might well have very easy access. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hate it when I act like a typical dumb Yank and assume everyone on the Internet lives in the US. I apologize for the oversight. However, you still have the option of calling a library that has a copy of this issue you're looking for, and asking whether the Reference Librarian could pretty-please go grab it off the shelf and take a look at the page in question and tell you what's on it. Actually, and to clarify things, I am an information professional, and would, for hire, hoof it over to the local library, copy, and fax the page in question to you. I charge $75 per hour for such services, plus costs of photocopying and faxing. To do this for free would be equivalent for you asking a barber to give you a free haircut in his home... I hope you understand... However, I did for free tell you how to obtain the information through a Reference Desk. Just keep in mind that many libraries have a policy against having their Reference staff doing precisely this sort of thing, especially for people who live outside their jurisdiction. However, as I pointed out, if you call during a not-so-busy time, and if you're nice about asking, the librarian may go out of his or her way to help you in this matter. Your other choice would be (of course) to hire an information professional to do this for you. Unless you can get someone here in the Humanities Desk to help, or to find it full-text online, but of course that would be the lazy and cheap way to do it... Saukkomies 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The name of the author and the title of the article would help me locate it through JSTOR, if it's available that way.--Wetman (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Walter E. Banyan, "Ben King Memorial", Michigan History Magazine 8, no. 29 October 1924. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not in JSTOR. It should be in Google Books however per usual the "snippet view" is pretty much useless (I have yet to really understand what the point of this aspect of Google Books is). My university's copy is not available at the moment, otherwise I'd check it out for you. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not in Google books as far as I can see. DuncanHill (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is (twice), but you have to play with the advanced search to get it, for some reason. But in any case, there isn't anything to see other than the citation info and useless snippets. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input to date. Keep searching, Humanities team. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You sure you can't get an interlibrary loan to your closest university/university college/school library? Of course, that might still be some place away from where you live, but it could be worth a try. Jørgen (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He already said he was in the UK, where there are not many copies of it anyway, and he seemed to imply he was not a university. And I have never known a university to do interlibrary loan (in the US, anyway) for someone who was not a member of the university (it does cost money for the university, after all). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he's already been told what he'll probably have to do to get the information. However, I think he's hoping someone here will do the work for him so he doesn't have to do it himself. Saukkomies 10:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he's hoping that someone here would combine 1) ready access to the text in question with 2) a helpful attitude. DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have fairly ready access to the information, and was as helpful as I desire to be, but I ain't about to be doing something in a professional capacity without remuneration for it. So, I hope that your comment about having a helpful attitude is not a jibe. Saukkomies 10:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not meant as a jibe - by ready access I meant "not having to go out of their way for". Sorry for any, entirely unintended, slight to you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coddling my ego, DuncanHill. I have a built-in resentment about how information professionals tend to be dismissed as being glorified clerks, which if you think about it, can also be said of most lawyers, too. However, if I did get this material for free I could write it off as "pro bono" work. Heh. We'll see... Saukkomies 13:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Information professionals do far more good for society at large than lawyers ever did, and for much more reasonable rates! DuncanHill (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if they are glorified clerks ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'll just say that here in Toronto, Canada, I have borrowed items from university libraries via interloan to my local public library. Typically there is a fee of $10 or so, and sometimes the university library insists on a "reference loan", which means I am not allowed to remove the item from the public library, but other times they don't. --Anonymous, 23:47 UTC, September 19, 2008.

I have worked for over 16 years as a professional librarian, and a goodly part of that time directly with InterLibrary Loans. So, with that said, I can say that the entire business of InterLibrary Loaning is very complex. Different libraries have different policies regarding what material they will loan out to other libraries, and how they'll do it, what material they will try to obtain for patrons, and what kind of agreements they might have with other libraries to do the InterLibrary Loan transactions. I am sure that Toronto's public library system is par excellent in regards to its InterLibrary Loan services - indeed, Toronto Public Library has an excellent reputation among libraries, even down here in the US. I am sure that if it is at all possible to obtain anything through InterLibrary Loan, that the librarians at Toronto Public Library would move heaven and earth to obtain the item. However, such is not the case universally. Every library is a little different in this regards. Some libraries get a bad reputation for borrowing material through InterLibrary Loan from other libraries and then never returning the material (usually due to their patrons just never returning the stuff). When this happens other libraries will be very reluctant to loan out items to these "bad reputation" libraries in the future. InterLibrary Loan offices are very often understaffed, too, and have a difficult time keeping up with the basic day-to-day requests for normal type materials. Having special requests places huge burdens on their time and patience. And the same goes with librarians staffing Reference Desks. However, librarians and library staff are typically very dedicated, and are willing to put in the extra effort to try to do everything that they can within reason to help patrons with their information needs. It's just that sometimes it is - believe it or not - basically impossible to obtain certain things through InterLibrary Loan, for one reason or another. It happens all the time. And if there are only two libraries - both Universities - in England that own this publication, it very well might be that those libraries will not loan or even photocopy the issue at question here. I totally trust Tagishsimon's memory that these materials will be unobtainable through InterLibrary Loan. Saukkomies 12:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the Newberry Library in Chicago apparently has the magazine. They will take photocopy requests by email and mail the results to you once you send them payment. [6] It looks like most copies are inexpensive. Unfortunately, it will cost you at least $7 to have the copy mailed to the U.K. Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, my reference librarian gave me a wonderful tip, when asked on the ILL form "maximum copy charge" say zero. Got the original and not a bad xerox. Saintrain (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is good advice, Saintrain. "Typically" libraries charge for photocopying only when it becomes absurdly expensive for them. By writing down "zero" where it asks how much you'd be willing to spend on photocopying charges, you're not necessarily telling them you don't want the article if it costs too much, but you're telling them that if it becomes too expensive for them, to tell you about it. You can always later come back and say to go ahead and order the ILL material and pay the photocopying fees. It isn't always up to the library you're working through as to how much these photocopying charges will be - the loaning library might have very different policies regarding how much to charge for photocopying, which is out of the realm of control of the library you're requesting the material through. Same goes with how long material will be allowed to be loaned, etc. The loaning library can dictate the terms, and the borrowing library pretty much has to go along with them, regardless of what their own policies allow. Saukkomies 13:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, Saukkomies, asking if someone on here would get some info from their library to aid Wikipedia is not unusual and not out of line. If you don't want to do it, then don't. That's fine. I'd be happy to do it but as I said my university's copy of that issue is not available (it's in some sort of Google-Books-related scanning limbo). I and others have often used our resources to aid those for the purpose of the Wiki, and even to just assist with individuals. Sure, we're using valuable skills (I do get paid regularly to do research professionally), but we can stop whenever we want. And I don't think anyone confuses us with clerks—most of the people I have assisted are very grateful, and most are just dazzled by the fact that someone who knows how to do a little research can easily marshall together vast amounts of data pretty quickly, just because they know where it is. So don't get uptight when people ask for assistance on here—that's one of the many services we provide!! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between asking for someone to help Wikipedia and helping themselves in research that they are working on as part of their job or personal interest... I think the issue is not whether you can "easily" come up with the answer, but that when coming up with the information requires expenditures of personal resources that cost money and more than just a small amount of time, then the issue of cost-benefit analysis enters into the equation. Saukkomies 13:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagishsimon's original request was, as I understand it, to tidy a reference cite on a WP article, and thus entirely appropriate. Not that I have a problem with people asking at the ref desks for their own interest/projects. We each can choose whether we wish to invest time in a reply. I have at times gone out of my way to find information for ref deskers, if something has captured my interest. Other questions I pass over. I don't think we need to apologise for that, or explain our reasons, anymore than we need to justify which WP articles we choose to work on. Gwinva (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that part about Tagishsimon working on a Wiki page... Indeed, I also want to apologize to Tagishsimon for overreacting so imbecilically over this issue. Apparently I had some juice about information professionals being taken advantage of that was just waiting to be released at the first opportunity. Sorry you were the target of that uncalled-for rant. Saukkomies 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's quite okay, Saukkomies; I have enjoyed both the light & the heat. And yes, I confirm that the whole request is solely in order to illuminate the most obscure wikipedia fact: did Ben King's verses outsell all other single volume poetry books in the 25 years after his death, and if so is the market in which this phenomenon occurred defined? One or more nations hang with bated breath upon the answer... --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gender, race and class in the Cthulhu Mythos

Hi there, members of WP:RD/H, my boyfriend is in English Lit. and has been given an assignment to do a reading of any book he wants with a strong reading of class, race or gender. A friend suggested the Hitchhiker's Guide, but he is really rapt with the idea of doing a reading from the Cthulhu Mythos and so I was wondering what books there might be which we can use for this. Thanks in advance. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the Mythos at all but I would caution that in an assignment like this, proper choice of text is absolutely necessary. Trying to do this kind of analysis on a text which doesn't have a lot going on in those particular areas is either an exercise in futility or bullshit. ;-) There is a lot of other turn-of-the-century "horror" literature that would work better for this sort of thing (e.g. Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, etc.). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I read probably almost all of the Lovecraft stories, and a fair proportion of the Derleth ones, in my youth, but can't remember which ones would be most suitable for your purpose (though I can remember some, such as "Color out of Space", which would not be particularly useful). Why not try Clark Ashton Smith? He has a lot of fun-to-read short stories which would probably be of interest to your project (only a few of them set in the Cthulhu mythos, however). AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard (creator of Conan) was also in Lovecraft's circle & wrote some stories in the Cthulhu mythos.Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

HP Lovecraft's work actually has a lot of references to the above issues, particularly race but also class and to a lesser extent gender, simply by the absence of him ever writing about female protagonists. The Horror at Red Hook, The Shadow Over Innsmouth, and He would all be good choices. Not all of those are specifically from the mythos, but lots of what he wrote has racial/class prejudices in it, if your boyfriend is intent on choosing something from the mythos. Hope this helps.69.244.5.221 (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Grade level for Twilight Book Series

I am interested in finding out the appropriate grade level for the book series Twilight. Might anyone please be able to help me? Thank you, Brett Bstephens0726 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. They seem to be targeted at junior high schoolers and high schoolers. If it helps, I found this description in a Chicago Tribune article: "Yes, the ingredients seem ripe for steaminess a la 'Gossip Girl' -- Bella, the central character, a typical high school prom-going girl; Edward, the gorgeous hunk who turns out to be a vampire; and Bella's close friend, Jacob, a strikingly handsome werewolf in cutoffs. But Meyer, 35, is a devout Mormon. So there's no smoking and no drinking in the books. And no sex either." (Patrick T. Reardon. "'Twilight' series successfully walks fine line". July 31, 2008. 1.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is plenty of implied sex, but only after they have the requisite teenage wedding. Man, only a Mormon could come up with the concept of abstinent vampires! Adam Bishop (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama terrorist links?

Hello Wikipedia, i read on a blog (i now can't remember which one -it might even have been a post on YouTube) which said that Obama had 'questionable' links with terrorist organisations.. Is this just racist BS because his middle name is Hussein or is there some grain of truth? Where did the 'story' come from?217.169.40.194 (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as there's anything to it at all, see Bill Ayers... AnonMoos (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama–Ayers controversy has more details. DAVID ŠENEK 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's pretty much bullshit—guilt by association nonsense. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CliffsNotes

What is the legal relationship between the condensed books CliffsNotes produces and the original works? Does CliffsNotes have to pay fees to publishers of original works for the rights to produce summaries, or are CliffsNotes publications treated as original works which do not require fees to be payed to other publishers? I understand that many works covered by CliffsNotes are in the public domain, but certainly not all. --Shaggorama (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call CliffsNotes "condensed books." They summarize plots, highlight themes, and provide other kids of analysis. As you say, for works in the public domain, they can write whatever they want. I imagine that John Wiley & Sons relies on fair use protection. Although CliffsNotes are clearly commercial (you have to buy the notes), they're also educational -- I doubt that 5% of their sales are to people other than students. Also, their effect on the potential market of the copyrighted work is probably low -- the kind of student who uses only CliffsNotes and doesn't buy a copy of the work wouldn't have bought the work anyway. So the CliffsNotes defense is most likely "it's criticism and scholarly work." --- OtherDave (talk)

And since they are designed to help kids avoid reading their homework, the works they concentrate on are those that are assigned in high school and college, which are quite often in the public domain anyway. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Former Yugoslavia: Agreement on succession issues and PD

Hi, what is the relationship between public domain and the Agreement on succession issues cited at {{PD-Yugoslavia}}. Is this template valid, i.e. does the agreement really put some works into public domain? If it does, which ones? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer; this is not a legal opinion; your mileage may vary. The text does not seem to put any works in the public domain, though I am not a lawyer and I do know know anything about copyright in the republics that formerly made up Yugoslavia.

THAT SAID, this wording seems clear:

All rights and interests which belonged to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and which are not otherwise covered by this Agreement (including, but not limited to, patents, trade marks, copyrights, royalties, and claims of and debts due to the SFRY) shall be shared among the successor States...

Which I read as saying "unless they're covered elsewhere, rights formerly held by Yugoslavia will be be shared among us new countries as follows..."

You can't share public domain, at least in the U.S. The Sonny Bono law has prevented any works from automatically entering the public domain for several years; the only way they get there is for the holder of the copyright to release it. It's like pregnancy: a work is in the public domain, without reservation, or it's not. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

William Donaldson

William Donaldson makes very entertaining reading but I am not sure how much of it to believe. There are no sources and much of the article seems to be lifted directly from the linked Guardian obituary. I suspect that not every word of it is true, which may all be part of some in-joke since this guy was a media insider and satirist. Any ideas on how the article might be improved? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Indie obit too. He seems to be the sort of charming rascal we produce far too few of nowadays. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Knowing quite a lot about Beyond the Fringe, one thing I would like to point out is that the cast were on a fixed fee plus a percentage of takings, and they initially made about £114 a week each. It was still a lousy deal (and on a per-performance basis it was less than they got for the original Edinburgh show), but not quite as bad as the article suggests. (Also, Donaldson produced the show in 1961, not 1960. The producer in 1960 was Johnny Bassett.) --89.168.154.234 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Atomic Energy Act of 1954

What's up with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haptic (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, please? Your link neatly sums up one provision of the Act, "No patent shall hereafter be granted for any invention or discovery which is useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon." In a nutshell, you can't patent atomic technology in the US. Surely sensible? No doubt there's more to the Act than that. Strawless (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

but why not? can't you patent bombs and guns and things? you can patent living organisms but not this? seems odd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haptic (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many things you cannot patent. The list of things you cannot patent continues to grow. Hopefully web design and computer programs will be added to the list soon. As for why... consider why there is such a thing as a patent. The patent protects the inventor's investment by ensuring that there will be no competition at first. Without the patent process, inventors may choose not to invest in a new invention because the profit will be made by someone able to compete in the market better as soon as the invention hits the market. Medications are a good example. It takes millions of dollars to come up with a new medication. Why invest that money if as soon as you are capable of making a pill for a dollar, someone else with a larger factory in a cheaper country makes it for a quarter and steals all the profits? So, understanding the why of patents... Why would the government want to protect someone's profits for nuclear or atomic bombs? -- kainaw™ 03:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more to do with the government wanting to ensure that they can use atomic weapons technology without any pesky "inventor with a conscience" getting in the way by exerting his patent rights. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious stone object

File:Macartney's mysterious stone.jpg

Photo of object

While cataloging the Macartney Collection at Geneva College under the direction of the head librarian, I came upon the object pictured to the side. My supervisor (who has given permission to post this question and photo here) tells me that he's never seen it, and the archivist who placed it in this box tells me that she has no special remembrance of it. It suggests somewhat of a stylized compass rose (a major point at top, right, bottom, and left, with three smaller points between each of the four major points, totalling sixteen in all), with a face in the middle — the closest thing to which I can compare it is the "Sun of May" on the flags of Uruguay and Argentina! The object (diameter about 7 inches/18.5 cm) has a hook attached near the top, apparently placed to allow it to be hung on a wall. One of the librarians to whom I showed it thinks it to be some sort of plastic, although it feels more like stone to me: quite heavy, denser than any plastic that I can remember holding. While it's gray and black on the front (by the way, the light spot in the middle is really black; it's light due to reflection from the flash used in taking the picture), the back is almost entirely black, similar in smoothness and in color to the smooth black areas (including the reflective middle area) on the front. Gray areas on the front, on the other hand, are rough. Some small damage on the back and side (not visible in this photo) reveal the object under the mostly-black surface to be tan or brown, similar to the small damaged areas on the right and bottom right visible in this picture. Yet another librarian, who has examined these areas, notes that they exhibit a thin sheet-like structure like that of slate. Macartney I know was an amateur historian of the American Civil War (aside from this object, the only contents of the box were various portraits of Abraham Lincoln), but I can't imagine what this would have to do with the Civil War or anything else that we've found in the collection. Any ideas on what it could be, or its origins? I can provide more specific details if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

isn't it an Aztec calendar? - Nunh-huh 21:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an Aztec calendar image, yes. You'd have to get an expert to know if its actually an artifact of any value or if it is just some trinket someone got on their visit to Mexico. There's a lot of that kind of stuff made there for the tourist crowd. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And from your description (sort of like plastic, but not, and heavier) it sounds rather like it might be cast stone, which would make "trinket" more likely. But it has to be seen in person by someone who would know. - Nunh-huh 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to bet money that it's a small-scale replica of the famous (and very large and very heavy) sun-disk or Aztec calendar stone found in 1790 under the central plaza in Mexico city (which is a unique artefact and now a national symbol of Mexico, and so would be well deserving of an article to itself). For the connection between Mexican history and the mid-19th-century United States, see William H. Prescott.. AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Luckily...Matt Deres (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no actual link from article Aztec calendar to article Aztec calendar stone until I added one just now... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Entrance to the Public Park in Arles

Is van gogh's painting "Entrance to the Public Park in Arles" on public display anywhere; and if so, where? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.148.143 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is in The Phillips Collection in Washington D. C. in the United States of America. See [7]. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

September 20

Henry VIII

Modern people criticize King Henry VIII for his flagrant behavior, but what was the general opinion of him during the time he ruled? I imagine he wasn't popular with the church, but what of his subjects?CalamusFortis 02:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Approval ratings" are a modern invention. The approval that matters is the approval of those with the power to do something about their disapproval: this of course is still true today. "Henry VIII's approval rating" is an anachronistic idea.- Modern historians describe and analyze, keeping in mind the "limits of the possible" in action and thought: we are less aware of the limited horizons of our own actions and thoughts, and often apply modern criteria to "criticize" historic figures. The result may be self-satisfying, but it's not history. -Wetman (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read from various accounts written by people who were subjects of Henry VIII, it seems like he had a mixed review, but mostly favorable. I think an approximate analogy to Henry would be the American president Theodore Roosevelt, who had a reputation for eccentric behavior, and was flambouyant and a bit of a braggart, but was generally liked and respected by Americans - so much so that his visage ended up along with Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson on Mount Rushmore. My impression of Henry's subjects' attitudes towards their monarch was that they took delight in his many eccentricities, and more-or-less looked the other way at his shortcomings. Saukkomies 16:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, the priests, monks and nuns, who were turfed out of their presbyteries, monasteries and convents, would not have been particularly impressed, and the common people, who were mainly Roman Catholic, may well have been very much in sympathy with them. Not that they could do anything about it. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Sarah Palin a creationist?

I know that she has stated that she would support creationism being taught in schools, but does she actually believe in it and is she a young earth creationist? I cannot see anything in the article, or elsewhere, that actually says she believes in it, just the assumption due to her support for teaching it. Baked Bean Bob (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This Salon article (you may have to go through an ad before you can read it) makes a pretty strong case that, yes, she believes this stuff: "Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.' I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."" DAVID ŠENEK 09:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy vay! Well, there's a site that is maintained called the Index to Creationist Claims that attempts to address all of the various claims made by Creationists. This is a very useful list, and I happen to refer to it on a regular basis, unfortunately. I checked up on this claim that Palin was supposed to have said about dinosaur fossils with human footprints on them, and here is that Index's response to this particular claim. Saukkomies 16:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What it sounds like to me is that she doesn't care very much about it and isn't taking a strong position on it. She appears to lean in an evangelical direction but it's not very serious, she's not asserting it with any real knowledge. She saw some picture once. I mean, that's not exactly a strong defense on her part. (I can't stand her but I don't think her having mild, wishy-washy Creationist leanings is her worst quality. That's only makes her fit in with the majority of her Republican "base", that's all. Actually on that topic she's better than most of her base—she doesn't seem eager to press the issue.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. If she says "both should be taught in schools", then yes, she is advocating it. Also note that that is the creationist instance. Anyone who dismisses creationism wouldn't consider the possibility. — Kieff | Talk 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen her push it. The "teach both" is a politically convenient thing to say for someone who is trying to appeal to an evangelical base, especially if it is offered up as a vague opinion and not as a policy point. If she's just putting that out there as something she wouldn't be opposed to, but isn't pushing for it, again, I'm not really that concerned. That just means she's playing bland evangelical politics. If you want to get up in arms about her evangelical views, worry about her stance on abortion, something she I suspect she would actually push for. In any case in the executive branch she wouldn't have much control over things like creationism in schools—at most she'd be advocating the wishy-washy "let local school boards decide" position, which is already basically how things are. Again, I don't support her, and I think she'd be a horrible choice for national leadership, but this particular issue seems to me like one of the lesser ones to worry about in her case. The Creationism issue is a nice bugaboo but it's not something that the White House has a whole lot of influence over, due to the way US education works. It's also not something I think we need to be too worried about—there are a lot of checks in place already that make it unlikely that it will gain much of a foothold (parents are usually more concerned with their kids being admitted to a good college than they are about them being indoctrinated in biology class, which is no doubt part of the reason that those districts which have occasionally strayed into creationism often stray back away from it pretty quick once they become a laughing stock). Just my take on things (as a committed anti-creationist, but one who recognizes there are more pressing issues at the moment). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for me as a high school and middle school teacher of Earth Science (which includes teaching about evolution as part of the curriculum - you know, fossils and such), the subject of having to be forced to teach Creationism to my students is of much more personal direct importance than whether abortion becomes illegal or not. It all depends on who you are as to which particular political subjects will be most important. Saukkomies 21:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think she might know better than to try to press the issue. There are only a couple of states that have successfully managed to force the teaching of Creationism as part of the standard science curriculum. In spite of the fact that a lot of Fundamentalist Christians would love to make everyone accept that Creationism is science, it is in fact not. Creationism has no scientific proof or basis to stand on. Instead, it is a conjecture that the universe was created as stipulated in Genesis, which is not a scientific theory, but a bit of religious dogma. Forcing science teachers to teach religious dogma as part of the public schools' science curriculum is, therefore, unethical if not unconstitutional. Sarah Palin supports doing precisely this, and yes, by advocating this she is proving that she believes in Creationism, else why on earth would she be behind the idea of forcing religion into a science curriculum? Saukkomies 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

$100,000 deposit guarantee for accounts

Is this guarantee for every person or for every bank account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What country are you talking about? --Anon, 11:17 UTC, September 20/08.

In the US, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insures deposits in "member banks", and according to the FRB FAQs "Almost all U.S. banks and savings associations are members of the FDIC.". Also see the FDIC FAQs. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of this (http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/insuringdeposits/index.html) it seems yes if the bank is a FDIC member. ny156uk (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This FDIC insurance up to $100,000 is per depositor per bank. If a person, or entity (such as a business or whatever) has assets in a bank that exceeds $100,000, it may be a wise thing to open an account in another bank. I once was a director of a small public library, and one year after our annual audit we were instructed by our accountant that we now had assets for over $100,000, and that we were therefore required by the guidelines set forth by how non-profit organizations are run in our state (not sure how it would be for other states) to open a separate savings account in another bank in order for our assets to be fully protected under the FDIC. In other words, it was necessary to make sure we never had an account in any particular bank that exceeded the $100,000. Saukkomies 16:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Discriminating the fat and ugly

Is there any law that prohibit discrimination fat, ugly people? I don't remember having seen a law stating that discrimination on grounds of appearance is not allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst undoubtedly there will be discrimination against obese people and 'ugly' people (obviously ugliness is a personal preference trait rather than consistent), I am not aware of any discrimination law specifically designed to cover this form of discrimination. That doesn't mean that an individual that is blatantly discriminated against on this basis couldn't successfully sue the accused though ny156uk (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What country are you talking about? --Anon, 11:17 UTC, September 20/08.

Does it matter? is there any country for which the answer would be "yes"? - Nunh-huh 12:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Washington DC outlaws this form of discrimination - [8]. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO it matters in that "is there a law in any country in the world that prohibits discrimination against people on the basis of their size or appearance?" is a much broader question than "is there any such law in country A" or "is there any such law in country B?

This [[9]] might be of interest. It deals specifically with discrimination agaist large people, and raises the idea of legal protections for those who are overweight. It does not mention any such laws.

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC

Don't know about apparence but for weight, definitely some places do[10]. Note that even if the law does not explicitly outlaw discrimination of this sort, depending on how any discrimination law is phrased and the precise circumstances it may still be considered discriminatory. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Are textbook questions copyright?

The question came up in conversation today, and I can't seem to find any real answer out there in cyberspace. The textbooks we had mind were maths textbooks (though I'm curious about this in general), and we eventually figured you probably couldn't copyright something like "x + 2 = 0, solve for x" - there must be many textbooks with that exact question. But what about a page full of such questions? What about something like "The bus has two people on it, then in 5 minutes, no people. How many people got off the bus"? What about exam papers? If you write up and distribute worked solutions to either a text book or exam (that aren't included in the original work), are you violating any copyright laws? Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to accurately answer your question it is necessary to know what you would be using this for. Is it for a classroom or other circumstance where teaching is taking place? This has bearing on the usage of copywritten material. Saukkomies 13:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, suppose I write up worked solutions to the exercises for a textbook or exam, is it ok for me to give these out for study purposes (no money involved) provided worked solutions to the exam/textbook weren't a part of the original work? If so (and I presume the answer is yes), is it then ok for me to include the original question together with the worked solution so people know which question I'm working out? If not, to what level are the questions copyright (ie, my original question)? Thanks for your reply, Ben (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my wife helped me on this. She is an expert in copywrite law, being the person at the university she works for (she too is a librarian) who is the "contact person" for all copywrite questions. She answers copywrite questions all the time that come to her from faculty and graduate students who are publishing articles and writing books and such. So, with those credentials, here is what she had to say on the subject. This pertains to the United States, and may or may not be applicable in other countries.

If you were to take a textbook and copy verbatim a list of mathematical formulae in the form of a test or study guide, then you are using someone else's creative work. In other words, someone went to the bother of collecting all those formulae and putting them down in an organized way, and that requires some creativity on their part. When a person creates something it is automatically considered to be protected under copywrite law - regardless of whether the person actually goes to the effort to formally and officially make it copywritten. So, if you were taking a page from a textbook, and either photocopying it or copying it by hand, you are using copywritten material, and breaking the law (see below for exceptions to this).

In a broader sense, general mathematical formulae and scientific data are of themselves not copywrite protected; they're considered public domain, general knowledge. However, once someone takes the mathematical formulae or scientific data and organizes it into a test, a textbook, a table, or anything else, then that person has used his or her own creative effort to do so, and that is when the material then becomes protected under copywrite law. Story problems are such examples of taking mathematical formulae and using creativity to come up with them, so for example: the mathematical formula "2 plus 2 equals 4" would not be protected under copywrite law, but "If Sally has 2 apples and Dick has 2 apples, and they both give all of their apples to Jane, then how many apples does Jane have?" would be protected under copywrite law.

So, the problems themselves are not copywritten, but the problem sheet or the collection of them is.

Now, regarding the "Fair Use" clause under U.S. copywrite law, material that is protected by copywrite may be used for educational purposes if it successfully passes certain requirements for how it's being used, which are called "The Four Factor Test", or "Balancing Test". The Fair Use wiki article goes into this in detail, but basically here are the four factors:
•the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
•the nature of the copyrighted work;
•the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
•the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Another thing to keep in mind is whether the book you're using is a workboook. A workbook, which has tear-out sheets meant to be used by the student, is considered under copywrite law to be a "consumable" product. As such, it does not fall under the Fair Use clause. So, if you're getting your math problems from a workbook - regardless of whether you're consuming the tear-out sheets or not (for instance, if you photocopied the tear out sheets) - then you would not be following the Fair Use guidelines. You could use the exact same information from a textbook, though, and if it is being used for educational purposes, you'd be probably protected under Fair Use and would not be breaking copywrite law. Confusing, no?

The whole thing about Fair Use is that there's really no hard, set-in-concrete answers. The reason is that there have been so very few court cases that have tested the use of material for educational purposes, that it is difficult to point at any legal precedent for a particular instance of how any material might be used. That, and the "Four Factor Test" is deliberately vague for the protection of the person who is wanting to use the material.

Hope that helps. If you want, reply back for further clarification, and I'll see whether my wife is up to the task! Saukkomies 14:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me but I must insist. Copyright. Not copywrite. Copyright. The right to copy, not writing copy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I've always had a problem spelling that word correctly. Obviously, too, it was I who wrote the posting, not my wife, whom I'm certain would not have misspelled the word. No matter how much one imagines his intellectual powers to be, it seems that there are always instances such as this that provide lots of reasons for a person to maintain a healthy humility about one's own limitations... May I also add that being corrected by someone as Wikifamous as yourself is indeed an honor. No sarcasm intended. It's always a personal delight whenever anyone of any note within the Wikiuniverse comments on anything I've written, even if it is to correct me. I now assume the Garth and Wayne posture of humility, and chant: "I'm Not Worthy! I'm Not Worthy!" hee heeSaukkomies 15:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

*snort* I kinda held back -- I decided a long time ago that spelling corrections are not a particularly useful mode of communication, but there were these long needles being poked into my eyeballs this time. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Saukkomies' wife. Individual mathematical questions, etc., probably not copyrightable. Collection of them, esp. in a textbook, definitely copyrightable. I would also put into the fray the idea that the particular nature of a textbook is that it is expected that it will be used to create problem sheets, problems on the chalkboard, etc., which expands the fair use a bit more than you'd get from, say, a poem or a painting. Things that are explicitly created for pedagogical purposes are going to be treated a little more loosely in an educational setting than other types of works. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

women's breast size

For an average women with higher bra size, say 36 D or something like that, what would be the distance between two nipples (natural when not wearing any dress) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.122.65 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This question would be better placed at the science desk. DAVID ŠENEK 17:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Chaplain of First Continental Congress

Is there a way to find out who was the chaplain of the First Continental Congress? The article doesn't say, and I can't find it with a google search. Bubba73 (talk), 21:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The first prayer of the Continental Congress is here [11], and attributed to Reverend Jacob Duché, Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, however it does not say if he had an official appointment as "Chaplain of the Continental Congress" - or if such a post existed. He may just have been a convenient cleric. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems Bubba found what he was after. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was trying to see if William Linn was the chaplain of the first US Congress (1789), not the first Continental Congress (1774), as I originally said. I found google references to Linn as the chaplain of the first US congress, but his article doesn't state it. Bubba73 (talk), 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume you found this [12] for Linn being first chaplain of Congress. DuncanHill (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen that page but I did find some others. I saw you changed the article, thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Bubba73 (talk), 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Immersive personality disorder

Is there a specific term/condition for being prone to immersing in the immediate "reality"? Sort of like if someone were "brainwashed" without the brainwashing; or similar to that case on House (TV series) - Mirror Mirror (House) (seems Rickettsiaceae was the condition), but less about mirroring, and more about accepting projection? For example, such a sufferer would suddenly believe they had military service if, in response to something, they were chided, "What do you mean? Don't you remember serving in 'Nam?" Not gullibility, per se. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestibility? --Tango (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Confabulation? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If such a condition were encountered (and classified), it would probably be considered some kind of fugue, or some other dissociative disorder. Some people are more suggestible than others, and researchers have invented various terms to describe that trait (suggestion prone, fantasy prone....), for example [13]. -Haikon 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

September 21

Mestizos

Which Latin and Central American nations have the significant number of mestizos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.247 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See Mestizo#Spanish-speaking_Latin_America. DAVID ŠENEK 10:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Were Ancient Egyptians Black?

the rock paintings shows that north africa once was inhabited blacks, like algeria and libya had black people once living there. So does this prove that the ancient egyptian were black? i looked at the "race of ancient egypt" but there is so many opinions i need a answer.............So Were they black or not? --arab 05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

From the discussions I have heard the general consensus is they were not "black". Of course, that depends on your definition of "black", which is entirely subjective. Short answer: no. --mboverload@ 05:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Egyptians of Upper Egypt, mainly the Nubians, were considered by the ancient Egyptians to be much darker. I don't suppose the mix has changed all that much since then. Despite this though they seem more related to other Arabs than to sub-Saharan Africans. Nowadays there seems to be a fairly clear line through Sudan separating the people in the north from those in the south which has led to a long standing and very bloody civil war. What precisely about the rock paintings identifies the people as 'black'? Dmcq (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at ancient Egyptian sculpture you'll see quite a lot of variation in appearance - some have what look like African features, others have what look like caucasian features. The ancient Egyptian civilisation lasted three thousand years at the crossroads between Africa and the Middle East - I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect it to have a single, consistent racial profile. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a controversy over it, ergo the "many opinions" in the article (e.g. Ancient Egyptian race controversy). But let's put it this way. They were North Africans. What many Americans call "Black" are people from West, Central, and South Africa in particular. The Ancient Egyptians probably looked more like modern Egyptians (who look more "Middle Eastern" than "Black") than they did look like people from West, Central, and South Africa. That being said, lumping those particular very-different-looking populations (South Africans would not consider themselves as looking very similar to West Africans, except for the fact that they look more like each other than either look to Europeans, for example) into one category is already a decision that has not a whole lot to do with science. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the truly ridiculous is when it's claimed that Cleopatra herself must have been black because she was "Egyptian" -- ignoring the fact that her ancestry was almost exclusively Macedonian/Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the very long history of their civilisation, and the fact their land was the bridge between Africa and Asia, it is extremely likely that they would have had a very mixed culture, with people from all over the place. Their armies and their slaves incorporated people from all sorts of places. Plus, the Ancient Egyptian language had a highly simplified grammatical system compared to other Semitic languages of the time, and had many words which can be found in North African and East African languages. This linguistic phenomenon is what happens when cultures mix.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (otherwise known as the Mormons), Egyptians were to be considered "Black", and as such were included in the Mormon Church's restriction against being elibible to be given the priesthood. That is up until 1978, when the ban was lifted. However, Mormon doctrine still maintains that Egyptians are to be considered "Black". The specific doctrine states that the reason Black people have a dark skin is due to the "Curse of Cain". In other words, Mormons believe that Blacks are descended from Cain, who in Genesis kills his brother Abel, and is then cursed by God with a dark skin, and is doomed to wander the earth, shunned by all who meet him. Because of this curse, which Mormons believe was to be carried on to his descendants for all time (or, rather, until 1978), the Blacks were not allowed to be given the Mormon priesthood. The reason (Mormons believe) that Blacks survived Noah's Flood (which supposedly killed off everyone but Noah's immediate family) was that one of Noah's sons (Ham) was married to a woman who carried the Curse of Cain - in other words, she was Black. So Ham's descendants were therefore themselves Black (since all it takes in Mormonism is just one Black ancestor for 10 generations back to be considered to have the "Curse of Cain"), and therefore cursed by God. And of course Ham's descendants moved off to go inhabit Africa. In the Mormon scripture called the Pearl of Great Price it gives an account of how the Pharaoh of Egypt during the time that Abraham lived was a righteous and holy man, but was denied the priesthood of God on account of his Curse of Cain. In other words, he was Black. All of this is according to Mormon doctrinal beliefs, which even though the Mormon Church has allowed Blacks to be given the priesthood since 1978, still hold to these beliefs about Blacks - and of course, about Egyptians, who were also denied the Mormon priesthood until 1978. Not that there were hordes of Egyptians lining up to become Mormons before then... Saukkomies 02:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. This means that we now have a definition for "for all times" (=1978) much like the term "time immemorial" actually has a precise definition? Jørgen (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's not a definition that the vast majority of people would adhere to. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, 1978 also coincided with the year when the Mormon Church was building a temple in Brazil, and that basically almost every Mormon in Brazil would have been denied access to it on account of being considered by Mormon doctrine to be "Black". Also, the BYU basketball team had been banned from playing at Stanford University, on account of this very issue of Blacks not being given the Priesthood.... Not saying that there's necessarily a conclusive relationship between these events, but.... Saukkomies 11:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If the JNA was Europe's third or fourth largest army, which armies larger?

Hello,

the article on the Yugoslav People's Army, claims that is was the fourth largest army in Europe, but it does not offer citations. I've also heard that it was the third largest, but it doesn't seem to be stated explicitly how and when this ranking was made. I'd also like to know which armies in Europe were ranked even higher (the Soviet army, the British army?) Many thanks, Evilbu (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's going to depend on your definitions. For example, the Swiss army can be considered either extremely small or extremely large, depending on whether or not you count reservists (which every able bodied man is). --Tango (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by size of armed forces may help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That article, while interesting, does not provide a number for 'Number Of Nuclear Weapons' for Japan, Nigeria, and Rwanda. Maybe figures were not available at time of writing, but in other places in the article (Israel, North Korea, and so) the figures are estimated. I think we can safely estimate '0' as the numbers for Japan and Rwanda, and probably also for Nigeria.--ChokinBako (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For a high-tech country like Japan, "number of nuclear weapons" is fairly meaningless: Japan has the technology base needed to deploy nuclear weapons within six months of deciding to do so. --Carnildo (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mount Olympus artwork?

Is there a painting, past or present, depicting Mount Olympus in Greece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukesnyder1027 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I dug around the Net a bit, and could only find either photographs of Mount Olympus or paintings that were very stylistic of the Mount Olympus from mythology - you know, the "home of the Gods" kind of thing. However, there is a fellow user of Wikipedia who, in his profile description, says that he has lived on the slopes of Mount Olympus for a long time. He includes painting as one of his interests. Perhaps if you contacted him, he would be able to provide you with some paintings of Mount Olympus... His name is John Foss, and I do not think I'm breaking any rules by putting that information here in the Ref Desk, since he has included it in his public Wiki profile... Saukkomies 21:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does the US want to build a missile shield in Poland?

What are the main reasons? 124.171.226.46 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

One possible quick-and-dirty answer would be that it is due to George W. Bush being in office. His foreign policy seems so to be based on over-responding to perceived or imagined threats in what has become known as the Bush Doctrine, which includes using preemptive strategies against what might possibly become potential enemy states - in this case against Russia. Saukkomies 16:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Building a missile shield is also a way to funnel a few hundred billion of tax-payer's money to corporations (in this case the defense industry), another Bush speciality as this week's 700 billion Wall Street bailout shows. DAVID ŠENEK 16:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! High fives ŠENEK Saukkomies 17:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The ref desk is not place for political rants, take it elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

ŠENEK, we've done been keel-hauled! Strike the mizzen mast, and haul away! (Oops, sorry, I'm two days too late for International Talk Like a Pirate Day...) Saukkomies 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The stated goals are to protect the US (and to a lesser extent, its allies) from nuclear attack by "rogue states", most likely Iran and North Korea. Why Poland in particular? It's the most willing country that is in the right place for the interception missiles to reach the nukes before they get to the US having been launched from certain places that the US fears (I don't know which places are intended to be protected against from which missile sites - Poland might protect against Iran, judging by a quick glance at a map). --Tango (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be a very, very quick glance at a map. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the shortest route from Iran to the east coast of the US goes directly over Poland. - Dammit (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And what missile would the Iranians aim at the US east coast? The Shihab-3 has a range of 1300 km. Iran would have a national day of celebration if it even reached the missile defense system in Poland. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's fortunate, because the defence shield isn't operational yet. It would be a little late to build your shield after the enemy develops the weapons that could wipe you out. --Tango (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No... that's just what they'll be expecting us to do!... Maybe if we really wanted to be crafty we could place the missile shield in Antarctica, where they'd least expect it to be! Oh sorry, I'm talking politics again... (spanks own hands) Saukkomies 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reasons why it's Poland are as much political as technical. As Tango notes, the US's stated aim is protection of North America and Europe from small numbers of missiles launched from the Middle East. Poland is one site proposed for this system, and the US is in discussions with Czechia and Ukraine. All of this is making the Russians uncomfortable, partly because they consider these former sov-blok countries to be their backyard (much as the US considers the Caribbean and Central America its) and partially because they fears encirclement (the fear of Russian foreign relations for more than a century). As the US says Iran is one of these countries about which it is concerned, the Russians offered to host elements of the system themselves (in the Ciscaucasus) and got Azerbaijan to do likewise. As this Wired story notes these seem like better locations for a boost-phase defense defense against Iranian (and to a lesser extent Syrian) ICBM launches (that article also shows great-circle trajectories for a notional Iranian launch site). The US doesn't seem to like this idea - we can't discount this as pure politics, as we don't know the technical characteristics of the proposed systems (being too close to a launch site gives you insufficient warning to launch, although that's not a reason not to have a radar there). The Russians in turn suspect that the missiles aren't really for defense at all, but are infact first-strike nuclear weapons deployed only scant minutes from major Russian cities. The Russians see a pattern of western boldness in a ring around them (the orange revolution, Kosovo, former soviet countries joining or moving toward the EU and Nato) and the west sees a newly assertive and oil-cash-rich Russia as being increasingly assertive and bellicose. Everyone sees the others worst motives at work in Georgia. All this amid a post-cold-war geopolitical environment that's increasingly resembling the Great Game; the great oil and gas reserves of the Caspian basin, Kazakhstan and southern Siberia are in play, as are the unstable countries that host or border the sea lanes and pipelines that ship their product to the world market. So in short, for both the US and Russia, much of their actions are motivated by a mixture of paranoia and avarice - the US is afraid of rogue state nukes, the Russians afraid of encirclement, and everyone wants to control central europe and the caucasus. And all the while, when no-one is paying attention, China is buying Africa. Doesn't this all sound horribly like a game of Risk? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Its worth observing that in East Asia, where North Korea has a much more developed missile and nuke program that threatens US allies like Japan and South Korea now, and which the US believes will threaten California quite soon (yeah, it threatens Oregon too, but who'd waste a nuke on Oregon?), there's (as far as I'm aware) no talk of a similar missile defense system (for example in Japan). The US does have Sea-based X-band Radar and seems to be relying on the very limited protection afforded by its (and soon Japan's) Aegis systems. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We have seaborne interceptor and the installation in Alaska for the North Korea threat. See Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (lousy article) and National missile defense#Current NMD program. Rmhermen (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Poland isn't really interested in the missile shield itself we are interested in the US Political and Military involvement in Poland that come with the missile shield. You may not be aware that the Russian Air force has probably more aircraft than Poland has long and medium range anti-aircraft missiles. Our post-soviet anti-aircraft systems are aging quickly and if we don't make new purchases or get US assistance we will have no operational long and medium range air-defence after around 2012. So the missile shield and the Patriot missiles that are to protect it are currently welcomed in Poland. Mieciu K (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying, Mieciu, makes a lot of sense. Basically, by the US spending billions of dollars developing a military presence in Poland, we're saying "Welcome to the club" (i.e., Poland's joining NATO), by giving Poland's economy a little boost, and its military strength a major upgrade... Am I getting that right? Saukkomies 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military Aid Poland will get from the US is overestimated. With the "missile shield deal" we only negotiated the temporary presence of one US Patriot-3 missile battery with US crew and an unspecified "assistance in modernizing the Polish military" which in legal terms doesn't really mean anything. The only other US equipment we recieved for free/for a symbolic price were 217 HMMWV's and 5 old C-130K transport aircraft (not yet in Poland). Compared to what Poland has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan we made a poor deal with that "free US military equipment". The F-16's we bought recently were at full price and we won't probably buy any Patriot missiles, we will probably newer and cheaper European system based on the MBDA Aster missiles. Mieciu K (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So, trying to get this spelled out... Basically, Poland made a deal with the US that in return for getting to join NATO, Poland would have to do a bunch of less-than-desirable things such as: 1) send troops and military assistance to Iraq, 2) buy a bunch of military crap from the US, and 3) let the US build a bunch of missile bases on Polish soil. Is that your take on this? Saukkomies 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Joining NATO has nothing to do with the other issues (look at France). We went to Iraq and Afghanistan because we wanted too, we buy equipment from the US only if we want it. The missile shield is a result of a recent Polish-US agreement outside of NATO.

1) We took the missile shield deal because wee need a boost for our army especially the air-defence but we don't expect much, 2) We don't expect a boost for our economy investments in Poland are a matter of economy not politics, the missile base will have only a small crew so they won't buy much in Poland. 3) We see the shield as anti-Russian and we are afraid/dislike Russia especially after the recent conflict. 4) We want strong US-Polish military and political links as a guarantee of our safety besides the NATO treaty. Mieciu K (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

According to List of members of NATO, Poland joined 9 years ago. That can't have had anything to do with this recent deal. --Tango (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, 9 years might seem like a lot of time but most Polish Army equipment is still Warsaw Pact standard equipment and it's aging fast. That means that in the case of war we cannot expect to receive a steady supply of spare parts and ammunition from Nato like "old" Nato members. The same goes for many other post-1989 NATO members. Mieciu K (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Because Bush wants to make sure we don't forget Poland. --mboverload@ 20:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Pole, over here the missile defence shield is foremost seen as a) a security measure for the United States utilising Poland's role as its ally, b) military help for Poland in case the Russians want to invade, c) an excellent way to disrupt the ties with Russia further. The shield isn't at all popular with the public, and there's a lot of politics involved (especially since our current president has an anti-Russian stance). This is an arms race sadly. My two bits. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

First advertisement on soccer teams shirt.

1.When and where was the first advertisement written on soccer teams shirt?(the date and location when the team(s) first time entered the field with this kind of shirt) 2.which team was it? 3.which company was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.207.41 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this extremely interesting article, Hibernian was the first "top-level" UK club to wear sponsored shirts, in 1977 (the sponsor was the manufacturer, Bukta. Derby County was the first English club to get a shirt sponsorship deal (with Saab, in 1978)) but the shirts were only worn for a photoshoot, not in play. Liverpool wore the first sponsored shirts in play in the English Football league, in 1979. However, the TV companies refused to allow such shirts to be seen on TV until 1983. Karenjc 15:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What about that whole "no two democracies has ever gone to war" thing?

I read somewhere that the semi-ironic theory Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention (that is, no two countries with a McDonalds franchise would ever go to war with each other) had been shattered by the recent conflict in South Ossetia. That got me thinking: the McDonalds theory is obviously a spin-off from the "No two democracies will/have ever gone to war" thing. Doesn't the war in South Ossetia contradict that theory as well? Russia isn't the healthiest of democracies, but it is a democracy, right? And that got me thinking more: what about the American Revolution? The war of 1812? Or why not the American Civil War (granted, not two countries, but two democratic halfs of one country)? And there must have been some wars way back when, when democracy had just gotten its groove on, between some Greek City-states. Seriously, there seems to be a whole bunch of them! Doesn't that pretty much blow the whole damn theory out of the water? I suppose you could narrow the definition of democracy to an absurd degree (like requiring universal suffrage and a free, independent press), but that would be missing the point of both democracy and the theory itself, wouldn't it? I mean, the theory states that when the people are in charge, they will not go to war with each other. Isn't that whole theory pretty silly? 83.250.202.36 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

World War II? Hitler was democratically elected (they may not have been free and fair elections, but they were definitely elections). --Tango (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

But by the time there was a war—six years after Hitler took power—it was not a democracy in any sense of the word. Just because someone was elected once (in a way—his party was elected, he connived into getting political power himself, he granted himself emergency powers and dissolved the Reichstag) doesn't make their government a democracy. (And holding elections doesn't make a democracy either—Stalin and Saddam had those. But no one would argue that their governments were democracies.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the UK suspended elections during the war, so you could claim neither side was democratic. It all comes down to your definitions of democracy. --Tango (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

By-elections still happened to fill seats, and these could be, and sometimes were contested. DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's different to just suspend elections during war or to regard balance of powers differently, than to create a totalitarian state. Anyone who doesn't recognize the difference is being willfully ignorant. Whatever you think of war powers most are not Gleichschaltung. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Wikipedia has an article called List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory!! In that article is a list of a number of wars in which two or more democracies fought against each other. Saukkomies 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! We need to impose areas that Wikipedia will not have articles on, otherwise it's just not fair on Ref Deskers! --Tango (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Drat those nonunion WP-editors, coming over and stealing our jobs ... —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of that list, I officially and unanimously (in my role as Anonymous King of the Universe) declare the "Democratic peace theory" silly! Look at that list, there's like 20 wars there! There's quibbles about every entry, but as a coherent theory, it's patently absurd! 83.250.202.36 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, most of those are pretty ridiculous. WWII as a contest between democracies? Puhleeaze. I'm not saying I really buy that Democratic peace theory works out 100% or even should work out 100%, but the list of "exceptions" range from the patently silly (Nazi Germany as democracy) to the quibbling (UK is coerced by USSR to declare war on Finland, drops two bombs). If it fails it fails in the most quibbling ways—in each case there are states whose claim to being a "democracy" is extremely questionable. Democratic peace theory is about real democracies with forms of public feedback—just because something has "elections" does not make it a democracy in the terms set forth by the theory. Disproving it in such a way is a linguistic fluke—finding ways in which things that may under some very narrow definitions be considered "democracies" get counted, even if those great "democrats" in power win their elections because they killed all of their political opposition... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As a theory it is absurd, because there is no satisfactory definition of a "democracy" available. One can always argue one's way out of any apparent failure by pointing out some allegedly "non-democratic" feature of one or more of the belligerent powers. DuncanHill (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the reason there haven't been any wars between democracies is because there simply aren't many democracies by the definition used in that article. --Tango (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize it's in somewhat poor taste to post a quote this large on the RD, but I'm a huge fan of Fareed Zakaria and this was just too perfect. The following is an excerpt from one of his essays, titled The Rise of Illiberal Democracy; it expresses ideas Zakaria expands upon in his book The Future of Freedom (the short version is that the peace is not in fact between democracies per se, but between governments espousing constitutional liberalism):

“ Over the past decade, one of the most spirited debates among scholars of international relations concerns the "democratic peace" -- the assertion that no two modern democracies have gone to war with each other. The debate raises interesting substantive questions (does the American Civil War count? do nuclear weapons better explain the peace?) and even the statistical findings have raised interesting dissents. (As the scholar David Spiro points out, given the small number of both democracies and wars over the last two hundred years, sheer chance might explain the absence of war between democracies. No member of his family has ever won the lottery, yet few offer explanations for this impressive correlation.) But even if the statistics are correct, what explains them? Kant, the original proponent of the democratic peace, contended that in democracies, those who pay for wars -- that is, the public -- make the decisions, so they are understandably cautious. But that claim suggests that democracies are more pacific than other states. Actually they are more warlike, going to war more often and with greater intensity than most states. It is only with other democracies that the peace holds.

When divining the cause behind this correlation, one thing becomes clear: the democratic peace is actually the liberal peace. Writing in the eighteenth century, Kant believed that democracies were tyrannical, and he specifically excluded them from his conception of "republican" governments, which lived in a zone of peace. Republicanism, for Kant, meant a separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law, protection of individual rights, and some level of representation in government (though nothing close to universal suffrage). Kant's other explanations for the "perpetual peace" between republics are all closely linked to their constitutional and liberal character: a mutual respect for the rights of each other's citizens, a system of checks and balances assuring that no single leader can drag his country into war, and classical liberal economic policies -- most importantly, free trade -- which create an interdependence that makes war costly and cooperation useful. Michael Doyle, th leading scholar on the subject, confirms in his 1997 book Ways of War and Peace that without constitutional liberalism, democracy itself has no peace-inducing qualities:

Kant distrusted unfettered, democratic majoritarianism, and his argument offers no support for a claim that all participatory polities -- democracies -- should be peaceful, either in general or between fellow democracies. Many participatory polities have been non-liberal. For two thousand years before the modern age, popular rule was widely associated with aggressiveness (by Thucydides) or imperial success (by Machiavelli) . . . The decisive preference of [the] median voter might well include "ethnic cleansing" against other democratic polities.

The distinction between liberal and illiberal democracies sheds light on another striking statistical correlation. Political scientists Jack Snyder and Edward Mansfield contend, using an impressive data set, that over the last 200 years democratizing states went to war significantly more often than either stable autocracies or liberal democracies. In countries not grounded in constitutional liberalism, the rise of democracy often brings with it hyper-nationalism and war-mongering. When the political system is opened up, diverse groups with incompatible interests gain access to power and press their demands. Political and military leaders, who are often embattled remnants of the old authoritarian order, realize that to succeed that they must rally the masses behind a national cause. The result is invariably aggressive rhetoric and policies, which often drag countries into confrontation and war. Noteworthy examples range from Napoleon III's France, Wilhelmine Germany, and Taisho Japan to those in today's newspapers, like Armenia and Azerbaijan and Milosevic's Serbia. The democratic peace, it turns out, has little to do with democracy.

”

--Shaggorama (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ned Myers

Looking for the date of death, location of death, and location of grave for MEYERS, EDWARD ROBERT. He called himself "New Myers. Born in Quebec about 1798-99, and was alive in New York in 1842-43. He was the subject of James Fenimore Cooper's "Ned Myers, or A Life Before the Mast."

Thank you. Onlylin (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Consequences of US government bailout of financial sector

Can anyone point me to sources that discuss the likely consequences of the US government bailout of its financial sector (and possibly foreign banks, according to some sources) for US taxpayers, for interest rates, and for the future economic potential of the United States? Thank you. Marco polo (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you will get other sources, but I'll give you one where I get a lot of my news from: National Public Radio. I looked and found a few stories that have recently aired about this subject. Here are a few:
• White House Requests $700B In Bailout Plan, which aired earlier today.
• In Congress, Concern Over Bailouts, which also aired earlier today.
• Bailout Plan Thin On Details, again, which aired today.
As I said, there are undoubtedly other, and perhaps better, sources for analysis of the bailout. Saukkomies 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NPR recently started a fantastic new podcast and blog called "Planet Money" ( http://npr.org/money ). There's 7 episodes of the podcast so far, and they go into some depth about the crisis (the episodes aren't that long, so it's not gonna take you forever to catch up) 83.250.202.36 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for these suggestions. However, these sources respond more to questions along the lines of "How did we get here?", "How will the government respond?", and "What are the politics surrounding the government's response?". I am hoping to find sources that answer a question more like "How will the government bailout affect the financial position of the US government and the economic position of the United States in the future?" I have seen vague assurances in the press that somehow that future will be better than it would have been without the government intervention, but I am looking for more detailed forecasts. Thanks in advance for any help. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

September 22

bombing investigations

By chance, will any NYPD officers and Pentagon Force Protection Agency officers be sent to Pakistan to help out in the Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing investigations? The reason I'm asking is because two United States Department of Defense employees were among the dead.72.229.139.13 (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan (specifically the ISI) is usually pretty touchy about letting outsiders into their bombing investigations. In any case, why would it be the NYPD and not, say, the FBI? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

When three franchise hotels in Amman, Jordan were bombed on November 9, 2005, an NYPD officer was stationed there. The NYPD have specialized units for dealing with those types of things. They could help out, with some assistance from the PFPA.72.229.139.13 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Voter registration

A colleague of mine, who is teaching English to German pupils in the last year of a German grammar school/college preparatory high school, recently came up with the question why US voters have to register. (In Germany you would automatically get a notification from local authorities where you are registered as a permanent resident.) I suppose there are historical reasons for this situation in the USA and/or the fact that in the USA you don't have to register at the local government of your place of residence. Is this correct or what are the actual reasons for voter registration and/or the lack of resident registration in the USA? (The article voter registration couldn't give me any further information...) -- 84.160.12.2 (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am an American who lived in Germany for a while in the past, and I remember having to go to the police station to submit my polizeiliche Anmeldung. For me, the experience was a little unnerving, and it felt like a reminder of Germany's authoritarian past under the Communist and/or Nazi governments and the earlier Prussian autocracy. There is no requirement to register as a resident in the United States, and I think that Americans would strongly oppose what would feel like government surveillance and intrusion into their private lives. (Of course, this is not entirely rational, since it is fairly easy to find the residence of every American with a credit card—in other words nearly every American adult—through the internet.) Anyway, since the government has no official record of people's residence, they create registers of voters entitled to vote in a given locale by requiring those who wish to vote to register. This saves the government the expense of having to locate all of its citizens (without requiring them to register their residence) and ensures that people do not try to vote in more than one place. (Voter registration forms require registrants to state the place where they were previously registered.) Marco polo (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll try not to be offended by the comparison of present-day Germany to past communist/nazi regimes, but I would agree that German bureaucracy is still marked by its Prussian past. (But one shouldn't forget that Bismarck is also responsible for the establishment of social welfare, pension schemes and obligatory health insurance, things Germans like to uphold.) Anyway, you've answered my initial question, thanks. -- 84.160.64.44 (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally know some people who are "off the grid", meaning that there are no records of them existing. I doubt this would be very easy to pull off in a country such as Germany, but even though there are difficulties doing it here in the US, it is not entirely impossible. It means they do not have a driver's license, no credit cards or any other kind of debt, are not registered to vote, and don't even have a mailbox. Moreover, they are not breaking any laws by living as they do. Of course I live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, where people such as this are more likely to occur than in other, more "civilized" parts of the US... Saukkomies 23:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that make things like education and healthcare rather tricky? --Tango (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Education: homeschooling. Healthcare: pay as you go, and don't ask too many questions. I'm not promoting this lifestyle, just saying it's there... Saukkomies 01:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't even homeschooled children in the states need to register for exams in order to get any recognised qualifications? And pay as you go healthcare requires you either don't get very sick, or have a lot of money (which is unlikely with such a lifestyle, I would think). It may be possible for a limited period, but most people trying it are going to find themselves in a real mess sooner or later... --Tango (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The subject of whether children may be homeschooled completely from Kindergarten through High School at home varies from one state to the next. In Michigan, where I live, it is basically wide open - parents may, if they meet some very minimal requirements (none of which really forces them to make themselves go "off the grid") homeschool their kids for the entire duration of their upbringing. This especially seems to be the case if the parents belong to a religion which rejects government intervention in the education of their children - the parents may claim that they are exercising their freedom of religion by homeschooling their kids. To find out more about the various legal aspects as they apply from one state to the next, go to the Home School Legal Defense Association's web page.

The only real problem that many of these "off the grid" people face is when they go to file their taxes, which they try very hard to not have to do. Some of these folks do not even have a Social Security number assigned to them - let alone having ever paid taxes. If a person does not make a certain level of income in a given year, then he or she is not required to file a tax return. And that is the loophole that they use to get out of having to do this - they just make sure they don't make too much money. I know this may seem like science fiction to someone from Britain or Germany, but believe it or not, it is not too difficult to find people like this in the United States. It has to do with one of the basic aspects of the American psyche, which rejects government intervention in their lives on any level. It has a lot to do with the way the country grew during that famous 300 years of the Expanding American Frontier, which probably was the primary factor in shaping American society. Saukkomies 19:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, an example of such an "off the grid" person I know. I met him while working at a public library in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, where I live. The first time I met him, I was working at the Reference Desk at the library, and he came up to me to ask if I could get on the Internet (he didn't know how to use a computer) to find and print out the schedule for the Detroit Tigers football games, and what times they would be broadcast over AM radio. He was a Tigers fan, and his only real contact with the outside world was via a battery-operated AM transistor radio. So I found what he was asking for and he was on his way. About three months later, he returned, this time for a schedule of a Chicago Cubs radio-broadcasted games. So I got to talking to him, and found out he lived with his common law wife and possible offspring (he was a bit vague in that regard) out somewhere along the shoreline of Lake Superior. There were no roads anywhere near where he lived. He got into town in the winter via snowmobile, and in the summer by canoe, which he kept hidden along the lakeshore somewhere near his abode out in the woods. When he went by canoe, it took him three days' of paddling to get into town, and another three days to return. So he only made trips into town about every 3 to 6 months. He was very silent about how he made money to buy supplies and food, and since he wasn't forthcoming about this, I didn't ask. That's not a subject you bring up with people like this, just as is asking if they have children... I still see him on occasion when he makes it into town.
Another example is a grandmother and her granddaughter who live off the grid because they are hard core Fundamentalist Christians. The granddaughter is about 16 years old, and neither she nor her grandmother have ever been further than 10 miles from where they live in the woods. They only go shopping at a store that is located in a town of less than 1000 people, even though there's another store closer to where they live, but it is located in a town of about 7500 residents. The reason for this is because the larger town has too many "evil influences" in it, such as a book store, a university, and a daily newspaper. The church they go to had a Bible Camp for the Sunday School teens, but the grandmother wouldn't let her granddaughter go to it, because in order to get there, she would have had to have traveled on the Church bus through this larger town, and the grandmother didn't want her daughter to even do that - it was too much exposure for her to allow her granddaughter to have. She homeschools her granddaughter, and the reason I met them was because they were visiting the neighbors of a friend of mine who lives out in the country, and there was a backyard barbecue going on, and the grandmother and granddaughter came along with the neighbors to share some hamburgers that we were offering to the neighbors, and I got to talk to them. Or rather, I talked mostly to the granddaughter while the grandmother was busy making sure the burgers were grilled thoroughly (she didn't want rare meat).
I offer these examples in order to show that there are people here in the US who are just not known about. And, moreover, they are not registered to vote... For them, the idea of national politics is just a far-removed thing that they feel is something they do not want to be bothered with. Saukkomies 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How interesting, Saukkomies. Thanks for taking the time to expand on this thread. One of the things I find so fascinating (and addictive) about the ref desk is the insight it sheds on other people around the world. I live in a city where it is much less easy for people to exist off the radar. (When performing jury duty, recently, we were told we didn't need to claim for travel expenses: as the jury manager joked "we're the government, so we know where you live".) Of course, it wouldn't be impossible to be unkown, and much easier out in the sticks, but it wouldn't be considered normal. Gwinva (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rendezvous with Destiny by Eric F. Goldman

Can we see an article(s) and series of essays on "Rendezvous with Destiny" by Eric F. Goldman in light what's been happening with Treasury buy out of major Mortgage companies such as FNMA and FHLMC and also infusing hundreds of billions of dollars using Depression era regulation into the money market to calm the fears of the market? I believe it is especially more relevant now that we are faced with a huge role federal government plays in the market. Rapid growth due to industrialization and rapid growth of money due to financial deregulation due to various derivatives such as credit default swaps to mitigate default risks by financial institutions almost seems eerily similar, in that major paradigm shift leads to wild euphoria which seems to result in inevitable crash in financial markets(?). Current search in Wiki only leads to random sources and the speech by Ronald Reagan and archival searches in NYTimes lead to snippets of the book that should be read again. I didn't enjoy the book when it was a required reading back in high school, I would love to read a thorough analysis of the book before I pick up that book again. Jayomega99 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Jayomega99

Identify a (possibly heraldic) symbol

Can anyone identify this symbol

File:DSCF0536cropped.JPG

Symbol on Scout Scarf

. It is on a Scout Scarf, and is likely to represent the town or city that the group is from. I found it in my Scout Hut, and am trying to find out which group it is from. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a very clear picture, so I will describe it as well: A green shield with closed book on it. The book is red, and its spine is to the top. Lying on the book is a sword or scimitar of some type. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All I can find is that the sword and book may be symbols of Paul the Apostle. Algebraist 16:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You might also ask at WT:SCOUT. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Success stories of autistics

I am doing a project on success stories of autistics. Thanks to Wikipedia, I already have three examples:

Vernon Smith, American Nobel Prize-winning economist

Richard Borcherds, British mathematician, Fields Medalist

Satoshi Tajiri, Japanese game designer and creator of Pokemon

But I need two or three more examples. My examples need to be diverse in terms of their nationalities, fields of achievement and conditions on the autism spectrum (the three above are all Aspies, unfortunately).

Any suggestions? I would be particularly interested in:

An autistic chess prodigy with a Grandmaster title (or equivalent in other brain games)

An autistic who made highly significant contributions to an IT field or founded an IT multinational

A prolific autistic writer or musician whose works have received notable awards or topped bestseller lists/charts/box offices/etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.214 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Wiltshire MBE, architectural artist. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, take a look at List of people on the autistic spectrum. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet, author of Born on a Blue Day is high functioning aspergers (I think, rather than autism). Steewi (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

She's on the list Gandalf61 linked to, but Temple Grandin has certainly made an interesting career using her different perspective. Given some of the stereotypes about autistics, her work in bioethics is particularly interesting. Matt Deres (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag question

Old Heidelberg Apartments

Can anyone identify the lower of the two flags in the picture to the side? It's high resolution, so that might help. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the picture will not display for me. DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Clicking on the link works for me. Unfortunately, only half the flag is visible. Algebraist 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Null-editing the image seems to have fixed it. Algebraist 17:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks almost Pashtun in nature, but it does not appear to be a flag affiliated with the US Historical places people, Pittborough, Pennsylvania or the US. SGGH ^speak! 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Under the Flag#See also section, we have a number of galleries listed. I'd recommend browsing through them. A quick browse yielded nothing promising, but you may have better luck. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is probably wildly off track, and I've found nothing to substantiate it, but my immediate impression was that it had something to do with scouting. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The colours are like those used by Scouts Australia in their version of the arrowhead. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Man, it almost, but not quite, looks like the Hindu Aum symbol... Saukkomies 23:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting set of ideas; a pity I took the picture when the flag wasn't very visible. I also got a second shot of the place at the same time, but (concentrating on a different part of the building) I missed the flagpole altogether in that one. I have to go down there some time soon; hopefully the flag will be flying then. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is a letter written in an old english script or something like that. Keep in mind it is possibly reversed from this angle. If reversed, it could be M? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

'H' (for Heidelberg) in Fraktur? —Tamfang (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not Fraktur. It appears to be an old English script. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lumber mill in Prescott, WI c. 1880

I am trying to find detailed information regarding lumber milling operations in the Prescott, WI area in the 1880's. It may be where "Pa Ingalls" of "Little House" fame worked. One of my ancestors, along with his brothers and sisters (as well as other friends and relatives) worked there after immigrating to the U. S. from Denmark. My ancestor's names appear on an 1880 census in the area. Family lore places them in the area as early as 1871. Recent verbal information has said that the mill was the "Rush Owen Mill." The Eau Claire, WI GenWeb project lists lumberman John S. Owen and his partner, R. E. Rush, but there is no other information there or in a web search.

Is it possible to find information that would list where their mills were located? Are there records of employees? Were there mills in that area owned by other lumbermen? What species of lumber was milled? Was it shipped "East" as much of the rest of the lumber from the upper midwest?

Any information would be appreciated.

Growing up d (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are able to go to Madison, visit the Wisconsin Historical Society, which is spectacular (I've been there). You can probably search through land records and other legal documents for the area; they should have them all in their archives (see here for example). This could lead you to the names of mills and owners of mills, and show where they were. Finding lists of employees would be more tricky, but you can do a good deal of research at the WHS. Antandrus (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One other clarification: you may need to go to the Area Research Center in Pierce County instead, where they keep a lot of the actual records for that area. Antandrus (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rasta belief

As Rasta read from the old testament how does Rasta view the holy trinit. Judah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.13.30 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, but the "Selassie" in "Haile Selassie" (the other name of "Ras Tafari", after whom the movement is named) basically means "Trinity"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out our article Rastafari movement, where this question is explained. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

September 23

Heaven and all that

I was brought up a Christian, and whilst I can believe most of the bible story, one thing still bothers me: Its about heaven. well the first thing is, where is it, (in this universe or the next). What will we do there if we get there? And if we have to do the same thing all the time (like continually worshipping God), wont it get boring after the first million years?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.252.28 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You would probably be better off asking these questions to your priest/vicar/minister. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming (s)he has a priest/vicar/minister.... Why would it be better to take this question elsewhere, as opposed to any of the other questions that are asked of us here in the Hum Ref Desk? Saukkomies 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, because there's no generally accepted version of what heaven is, where it is (if anywhere at all in a sense that we can understand), whether or not our bodies later rejoin our spirits, what (if anything) we do there, and other questions. Different faiths have their own ideas. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Then direct him to Wiki pages (or other sources) where it's discussed online. That's the task set before us Ref Desk editors, no? I mean, to say to someone that has a valid question that he or she has to go talk to a "man of the cloth" in order to get the answer is not a very nice way to treat the person... It's condescending and patronizing, in my opinion. Saukkomies 01:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your question recalls this cartoon... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, 79.76.252.28, have you glanced at the Wiki article on Heaven yet? You may also wish to check out the article on Hell. It is interesting to note that some religions believe in Heaven, but not in Hell. Others believe in Hell, but not in Heaven. Some religions believe in both Heaven and Hell, while still other religions believe in neither. And yet other religions believe in a complex series of levels, each of which is ranked heirarchically.

Then, after reading up on that sort of thing, you could then turn to the subject of Perfection. There is quite a lot of philosophical ideas regarding whether a state of perfection is possible, and if it is, whether such a condition would be a desireable place to be. In that article on Perfection, you'll find a short discussion about the Paradox of Perfection, which basically states that it is impossible to achieve a state of perfection because in doing so it would deprive anyone from progressing further, as well as creating a condition in which adversity was not present. And when adversity is not present, then it is impossible for perfection to exist in the first place (the idea that everything must have its opposite in order to exist). So, there's the philosophical theory that states that imperfection is perfection - thus the paradox.

At any rate, check out those sites and their links at the bottom of the pages, and that should keep you busy and out of trouble for a while. Saukkomies 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

If Sarah Palin is elected Vice President, would she be the youngest in history? If not, who was? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Looks like John C. Breckinridge was the youngest VP at 36, Palin is 44. AlexiusHoratius 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The list is here. If my math is right (don't bet on it), Palin would be the 8th youngest, older than Al Gore by a month. —Kevin Myers 12:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not realize we had that article here in Wikipedia. That was helpful ... and interesting. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

"ascension" eh? SGGH ^speak! 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. The only person I know of who ascended (allegedly) was aged about 33. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do American presidents claim divinity, in the manner of the Roman Emperors? Gwinva (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder what historians 3,000 years from now will conclude when they study the remains of this, this, and this. AlexiusHoratius 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

events happening on this date in history

I keep striking out. But I have seen quotes from Wikipedia about events happening on this date in history. The only article that I can locate is about a BBC program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.207.167 (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at September 23, or any other date, you'll find a list of the events you're after. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Secret Society

I would like to know if anyone knows anything about this Society. The society is located in Grove City, Ohio and claims to have a 2300 year old secret that is used by the rich and famous as well as anyone who joins. Please let me know if there is any information on the society.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf1652 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a scam and I would recommend you throw any mail you receive from them in the bin. If it sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is. Yahoo Answers has something to say, see here.--Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember: "If it seems to good to be true, it probably is too good to be true." --Tango (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally just two weeks ago my next-door-neighbor, who is a Ukrainian immigrant widow, came over to ask me precisely this same question about this group. She had received a letter from what appeared to be a mass mailing from this same organization. I made a couple of telephone calls to the Better Business Bureau, and went online to check out what I could find there, which produced a number of sites where people had written email letters complaining about this organization, including this site here. This group will sell you books that claim to provide the secrets to getting rich. The only problem is that once you buy the first book, which doesn't really tell very much, you have to then buy a second book, which turns out to not say very much, either. They keep asking for more and more money for more of their ripoff publications. What surprises me is that anyone even got to the point where they gave these people money for the first book, let alone the second or third... The end result of these searches produced very substantial and conclusive proof that this organization is a complete and total ripoff, and my advice would be to either throw any letters you receive from them, or even go so far as to report them to your local Better Business Bureau for trying to get you to give money to a ripoff company. This group preys on peoples' greed and trusting natures - very similiar to the infamous Nigerian email scam artists. Saukkomies 15:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr Whippy

I heard an ice cream van going through the streets nearby, even though it's September and 23ºC (70ºF) today in Perth and there would be no kids around here - I live in a semi-industrial area and it's school time. I was therefore inspired to research the history of Mr Whippy, which is almost synonymous with "ice cream van" in Australia. However, the official site for Mr Whippy Australia says that it is no longer associated with the ice cream van business, but there is Mr Whippy Ice Cream Vans only serving Victoria. This Everything2 site says that there was some trademark dispute in Australia, and the [UK site doesn't seem to give any history at all. Can I have some help entangling this mess of what Mr Whippy actually is? Keep in mind that I'm blind, so I can't see the logos. Also I have to rush somewhere soon so I probably haven't done all the research I needed. Now I understand why there's an article for Mrs. Whippy but not for Mr Whippy. ;) Graham87 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We should have an article. Be careful what you say though, this is a dangerous business and you wouldn't want to upset the wrong people. See [14] for another interpretation. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A history of the Mr Whippy brand was recently published by their current owners Wall's ice cream in 2003 but, alas, is currently out of print. Walls took over Mr Whippy in the UK in the 60's and was subsequently bought out by international brand manager Unilever after the international franchises were awarded. I would imagine that there was a falling out between Unilever and the territorial franchises which resulted in the company throwing it's weight around a bit to retain it's copyright. The history on the Oz Mr Whippy site says that they decided to sell their van fleet to private owners in the early 1970's to focus on their retail business. There is still a franchise operating in New Zealand although the term seems to have become a genericized trademark in some areas with most ice cream vans colloquially called a 'Mr Whippy'. Nanonic (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, this is interesting. I hadn't thought about it being a genericized trademark, much like "to Google" is for search engines or Hoover is for vacuum cleaners. And I didn't know about Unilever either ... it has quite an extensive range of products. The Glasgow Ice Cream wars just sound insane. Are there any more details about the trademark tussle with Mr Whippy's? It must have been on the news *somewhere*. Graham87 14:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they're selling crystal meth. Saukkomies 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Kitten care

Hi, we just got a new kitten whose mom died shortly after she was born. We were wondering what the best steps to take would be to ensure that the kitten gets the proper care she needs from its mother? thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.192.59 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You should consult your veterinarian, or local animal care experts (Humane Society, animal control, etc.). We cannot give veterinary advice here. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coneslayer that you should go to a veterinarian, but in case for some reason you can't here are some links to sites with information on caring for orphaned kittens [15] [16] [17] [18]. JessicaThunderbolt 14:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Subprime Loans Expire?

Please correct if I'm wrong, but if all these mortgage securitizations are backed by the cash payments from mortgages, then they expire, right? Mortgages aren't forever, so the securitizations are just bonds that give coupons for a certain period, and then stop, either with or without a lump sum at the end (sorry, it's been a while since I took Econ, forgot a lot of the jargon), right? So how long are they set up to last? I know it depends on the securitization, but is there a standard duration? More to the point, are these things going to expire soon enough to have an impact on the current crisis? 99.178.161.44 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed somthing along the way. I thought that one of the triggers of the current crises was that the original terms on these sub-prime mortgages have expired and people are being forced to renew at current prime or above-prime rates that result in monthly payments doubling and tripling. These borroweers cannot afford the new rates and are defaulting on the mortgages. The amortization periods for these mortgages could be anywhere up to 40 years, but that is just the time over which the whole loan would be paid out, assuming no defaults and no changes in rates. The expiry of the terms, which represent the period of time over which a specific (sub-prime, in this case) interest rate remains guarantedd by the mortgagee (lender), is the problem period. Unless the morgages are renewed for further terms at rates that are also uneconomic, this particular gun won't shoot again. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul's assessment of bailout

I was wondering how accurate Ron Paul's assessment of the bailout was, as reflected in his commentary. Thanks, 140.182.135.28 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are asking for an opinion of an opinion. While those on the Ref Desk frequently do temper fact with opinion, we are not usually requested to read long pieces in order to comment. Perhaps if you were to ask a specific question about Paul's views you would get clearer answers and we would not be forced to read yet another politician's view of what went wrong. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think too many people dispute the immediate causes of the problem or the attempt of the remedy (as Paul says, it is explicitly "to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices"). As to the final part, which is his proposed solution (just end all government intervention, whatever that means here), that's waaay up for the debate—yes, we'd all like the market to normalize, but the question is whether it normalizes by crashing the world economy or whether it does it in a more gradual and controlled way. I think there would be many economists who would take issue with his assertion that it was actually the regulations that let the boom occur in the first place. --140.247.253.44 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

YOP

The Youth Opportunities Programme or Y.O.P. as it was more commonly known, as far as I am aware, was a 1980's training scheme set up in the UK, for the young unemployed. Is there any information about YOP anywhere in Wikipedia? I think millions of people went through the scheme but strangely all I have found, so far searching Wikipedia, is an advert for some low fat yoghurt, called, YOP.