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

July 15

Most influential American VP?

Is there scholarly consensus on who has been the most influential American VP? By influential, I mean with respect to White House policy and decisionmaking. Among recent administrations, my gut tells me that Dick Cheney loomed unusually large, but I'm no political scientist. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Before Dick Cheney came along, Al Gore was often described as "the most influential Vice President in history". If you search for "most influential Vice President" while excluding "Cheney", you get a lot of hits for Gore. see google books, e.g.. I suspect the office's realm of influence has changed from back when John Nance Garner described it as "not worth a bucket of warm piss." The article Office of the Vice President of the United States mentions some of its varying spheres of influence throughout history. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson was the second VP and was a very influential individual, but how much of that influence was tied to his later presidency, I don't really know. Googlemeister (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

His influence was probably more tied to his general standing in the country rather than as VP per se. Before he was VP, he had been Secretary of State, which was, even then, a very important office. The early cabinet ministers weilded a lot of power and influence, and such power and influence was more tied to the person than to the office; its likely than any real power and influence Jefferson had as VP was due much more to him being Jefferson rather than being veep. --Jayron32 23:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Another way to look at it: According to our List of tie-breaking votes cast by Vice Presidents of the United States, John Adams cast 29 deciding votes in the Senate in eight years, while James K. Polk's VP, George M. Dallas, did so 19 times in four years. Of course, as the Senate has gotten bigger, the likelihood of a tie vote has decreased. Dan Quayle didn't get to cast a single vote in the Senate during his term. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be fair to say that the most influential VP (at least in a positive fashion) must necessarily have become president if he so chose to run? Otherwise, how good could he have been and then lost? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see influence while in office (not to mention competence) on the one hand, and snap-shots of popularity at the ballot on the other hand (and electoral systems or Supreme Court rulings on the third and fourth hand) as qualities which can be, and often are, distinct from one another. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original question, judging from the article on the office of the VP, Garret Hobart and Richard Nixon look like two more top candidates of wielding influence. The dynamics of vice-presidential relevance under FDR are probably worth exploring too. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Snow in Asia

Which Asian nations receive snow as the precipitation during the Winter season? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.254 (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

List of countries receiving snowfall: Cyan: snow below 1000m over sea level. Blue: may snow below 1000m over sea level, but rarely. Magenta: snow only above 1000m over sea level. Grey: without snow.

This is kind of tricky to answer. There are many countries in Asia we typically think of as hot that get quite a bit of snow in certain areas due to altitude - for example India has a variety of mountains that are snow-capped year-round. China gets plenty of snow (in places) during the winter. I think anything south of China is probably too southern and too low (altitudinally) to get snow. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For sure - China, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Iran, Georgia, Armenia, Russia and probably also parts of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Steewi (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And I remember reading reports of occasional snowfall even in Israel, although this is obviously a rarity. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Plus Turkey, Syria, Lebanon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is snow in Jordan almost every winter, including in the capital Amman. The mountains will do that. Same for the mountainous regions of northern Iraq. --Xuxl (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Even hot countries where you wouldn't expect it. Vietnam, for example, in its mountainous north -- see the resort town of Sa Pa. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how accurate that map is. It lists Malta as having snow only above 1000m, but the highest point on Malta is only like 250m. Also, I don't know if there is value in having Lesotho in magenta, because the entire country is above 1000m. Googlemeister (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish they'd have used colors that contrast a little better, like red-blue-yellow, not cyan-magenta-gray. -- Mwalcoff (talk)

Florida Sales Tax

I've searched all over the Florida's revenue website, and I could not find what the Florida Sales and Use Tax pays for. What government service is paid for by the Florida Sales and Use Tax? 66.176.245.57 (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I assume that Florida doesn't earmark their taxes. If they don't it would mean that all taxes go into the general state budget, so that it's impossible to say "this tax pays for this specific expenditure". Gabbe (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does a single currency *seem* to work better for the US than for the EU?

Lest I am accused of soapboxing, there's certainly some published opinion suggesting it might fall. Given that the US, to this day, is a larger economy than the Eurozone, and with lower higher levels of inequality, why does the dollar seem to work better?--Leon (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the Gini coefficient for the EU is lower than for the US meaning that there is (according to the Gini measure) less inequality in the EU than there is in the US. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "the dollar seem to work better". The performance of the US economy doesn't solely depend on the US having one currency instead of several, so measures like the Gini coefficient and the size of the GDP are influenced by many different factors besides whether there's a single currency or not.

I realize this, but I've read nothing to suggest that the dollar is too strong/weak for any particular region to prosper.

There are many differences between Europe and the US. For one, labour motility in the US is greater due to the fact that most Americans speak English. This means that it's (arguably) easier for a typical family in Alabama to move to Idaho in search of work than it is for a typical family in Portugal to move to Finland.

That makes sense.

Or are you wondering why the Euro is at risk to be replaced by sub-Eurozone currencies while the dollar doesn't seem to risk the same fate? In that case, one difference between the two is that the dollar has been the currency for the US for far longer than the Euro has been the currency for the Eurozone. While a politican in France might argue in favour of bringing back the franc it would be unthinkable for a politician in California to argue in favour of adopting a new currency for that state. The dollar is a big part of US national identity, even if there could be big benefits (as well as big drawbacks) in implementing different currencies for different subdivisions of the US.

If that doesn't answer your question, could you be more specific as to what your question is? Gabbe (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP meant to say higher inequality in the US than the Eurozone (that kinda jibes with his question). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did!--Leon (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons already given, it is easier to maintain the dollar effectively than the euro because the US federal budget is a much larger portion of US public spending than the EU budget is a portion of EU public spending. This means fiscal policy can be used to reinforce monetary policy. --Tango (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Leon: So you mean that since the US has a higher Gini coefficient, that means that the US dollar seems to work better, and you're wondering why that is? Gabbe (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is quite what Leon is saying. I think he means that higher inequality ought to make it harder to maintain a single currency (since the interests of different regions are more varied), so the dollar appears to be doing a better job under more difficult circumstances. There is a point that should be raised here: The Geni coefficient doesn't specify whether there are rich areas and poor areas or just a mix of rich and poor in all areas. Only the former is relevant to this discussion since you can only have separate currencies within a certain geographic region, you couldn't have separate currencies for the rich and for the poor in one city. --Tango (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean, sorry for not being clearer. You're dead right about the Gini not measuring regional inequality, though a glance at this suggests that the US has a similar (though arguably lesser) degree of that. But in any case, thanks greatly for all your help, I think I understand better.--Leon (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes much more sense... :) Gabbe (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Leon -- Part of it is because in the U.S. there's a higher level of the type of labor mobility where the migrant's skills and qualifications are easily transferred, so that he or she doesn't have to start at the bottom in the new location. Also, U.S. states are less autonomous than EU member countries, and their economies are less compartmentalized in a number of ways. For example, the majority of U.S. states are required to fully balance their budget every year, so national economic policies determine the degree of government deficits etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the key points from that last are the different types of political structure. The US is a country, the EU isn't.

ALR (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that oversimplifies it. The US is a federation, as is the EU. I think the main thing that determines that the US is a country and the EU isn't is that there is a US army and there isn't an EU army. The existence of a single army doesn't really make any difference to whether a single currency will work (although defence spending is a big part of the US federal budget so plays a big role in my point above about fiscal policy). --Tango (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Both are federations? Riiight, the US just happens to be a federal state with a strong central government with full authority, while the EU is a loose confederation of national states. A member of the UE could choose to leave the Union (provided there is a strong popular backing) and the European parliament could do nothing to prevent it. You comparing two different things. Flamarande (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The biggest difference from the point of view of fiscal policy is probably that the US can impose federal taxes on its citizens, while the EU cannot. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it fundamentally changes the legal relationship between the entities. The relationships between the various levels of governance in the US have a very clear basis, and there is a broadly similar legal system across the US where there are significant differences between individual countries in the EU. There is also the issue of how EU directives are implemented in law, and the ability of countries to challenge one anothers implementations. A fairly common issue in cross border trade is the matter of state-aid; the UK and Germany are quite a bit more rigorous than, say, Italy.

The combined effect is that internal trade within the US has a lot less operational friction adding costs and inefficiencies.

I would agree with your pint about relative levels of public sector expenditure, although once one takes into account national budgets across the EU that difference probably closes quite a lot. The nature of that public sector spend is also a factor.

ALR (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There are some cultural points here as well. The US may have some strong cultural differences between its parts, but it has been a country for some 230 years (and within most parts for over 100), with a strong central government (saying nothing about governance) and a strong sense of unified nationalism. Europe has a long history of division and regional nationalism - its parts are just as strongly independent as they are unified by the EU. When you have a strongly unified country like the US, the thought of using a different currency in California and NY seems like idiocy. European countries have had their separate (if changeable) currencies and their separate (though overlapping) economies for some time. I'm not surprised that it's less stable than the US dollar. Steewi (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The currency itself seems to be stable enough (and seems to be more stable than the declining US dollar), the problem lies with the deficits and debts of the national governments. Flamarande (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not an expert here, but a few thoughts. California is the worst-off U.S. state fiscally, so they say. California's budget deficit is $19 billion, which is something like 1% of state GDP. Greece's deficit is more than 10% of GDP. U.S. states have to balance their books each year, so they don't build up massive permanent debts like European countries and the U.S. federal government do. Most tax collected in the U.S. goes into federal coffers, while the EU collects comparatively little money directly. The EU's budget is tiny compared to that of the U.S. federal government. So the U.S., fiscally, is far more of a "country" than is the EU, and state governments, again looking at it strictly economically, are far less important to the overall U.S. economy than the countries of Europe are to the European economy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure but the article 2008–10 California budget crisis seems to state that the current deficit (of this year) is at 11.2 billion and that the current debt is 40 billion (I might be making a mistake). Flamarande (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the meaning of that sentence, either. U.S. states can issue bonds, but they can't simply spend more in a year than they collect in revenue like the federal government can. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

California is performing a number of financial maneuvers that are roughly equivalent to deficit spending (eg. borrowing against next year's tax incomes), but it can't keep them up indefinitely the way the federal government can. --Carnildo (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Price of slaves

How much did slaves cost in the US during the 1840s, roughly? I am thinking in Atlanta, and New Orleans. Also, how much were wages for unskilled farm labor from white people? Googlemeister (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can't find the info on the price of slaves. However, according to this research paper, white male USA wages in 1840 were as follows: $10.40/month plus board for farmhands, $0.85/day for non-farm unskilled labor. (I think these are in nominal dollars for median wages, but I just skimmed the paper, so I'm not fully sure). This study does not appear to account for regional wage differences, but the fact that white farmhands earned board is important, since that was the only thing that slaves 'earned'. --M@rēino 14:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

According to OpenYale HIST119, the price was around US$ 1000 for a healthy young male adult. For purchasing power, David Blight compared this to the price of a new car today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the price tended to slowly increase during most of the 1840s and 1850s. ... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like roughly 8 years wages, assuming equal work from a slave and a normal laborer. I am of two minds if the board would cost less for a slave or a laborer though. On the one hand, you have a lot of $ tied up in the slave and you don't want him to get sick whereas with the regular laborer, it really will not impact you much if he gets sick, but on the other hand, the white laborer would be free to leave if he thinks he can get better food at the next farm over. Googlemeister (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The white labourers also would not breed with other white labourers to give you free little white labourers, which I suppose must have entered the slave owners' minds. To continue Blight's analogy, at first glance the comparison seems to be between hiring taxis versus buying a car, but in fact, the comparison is more like investing in two cars and waiting for them to make little cars for you to use or sell. What a lovely thought. Matt Deres (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Did the relative price of slaves increase once the US finally outlawed slave importation, or would the larger population of slaves, meaning more were being born, counteract that? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the population was increasing despite no importation being allowed, but the amount of land under cultivation, and hence the demand for labor, increased at a far faster rate, driving up the cost. Googlemeister (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

$1000 sounds very low for a healthy young adult male slave. On a typical plantation, the slaves were far and away more valuable than the mansion and all its contents, or the land. Edison (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You might also look for the prices that slaves bought their freedom. That should roughly approximate the market price at the time. I know the Ken Burns documentary about the Civil War makes reference to this. Shadowjams (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edison -- in books about the coming of the Civil War, $1500 seems to be the typical average price given for a "prime fieldworker" in the late 1850s, so $1000 probably wouldn't be too far off for the 1840s (given the pattern of steadily and slowly increasing prices). AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See p. 76, Table 17: Value of Cotton Production and Slave Population, 1802-60, New Orleans Prices in Alfred H. Conrad and John R. Meyer, The Economics of Slavery: And Other Studies in Econometric History (Transaction Publishers, 2007). ISBN: 9780202309347 Pub. site about book & authors-- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That table gives a lot of good information.

From Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution, pp. 201-202: "Men discussed the price of slaves with as much interest as the price of cotton or tobacco. Commenting upon the extraordinarily good prices in 1853, a South Carolina editor reported, 'Boys weighing about fifty lbs. can be sold for about five hundred dollars.' 'It really seems that there is to be no stop to the rise,' added a North Carolina editor. 'This species of property is at least 30 per cent higher now, (in the dull season of the year), than it was last January.'" And later on: "...the buying and selling of slaves ... was the favorite operation of speculators. Everywhere people invested cash in bondsmen as people in an industrial society would invest in stocks and bonds."

That's a good book, by the way. Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

History of the UK

Can someone give me or point me towards an outline of UK history for the preiods 1900-1914 and 1945-1990? The article on it here seems mostly about the wars and Ireland, I have tried looking through the list of prime ministers of that time as well, and that was not much more helpful. I only want a list of the few major events and issues of the time, hopefully if I feel any deserve further study I can find out more once I know what to look for.

80.47.234.85 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

BBC timeline --TammyMoet (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're happy with a little more detail, the articles on 1900 in the United Kingdom, etc, give a decent outline of the main events of each year. Warofdreams talk 17:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Workers' revolts

OK, that done, I have a new question. I have heard that there were a few times in the early years of last century when the discontent workers rose up against their governemnts, though with limited success in most cases. Other than the two Russian revolutions, and a vague recollection of one in England in possibly 1911 or 1912, which I can't seem to find anything about, I cannot think of any more right now. Can anyone else suggest some more?

80.47.234.85 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Strange Death of Liberal England by George Dangerfield deals with the period 1910-1914 and the labour unrest. You might also be interested in the General Strike of 1926.--Britannicus (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Labour revolts may be of interest. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

...one example (in Scotland, not England) being the Battle of George Square in 1919, and another (in Ireland, part of the UK at that time) being the Dublin Lock-out of 1913. In relation to the specific years mentioned, there was the 1911 Liverpool general transport strike (very brief article though). Historically, the biggest strike in the UK was the 1926 general strike already mentioned. Looking at the later years covered by the original question, one of the biggest and most politically important was the UK miners' strike (1984–1985). See also List of strikes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See also the article on revolutionary waves. Warofdreams talk 09:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, there was a good deal of civil unrest in 1911 / 12; the army was deployed in some instances, but it didn't come anywhere near a revolution. Details of the 1912 London Dock strike are here[1], and the National Miners' Strike here[2]. We don't have an article about this. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See also this. Maybe not WP:NPOV though... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There was the German Revolution of 1918–19 as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What does the saying "Off the altar" mean to the Hare Krishna devotees? I understand this is something negative against bleeding women or women who have young children they are taking care of.

Men are allowed to go on the altars to perform daily functions in the temples but whenever a woman has her monthly cycle she is banned from going on the altar. Even if she is taking care of a baby she is considered unclean and therefore not allowed to go "on the altar". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.122.184 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a start at Menstrual_taboo#In_religion. It is possible that the same prohibitions may apply to Breastfeeding. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

US tax rate history

Does anyone know a Web site that contains year-by-year information for United States tax rates for the past few decades? I've tried searching for things on Google but I've only found general popular-history articles, and I need detailed statistics. Thanks. 76.204.127.175 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this the kind of thing you are looking for? If not, please clarify exactly what you're after... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you want income tax schedules? There's no one rate, but since about 1984 there's generally an income tax table, although exemptions and all the other tax code intricacies can change the net numbers quite a bit. Maybe you'd be interested in comparing GDP to tax revenue, or something like that, to bypass all of the tax-code stuff. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

European Union

Is it likely that the European Union will ever increase in power from a loose federation to an actual national government, merging Europe into one country? --138.110.206.100 (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't do speculation. There are plenty of people who want that to happen, think it will happen or fear that it will happen, but there is no way to know other than to wait and see. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in the articles on European integration, Federal Europe, and (the hypothetical) United States of Europe. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ever closer union has been the aim of many Eurocrats, but the poor reception by voters of the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty in various countries has shown that it's not something most ordinary citizens want. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in many other countries, there was strong support for the Constitution and Treaty, and in some cases it seems that the primary objection was to the current approach or policies of the union rather than the principle of ever-closer union. Warofdreams talk 09:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, things may change in the distant future (the OP sets no time limit on his question) so it may be something "most ordinary citizens" want then, but as has already been stated we don't do speculation on the ref desk. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Marriage in Israel

I was reading "Same-sex marriage in Israel". The seconde sentence in the article states that all marriages in isreal are done by religious establishments. So my question is, how would a athiest couple get married?--SelfQ (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

According to our article Marriage in Israel, Israelis who don't want to, or can't, have a religious marriage ceremony typically get married outside of the country, often in Cyprus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel still basically follows the old Ottoman empire "millet" system, according to which "personal status law" (marriage, divorce, inheritance etc.) is partially different for different for those in different religious communities (following the traditions of each religious community), and is administered by the leadership of the religious community. Being an atheist doesn't actually have all that much relevance -- what is most relevant is whether the two people who want to get married come from the same ethnic-religious background or not. If they do come from the same background, then things are likely to unfold fairly smoothly -- but if they don't, then they may not be able to be accommodated within Israel (though it won't have much to do with being atheists). AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words: couples of atheists, homosexuals, and different religions, must pay taxes, obey the laws, and may be called upon to fight, kill, and even die for Israel but they can't get married in Israel itself. Something like that is spelled: D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N. Flamarande (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, please do try to get your basic facts right -- atheists are treated as being members of their ancestral religious community, and as long as they desire to marry a member of the same ancestral religious community, then there will generally be no problem with them marrying. Atheists may be discriminated against in not having their separate religious identity officially recognized (on ID cards etc.), but they are not specially discriminated against in marriage. Furthermore, a significant percentage of the Arab population in Israel is strongly in favor of retaining the traditional "millet" system. The "millet" system was invented and maintained for centuries by Muslim Ottoman Turks, and kept in place for 30 years by Christian British imperialists, but some people sure do seem to be eager to blame it on the Jews! AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, just read what you wrote: "as long as they desire to marry a member of the same ancestral religious community" means that two atheists (one whose parents are Jews, the parents of the other are Muslims, or Christians, or atheists) are simply unable to marry in Israel at all. This is a unfair and unjust situation. Let's not even speak of inter-faith couples and same-sex couples. I was unaware that the state of Israel was somehow bound to maintain the millet system because of the wishes of the Arab population of Israel (one can only wonder if the wishes of the Arab population are also important in more sensitive matters...). I also wish to point out that not blaming the Jews for the millet system (I urge you to retract your innuendo), I'm unable to understand the government of Israel for not providing civil marriage for all its citizens, thereby de facto forcing many to go to Cyprus or whatever to marry (wasting time and money). It is a simple matter achievable through simple reforms and new laws, already existing in most of the countries of the world. Flamarande (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You're still obtusely failing to perceive the main point, even though it's already been clearly explained to you several times by now. The marriage of two atheists of Jewish ethnic-religious background is generally treated the same as the marriage of two piously religious Jews, and the problem of the marriage of an atheist of Jewish background and an atheist of Christian background is pretty much the same as the problem of the marriage of a devout Jew and a devout Christian. In other words, atheists have the same problems as the rest of the population, but they are not usually specially discriminated against in this area because they are atheists. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this basic point?

Furthermore, the system has been entrenched in the region for centuries, and is not necessarily as easy to eliminate with a mere stroke of the pen as you seem to believe. This is indicated by the fact that the British kept it in place during their 30 years of rule, and then the socialist-leaning and semi-secular Israeli Labor Party changed it relatively little during their own thirty years of relatively unquestioned political predominance in Israel (1948-1977). Adding civil marriage would definitely have some positive effects -- but an attempt to abolish the millet system could create an alliance of strange political bedfellows between so-called "left" Arabs and "right" strongly-religious Jewish groups. In any case, it would be nice if you could inform yourself about some of the facts involved, instead of semi-obnoxiously pontificating from a position of relative ignorance. AnonMoos (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

S-O-A-P-B-O-X. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a soapbox, just a request for referenced information. See Civil and political rights, which are often denied in a Theocracy (a society where some people say "God has spoken to us, and He says you have to obey our orders and do everything exactly the way we prefer.") Edison (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Except Isreal isn't a theocracy. It is a secular state. --Jayron32 05:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So where is the civil marriage? I'm not defending that Israel is a theocracy (after all the leaders of Israel are elected by the people), but in some areas the state declines his own responsibilities and hands them to the religious establishment. Flamarande (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Marriage in Israel has some information on that. Of course, the term civil marriage may be an oxymoron... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The modern State of Israel is not a theocracy; religion is not imposed, profession of faith is not mandatory, and there are large minority populations. Its founding principle of Zionism sought the creation of a homeland for the Jewish People (the meaning of Israel) whose religion is Judaism. In numerous countries, Judaism has had various streams for over a century, but in Israel but only the Orthodox form according to its law, Halacha, is recognized. The majority of Jews in Israel do not practice Orthodox Judaism according to Halacha, even fewer are Chassidic (often called "ultra-Orthodox"). However, matters of "personal status" dealt with by the Ministry of the Interior are religion-specific (per the "millet system" noted above by User:AnonMoos; for that matter, the state school systems are separated by religion and within religions.) The only marriage recognized for Jews in Israel is the Orthodox, halachic one with its contract, the ketubah. Even if the couple were "halachichally Jewish" and allowed to marry within Orthodox strictures, a Reform, secular, or other non-Orthodox Jewish couple unwilling to have an Orthodox wedding must marry elsewhere. Their marriage is then recognized as civil according to the prevailing law of X (where X = elsewhere). -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and do have a look at LGBT rights in Israel for some impressive strides in that area. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Even in the USA, civil marriages have (or used to have) religious overtones to them. An atheistic couple could either go along with it and be done with it, or they could object and then the judge would probably say, "How badly do you want to get married?" The USA is not a theocracy either, but it still has significant Christian culture, which stands to reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In Britain, civil marriages and civil partnerships so much do not have religious overtones that religious elements are forbidden in civil ceremonies. (See for example [3], last line of first proper paragraph). --ColinFine (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In every state in the U.S. civil marriages are available. These are performed by judges, justices-of-the-peace, notaries, and other gov't officials. These ceremonies have no religious components unless the couple specifically requests them. In addition, 11 states and D.C. have common-law marriage which doesn't require any ceremony at all. —D. Monack ^talk 01:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

July 16

Elephants doing...painting !

Watch this, folks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk. Someone please tell me its fake.... Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "real". See Elephant_intelligence#Art. There are some issues at play here. The major one in this video's case is likely that the elephant has been specifically trained to produce that exact picture. Elephants are very trainable, and quite adept at using their trunks for fine work, so it isn't inconceivable that an elephant can be trained to reproduce a specific set of strokes on a paper. That doesn't mean that the elephant is creatively painting, merely that it is capable of being trained to perform a set of very specific motions with its trunk. --Jayron32 05:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I know that, there's no way an elephant can have "creativity" for that needs highly developed brain that only humans have, (even apes don't). But even if the elephant is doing that on its own even without having a slightest hint of what (s)he's doing, even that's wonderful !

Well, they are known for their intelligence and good memory, and they've been trained to do all sorts of things for humans for centuries, if not millennia. (including gruesome tasks). Anyway, this FAQ may answer some of your questions. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that one can say that elephants and apes don't have "creativity". --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Animals actually do have a fair amount of creativity, when driven by necessity (that being the mother of invention). They just don't sit around thinking about creating works of art, as finding food and not getting killed are usually much higher priorities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks real as hell, but seeing is no longer believing. I am not pronouncing it a fake, just saying that fakery cannot be ruled out on the basis of how real the video looks. Commercials today commonly show babies and animals doing amazing things that they did not do. Amazing things can be done with computer graphics, and the elephant painting the nice picture of an elephant holding a flower could have been faked with today's technology. Before computer graphics, ita film almost as impressive could have been faked with a long actual shot of an elephant walking into the scene holding a box with the paints and an actual shot of the elephant holding a brush and moving it toward the canvas. Then a fake elephant trunk holding a brush would have been manipulated by a human arm inside a fake elephant trunk, holding the brush and doing the drawing. Some flexible movements of the trunk could have been done by other humans manipulating mechanical, hydraulic or electronic controls to cause some realistic movement of the trunk and its tip which held the brush. Old movies commonly showed dogs or horses doing fake activities, but they did not look as convincing. An alternative way to fake an elephant painting a picture would be to have a real elephant hold a brush while the movements are controlled by a human moving a large unseen bow or frame which has an unseen thin wire attached to the brush, to control the brush movement. But things which argue for it not being done by pre-computer graphics camera trickery are that the camera zooms back periodically to show more of the elephant than just the end of the trunk, and showing that there is no space near the canvas for the hypothetical wire control frame or huuman operator thereof. If an animal could see a spot of light the camera did not pick up, such as a laser pointer, it could be trained to follow the spot with the brush. But that does not seem likely. There could be some faint lines on the canvas which the elephant, but not the camera, sees, so he just "follows the dots." The brush dos not seem to be controlled by a magnet behind the canvas, since the camera zooms out and shows the area behind the canvas. Today the entire footage of the trunk painting the picture could probably have been done by computer graphics and spliced into the scene of the elephant doing a typical sloppy painting. There are many slightly different versions of the painting in question, for sale for $700 each, so there is a monetary incentive for someone to create an interest in the elephants and the paintings. In Animal training, Operant conditioning, with shaping and chaining can get animals with far smaller brains and far less manipulative agility to do amazing sequences of skilled behaviors, so it is possible the trainer taught the elephant to produce a given painting over and over. For what it's worth, it is far more accurate representational art than anything the human cave painters produced thousands of years ago. I see no basis for assuming that the painting is the creative product of the elephant alone and represents the world as the elephant sees it. The elephant is just repeating a learned behavior over and over with little variation. In a carnival, a chicken in a coin operated machine who dances or plays a piano is not expressing its inner musicality. Edison (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If all the paintings are really almost exactly the same, then your laser pointer thing is probably the best way of thinking of it. Big deal, an elephant follows a laser pointer with its trunk. Big deal, after doing it 10,000 it can do it without the laser pointer. Biggest tip-off that this is what happened: after starting heavily/boldly, its first stroke runs out of paint very fast, but it doesn't stop for more paint! 92.229.14.179 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Snopes claims it's for real, albeit a product of very exacting training.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Named defendant

Nitke v. Gonzales says: "Alberto Gonzalez was the Attorney General of the United States at the time, making him the named defendant in this case" What is the difference between "named defendant" and just plain "defendant"? Why are defendants, in US caselaw, named after the name of the natural person holding a public office, and not according to the name of the legal person in which this official serves, or the description of this office (e.g. Nitke v. Attorney General of the US, Nitke v. US, or Nitke v. US Congress because the US Congress is the author of the disputed act)? Apokrif (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the federal government and its officers are immune from law suits. However, under Ex parte Young's "stripping doctrine", you can sue an individual in the government when they are acting unconstitutionally. Same goes for state governments. --Sean 18:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer your first question ... a lawsuit may have several defendants. As a hypothetical example, let's say that a lawsuit has five defendants. The "official" name of the lawsuit filed in court would be "John Smith versus Person A and Person B and Person C and Person D and Person E". But, for convenience, the lawsuit would be referred to as "Smith versus Person A". Thus, Person A is the named defendant; Persons B, C, D, and E are just "plain" defendants (as you say). Also, as to your other question, Sean is correct. The plaintiff is suing the individual (Alberto Gonzalez, in your example). The plaintiff is not suing the office itself (which isn't even a human being), but rather the holder of that office (Gonzalez) who did something illegal or unconstitutional while in office. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

Yet again, the answers to a legal question on this desk are just stuff the responders pulled out of their butts. Why is it that when the subject is THE LAW, RD writers think they can simply MAKE STUFF UP? No, the naming of an official as a defendant does not indicate anything about immunity, about "acting unconstitutionally," about the fact that the office "isn't even a human being," or about whether an official "did something illegal or unconstitutional." STOP MAKING THINGS UP WHEN THE QUESTION IS A LEGAL ONE. First, the government CAN be sued. Second, governments CAN be named as defendants. Third, the fact that an "official" individual is named does NOT mean that the individual is personally accused of doing anything wrong or that the individual is liable for damages, though he/she MIGHT be (more often than not, this isn't the case). Fourth, the naming of Gonzalez in the suit has NOTHING to do with Ex Parte Young (do you REALLY think Alberto Gonzalez is being PERSONALLY SUED by someone running a sex website?). Here's a clue (and much more could be said, from other angles), from a supreme court case: "[An official capacity suit] is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity. Thus, while an award of damages against an official in his personal capacity can be executed only against the official's personal assets, a plaintiff seeking to recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit must look to the government entity itself. On the merits, to establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right. More is required in an official-capacity action, however, for a governmental entity is liable under § 1983 only when the entity itself is a "moving force" behind the deprivation; thus, in an official-capacity suit the entity's "policy or custom" must have played a part in the violation of federal law. When it comes to defenses in liability, an official in a personal-capacity action may, depending on his position, be able to assert personal immunity defenses, such as objectively reasonable reliance on existing law. In an official-capacity action, these defenses are unavailable. The only immunities that can be claimed in an official-capacity action are forms of sovereign immunity that the entity, qua entity, may possess, such as the Eleventh Amendment. While not exhaustive, this list illustrates the basic distinction between personal- and official-capacity actions." STOP MAKING THINGS UP WHEN THE SUBJECT IS LAW. 63.17.58.227 (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, 63, you are acting very high and mighty here. Yet, I notice that you did not answer the OP's questions at all. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

Like real reference librarians, volunteers here do not know all things on all topics. We look things up and answer as best we can, in good faith. Needless to say, we are at times incorrect. I will happily strike out my answer if it's shown to be incorrect. Unfortunately, your screeching wall of text did not answer the question. Further, your unsupported assertion that I pulled my answer from betwixt my buttocks seems itself to have that origin, as the phrase Ex parte Young was not even in my colorectal phrasebook prior to this question. In short, and in your favored typography: ANSWER QUESTIONS; DON'T BE RUDE. --Sean 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bravo, Sean! Well said! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

what are the arguments for and against Israel's right to exist?

I heard that Israel says countries like Iran don't acknowledge its right to exist. So, obviously, that means that in Israel's opinion it is possible for someone to acknowledge or to not acknowledge its right to exist. I have two questions: what does the second alternative mean, practically? For example, if someone in my extended network were to not acknowledge my right to exist, that doesn't mean anything at me. I am giving a blank stare in this case, trying to imagine what it means that I've just been told "Fred over in accounting doesn't acknowledge your right to exist": I have no idea what that sentence means, if I imagine hearing it, I am just giving a dumbfounded look like someone were reading me Chaucer. So, I have no idea what that means, and would like firstly to have it explained to me, and please do so in a way so that I can draw an analogy and understand what it means if Fred over in Accounting doesn't "acknowledge my right to exist". The best I can do is that Fred must be a hack of an existential philosopher, and probably his next statement will be one about having personally turned into an insect or something. Obviously Israel means something different. Secondly, since we've established that everyone has a choice, and either does or doesn't acknowledge Israel's right to exist. So, in this case, what are the arguments for and against each position? (though it will have to be based on what your answer is to my first question, since I don't understand the second one.) 84.153.219.234 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find that you do care, if Fred also said, "Therefore I am going to destroy the editor soon-to-be-formerly known as 84.153.219.234." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Afterwards, I would not say: "That Fred! He doesn't even acknowledge my right to exist!" I would say: "Fred is threatening to murder me." I can't imagine, as hard as I try, using the former phrasing, it seems totally inappropriate. So, why does Israel say Iran "doesn't acknowledge its right to exist"??? Your proposed answer (because it is followed by threats to murder them) make it even more absurd to refer to the weaker statement instead of the strong murder threat! There must be an alternative explanation. 84.153.222.109 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Iran supports the "murder" of Israel. Israel's comment about "right to exist" is simply understating the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, let's run with that. It's interesting that Israel would understate it - what are its reasons for doing so? For example, the United States never understated the Soviet threat during the Cold War, and as for the Iraq threat, specifically enlarged it. Maybe I don't know enough about other precedents, but I would like to. Can anyone explain why they mention this stuff in understated terms? 92.229.14.179 (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

See Zionism and Anti-Zionism. Iran claims that Israel's founding was illegal and, therefore, Israel does not have the right to exist as a separate country with a separate government and separate set of laws from Palestine. Most people label this as anti-Semitism, but technically it is a political stance, not a racial or religious stance. -- kainaw™ 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remember, the Reference Desk simply answers questions. It is not a discussion forum.Wetman (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no discussion of specific, notoriously inflammatory, question welcome here, but a pointer or two may suffice. On OP's first question: the philosophical or existential questioning of the existence of a person is far different from the political questioning of the existence of a state. Questioning the existence, or rather the right to existence, of a nation state generally results from negative evaluations of the political legitimacy of its claims to sovereignty. On OP's second question: Relatively dispassionate sampling of pro and con positions on those issues vis-a-vis Israel may be seen at the studiously neutral ProCon.org at Does Israel have a right to exist? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I will read through your links to my second question. As for your answer to my first question: If I interpret it correctly you are saying that when Israel says "They don't acknowledge our right to exist", they mean "They don't acknowledge our right to exist [as a sovereign Nation]". But isn't this strictly equivalent to saying: "they don't acknowledge that we exist as a nation and they don't think we have the right to become one". Am I correct in saying that your interpretation, Paulscrawl, for my first question, is that my last sentence is exactly what Israel means by their words about acknowledging the right to exist?

I'm certainly not privy to what Israel, or its spokespersons, mean exactly. But several of those cited on the Con side, in the link above, explicitly challenge Israel's "right to exist." -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

When they explicitly challenge Israel's "right to exist", does it mean they are explicitly questioning tnat it does exist? Or, are they saying, it does exist, but we want it to stop existing? 92.229.14.255 (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not privy to the exact meaning of various critics of Israel when they variously question Israel's right to exist. You would have to ask each individual precisely what they meant. However, in general, questioning the right to exist of a sovereign state is like questioning the right to exist of any other legal person, as a sovereign state is certainly a legal person -- the denial of a legal person's right to exist is generally, in this narrow legal sense, a denial of the supposed legal person's existence. Much more in the links above. I'm done here: suggest carefully reading the articles I've cited (see also links below in follow-up question) for more insight. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Another case of one country not acknowledging another's existence is found in Political status of Taiwan, which is a pretty good article. (PS: The related Legal status of Taiwan is actually probably more relevant to the original question.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in theory - but has mainland China threatened anihilation of Taiwan recently? I rather doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on one book in the Opposing Viewpoints series, widely used in American high school and college debate programs, includes hyperlinks to freely available source articles on pro and con answers to three versions of ch. 1 question: "should Israel exist?" -- see WP article on book, Israel: Opposing Viewpoints. Some broken links most likely easily fixed with a little digging. Check your public library: if not available in stacks, very likely that library subscribes to online version of the series -- if not, try interlibrary loan. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

follow-up question

what does it mean for a nation to "exist"? For example, I think that at some point in the civil war, the south had some diplomatic acknowledgment from at least certain european powers. So, to them, did it exist as a nation, whereas to others, it did not? If I personally were able to bribe enough people in the UN's 196 countries (or however many) into acknowleding me as a sovereign nation in the territory of my personal body, would I instantly begin to "exist" as a nation of 1? Or, to give another example, would the nation of Sealand, which doesn't exist, suddenly exist if all nations acknowledged it? What about all but one? Two thirds? It seems to me that this statement doesn't really mean anything at all... 84.153.222.109 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign existence is not a simple matter of voting, nor of any simple legal criterion, but is determined by a complex of legal criteria and practical considerations going back to 1648 at least. In your first example, such a simple recognition criterion would make the C.S.A. -- and the U.S.A. for that matter -- non-existent until the dates, long after their constitutional formation, that they achieved diplomatic recognition by some unspecified quorum of foreign powers. No such constitutive standard of sovereignty exists in practice. The dominant declarative theory of statehood explicitly does not require recognition by other states, but rather requires the existence of certain structural features of a sovereign state, such as, in one version, a permanent population, control of a specific occupied territory, a government, and at least the capability of entering into relations with other states. See Montevideo Convention for that, and opinion 1 of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which drops the last criterion and neatly sums up long-existing practice of international law: "the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty" and that "the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory." Law aside, when in doubt, the capacity to wage a successful war against doubters generally fulfills these criteria to the more-or-less general satisfaction of those most concerned. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel

Why does America support Israel, when Israel is a fundamentally religious government? Wouldn't actively endorsing a religiously-based group violate the separation of church and state? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For the answer, you must eliminate from your phrasing the words "America" and "support". Instead of "America", mention the specific people (by name) who you mean. Instead of "support", mention what they do. Then you will have your answer. 92.229.14.255 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

One reason that is often given to answer this question (which is asked quite a bit) is that they are an ally in an area where the US doesn't have very many friends. Dismas|^(talk) 21:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't separation of church and state prohibit the United States Federal Government from endorsing an inherently religious organization? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel is not a theocracy any more than the U.S. or Ireland is a theocracy because their governments are strongly influenced by religious lobbies. Israel has a president and a prime minister, not a high priest. Incidentally, it's not against the law for the U.S. government to fund a religious organization's secular activities, and it does so all the time. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel is not a fundamentally religious government. It recognizes numerous religions, has freedom of worship protections, and grants citizenship regardless of religion. There are Muslims and Christians in government positions, as well. The only "state religion" aspect is that it gives preferential treatment to all people of Jewish ancestry who want to emigrate (Law of Return), but even this is pretty wishy-washy when it comes down to defining what it means to be a "Jew" in this context. In any case, the state of Israel is sufficiently secular in its operations that it would certainly not run afoul of the Establishment clause, which I'm not sure can apply to foreign relations anyway, Constitutionally speaking. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But Israel is a Jewish state, founded specifically for Jews; non-Jews are treated as second-class citizens. Therefore, it is a theocracy. --138.110.206.102 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Refer to explanations in an earlier query on Marriage in Israel, above that includes links to Wikipedia pages you can read about the difference between the Jewish People and their historical religion Judaism, the basic definition of Zionism being a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel's Declaration of Independence assures freedom of religion for minorities. Israel doesn't have a Constitution or Bill of Rights, but it's a country, not an American "organization" obliged to obey the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. I suggest you also consider the many foreign countries that differ from the United States in similar and even more fundamental ways, yet enjoy diplomatic ties with America and even receive its foreign aid and military troops. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're incorrect -- a theocracy is where religious law enforcers or religious leaders have overriding authority over all other groups in society, so that the interpretation of religious texts by a small ruling clique is given far higher priority than anything resembling real democracy. Several countries in Europe have established state-recognized churches (including the Church of England), but they're not "theocracies". Furthermore, the Israeli Labor Party / Haganah grouping which played the strongest role in founding Israel included a number of people whose religious beliefs were fairly weak, and as a whole they were most definitely NOT motivated by Jewish religious fundamentalism (19th-century style European "Romantic" nationalism is more like it). AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The American policy -- not constitutionally mandated requirement, but mere policy -- of the separation of church and state is wholly domestic. The US retains diplomatic relations with the Vatican, for example. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Did Men Carry Pitchers of Water in Israel?

Did men carry pitchers of water in ancient Israel? Is it common or is it unheard of for men to do this job in those days? 192.75.118.46 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing this question is related to biblical times? From the look of both the Old and New Testament, it could look as if this was mainly a woman's chore. But it would probably not be unlikely that young boys or male slaves would be found to carry it out as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As usual if they found themselves to be in a male only beduin train any such gender roles would be null and void and men would carry them out just the same (this is from personal experience of Arabic beduins, which would probably equate to the early nomadic period of Israel). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bible mentions at least one instance. (http://multilingualbible.com/mark/14-13.htm, http://multilingualbible.com/mark/14-16.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/luke/22-10.htm, http://multilingualbible.com/luke/22-13.htm) —Wavelength (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[Incidentally, the name of Aquarius (constellation) appears to mean "male water-bearer".—Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)]

At the Wedding-feast at Cana, the water-pitchers were very large and would, no doubt, be filled be men. {John 2: 1-12}. Also, at the bidding of Elijah in 1 Kings 18: 33-37 was performed by men as the quantity was so large and the distance to water source was so long. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rican flags in Bridgeport

I am currently killing a few hours in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Why are there Puerto Rican flags everywhere? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of Puerto Ricans live there. I guess those are their flags. There was a Puerto Rican heritage day parade on July 11 (http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Parade-demonstrates-Puerto-Rican-heritage-pride-573228.php), maybe you're seeing some decorations that are left over. Staecker (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with what may be a potential scam.

I have just received a call from a staffing agency named "Straight Staffing Solutions" that has gotten me very suspicious. After asking me What kind of work I was looking for they said my old company, UPS, was interested in hiring me. That was the first red flag. I have never heard of UPS hiring through any staffing agencies, and when I applied before I was rejected because I've already worked there (apparently a UPS policy is not to rehire previous employees). I remained cautiously optimistic and said nothing about this, and she tells me about how I'll have to undergo a background check and a drug screening - the latter being something I didn't have to do the last time I worked at UPS (to my recollection).

The last thing she asked was for my date of birth and social security number, and that immediately raised multiple red flags. I told her politely that I wouldn't do that over the phone and she said that was alright, and we finished the call.

She sent me a lot of paperwork that she says I have to get done in order to be considered for the position and that she can get me to work starting next week (don't background checks take at least a week?). The e-mail has a link to their site: (www-dot-straightstaffing-dot-com), which is so rudimentary it is laughable, and makes me believe even MORE that this is a ruse.

However, I'd like to make SURE, 100%. Because I desperately need a job (the very hook the con artists use, I know) and if this is legit I'd like to continue with it. Otherwise, I'd like to shoot them down with confidence knowing their true nature.

Thanks again. Chris16447 (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right that it is a ruse. What I would do is contact UPS HR and tell them you were contacted by these people and give them all the laughable people's contact information, and ask them whether they are indeed utilizing this group. If I were the UPS HR person I'd jump right on that for bad-press reasons. While you're at it, you could mention that you'd prefer to work directly with UPS HR to get a job, but you're under the impression that UPS doesn't re-hire employees, and is that true? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The 'president' apperas on linked-in (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jody-straight/5/971/42) but to be honest it does look a bit dubious. Their company address doesn't look like a business park (though obviously home-run businesses do exist) - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=16111+Carlow+Cir,+Manhattan,+IL+60442&fb=1&gl=uk&hnear=York&cid=0,0,12533852484723720141&ei=KY9ATLmTGtjPjAfwsJQH&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQnwIwAA (address taken from http://www.yelp.com/biz/straight-staffing-solutions-inc-manhattan). On this website the address is different (http://www.allbusiness.com/companyprofile/Straight_Staffing_Solutions_Inc/055CEADB464C4D649A17AC170E90CA47-1.html) but still resolves to a non-business looking property. It's hard to say - certainly doesn't inspire confidence! ny156uk (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DEFINITELY contact UPS HR and ask about this. There's a good chance they already know about it, but in case they don't, you'll be a hero. (That doesn't mean they'll rehire you, though.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bunzlau / Boleslawiec Household Pottery

This is a suggestion for the managers and staff of the English edition.

Boleslawiec Pottery (Polish) also known as Bunzlau Pottery (German), which is very high grade kitchen ware, which has been around for 300+ years, and is now sold in yuppy stores, is now very popular in the United States, but nothing is written on it in English Wikipedia.

However, there is a great article on it in the German Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunzlauer_Keramik

To make the English Wikipedia as complete as possible, it might be nice to ask the German authors, or someone who can translate German-to-English to translate and post the German article in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.21.250 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no 'managers and staff', there are only volunteer editors. Thank you for your suggestion: please take it to Wikipedia:Translation. --ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice advert and npov concerns on the talk page of the German article and that that article makes no mention of the U.S. (where it "is now very popular") 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

July 17

Sochaux museum

I know that Peugeot has a museum in Sochaux, France. Does Citroen and Renault have their own museum? Also, does the Sochaux museum have their own shop where they mini replicas of the cars from the past like Peugeot 504, 404, 604 and etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.253 (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Renault seems to. I can't find one right off for Citroen though. Dismas|^(talk) 07:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There is the Citroën Conservatoire in Aulnay-sous-Bois. It is a private museum, ie not open to the public. According to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatoire_Citroën ...il est ouvert aux collectionneurs, aux membres des clubs Citroën, au personnel du groupe PSA, aux journalistes et à des partenaires comme Michelin ou Total. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody answered about the toys at Sochaux, France?

Boat

How much would a boat like this one cost? http://www.hulu.com/watch/73450/saturday-night-live-digital-short-im-on-a-boat-uncensored Count Westfall (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything from a couple of days' pay to a lifetime of hard savings, depending on your income. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance of getting a serious answer on this? Count Westfall (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside of the USA, we cannot see your boat, too far away. However, if the boat is big and modern then; you are asking the wrong question! The mooring-fees, the repairs, the extra costs, etc., make it one of the most expensive pastimes. Someone said to me; it is a hole in the sea that you throw money in! MacOfJesus (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am on a boat, and with a dodgy EDGE connection I don't have the bandwidth to see your boat video. I suggest that you compare your boat to ones on an MLS viewing site such as yachtworld.com. Did your video capture any emblems showing the make or model of the boat and were you told the length of the boat? If not, just select power or sail and make a guess at the length range to see if any of the boats for sale resemble it. If you find something somewhat similar you can refine your search from there and see what the asking price of a range of such boats are. -- 110.49.193.1 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Seperate estate of husband and wife

If I am correct: A ganancial is a common property of the spouses. A separate estate is a property owned by either of the spouses, and not a ganancial. A paraphernalia is a seperate estate of a wife. A dowry is a property originally owned by a woman who later brings it to her husband.

But, is there a term to call

1. a seperate estate of a husband?
2. a property originally owned by a man who later brings it to his wife?

203.131.212.36 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ganancial seems to be used in Spanish law, and is not afaik a term used in English. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

One term is "brideprice", though it's used more in anthropological contexts than traditional European law. AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspects of Morganatic marriage may be relevant to item 1, and a prenuptial agreement might have a bearing on how it might be stipulated. I've certainly come across the concept in historical contexts, but can't track down a specific word to describe it. Dower fits an interpretation of the wording of item 2, but may not be what the OP actually means. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Combined Nazi_concentration_camp_badges#Table_of_camp_inmate_markings

In the article above, we see several mixed marking systems of the German concentrations camps. It is obvious, that a Jew could be at the same time also a political enemy. Hence the yellow-red star. Equally possible is the combination Jew-Jehovah's Witness, since according to Nazi ideology, Jew was a biological term. However, there is also the combination Jew-Gypsy. How can this last option be possible? Both are biological concepts, and define people from different backgrounds, don't they?--Quest09 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no reference to offer for the time being, but presumably that particular star was reserved for people with Jewish and Roma ancestry. Yul Brynner's mother might have qualified, for example (as might have he himself). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I am of part Chinese Malaysian and part Pākehā descent. While both of these have a biological basis it doesn't mean I can't be both. As noted below the Nazis didn't require much to classify someone as a 'Jew' apparently even less for a 'Gypsy' so it's hardly surprising that someone could be both Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking a good look at that page, the large table in English under the heading Table of camp inmate markings is a translation of the German one (presumably authentic; see the .jpg file for details)] at the upper right. It's a comprehensive table with all combinations (permutations of the color codes) appearing, regardless of whether even one individual fit that category. I doubt more ought to be read into it. See extensive discussion of similar issues on the Talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Mischling Test, under the Nazis a person was considered Jewish if they had 3 Jewish grandparents (out of 4) or in certain cases if they had 2 Jewish grandparents. I can't find a corresponding statement in Wikipedia for the Nazi criteria for being considered a Gypsy (Romani); at Porajmos it says that "criteria defining who is Romani were exactly twice as strict as those defining any other group", whatever that means. But this page specifically states that starting in 1938 "A person could be judged as having too much 'Gypsy blood' to be allowed to live if two of the individual's eight great-grandparents were even part Gypsy". So clearly in the Nazi view it was possible to be both Jewish and Gypsy.

--Anonymous, 06:27 UTC, July 18, 2010.

Swedish nun during the French revolution

According to her article, the Swedish aristocrat Brita Sophia De la Gardie became a nun in France in 1745. She died in 1797, and I realised that was after the french revolution. Apparently, she survived it. As both a nun and as a former noble, I would have thought she'd been decapitated in 1793-94. The article say nothing about her life in 1789-1797, and I became curious. Speaking as someone with a knowledge about the french revolution, what is her most likely fate during the revolution? Can you give me a good guess about what her life looked like then, as the artcle does not mention anything about it? Is she likely to have been arrested? --85.226.41.215 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard of her before. But far from all nobles in France was executed during the revolution, as well as far from all the people executed were nobles (in fact it was a minority in both cases). So she had a pretty good chance of survival, especially considering her age at that time and most likely reclusive monastic lifestyle. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But wasn't the convents closed during the revolution? Was the nuns put on the street? Wasn't the nuns and monks also arrested and in some cases executed? And if not, what did the government actually do with the nuns? How did they live after the convents where closed? Were they put in prison? --85.226.41.215 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In the order you ask, broadly speaking:

• yes, they were closed;
• yes, but many nuns would have had families to return to, and others would have been able to find secular roles in society (including marriage);
• generally only priests who actively opposed the revolutionary authorities were imprisoned or executed, so nuns and monks who also did so might have been similarly treated, but they had less of a leadership role and so would have been less likely to oppose the Government and be arrested;
• outside of arresting or executing any real 'troublemakers', the Government would have had no reason to 'do' anything in particular about (ex-)nuns;
• the nuns would have lived any way they could (as per the second answer) and may in some cases have gone to other countries to join convents there, just as many of the aristocrats fled abroad;
• as previous answers imply, the Government might have imprisoned a few nuns for specific offenses, but would have had no reason to bother with the rest.

The above notwithstanding, in such turbulent times corruption and bullying become relatively unrestrained, so in specific instances individual nuns, etc, may well have fallen foul of individual unscrupulous Government officials regardless of the official line.

Some things to bear in mind are that 18th-century France had much poorer communications than most countries in modern times, the Government (of whatever kind) had fewer resources and could not enforce its will with modern efficiency, and much of the population would have been reluctant to co-operate with orders and laws they disagreed with, so any edicts against, say, nuns, would not necessarily be quickly and comprehensively carried out. In due course, the extreme hostility of the Revolutionary Government towards the Catholic Church was moderated and the two came to an agreement, the Concordat of 1801. You might also want to read our article Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution for general information about the topic. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

George Shepherd painting

Can anyone unequivocally identify this painting as painted by George Shepherd (artist) in 1819? If so, please provide a WP:RS reference --Senra (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

{{unanswered}} --Senra (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did find a page about Aldermaston which mentioned the painting and said it was in the Ashmolean in Oxford (although the page spelled it "Ashmoleum"). I searched that museum's site to no avail, but you could send them an email and ask if they know about it. 81.131.60.225 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you although it would help if you linked the page you found. From the above information, I also searched Ashmolean Museum without success. I also found Lesley Anne McLeod:The Regency World Exactly as it Was:Friday, July 23, 2010 and have left a message on her blog. It does not help unless she comes back and can confirm the painting is indeed G Shepherd --Senra (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Senra, the OP. If all else fails, you might write to Oxford, after finding out the name of the proprietor where the painting is kept, and ask if there is any inscriptions or indications on the painting. Otherwise you might have to go there. (I have a similar problem with tracing a transcript from The Vatican for an article page. I will probably have to go there). [I found that another had done this before me and left their study in The Catholic Encyclopaedia 1930]. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Before you do that, you might contact the BBC and seek; Antique Road Show, who have experts on these paintings at hand who may be be able to throw light on this, and you can do this on the internet. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Google this: BBC Antiques Roadshow, then find: 01179742395. Add: Antiques Roadshow, BBC, Whitesladies Rd., Bristol, BS8 2LR. Also: antiques.roadshow@bbc.co.uk MacOfJesus (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: www.antiquesmaster.co.uk You can see them on: BBC antiques master.

Also: bbc bargain hunt - Tim Wonnacott should be able to help. Add: Bargain Hunt, P.O. Box 229, Bristol, BS99 7JN. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did Raoul Moat get so many floral tributes?

Is there a sociological, psychological, or scientific explaination for this please? (I don't want a "Stuff happens"-type explaination).

My own tenatative armchair theorising would be: aggressive people seem to be compelled to invent an enemy ("them") they can blame and vent their rage on. Aggressive people, for whatever reason, tend to gravitate towards Council Estates. Aggressive people consider being aggressive something to be proud of, and to admire in others. Moat was considered a hero by his council estate peers ("us") because he hurt the police ("them"). Thanks 92.29.117.202 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well what i've heard in the news is that he has become 'popular' because he was 'anti police' and the 'supports' are anti-police too. ny156uk (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Aggressive people don't gravitate towards council estates. There are very long waiting lists for social housing in the UK; there are criteria for getting housing and families with young children and pensioners have priority. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you truely believe your first sentence, then you've been lucky in never having any dealings with council estate residents. I'd be interested to see the comparative per-capita criminal conviction rates for a council estate compared with homeowner's housing estates. Perhaps the relationship does not hold so much in London, where expensive housing forces the middle-classes to apply, but it does in other areas. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might bear in mind that the underlying economic forces, like unemployment and poverty, that lead to people having to live on such estates are the same ones that make them angry about "the system", including the police - but one doesn't necessarily cause the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that people have any reason to be "angry". They ought instead to be grateful for all the free benefits, free council accommodation and so forth that they get. We all know that there are plenty of not-so-nice jobs available, which is why more enterprising people (whom I rather admire) from eastern europe come here. If people were prepared to work hard then they could pull themselves out of the estates - many people do. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A minority of people, often young and immature ones who are still testing the boundaries of what they can get away with, enjoy doing things to upset the "decent majority", especially if they can do so anonymously or with imagined impunity, hence some aspects of the Punk movement, vandalism of public facilities, internet trolling, and other antisocial behaviours. I suspect the majority of these 'tributes' and the Facebook group postings are not sincerely meant, but are made because those responsible think they're being 'cool' and funny. Others may genuinely have a (to most people) distorted understanding of Society, the Police, and their own relationships to these entities. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me put an alternative view. This man had children. He worked in a social setting (nightclub bouncer) and so would come into contact with many people, some of whom he must have helped or even been nice to. He even had friends - Paul Gascoigne is the most famous of them. Those people, and his children and their friends, quite likely had only positive memories of him and would want to express their regret at his passing in what has become the accepted method in the UK (a public floral tribute). Nobody is either 100% good or 100% evil, remember. His violent end may indeed have been out of character, or maybe symptomatic of a mental breakdown. You and I just don't know. Given that, I wouldn't want to stop anyone remembering the man they knew. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Hitler wasnt such a bad guy either. Adolf made mistakes that's all, who dosnt? 92.28.244.168 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed that we don't have an article on floral tribute, and roadside memorial doesn't really cover it. There has been a lot of newspaper comment recently on this phenomenon in relation to the Moat case - such as here, here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Having read this leads me to think some sort of Bonnie and Clyde-phenomenon is at work. Gabbe (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All of Raoul Moat's failings as a man are reflected in society's failings to give him a life that he deserved. People don't do these things because they are evil or wicked, they do things for a reason; and that this man felt he had a reason is a great shame and a collective responsibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.107.38 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense. He got a far better life than he deserved through the charity of taxpayers paying him benefits and giving him a council house to live in. Having an irrational belief that you deserve luxury without working for it is a pathetic excuse for murdering people. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it patently obvious that the someone's self worth is not governed alone by the their material wealth. I don't think anyone was to the inclination that he did it because he thought he deserved a bigger car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.107.38 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not connected with your previous comment. And pray tell what this mysterious "reason" is that he had that justified murdering people? And what would this also unspecified "life that he deserved" be?

Clearly not, it was infact a response to your comment and not my own. Please withold your flippancy further, I am not Raoul Moat and nor do I speak for him, nor do I know what his reasons were, or whether they were likely to be upheld as valid. I assert only that he did have some, one is forced to this conclusion by the fact that he undertook those actions. People do things for reasons, not for no reason at all. Raoul Moat may have had very bad reasons, but that he could discern this, or that he could not see that what he was going to do was unacceptable or see whatever perversion it was that led to him doing what he did shows only that there was some kind of tragic failure in his character; and as a child and product of the society in which he lived, which formed his character, the larger society must bear much of the burden for what went on. Raoul Moat was not an 'evil' or 'possessed' man, he was merely a vessel in an awful act that showed us how far from a well functioning society we really are. Your obstinacy leads me to believe you are of the widely held paradigm that if you take responsibility for only your own direct actions, and keep your head down and toes behind the line, that that is enough; and all I say is that there is another paradigm that believes that it is not enough, but that there is a collective responsibility of a group of people on large for each other's welfare. Raoul Moat's upbringing and education failed him. His mental health failed him. And most poignantly and catastrophically his regard for social law failed him. These things should not be regarded as his responsibilities alone, for if we do so, we will see similar tragedies again.

92.15.4.196 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"I do not know what his reasons were". You have not said what 'the life he deserved' was either. 92.28.250.141 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that floral tributes for Raoul Moat were greater in council estates (let alone council estates vs estates of a similar socio-economic grouping) Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, plenty. As far as I am aware there were two groups of floral tributes, one where he shot himself, and one at the council estate house where he lived. So about 50% of them were on a council estate. "V. estates of a similar socio-economic grouping" - I don't think there are any. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait there are only two groups of floral tributes and both of them are at places strongly connected to him? How the heck did council estates even come in to it? In any case, it seems the answer to my question is a clear cut no, the evidence strongly suggestions floral tributes are going to the obvious places i.e. places connected to Moat but the percentage in council housing isn't higher then average (well it's a bit nonsense to talk about averages when there are only two locations but anyway...). In fact it seems we can draw few conclusions about where the people leaving them live because they are being left at places connected to Moat rather then where they live so for all we know it could be largely coming from the upper class who live in several villas. But anyway thanks for clarifying. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"How the heck did council estates estates even come into it?" Because you asked "Is there any evidence blah blah greater in council estates", duh. Who are "we"? Arent you aware that your paragraph above is completely unconvincing? So Lord Posh is going to drive around for half an hour looking for Moat's council house, while Moat's near neighbour, drinking companion and former cell-mate plus his many relations are going to refuse to leave any on ethical grounds? Lol. 92.28.244.168 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I think you've missed part of the discussion. The person who started the thread and left the very first question is the one who brought council estates in to it not me. Since this person made a claimed, I asked for evidence. It appears from what you've said there is none and the person who started this thread hasn't offered any, so I have no idea why council estates were brought in to it by whoever asked this question.

It seems unlikely Lord Posh has to drive around. For starters, they would have drivers and people to do it for them. If they wanted to get personal, they'd probably tell their drivers to drive them there. If they do drive, they would have these fancy things called GPS which would remove the need for them to 'drive around for half an hour looking for Moat's house' by simply directing them to where they want to go when they put in the directions.

My impression was that there were many floral tributes, more then can be explained by people who actually knew Moat well. That being the case, the question remains who were these people and why did they leave floral tributes. The OP of this question claimed it was because they came from council estates or something of this sort. As you have amply demonstrated, that's not supported by any evidence. In fact we have no idea who left these tributes who didn't know Moat from the evidence presented and no evidence to suggest they disproportionalty came from council estates. We could speculate this may be more likely because of the similarity in social economic status etc, but that's just speculation and we stillhave no reason to think living in council estates is a factor in and of itself.

Note that if it's true his friends, family etc were the primary ones leaving the tributes that's just further proving my point that whoever brought council estates into this discussion in the first places has no idea what they're talking. As this person lived in a council estate, it's likely quite a few of those were from council estates but where these people lived is somewhat irrelevant since the important factor is they knew Moat. There's no reason to presume if Moat had been a middle class worker living in a house he owned his friends etc wouldn't have done the same thing so the issue of council estates is irrelevant from the info at hand. (Carl Williams (criminal) is an example of someone in a rather different situation who had plenty of people who knew him paying tribute.)

If it helps, consider when Diana died there were a hell of a lot of floral tributes outside Buckingham Palace. I'm pretty sure these weren't all left by the Queen (who wasn't even living in it for most of the time IIRC) or people living near Buckingham Palace. Similarly recently floral tributes were left for Michael Jackson at his home, his grave yard and his star on the Hollywood walk of fame. Again I don't believe these were primarily originating from his neighbours, dead people, and other people with stars.

By nature people tend to leave floral tributes at places related to the person who died, and therefore the fact that these floral tributes were left at the council estate where Moat lived doesn't tell us much about who actually left these, it's possible from the info at hand that a large majority of people leaving them don't actually live in council estates. The fact that there were only two locations and both of these were places strongly connected to Moat and his death and fairly far apart strongly suggests these places were primarily chosen because of their connection to Moat, not because the people leaving them lived in that estate so thought they might as well leave tributes in their estate because it was easier.

It is of course possible to imagine a situation where other people, such as the upper class may feel a greater connection to someone then their neighbours and may therefore be more likely to leave floral tributes while that may seem unlikely in this particular case, it remains a possibility since despite the claims of the OP of this question, there is no evidence to suggest most people leaving them live council estates, in fact the only connection to council estates is the fact Moat lived in one.

In other words, as I said earlier on, why the heck did council estates even come in to it? Sadly I'm guessing the OP will never be able to provide and answer.

P.S. Your IP looks similar to the person who started this thread but I presume that's not you since I presume in good faith the person who started this thread would know they are the one who first brought council estates in to it in the first place. Since this thread concerns something in the UK, it's not really that surprising. If I am mistaken, then really I'm ever more perplexed. In any case, I think I've wasted enough time on this silly thing considering so far no one has posted any evidence of the relevance of council estates so am unlikely to be back.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A number of theories have been posited by psychologists and others.

• Admiration for keeping the police on the go, and indeed shooting and seriously wounding an officer.
• Sympathy for his domestic situation and an agreement with his solution. some segments of society seem to see shooting former girlfriend and her current boyfriend as an acceptable course of action.
• Friends and family who are prepared to recognise and celebrate the man despite the actions that led to his death.
• Bandwaggoning by a couple of minor political parties who see his death as a potential cause celebre.
• A communal reaction to the media scrutiny and a tacit expectation placed on communities to do so.

I have no view on which is more likely, it;s probably a combination of reasons.

ALR (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really all about being super-masculine? 92.28.244.168 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something missed here: He did appeal for help, laying his request for continual help clearly, and was not taken-up. If this is truly so, then, should he ever have been in prison? It is a major step for a patient of his illness to admit he needs help, and secondly to seek and spell it out clearly. I am referring to his request for help from the social workers. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you suggesting should have happened then? 92.28.243.14 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That he be accessed with the two qualified psychiatrists accessors, (legal in UK). That the necessary medicine be accessed for him, if necessary in a secure unit. If all that has come out is true then the system has let him down. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not the only person here to imply that it is acceptable for people to abdicate responsibility for their own lives: to deserve luxuries without needing to work, or commit crimes without being accountable for them. This seems to be related to authoritarianism: the belief that someone deserves things through being dominant rather than because of what they do or do not do. 92.28.250.141 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you actually followed the news item. He did ask for help. I said: "If this is so...". This is a factor that must be taken into account. The question still remains as to why this was not taken up, at the time. I was not aquitting him or making judgements regarding this. But I do say again: "If this is so, then the system let him down". Now, at this late stage, we are left to pick up the pieces. The original question: The floral tributes make sense in this light. I am not condoning what he has done. I am trying to understand, and perhaps prevent this happening again. There are serious questions to be asked. Again, if this is so, then I see disiplinary proceedings for the Social Workers who didn't take up the request he made.MacOfJesus (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The two recordings I heard were of him asking to move to someones caravan for a holiday, and the other was I think requesting psychiatric help - not sure - but was that just to get better treatment, get out of prison, or even in the hope of getting a more lenient sentance after he committed his crimes? 92.15.3.219 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did hear the recording of him outlining continual help to the Social Workers, outlining this clearly. I do work for the mentally impaired, and if I were on the panel hearing the appeal or inquest I would look towards diciplianary procedures. This, from the evidence, could have been avoided, assuming that he was being truthful then. If the evidence is true, then he was not acting rationally when he committed the crimes. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying that anyone who commits murder must by definition be insane and not responsible for their actions. 92.15.3.219 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not atall. However, I have experience in picking-up the signs. The assessment that should have followed with two psychiatrists trained and passed in this must agree to commit someone to a section, which must be reviewed with the patient in 10 days. I have only a recording of an interview with the Social Workers. In the recording I heard, he was almost committing himself to a section. This is a step he would not have taken lightly. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

July 18

Naming your child

Let us say that an unmarried man (Dad Dixon) and woman (Mom Morton) have a child (Tyke). Legally speaking, when they name the child, do they have the option of naming him either Tyke Dixon (after the Dad) or Tyke Morton (after the Mom)? In other words, legally, can they arbitrarily select whichever last name they want for the child? Also, if that is indeed the case, can they arbitrarily select some other last name (neither Dixon nor Morton, in this example)? For example, they want to legally name the child Tyke Smith or Tyke Jones ... can they do so? I am referring to the USA, by the way. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

I'm not finding anything obvious either here or in Google, but I would think the specific rules would be defined by the individual states, just as are the rules for marriage and divorce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be up to the state in question. And I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to choose from the mother or father's last names. Dismas|^(talk) 03:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Married and maiden names#Children says that "in the United States, some states or areas have laws that restrict what surname a child may have. In the District of Columbia, children born to married parents must be given the father's surname alone. Tennessee allows a child to be given a surname that does not include that of the father, but only upon 'the concurrent submission of a sworn application to that effect signed by both parents.'" This thread indicates that in Mississippi out-of-wedlock children can be given either the father's surname, the mother's surname or a new surname entirely. Gabbe (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Strictly anecdotal OR here, but I know of at least one family where the children have totally different names than either the father or the mother. It's a combination of the two — not hyphenated, but taking one syllable from one name and the second syllable from the other, e.g., (not using the real names), Baker + Winfield = Bakefield for the boys, and Winker for the girls. — Michael J 15:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I know one family that combined the surnames to create a new surname for their kids, also. West Coast USA. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're making up a new name, why make it different for the boys and girls? You only give boys and girls different names when both parents want to pass on their name to some of the kids. If everyone is getting a new name, why not just let the whole family have the same name? 142.104.215.130 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange question during jury summons' voir dire

I was summoned to jury duty a couple of days ago. The accused was charged with reckless driving and the plantiff was the state; the "witness" was a policeman. In the end, I was not selected, probably because I answered positively during a question if anyone related to me went to law school. However, there was one question the judge asked that was confusing. He asked something along the lines of if the fact the accused was charged was an indication of his guilt. One woman raised her hand; the judge sternly said that there has not been any evidence presented and thus guilt could not be assumed. Why did the judge ask that question if the answer was obvious? Was it a standard part of the voir dire "unbiased, fair and impartial" test? I don't think the woman was selected to sit on the trial, but could anything negative have happened to her after that because of her answer? -- 24.251.101.130 (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty standard question to me. Some people believe that indictment, or even arrest, implies guilt, and they shouldn't sit on juries. I assume she was dismissed for cause. What "negative" thing could possibly happen? It's not against the law to have mistaken ideas about justice. PhGustaf (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think that would be a standard question to any juror. And anyone stupid enough (or smart enough) to say "Yes" would be sent home. The worst thing that might happen, short of having been found to have been bribed, would be ridicule from family and friends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a standard question. Just because the police arrest you and suspect you of a crime ... does not mean that you committed the crime. The State (prosecution) still bears the burden to affirmatively prove that you committed the crime. That is what the judge was getting at. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

Was she allowed to serve on the jury? I'd be shocked if they let someone that stupid on... --mboverload@ 00:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP stated: "I don't think the woman was selected to sit on the trial." (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

Gah, how did I miss that. Thanks. --mboverload@ 01:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In some (non-US) jurisdiction, indictment does carry with it a fairly strong presumption of guilt, if only informally. Specifically, I'm thinking about Japan, and this recent news event relating to the Ashikaga murder case. There are numerous new articles about Toshikazu Sugaya's release, including this one: [5] Buddy431 (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Human nature being what it is, it's not unreasonable to assume (or hope) that the cops and the prosecutors got it right. Many cases are open-and-shut. But some are not, and they do get it wrong sometimes. A good juror has to have the mindset that, regardless of what he might think ahead of time, the only evidence that matters is what's presented in the courtroom, and that the state has to prove its case there. (This, frankly, is why O.J. walked.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet he was convicted (admittedly by a different jury) of a closely related civil charge stemming from the same event. They got him in the end, appeareances of abandonment of double jeopardy notwithstanding. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Film ownership

Now that a copy of Charlie Chaplin's long-lost 1914 film A Thief Catcher has been found, assuming nobody renewed the copyright (or whatever), who owns the thing? The lucky finder or the heirs of the rightful owner in 1914? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The finder would own the physical copy of the film (assuming it was legitimately acquired), but the copyrights of the contents of the film have almost certainly expired in the U.S. AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All pre-1923 copyright are expired in the U.S. There is no possibility of it being renewed. [6] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Queen Elizabeth II a monarchist?

Is Queen Elizabeth II a monarchist, or is she a supporter of republicanism in the United Kingdom?--Alphador (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely the very fact that she has not abdicated or abolished the monarchy (or, indeed, instructed her government to abolish the monarchy) indicates that she is, in deed, a monarchist? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

However, her temperament seems to be that she would do her assigned duty as well as she can whether she was personally in favor of monarchism or republicanism... AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Speculation alert.... What will be interesting is whether a large number of people in places like Australia actively resist the succession of Charles. If that happens, it's hard to see anything other than the start of the system gradually unravelling - republicanism in other areas of the monarch's realms eventually leading to changes in the UK. Ever optimistic... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that would be the case - she's been Queen of quite a few places which are now republics - Pakistan, Fiji, numerous places in Africa, - and that doesn't seem to have unravelled her other 16 realms. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, but that happened mainly for different reasons - primarily, the move away from colonialism and decline of the Empire. If it happens in places like Australia or Canada, the impact on opinion in the UK is likely to be greater because of the historic connections and similarities - particularly if it coincides with the growth of nationalism (which will inevitably be linked, to some extent, with republicanism) within the UK. IMHO! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of "ifs and ands[7]" in that lot; YES and NO are the answers to the original question; you could qualify it by saying that the Queen is a Constitutional Monarchist, at least in public. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Ghmyrtle. Changes in Canada or Australia would hearten a small number of committed republicans in the UK, but most Brits can't really get their head round the idea that she is queen of Canada or Australia, and would not see that it had any bearing on her status here where she is "really" the queen. --ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there's a fair chance it would set a process rolling. We must wait and see...! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Constitutionally the monarch does not express political views, and this is a political issue. There is no way to tell, and it's unlikely that she'd declare a position.

ALR (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the Queen doesn't comment publicly on such matters. It is possible she's expressed views on the matter privately and someone has mentioned it in their memoirs or similar, but I'm not aware of it. --Tango (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the Queen either personally abolishing the monarchy or instructing her government to do so - sorry, Tammy, but that is an extraordinarily uneducated view of her powers. It's not like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, or the King in the Wizard of Id, where the king/queen's word is law and it's off to the gallows for anyone who disobeys. The Queen is pretty much at the bottom of the pile when it comes to having any real say about the law, or what system of government might obtain. It's a crude way of putting it, but it's far closer to the truth to say that her Prime Ministers tell her what to do, than she tells them what to do. In any event, there's not just one monarchy to be abolished, but 16. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that. I was making a point that it's a pretty daft question given the circumstances. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Given who she assumes the next King is going to be, she might have some second thoughts about the Monarchy. However, in general, this is like asking whether the Pope is Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

short term and long term profits of a firm

assume that firms in a short run are earning above normal profits. explain what will happen to this profits in the long run for a market having perfect competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.146.88 (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

you're learning a bunch of bullshit you know. What will happen is that the firm is careful to keep it a very good secret that they are earning above-average profits, and they will continue to do so for a hundred years. Or they will start buying out other firms and getting a nice monopoly in. Or they will use the profits to turn into something other than a commodity, and make something that they do have a monopoly on, whether it be a patented design or just their own branding and image. Either way, they will hold on to that profit. But don't tell your teacher: there's a reason he's working for $45,000 a year after all this time, and it ain't cuz' he's talented at economics. 92.230.233.165 (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He quite clearly said "in perfect competition", duh. More suppliers will enter the market, incentivised by the supernormal profits. This will increase the supply for the good that the firm is selling, lowering the price until the firms are just earning normal profits.––Alphador (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "on paper"...specifically, in the paper written by the guy whose wife just left him, because he's a miserable failure. In actual fact, more suppliers will not enter the market, incentivized by the supernormal profits. That's just a fact. As to why they don't, there are at least three major reasons. 1) secrecy. Anyone doing their jobs will not let it be known that they are receiving a windfall. 2) business tactics. There are a number of strategies used to keep the barrier to entry impossibly high. And 3) manipulation of demand. Companies, in point of fact, use a great deal of their profits to convince customers that there is something special about their brand. The moment that happens, you are no longer a commodity, fungible with all the other companies that would sell it. But please, don't listen to me or a guy like Bill Gates. What do we know? Listen to your economics professor in a bad suit, who is probably barely making mortgage payments and has no better relationship with business than teaching a ridiculous version of it that never had applicability. As the saying goes, those who can, do... 92.230.233.165 (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the article perfect competition before you rant, please. The OP asked what would happen in PERFECT COMPETITION. Perfect competition is by definition a market system with no barriers to entry, no secrecy (perfect information) and no brand loyalty.––220.253.104.251 (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

92, your ranting is inappropriate here. So is comparing yourself to Bill Gates, which would be an argument from authority, if anyone were to lend it any credulity. We're here to answer questions with references, not to complain about hypothetical economics professors. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

THat article says that it doesn't exist, but it says "it's useful" all the same. It is useful in one sense: when the government steals from the people to give Universities grants, the Universities are able to make a case for getting some money for economics grants. So, "perfect competition" is a useful construct, as it empowers the professors who use this idea to steal from people without having to buy a gun. The article admits it never exists, so I don't see why we need to go any farther. Obviously the reason we are asking for what will happen in the long term given conditions that cannot exist is to enable the stealing of taxpayers' money. That is the single, solitary reason for the existence of this question. 84.153.180.220 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This claim is bizarre. The reason that questions about idealized situations are really useful is that they make it much easier to understand real situations. Understand the idealized basics, then add layers of complexity. Following your logic, people should never trouble to learn formulas like "F=ma" when trying to calculate the amount of energy it takes to keep a car going, because the real-world situations you're trying to figure out include wind resistance, photonic pressure, gravitational pull from the moon, and lots of other complex variables. People do learn better one step at a time, you know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Attend the lectures. Read the books. Do your own homework. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If Washington DC were to become a state, what would it be called?

Columbia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.224.6 (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Columbia" is "America", so maybe not. Have you checked Google to see if this subject is discussed anywhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't residents of Puerto Rico or Washington DC allowed to vote for the Congress of the United States? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Because neither of them are states. AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

District of Columbia voting rights is our whole article on the DC side of 84's question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote from the top of this page, "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." Unless anybody knows a reliable source that has discussed the question, it does not belong here. --ColinFine (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote from our article: District of Columbia statehood movement - "New Columbia is the name of the proposed U.S. state that would be created by the admission of Washington, D.C. into the United States as the 51st state according to legislation offered starting in the 98th Congress in 1983 and routinely re-introduced in succeeding Congresses." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course if one city were allowed to become a state, and get two senators, it would only be fair if every city larger than Washington DC also became a state, adding 26 other new states, to avoid a "rotten borough" situation where the DC folks had far more power in the senate those living in other parts of the country. A more equitable solution would be to return it to the state of Maryland, from which its land was originally taken, as "DC County, Maryland." See District of Columbia retrocession. There is already a Washington County, Maryland. But I understand Maryland does not want it to be part of their state, and the Washington DC residents do not want to be part of Maryland. Are there any poll numbers bearing on this issue? DC originally was much larger and contained "Alexandria County, DC," in Virginia, but that half of DC was returned to Virginia, and its residents got to vote for Senators, Representatives, and Presidents, as part of Virginia. Edison (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was Arlington County. Alexandria is an independent city, not a county. Acroterion _(talk) 19:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Arlington County, Virginia, it was originally called Alexandria County. It was returned to Virginia in 1846, for reasons described in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying DC's 599,657 is a bigger problem then Wyoming's 544,270? Isn't the inequality part and parcel of the US Senate system? On a related note, does anyone have any info on state by state support of DC statehood? I can't help wondering if California's 36,961,664 are actually more supportive then Wyoming's 544,270. Also is there actually any other area currently part of a US state which is already in some way a distinct entity and is the size of DC or larger where a majority of the population want independent statehood? Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any places with majority support (or else we would have heard of it already), but there are many proposals at List of U.S. state partition proposals. 142.104.215.130 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

what is the earliest reference to pleasing two women at the same time?

what is the earliest reference to a man pleasing two women at the same time sexually? (I mean at the exact same moment, the exact phrasing, pleasing them or them pleasing him isn't so important, I just mean 2 women and 1 man having sex together). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.233.165 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It will no doubt have been common in Ancient Greece - as the artcile Orgy details. I'm sure it went on well before that but at least as early as Ancient Greece for referenceable evidence. ny156uk (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The date of such a reference might depend on whether you require it to be written, or would accept pictorial depictions such as on a vase. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Residenzpflicht

I want have the cities of Bottrop and Gelsenkirchen to be included in the district of Recklinghausen, because of the Residenzpflicht, and the fact that you have to travel through at least one of these cities (or possibly Essen) to get from Gladbeck to the rest of the district. --84.61.131.18 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't given a link to a page, so it is hard to know what you are talking about. But it seems to me that your issue is a question of fact, which should be settled by reference to WP:reliable sources which do or do not say that the cities are in the district. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at Recklinghausen (district) which describes Bottrop, Gelsenkirchen and three other cities as "district-free", which I take to mean that they are not in districts at all. However, this statement is unreferenced and neither of the cities' articles mentions their status.

Either way, this is a question of fact. Either Bottrop and Gelsenkirchen are administratively within districts, in which case their articles should say so, and the region article should be altered; or they are not in districts, in which case the statement in Recklinghausen (district) is correct and should be supported by a reference.

In any case, it seems to me that further discussion of this question should be on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In Germany, nearly all larger cities are kreisfrei, (district free), even if they are within a district of the same name. According to the German Wikipedia (not a RS, but I trust it for that), Bottrop is kreisfrei, as is Gelsenkirchen. Districts are merely administrative units, they can have many shapes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the city of Recklinghausen district-free, even if Bottrop is a district-free city with fewer residents than Recklinghausen? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical reasons. The current Kreise were determined in 1975. At that time, Bottrop had nearly 200000 inhabitants. However, the city of Gladbeck, which had been merged with Bottrop, successfully sued against this administrative act, so Gladbeck was unmerged, dropping Bottrop to 114000. Apparently nobody has bothered or dared to touch things again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the Residenzpflicht? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Residenzpflicht means that certain professions (medical doctors, lawyers, clerics, public servants et al) are required to live in / close to the location where they practise / work (similar provisions apply to asylum seekers during the relevant legal proceedings). I don´t know which of the two meanings is applicable to your question above. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the Residenzpflicht for asylum seekers? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In case you understand German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residenzpflicht_(Asylverfahrensgesetz). Briefly, Residenzpflicht for asylum seekers means that any foreign person applying for asylum in Germany is required to stay in a specific district / Landkreis. Residenzpflicht is a legal construct particular to Germany and does not exist in any other country of the EU. Not surprisingly, is is highly controversial (not only amongst refugees) and there seem to be two cases which have been brought to the European Court of Human Rights for adjudication by affected refugees. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Which consequences has the Residenzpflicht for asylum seekers living in Gladbeck or in Recklinghausen? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Hey guys. I've joined a debate club this summer and on Monday we'll be debating for and against vegetarianism, and I'm in the against camp. So far I've got it's more difficult to have a balanced diet, vegetables have less energy, and supplements/replacements (such as calcium/soy milk if you don't drink milk) are more expensive. I can't think of any good philosophical arguments though... the only one I have is claiming that plant life is worth no less than animal life but that's not particularly strong. Can someone help me out with some ideas? PS: Id much rather sthe ideas be non-religious in nature. Thanks. 76.229.182.212 (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can think of one anecdote. Rita Rudner said that when she moved, she hired some vegetarian movers, and she and her husband had to help them, "because they were too weak to lift anything." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You could also bring up the old argument that Hitler was a vegetarian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd struggle to find a philosophical argument against vegetarianism. Working on the basis that humans are naturally omnivorous then a vegetarian diet excludes things. You're looking for an argument that would exclude other things.

I would recommend that you clarify your position, are you including in your definition of vegetarian also those who eat a lacto-ovo vegetarian, vegan or pescatarian diet? Each of those changes the arguments.

The majority of vegetarians are in practice lacto-ovo, they drink milk and eat eggs. Your argument about a balanced diet is weak, it's perfectly easy to consume an adequately supported diet on that basis.

There are lots of very simple arguments for a vegetarian diet, but you could talk about choice. I'm making an assumption that you're not talking about it on an individual but doctrinal basis?

ALR (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point in raising the question "Just what kind of vegetarian are we talking about?" Their usual arguments are that it's healthier. I know someone who is a total vegan - won't even consume eggs or milk. However, he's a cigarette smoker. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There really aren't any arguments against vegetarianism. You can easily have a perfectly balanced vegetarian diet (assuming you allow eggs and milk, which most vegetarians do - even if you don't, you can have a balanced diet, but it's not very easy), such a diet has a much lower energy cost (if you get the energy from plants by eating animals that have eaten the plants, a lot of energy is wasted by being used by the animal) and there are no animal cruelty concerns. I think your only chance in the debate is to point out that the "natural" state for humans is to eat an omnivorous diet and therefore the burden of proof is on the vegetarians to prove their way is better. You can then just counter all the points made by the vegetarians, rather than trying to make any points yourself. If you can counter every point they make, then you win by default. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the one good argument against vegetarianism: meat tastes nice. That means the downsides of eating meat have to be enough to outweigh that pleasure people get from eating it. (Of course, there is plenty of nice tasting vegetarian food, but there is nothing stopping people eating both.) --Tango (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything Tango said. Our Vegetarian nutrition article does list a number of "risks" of various vitamin deficiencies among vegetarians, so another argument could be "it's a pain in the ass to monitor everything you eat, which vegetarians practically have to do to make sure they aren't deficient in one of these crucial vitamins". An opponent in the debate could of course crush you if one of the vitamins you mention isn't supplied by meat, so be careful with that one. I would use "Hitler was a vegetarian" for sure in a debate society in order to get a laugh. I think the general idea that "humans evolved to eat meat, so we're supposed to eat meat" is a bit lame (it is faith-based, in a way) but also hard to refute, sort of. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All of those strike me as extremely weak arguments, every one of them. One should, in principle, always argue against the strongest objection—it makes your side all the more convincing, and shows you aren't a straw-manning twit. Saying that vegetarianism requires people to have a varied diet is really not much of an argument. The "humans evolved this way" is an obvious naturalistic fallacy. If I were trying to do a good debate, I'd steer clear of such things, because that's exactly what the opposing side is going to be prepared to clobber you with, and they will, if they have done their work, be exceptionally able to do that (because these are largely fallacious arguments). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you; they're quite weak arguments. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are weak arguments. As I said, there aren't really any arguments against vegetarianism (other than meat tasting nice), so if we need to come up with some arguments they will be, by necessity, very weak. --Tango (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is up to the clever debater to set the terms of the argument. If it were me (as I've gone on for quite too long below), I would concentrate on framing my side of things in a way that defuses the strongest arguments of the opponents. If you end up agreeing with them on 90% of things, it comes down to that last 10% for the real pitch. Saying up front that nobody in their right mind would argue that one should eat all meat, or that one should eat as much red meat as people do, defuses a huge amount. If your side of thing is that for moderation — hey, why be diet extremists? — you make the other side look like the ones with the higher burden of proof. Make the argument not about carnivores vs. vegetarians, but balanced omnivores vs. people who want to draw extremely sharp lines around what can and can't be eaten. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the suggestion I made above - you need to force the burden of proof onto the other side in order to avoid having to make any arguments yourself, since they will be very weak. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I ate a vegetarian diet for most of my childhood and we never worried about individual vitamins. If you read the article you linked, pretty much all the sections about individual nutrients say that most studies haven't found there to be any problem at all. That argument won't get you anywhere (except with reference to vegans - if we're arguing against vegan diets then we have a much easier job). --Tango (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The key to any good diet is to just eat a lot of different things. Being a vegetarian is not eating all lettuce, just as being an omnivore is not eating all hot dogs. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I would do, personally. I'd skip all of those goofy arguments about nutrition and Hitler and supplements. They are nibbling if not completely wrong, or enhance values (like not having a varied diet, like people not valuing what they put in them for its nutritional value) that a clever opponent will be quite ready to shoot down. Your opponents will, if they are clever, probably also point out that excessive focus on meat consumption has completely warped American attitudes and habits regarding food to a disturbing and disgusting degree. You will probably not be able to win that particular argument.

Instead, I would say, straight up, that you are not arguing for the status quo at all. That meat consumption could be part of a varied diet and that the larger question of whether humans should eat meat should be distinctly separated from questions about factory farming, the beef economy, and so on. You say up front that eating large amounts of red meat has been shown to be decidedly unhealthy, but being a meat eater doesn't imply that you eat cheeseburgers for every meal, obviously. You diffuse the opponent by posing yourself as the moderate, non-straw man argument.

Then you perhaps look at what the philosophy is that underlies vegetarianism. Do we really consider animals to have the same moral and ethical status as human beings? The primary philosopher of vegetarianism/veganism is Peter Singer. I would introduce who he is, how important he is considered (it is easy to find a few quotes to that effect), and how basically, nobody thinks that there is a strong logical argument against his conclusions. But what are these conclusions? Singer basically believes that there is no reason to consider human and animal lives to be morally or ethically different—killing a cow is as morally problematic as killing another human being, in Singer's eyes. Sounds logical, if you don't believe in souls or separate creation or "speciesism". But what are the implications of that? Singer does a great job of running through all of the ways which philosophy (which he believes in) obligates us ethically and morally to totally change the way our society is run, changes our relationship with animals (can we have pets?), changes the entire ethical calculus of our culture. For most people it is a disturbing world, very unsettling, not the world they want to live in. Articulating exactly where this attitude leads to would, I think, be sufficiently uncomfortable to most of those in the room. (Singer is not a very fun or enjoyable read in this respect.) I think then asking if that is the world we want to live in, if that is the world we should live in, would be a pretty broad and hard to answer assault. Most people will intuitively say, "no, I don't think so." (Whether that is logical or not is a different question.)

The nice part of this is that you are actually arguing the side of the opponent but taking it farther than they will be inclined. You use their own philosophy against them. They won't see it coming and they won't have any way of effectively recourse—except to argue against their own position (e.g. that humans and animal lives are morally equivalent). Well, maybe it would work that way—in my head it does. I think it would be a lot cleverer, anyway, than trying to snipe nutrition facts, and being just completely overwhelmed by opponents who are prepared to shoot those kinds of arguments down. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, when they say "against" vegetarianism, are they arguing it should be outlawed? Something was said about meat tasting nice. Contrariwise, vegetables often do not taste nice. How often has a parent had to say to a child, "Finish your steak or you won't get any vegetables." Not often, I daresay. There's a problem also with morally equating animals to humans. They're using it to mean that killing an animal is just as immoral as killing a human. Good luck finding any broad sourcing on that. But consider the other side of it - that it implies killing a human is no worse than killing an animal. That's an anti-human philosophy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

When I was a child I hated eating meat, vegetables I liked. Similarly as an adult. Don't assume that the whole world has the same tastes as yourself. I find it difficult to believe that a child would eat a steak with joy: more likely the reverse is true. 92.28.240.114 (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Vegetables do taste nice. A lot of people just don't cook them right (usually massively overcooking them). If you prepare your vegetables correctly, they can be delicious. --Tango (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Especially with a little butter on the corn and a little bacon on the green beans. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If all you have is vegetables, you probably learn to like them. I'm reminded of a Garfield where he's eating a house plant and thinking, "When you're starving, anything tastes good." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found that what most people imagine to be "vegetarian food" is quite laughable. Here is vegetarian food: imagine a huge turkey sandwich, with all of the fixings, but minus the turkey. Still pretty dang good. Doesn't require you to eat a raw turnip or anything. I speak as someone who is maybe 80% vegetarian most of the time, in practice. It doesn't have to be some big extreme, "only eat beans" kind of thing. It's regular food, just minus unnecessary meat or extreme focus on red meat (which is just too unhealthy to justify being a major part of one's diet). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not personally a vegetarian and often eat meat, but when I'm eating with my mother, who is vegetarian, I eat vegetarian food and thoroughly enjoy it. I'm not enjoying it because it's all I have; I'm enjoying it because it tastes nice. Tonight, I had a spicy bean-burger, mashed potato (with milk, so not acceptable to a vegan), carrots and cauliflower. It was very simple and easy to cook and very nice (although, had I made it, I would have replaced the cauliflower with broccoli, which I prefer - it has more flavour). That meal was very similar to meals eaten by omnivores all the time ("meat and two (well, three) veg"), just with the meat (a pork chop, say) replaced by a bean-burger. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

the argument against vegetarianism is about people: people have meats in their national dishes, by not eating meat, you deny acknowledging this heritage. Hitler was a vegetarian. 84.153.180.220 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As Mr. 98 already implied, that line of argument will probably not help you win the debate. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually using that argument could backfire, as supposedly the reason Hitler switched to a vegetarian diet was that meat was making him sick. Oops. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO your best bet is to make a defence of mixed farming, where the stock rearing and cultivation of crops are planned to harmonise with each other. Such methods were common throughout the world until the advent of agribusiness. Consumption of moderate amounts of free-range meat is of great benefit to farmers who aim to minimise inputs. They were the basis of the American family farm and are still common in much of Europe, Asia and Africa. If we had no animal rearing then we would be completely dependent on fertilisers derived from fossil fuels. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If the debate must be against vegetarianism itself, the following won't work; but if you can frame the debate such that you're opposing government-mandated vegetarianism, or even government-provided economic incentives to promote vegetarianism, then I think you could create a meaty (HA HA) argument, centered on the unlikelihood that humans, en masse, can be converted, because we have evolved to love, inter alia, bacon. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Question why Insects and pests are not given the same status as animals. Ask whether they feel hypocritical chewing down on their tomato and onion salad knowing that the crops have been farmed using techniques that wipe out billions of insects every year. Ask how it can be less immoral to kill things such as Green Fly than, say, a sheep. Is size the factor? I have to note that I don't really buy the "it's immoral" line because culturally, socially meat eating is the dominant choice of human kind, and morality is a human construct - not a universal - so it suggests that the consensus is firmly in the camp that eating meat is not immoral. ny156uk (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The nutrition argument is certainly not that weak - getting enough iron out of a vegetarian diet is not trivial, especially for women. But another argument is the cultural aspect. Food is something very much part of our culture. No more Bacon and Eggs, Goulash, Spaghetti bolognese, Prosciutto di Parma, Filet mignon, Lasagna, Salami, Saltimbocca, Chilli con carne, Pot-au-feu, Coq au Vin, thanksgiving turkey, Hamburgers, Chicken Tikka, Doner Kebab, Bratwurst or Shashlik. Isn't that a loss comparable to burning all Baroque music? Or all impressionist paintings? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that assertion about iron? Vegetarianism#Iron says it isn't a significant problem. --Tango (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, citation needed. And really, the culture argument would only apply if you were banning it for everyone, and in any case, food culture morphs over time. A lot of "historic" dishes are a hundred years old at best, maybe two. And just because something is "part of culture" doesn't make it a good thing. Ritualized female circumcision is certainly "part of a culture," as are a lot of other barbaric practices. I think it is a weak argument. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My references are [1], and [2], so I get your point. But our article is, at best, ambivalent. Sure, someone in a modern western society with access to any foodstuff grown on this planet via a trip to the local supermarket will be able to get enough iron. But that represents only a small part of the worlds population. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the culture argument is weak. You don't need to ban everyone from eating meat for it to apply. The opposing team is saying that people shouldn't eat meat - if they are right then this would directly impact our culture. Female circumcision is clearly a violation of human rights while eating meat is a violation of animal rights, which violation this debate is all about. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be careful with 'dominant choice of human kind' sort of thing. Arguably at various points in time, allowing ownership of slaves, discrimination based on sex including perhaps girls or wifes being consider property, racism including killing people for being the wrong race, whipping children for wrong doings, the death penalty, punishing or even killing people for homosexuality, marriages and sex at 12 years old or younger, punishing or even klling people for being the wrong religion, doing whatever you want and damn the consequences to nature and everyone else indirectly affected etc were the dominant choice of human kind yet some of these have clearly changed. Others (like the death penalty) are probably still in the okay camp. So even if consensus is currently firmly in the camp that eating meat is immoral, consensus does change and for many people there would be at least one area of previous consensus that they would agree was wrong. Consensus can change as they say. Clearly this doesn't mean that the consensus is wrong or that eating meat is definitely immoral but the idea that eating meat is immoral needs to be discussed on merits, the current consensus is IMHO not particularly useful in such a discussion since the people who agree with it will say it's right, the people who don't will say it's wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You can include arguments from a biological perspective - for example how human teeth match not only animals that eat vegetables (with our molars), but also animals that eat mean (with our canines). I suspect that there are other biological arguments, to do with the human digestive system and the flora in it. I know that vegetarians also use biological arguments, but the omnivores have their arguments too. It is likely true that humans (in the developed world) eat far more meat than they need to, for the most part, but that's not an argument for stopping eating it altogether, only for reducing the amount of meat in the average diet. Steewi (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good zinger: If we aren't supposed to eat animals why are they made of meat? --mboverload@ 01:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An strong argument which hasn't been discussed is the idea that vegetarianism potentially kills more animals than meat eating does. That is, if you consider all animals morally equal which many vegetarians do. The reason is that farming, esp. the production of grain, kills a lot of animals: rodents and insects mostly. Grass-fed beef kills much less when you consider that a single cow can feed many people. See http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2002/Mar02/vegan.htm . Jonathan Safran Foer in Eating Animals concedes that beef causes less death and importantly less cruelty than some farming because the slaughter of a cow can be carefully controlled to minimize pain, but the millions of mice torn apart by tillers and tractors aren't so lucky. —D. Monack ^talk 05:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If I were you I'd try this approach: Either present animal welfare laws in the meat industry are adequate, or they're inadequate. If they're inadequate – that's an argument in favour of tougher animal welfare regulation, not abstaining from meat eating altogether. Arguably, with sufficiently stiff regulations regarding anaesthesia, cage sizes, transportation, and so on it would be possible to kill animals without any suffering involved. That way, palates are satisifed (for those humans that so desire) at no cost to animals. There are of course counter-arguments to this, but even Peter Singer recognised that if we personally knew and trusted a farmer that we knew for a fact reared and killed animals in a fashion that was entirely painless to them – then consuming their meat would not be unethical. Singer's own response was that this scenario would be unlikely, rare and unavailable to most meat-eaters. See for example Practical Ethics, page 64, where he kind of dodges the issue of whether there is such a thing as "ethical meat-eating". Gabbe (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's an argument against vegetarianism: People don’t eat cows in India, and as a result they wander around and disrupt traffic. If there is no reason to keep all those animals currently used for food, the alternatives are to kill them – not exactly at the heart of the vegology – or turn ‘em loose. Would the resulting traffic jams and increased pollution be worse for the environment than just maintaining the status quo? DOR (HK) (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's an exceptionally uncompelling argument. Just because you don't eat cows doesn't mean you should let them wander around aimlessly. Just because the Indians choose to do it one way (for religious reasons) doesn't mean anyone else would copy them. The goal here is to come up with good arguments, not stupid ones. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If most people were vegetarians, there would be no need to raise animals for food, so we wouldn't have the same diversity of meat-producing animals/numbers of animals that we have now. The landscape is dictated by its use and would look very different and less aesthetically pleasing (in the UK anyway) if it were all laid down to crops instead. Without cows and sheep grazing, arable farming would have no need for hedgerows, leading to less biodiversity. But not everywhere is suitable for crop growing. What about the poorer soils that are only suitable for animal grazing? Do they just return to scrub? On an individual basis, you might argue that vegetarians can be difficult to cater for by non-vegetarians when they come around for dinner. :-)

Organic farming would be a lot harder without animal manure. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There are scientific arguments FOR animal proteins and fats, and against overconsumption of wheat, soy, even fruit, etc. which tend to be vegetarian staples. Also for low-carb/high-fat diets, which is hard to do as a vegetarian. wholehealthsource.blogspot.com, westonaprice.org, marksdailyapple.com, high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com, beyondveg.com, homodiet.netfirms.com. The conventional wisdom of the badness of "red meat" and saturated fat is being questioned much more publically. 209.89.177.187 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW vegetarians LOVE "The China Study" as a source and it has taken a few beatings, including recently, it may get brought up by your opponents. [8] 209.89.177.187 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Blacks' rule in the SA

Is it fair to say that after Blacks managed to rule the South Africa, the growth of this country started to decrease? 83.31.120.41 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean purely economic growth, or do you have a broader definition in mind? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the major factors are to be found in our article Economy of South Africa. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an economist, but it doesn't seem "fair to say" that at all. The GDP went up quite a bit, owing no doubt to vastly increased trading after various anti-apartheid boycotts were removed. In any case, characterizing it as "Black rule" is I think a bit misleading. What you're talking about is formally making the democracy actually open to all citizens rather than a small racial minority who had been systematically concentrating capital and political power. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

When the economic powerhouse of Europe, West Germany, unified with East Germany to form Germany, its growth decreased.
Sleigh (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but that's a different scenario. That's a modern, "powerhouse" economy suddenly merging with a falling-apart, formerly socialist state of roughly the same size. One would expect that the economies of the two would roughly equalize as the falling-apart side consumed the resources and infrastructure of the modern side, at least for awhile. One wouldn't necessarily expect the same scenario in the South Africa situation, except for the fact that social services were probably being offered to the formerly oppressed majority that otherwise would have been cut, and that there would be a fair amount of social disruption for quite awhile. The South African "economies" were not separate so much as "rigged". As I understand it, anyway, but I am no expert on economics nor South Africa. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there's the inherant misassumption in the OPs statement about black rule in South Africa. Blacks didn't take over the country, they were granted due access to power. They, and whites and South Asians and all other groups living in South Africa have the same legal rights. Also, as a modern democratic republic, no one rules. People are elected to serve in certain roles in the government. People are citizens, not subjects, and the government governs, it does not rule. --Jayron32 03:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The short answer is absolutely not. South Africa was actually in the midst of a prolonged, crippling economic depression in the years leading up to the first multiracial elections in 1994. Since 1994, South Africa did not have a single recession until the 2009 global recession. --M@rēino 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

was this girl okay?

did this girl end up all right? I can't tell from the photo how large the drop was, or if she caught herself on the railing... 84.153.180.220 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there is grass sticking up just behind the platform, which suggests the drop is very small (a couple of feet, say). --Tango (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to know more about the location to be really sure. If it was a really steep drop off, that would be bad for a human being, not so much for a plant. She looks pretty caught on the railing to me, anyway—her arm and her leg are wrapped around it. I suspect she very inelegantly pulled herself or was pulled up. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For heavens sake! Look at the heading of the page. It was an example of a set up shot using the camera shutter delay. It was set to look like a spontaneous moment when someone is coming to grief (who doesn't smile at that situation) but it was all under control as can be deduced from the unsurprised look on the girl's face. I guess she is not an actor. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not really what it says. It says she set up the shutter delay, then (below the picture) that she ran to get into the frame and jumped to sit on the fence, and fell over. The other girl doesn't look very composed to me. Anyway, I'm sure the girl was fine, because they probably wouldn't joke about it on the Internet if she killed herself (although, it is the Internet, so maybe...) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 19

Chittenden County, Vermont

I've been there twenty years ago... and today Burlington made the New York Times front page: [9]. The article makes an impression that this once nice town has become a kind of internment camp for the Africans. Indeed, other sources confirm that Chittenden County houses the absolute majority of refugees in Vermont; the number does not seem too big but it is big for a single town. Two questions:

• Is this a managed program (managed by who? who selects target towns and how?) or the Africans just follow each other?
• It appears that US Census data for Burlington and the county does not account for the refugees (the racial percentage is too low even discounting the immigration back to 2000). True or false? East of Borschov 04:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Its more likely that refugees from the same area simply conglomerate in the same area, for security and cultural purposes. A similar thing happened in the 1960's and 1970's in Lowell, Massachusetts with Cambodian refugees from the "Killing Fields" era of the Khmer Rouge; at one time it had the largest number of Cambodian people outside of Cambodia. Something similar could be happening in Burlington. --Jayron32 04:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I live about a half hour outside of B'ton, so forgive my WP:OR, please. You have to understand something about where Wheeler Elementary (the school in the article) is located within Burlington. Wheeler is in the North End which is known for being a low income area of town. So, it's not surprising that refugees would go there. They'd be less likely to find a high paying job considering a possible (probable?) language disadvantage. They would need somewhere both close to a job (easier to get public transportation and not require another large expense, namely a car) and somewhere that they could afford to live in a state with a fairly high cost of living.

I don't know of any state effort to bring in refugees. That said, I can attest to there being many (considering the population figures for the state) people who are originally from other countries living here. Out of the 30-40 people that I work closest with, I can easily come up with a half dozen names of those who moved to the US from Africa, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe.

And lastly, you said "big for a single town". You have to take into account the fact that B'ton is the largest city in the state. Even the capitol, Montpelier, is only about 1/5th the size of B'ton. Once you leave the surrounding area, there's a big change. Public transportation drops off. The towns are widely spaced and work within them is limited. There are fewer services in the small towns such as welfare offices, public health services, etc. Also, rural schools are less likely to be able to handle children in ESL (English as a Second Language) programs. So, while B'ton is just "a single town" it's also the best place in the state if you're moving here as a refugee. B'ton is an island of urban in a sea of rural. Dismas|^(talk) 05:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Windward Passage

Why is the Windward Passage called the Windward Passage?  Chzz  ►  07:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it has something to do with the nautical terms Windward and leeward (although I don't know about this specific passage - it is far away from the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And, oddly enough, the Leeward Passage would appear to be east of, and thus "windward" of the Windward Passage, given the direction of the local winds. --Jayron32 06:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The article on Windward Islands states: "The Windward Islands are called such because they were more windward to sailing ships arriving in the New World than the Leeward Islands, given that the prevailing trade winds in the West Indies blow east to west. The trans-Atlantic currents and winds that provided the fastest route across the ocean brought these ships to the rough dividing line between the Windward and Leeward islands..." I assume that a similar reasoning applies to the Passage, but being a landlubber I don't know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What services and/or benefits does the monarchy provide the UK?

There was an article recently that the monarchy costs Britons about $1 per person per year. A question a few days ago led someone to point out that the royal family has no real power. Full disclosure - I'm American. I have to ask - in the 21st century what's the damn point of supporting powerless people solely because of their heredity? It seems to be to be the world's most expensive welfare case. I am 100% serious - how do "monarchists" defend this situation? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, the monarchy is an important aspect of British national identity and culture. The U.S. spends money every year on things which exist solely as representations of American national identity and culture, and have no further "purpose". Think of all of the various monuments, the national 4th of July celebrations, etc. etc. The monarchy is certainly no less important to the U.K. than anything like that is to the U.S. Additionally, the British Constitution is built largely on tradition and little else. While the monarch has no real power, its historical power, even if today it is largely a legal fiction, is an important aspect in lending credibility and weight to the British legal and political system. The British transition from absolute monarchy to democratic republic has been a gradual one, not marked by a single event, and as such the monarchy has an important role in maintaining the continuity of constitution that supports and justifies the entire apparatus of the British state. As Americans, we have a distinct time when we came into being. Our nation has a birthdate (July 4, 1776) and our current state has one too (September 17, 1787). We have a single document we can point to as the organizing instrument of our entire national state. Britain has nothing like that. What they have is a continuum of historical changes which have led up to today, and the monarchy is part of that continuum. Its a very different way of organizing a state, and it can be hard for an American, like myself and you, to understand, but it works, and so like many things that aren't broken, doesn't need fixing... --Jayron32 05:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was all going so well until those last 14 words, Jayron....  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though I think Jayron32 pretty much covered it above, see Republicanism in the United Kingdom#Arguments in favour of constitutional monarchy, the "arguments" page from the Constitutional Monarchy Association and this interview with a monarchist for examples. Gabbe (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't sit down and design a system like ours; it has evolved over a thousand years or more. If a bit of it is seen not to be working (like the House of Lords) we evolve it a bit more. It's ours, it works and most of us like it. We tried being a republic but decided it wasn't for us. Aside from the constitution, the Royal Family work hard to promote UK businesses[10] and highlight the work of charities[11]. They also project the UK image abroad. Queen Elizabeth is well known in many foreign countries; but, for example, how many people in the US know who the President of Germany is? Alansplodge (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bah! The Hun is always switching his head of state – sometimes more than once per decade! How is an honest chap supposed to keep track of such fickleness? Gabbe (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How much money does the Monarchy bring in as a subset of the Tourism industry in the U.K.? Is there any information on that? To put it another way, if the Monarchy were abolished, how much might the U.K. lose in Tourism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to know - you'd need to know what motivates tourists to come here, and how would you define what is the contribution of the current monarchy anyway? Trooping The Colour??!! The history of the monarchy would still remain intact, as it is in places like France. You also have to bear in mind the benefits of abolishing the monarchy, such as, perhaps, having a few new world class museum and gallery venues (Buck Pal, Windsor, Sandringham etc etc), containing treasures long hidden from view, not to mention visitors to all the future sites of the great revolutionary uprisings of the mid 21st century.  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Queen is not for the benefit of tourists - she's there for us! Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

..although she also performs the ancillary function of bolstering American self-esteem, by reminding them that other parts of the world still have antiquated (but quaint) modes of administration that they outgrew centuries ago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider also that nearly all democracies find it necessary to have both a Prime Minister (or equivalent, differently named) and a President (ditto), with the former [latter D'oh!] usually heading the day-to-day business of government and the latter carrying out more ceremonial duties, providing a national emotional 'focus', and - through a degree of detachment from party politics - providing continuity between changes of the former. The US is somewhat exceptional in partly combining the two roles, and is (I suggest) widely perceived as being somewhat administratively inefficient in consequence. If the UK were to abolish the Monarchy, it would probably have to replace it with a Presidential system of some kind, which (judging by comparisons with other counties) might well prove to be more expensive to run. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In the kind of government the UK has, a head of state is essential to the workings of the system, not only to cut ribbons, but to exercise reserve power. For example, right now, the UK is governed by a coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the largest and third-largest parties in the House of Commons, respectively. If the coalition were to break up, the Conservative prime minister could ask the queen to dissolve parliament and hold a new election. It would be up to the queen to decide whether to grand the prime minister's wish or give the opposition Labour Party a chance to form a government instead. The question is whether, in this day and age, a hereditary monarch is the right person to do that. Monarchists say only a monarch is untainted by politics. Republicans say a directly or indirectly elected non-executive president, like Israel's Shimon Peres, can do the job without all the extravagances. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Disgruntled Jews heading east

Chapters 9 - 10 of the Book of Ezra mentions Ezra forbidding Jews to marry non-Jewish women. One book I am reading claims a disgruntled band of them who did not agree with the decision "set out on a journey to the east...never to be heard from again." Ezra only has 10 chapters, so where did this extra info come from? Is it mentioned in another book of the Bible or is it just speculation on the author's part? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There are several additional "apocryphal" books of Ezra, usually referred to as Esdras in English; not sure whether that particular story is found in any of them... AnonMoos (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Many would argue that the only parts of the Bible that are speculation on the part of the author(s) are the parts between the front and back cover.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, since scrolls don't really have covers. Googlemeister (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Judaism maintains that Ezra and Nehemiah are one book and were erroneously split by Christians, but this is largely irrelevant because nothing further is said about this small opposition to Ezra. The Book of Ezra says nothing of anyone "heading east." Ezra 10:15 states: "Only Jonathan son of Ashael, Yachzeya son of Tikvah stood against this, and Meshulam and Shabtai the Levites supported them." No mention is made of where they were, what they did and where they went. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Try an inquiry of the author's basis for that plot element by pursuing direct avenues such as:

• See whether the author (and this book) have a web site with a forum for asking question on matters of content
• Contact the author and the publisher's editor(s) via the publisher's address

-- Deborahjay (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been in contact with the author in the past and he is rather fickle. If you challenge his research, he either sends you an angry email or doesn't write back at all. He certainly doesn't have a forum. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's usually a good sign that the book is useless. (And looking at the book on Google Books, and the address of the publisher on Google Maps, it is either self-published or published by one of those places that will publish anything for the right price.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the Mormon take on this, see Lehi (Book of Mormon prophet). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A term to call a "sale with right of redemption"

According to the law of certain civil law countries, a "sale with right of redemption" is (§491 of the Civil and Commercial Code (Thailand))

"A contract of sale whereby the ownership of the property sold passes to the buyer, subject to an agreement that the seller can redeem the property within the period prescribed, provided that such redemption right must be exercised by the seller within the period prescribed by law."

Is there, in everyday use English or in another legal systems, for instance, common law system, any term to call such sale?

Thank you so much.

203.131.212.36 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Money-back guarantee"? Wait, let me channel... almost have him... all right, I've -- HI BILLY MAYS HERE WITH TRY AND BUY PROPERTIES. ARE YOU TIRED OF BUYING PROPERTY ONLY TO REALIZE YOU DIDNT NEED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? TIRED OF PEOPLE RIPPING YOU OFF WITH SUBSTANDARD PROPERTIES OR OVERINFLATED PRICES? WHAT IF I TOLD YOU THAT YOU COULD BUY PROPERTIES FROM TRY AND BUY PROPERTIES WITH A FULL, THAT'S RIGHT FULL MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE? IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY SATISFIED, JUST SEND THE PROPERTY BACK WITHIN 90 DAYS FOR A FULL, THAT IS 100% REFUND, NO HASSLE, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE. WHAT IF I TOLD YOU THAT IF YOU BUY NOW, WE'LL INCLUDE NOT ONE, BUT TWO FREE EASEMENTS, AT ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGE TO YOU. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! IF YOU DECIDE YOU AREN'T 100% SATISFIED FOR ANY REASON, JUST RETURN THE PROPERTY AND KEEP BOTH, THAT'S RIGHT BOTH EASEMENTS AS OUR THANKS FOR TRYING THE PROPERTY! NO RISK, NO OBLIGATION, PICK UP THAT PHONE AND CALL RIGHT NOW! 84.153.180.220 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful, 84.153, if you had spent more time understanding the question and less time writing gibberish. The question is about a term for a situation in which the seller has the option to buy back, not a situation in which the purchaser has the ability to return the goods for a full refund. The best thing you could do with your answer is to delete it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

oh. well that would colloquially just be called a "buy-back option" or more fully "but with the seller's option to to buy back". Everyone understands that. We didn't even need Billy Mays again. 84.153.180.220 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have learnt of the equity of redemption, but I am not certain if it is the same as the right of redemption in civil law.

203.131.212.36 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The subsequent sections of Chapter IV of this document (page 6 onwards) might help clarify what this means.

I don't know if this is actually relevant to the OP's question, but it is illegal for non-Thais to own real estate in Thailand. This site discusses various methods to avoid this restriction (though I'm unsure how current or reliable that site is). Astronaut (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a quote

I think it was from a woman in the late 1800s or early 1900s who said something like "if there is a job for which there is a lot of opportunity now, by the time you get qualified, that job will be glutted." Anybody have a link to the actual quote? Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dunno but you should read our article hog cycle on this exact subject. 84.153.247.76 (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

actually that article sucks. Anyway the subject is hog cycle (economics), look for it on the web or something. 84.153.247.76 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If while you are in school, there is a shortage of qualified personnel in a particular field, then by the time you graduate with the necessary qualifications, that field's employment market is glutted. -- Marguerite Emmons 71.161.48.176 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman catholic MPS (Commons)

who are they please - as at todays date? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, it depends on what you mean by "Catholic". About 68 or 70. Gabbe (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

According to this there are 68 MP's who are Catholics (whatever that means...). Their names are not available at the official site. It's probably considered a private matter. Flamarande (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Act of Settlement 1701

Two questions about succession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms:

1. I recall reading that, if a Roman Catholic descended from Sophia through a legitimate line raises his/her child as a non-Roman Catholic, the child will have succession rights. Assuming this is true (i.e. parent's religion does not exclude the child), I am wondering what would happen if a man in the line of succession married a Roman Catholic descended from Sophia through a legitimate line, a woman who would've ranked above her spouse in the line had RCs not been barred from succession; which place would their child assume? Would the child come after his father or would the child assume the place his mother would've had had she not been a "papist"? I'd say the child would assume his mother's place but I am not sure.
2. "Illegitimate children are excluded in accordance with the general interpretation of English Common Law by which illegitimate children have no rights of succession to the British Crown. Illegitimate children whose parents later marry do not thereby gain any succession rights to the British Crown." What is a legitimate marriage - only a marriage recognised by the British authorities or a marriage recognised by authorities of the person's homeland? If a person in the line converts to Islam (thereby not losing succession rights because only "papists" are excluded), moves to Saudi Arabia and has two wives as the same time, would his children by both women be in the line of succession? How about children of any other marriage that could not be contracted in a Commonwealth realm? Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that non-Catholic children of Catholic parents are eligible to succeed to the throne. I think you are correct that the child would take the highest place they are eligible for. As for foreign marriages, I expect the same laws would apply as apply to non-royals who married abroad. You can read a bit about those laws here, but I can't find a particularly good description. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but here are my two cents. If marrying a Catholic doesn't cut off one's kids from the line of succession, I guess you would still get a place in line for your highest claim. As for what marriages count, there are some people in the line who live in other countries and have marriages from those countries, not from the UK, so foreign marriages must count. Maybe they have to be Protestant marriages, but I've never heard of someone getting kicked off the list for getting a non-religious marriage at city hall. If you got an Islamic marriage, it looks like you stay on the list by the letter of the law, but they're going to make you convert to Anglicanism before they let you become head of that church. 142.104.215.130 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In the event of a Roman Catholic marrying a non-Catholic, if they wish to have their marriage accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, the couple have to undertake to raise their children in the Catholic faith[12]. Therefore the first part of the question is less than likely. The Act of Settlement 1701 is also under review, and is likely to be replaced by something more modern at some time in the future. The new UK Coalition doesn't seem to be in any hurry to get entangled in the constitiutions of the Queen's 16 Realms[13]; but if there was any chance that anyone would be affected by it, then moves to reform it would become more urgent. The whole question is pointless speculation. Alansplodge (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Real" value of precious metals

I realize that precious metals (Gold, Silver, and Platinum) have a wide variety of practical uses (electronics, jewelry, chemical catalysts, etc.) However, I also realize that to some extent they are valuble "merely" because everyone agrees that they are valuble; that people have confidence that they will be able to exchange them for goods or services at a later date, without the metal ever necessarily being used for anything productive. I found this old thread: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_February_17#why_is_gold_valuable.3F, which helps explain some of the why to this question. However, I'd like to know what Gold (or silver or platinum) would be worth if there wasn't this currency-ish quality to it. What if gold was only traded with the intention of someone, at some point, using it, be it in electronics, jewelry, or medicine? Is such a question even possible to answer (I would assume that someone's tried to answer it, but I just don't know).

According to this source gold is truly an exceptional case because of "the fundamental difference between gold and all other commodities is that gold is not consumed, it is accumulated." Flamarande (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That was interesting (especially since it came from a time with low gold prices, while gold is very high right now). I'm not sure that gold is completely unique in being accumulated; other precious metals (silver and especially platinum), and even certain non-precious metals, like copper, are mostly recycled and remain in the supply pool. That article correctly points out that the factors governing the price of gold are complex, and lie as much in politics and psychology as much as they do in commercial uses. But it doesn't answer my main question: what would the price of gold be if people didn't use it as a store of wealth, if it was only used in making jewelry and electronics. Buddy431 (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, these three metals are the only examples I could really think of where this is true (they are used, in addition to there practical uses, as a store of value, and this significantly increases there price). I mean, diamonds and other gems sort of apply, but I think that most diamonds that are mined are eventually expected to get turned into jewelry or drill bits, and that the inflated prices more have to do with restricting supply and a good advertising campaign (it's not like central banks keep huge stores of diamonds around to back there currency, or anything like that). And to be sure, there is speculation in any commodity, sometimes leading to artificially high prices (Tulip mania, anyone?). But is there any other examples like gold (or silver, or to a lesser extent platinum) where a large part of there value is just because everyone agrees that they're valuable? Buddy431 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, probably Petroleum? Stock and shares who are traded in the Stock market are not commodities, but the same principles seem to apply. These things are valuable as long the buyers and sellers agree that they are valuable. Flamarande (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Petroleum is definitely not an example of what I'm looking for. Nearly every drop of petroleum that is pulled from the ground will be distilled, burned, refined, or made into plastic, probably within a short amount of time. It is not held to a significant extent, and what is held (like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) is not to store value (as gold is), but to provide for short term shortages. The price that I pay for a barrel of petroleum is probably more or less what it's "actually" worth, given what it is used for. Similarly, stocks and shares are at least nominally based upon the intrinsic value of the company that puts them out - the potential future earnings, as well as current assets. Gold, and other precious metals, seem a bit removed from this - they are worth far more than their actual uses would seem to indicate. I was wondering if there are any other examples like this. Buddy431 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that people hoard gold is an effect of it's already being valuable. It terms of rarity and use, gold is worth a lot on its own (its more rare than, say, aluminum, and you only need a tiny amount to make a useful object). People only hoard gold because its already valuable, its easy to store (high cost per volume), and will likely remain valuable in the long term (unlike something like a vintage comic, which may be worth a million dollars now, but will lose that value if a generation stops caring about Superman). The same is sometimes true of petroleum; some corporations sit on known reserves without mining them just because it is a way of storing money and it is something they can trade later. A better example of something that is expensive just because its expensive is mined diamonds. For all practical purposes, like drills, we can use diamonds made in a factory. However, you have to use mined diamonds to propose to someone because they cost more and you have to spend a certain amount on an engagement ring. Because mined diamonds are expensive, demand increases and makes them even more expensive. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"you have to use mined diamonds to propose to someone because they cost more" Googlemeister (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialism

Hello everybody. I am a Swedish university student majoring in English and doing research in the US for my paper. I've studied English since early grammar school, and I flatter myself that my proficiency in the language approaches a near-native level. I was talking to my host family, and my country's economic and the welfare system came up. In my family we have a peculiar habit of referring to the government welfare system as "socialism" even though this is not technically true, it's more of a social-market system. I did this in the conversation, and the person I was talking to made a face. When I asked what he thought was wrong with socialism, he said that socialism led to Communism (which I gathered was considered a bad thing). I'm no economist or political scientist, but doesn't believing socialism leads to Communism make you a Communist? And why would he have had such an aversion to socialism? Thank you. 76.230.249.131 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if more than 5% of all Americans could tell you the difference between socialism and communism. As for the negative connotation, the U.S. spent much of the last 50 years in a cold war against communism. Since most Americans believe that communism and socialism are the same thing, socialism has been the enemy all that time. Of the 5% who may know the difference, some abhor socialism. Some love it. I doubt you were having a discussion with one of those few. -- kainaw™ 18:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In Marxist-Leninist discourse, a socialist society is a pre-stage to communism. Governments such as those that existed in Soviet Union and Eastern Europe never claimed to be communist, but socialist (developing towards communism). Under socialism class differences still exists, but the state apparatus is dominated by the working class. I doubt that your host family refered to socialism in this sense, though. --Soman (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless whether you agree with them or not, people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh have lots of viewers and listeners in the US. Try searching for their names combined with "socialism" on Youtube and you can find examples of how "socialism" can be described in mainstream US media. Gabbe (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to add "liberalism" to the list. To those folks you just named, liberal = socialist = communist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, most Americans consider "socialism" and "Communism" to be synonymous. This is a fair exaggeration, to be sure. (The US has been a hybrid socialist/free market economy since the 1930s, at the very least.) But the legacy of the Cold War is that most Americans don't know the difference, and don't care. They've learned to associate "socialism" with "Communism," and don't necessarily consider things like government regulation of financial systems, government subsidies to various sectors of the economy, or the many other ways in which the government participates in the economy to be "socialism" in the strict sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear 76.230.249.13 -- In the United States the rhetorical and political battle over "socialism: was lost long ago, so that most Americans see it as a somewhat alien ideology which is associated either with grim Communist tyranny or with quaint Scandinavian exoticism, but which in either case has no relationship with American political traditions and no real solutions to offer to current problems. If the opponents of a policy proposal can firmly tag it as being "socialist", then that's generally the kiss of death for it in U.S. politics. One classic work which might still be interesting to read today is "Why there is no Socialism in the United States" by Werner Sombart (1906)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that Sombart is probably not going to be enlightening in regards to making sense of the USA after WWII, which is where the modern fear of socialism originated (as well as the modern contradiction of the US being, in fact, quite socialist in many respects). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the fear of "socialism/communism" in the U.S. dates well back into the 19th century. But as has been discussed here before, most Americans know of socialism only from its Marxist-Leninist variety, which is often called "communism." Few Americans know that all but a few Western European countries have been ruled by an ostensibly socialist party at some time. So you shouldn't expect your average man on the street in Atlanta or Sacramento to understand the difference between the terms. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the core issue is the fear that socialism restricts people's freedom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Social welfare, public healthcare and state education take away your freedom to be starving, ill and illiterate. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern US war dead

I'm familiar with the images, through movies and television, of two uniformed soldiers walking up to the home of the parents or wife of a recently killed US soldier while they were involved in wars like Korea or Vietnam. What's done now though? Is it still the same two uniformed soldiers making that walk up the sidewalk? Dismas|^(talk) 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- Google "Casualty Notification Officer". A good fictional depiction is the recent film The Messenger, though I can't say how accurate it is. In the Korean War, by the way, casualty notification was still done via telegram and not in person. —Kevin Myers 22:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I'm wondering how "casualty notification officer" gets abbreviated to CACO... Off I go Googling... Dismas|^(talk) 01:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems it stands for "Casualty Assistance Calls Officer".[14] Dismas|^(talk) 01:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

July 20

U.S. Legislative prayer.

In the U.S., is it true that prayer starts each day in the legislature? What are some resources I could find the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanzerotree (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a bunch of info on this general topic: [15] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, lots of countries do this, for example the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Gabbe (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The chaplains of the US Congress also have homepages: see House and Senate versions. Gabbe (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The most legitimate complaint about it is that they are using tax dollars to pay those chaplains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Air Force One identification while in transit?

How does Air Force One identify itself when traveling outside the U.S.? Does it file flight plans in advance? It seems to me that there would be security concerns about being too open with that information, and safety concerns with being too secretive about the journey. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All flight management is done using the airframe number, the designation Air Force One is purely to indicate that elpresidente is on board.

ALR (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to rephrase the question - do the air traffic controllers//aviation authorities of a country passed in transit know that the president is aboard? What's the balance between security and obscurity here? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recording between Air Force One and Ottowa ATC. They call it "Air Force One", that being its call sign. Here's a quote from some FAA regs: When in radio communications with “Air Force One” or “Air Force Two,” do not add the heavy designator to the call sign. State only the call sign “Air Force One/Two” regardless of the type aircraft. --Sean 13:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Religious Wars in Antiquity

Wikipedia's page on Religious Wars refers to wars involving the Christian and Muslim worlds, as well as the Israelite conquests of neighbouring Canaanite kingdoms in the Bible (which may or may not be historically accurate). Are there any examples of religious wars occurring in the ancient world between non-monotheistic nations or cultures? How about civil religious wars? Paul Davidson (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There are the Sacred Wars which took place between various city-states in Greece. You could probably argue that because religion and state were so interconnected in the ancient world, any war involving the Greeks and Romans (especially on a large scale, like the Persian Wars or the Punic Wars) were somewhat "religious" in nature. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I was not familiar with these wars, there's nothing in Wikipedia's write-ups to suggest they were fought over religion, even as a pretext. The Third Sacred War appears to have involved some intra-religious disputes, but I'm more interested in wars motivated by religious differences. Any other suggestions? Paul Davidson (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In ancient times, each group had its own particular gods, which were often closely-tied to the specific culture and particular way of life of those who worshipped them. Some gods were said to be on the side of their own people in war, but there was no real proselytizing fervor (in the sense of later eras). If tribe A conquered tribe B, it was sometimes said that gods of tribe A were stronger than the gods of tribe B, but there was generally no particular odium theologicum. The first true religious war anything like the modern meaning of the phrase was probably the Maccabee revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes ("Epimanes"). AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is really only the Abrahamic religions (all monotheistic) that justify warfare for their defense or advancement. So I don't think that you will find religious wars, in the usual sense of that term, between non-monotheistic religions. However, other wars have been waged for ostensibly religious reasons. An example is the flower wars waged by the Aztec Triple Alliance against its enemies. These wars were waged to obtain captives ostensibly needed for sacrifice to gods such as Huitzilopochtli. There is evidence of human sacrifice to gods in earlier Mesoamerican cultures, such as the Maya civilization, which dates back to antiquity, so Maya warfare may have had a similar religious justification. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm…so what you're suggesting is that, Abrahamic or monotheistic religions aside, you really don't see a lot of wars aimed at proselytization, conversion, or religious eradication. AnonMoos: Yes, "Odium theologicum" is exactly what I'm getting at, although I wasn't familiar with that term before. Paul Davidson (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Jurors taking notes

I am soon to be a member of a jury, for the first time in my life. It's spurred me to wonder why, in all the film/TV courtroom dramas I've seen over the years - and that's a lot - I've never seen jurors taking notes. There's often a lot of complex information presented to juries, yet they seem to be expected to remember it all; or maybe they're not expected to remember all the detail but instead they're required to form their impressions of the defendant's guilt or innocence based purely on the evidence they remember hearing and seeing, and not on their own interpretations of what they heard and saw, which is what their notes would be. Is this actually the case, or would it vary between jusrisdictions? And why would it be inappropriate or undesirable for jurors to take notes of what they're being told or shown? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very appropriate. The average IQ is however astonishingly low. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The above rather "wtf?" comment notwithstanding, the answer is that – in the UK at least – jurors can take notes. See page 5 of this document. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have sat on two juries at the Old Bailey. In both cases, each juror was equipped with stationery for note-taking. In both cases, I was the only juror to take advantage of this. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, in American juries where taking notes is permitted, the notes have to be given to the court once the trial is over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This law blog entry and its comments by other lawyers has some interesting discussion of the pros and cons. --Sean 13:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The jurors do not need to take notes. A transcript is available to them during deliberations. Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A transcript is useful, but I don't see how it replaces notes. You would use notes to record your thoughts, impressions and conclusions when listening to the evidence. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified African masks

Hi there, I'm uploading photographs of African masks taken in Burkina Faso. The masks come from various origins, so I need help to identify them. Here they are : commons:User talk:Romanceor/Unidentified masks. Many thanks for your help. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 12:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really by Rush Limbaugh?

It reads like something his critics would love to hear him say, but if it were the case that someone else wrote it and put his name to it, it seems like easily be able to sue them: http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-even-want-to-be-alive-anymore,11521/ I don't like the guy, but even to me, it's a very strange article. 71.161.42.141 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)