Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 19

Musical question

Should Tritonic (1) redirect to Tritone (2) redirect to Musical scale, or (3) remain a dab page with these two entries? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would try to expand it. schyler (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the unlinked band gets no ghits to speak of. Based on what you've added, I'm going with (2). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to identify a film

I have only seen a small part of it and the sound wasn't working well, but I believe it is English language. Judging by the clothing and furnishings it was set some time in the 19th century, and appeared to revolve around a boy of about 13-15 and a younger girl (8-10) who may have been his sister.

One scene involves the boy being spanked in an ornate sitting room in front of a group of people (family members?). A priest or monk seems to be orchestrating the punishment, and a rough looking man actually physically restrains the boy on a sofa. Several of the witnesses appear to be upset by this, while others look a bit smug, as if they dislike the kid and are glad to see him being punished. Afterwards the little girl talks to him in a dimly lit bedroom and she seems to be trying to console him.

It's definitely not Fanny and Alexander, although the bits that I saw were strongly reminiscent of it. Can anyone help me identify it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little radiolarian (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Trogia Gazzela

Does anybody know anything about her? She was the mistress later wife of Alfonso II of Naples. I can't seem to find out anything about her what her background was, when they married, and when she died?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia doesn't have anything on her either. Women's lives in the Middle Ages were often not as well documented as men's, even if they were queens, so there may not be much anyone can know about her at this late date. Though it's interesting to see that she was the mother-in-law of Lucrezia Borgia and remotely possibly the stepmother of the model for the Mona Lisa.

You can't find her on any of the other language wikipedia or on google (except for some useless genealogical pages)!--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't discount the genealogical pages out of hand. I know from researching my own family tree that most serious genealogists are intrepid researchers, and some have tracked down the vital statistics of the most obscure kinds of people. Along the way, they may also turn up historical details too. Textorus (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not like I didn't read them. All they say basically is that she married Alfonso II of Naples and had two sons with him, and that's pretty much it.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this supposed to mean ?

"...In 1941, before independence, the mummies were killing the Indian Medical Council, in order to introduce a uniform standard of medical education, abolished substandard schools, and raised many others to a university..." (italics mine) on this page  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an old piece of vandalism, which has now been removed. DuncanHill (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was added in this edit. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to find the edit that introduced something to an article? I remember something—I think it was called "Wiki-blame," but I couldn't figure out how to use it. Any other ways? Or just slow slogging through the edit history? Bus stop (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiblame can do it (ages since I've used it though), otherwise it's the slog - but popups do help with that. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Popups? What are popups? Is that like Pop-Ems? Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. I somehow don't think I'll be trying fat-free, vegan, little brown jobs :( DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor who introduced the weird text says "I just recreated it after it was wrongly moved. Did not actually read every piece since I was only moving it. It seems that the history somehow got deleted." (see User talk:Rzafar#Dow University of Health Sciences. The previous history was lost. Is there a way to find and reattach the lost history, since otherwise the intellectual property rights of earlier editors appear to be violated? Edison (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Balliols and the Infanta Alicia

It is say that Infanta Alicia, Dowager Duchess of Calabria is the heir general of John of Scotland. But I don't think the Balliols left any descendants, so who were the heirs of Balliols after Edward Balliol's death?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a really good question, since John apparently had only one child, a son who died without issue. But the statement about John in Infanta Alicia's article is without a citation; so maybe that information is incorrect. I see that one of the reference links says this, which is a different claim: she is "senior representative of Edward the Confessor, King of England, David I, King of Scotland, and the ancient Kings of Navarre." Beyond that point I can go no further; those convoluted European royal genealogies make me dizzy, and I've already been driven to the point of madness wondering about Freddie's overbite. Textorus (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

nina simone vs. jihad

I've come across this in an article I read:

For sure, there aren’t many members of the new media who would post a video of Nina Simone singing “Love Me or Leave Me” on the same day (July 23) she (i.e. Pamela Geller) posted a picture of kaffiyeh-wearing youth holding up a swastika under the blog title “ ‘Palestinian’ Jihad Flag to Fly at the UN.”

and I can't figure out the Nina Simone vs. Jihad reference. What is it supposed to mean? Why would it be something unthinkable, as the author seems to imply? Any ideas? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. Perhaps a reference to Nina SImone's civil rights activism in the 1960s, along with many Muslim Americans. She also had a friendly (albeit short and boring) encounter with Louis Farrakhan[1]. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Lest I be misunderstood: It's not a Nina Simone vs. Jihad connection. It's the contrasting juxtaposition of Nina Simone who believed in and stood up for civil rights and tolerance, and the polemic act of posting that picture to support a cause which goes against the principles of civil rights and tolerance. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As she said, "please don't let me be misunderstood". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I wasn't exactly being exact in the naming of this question, but not because I'd be sloppy, I just wanted to give the title a little extra something. The reason I posted this question in the first place is because the way the author just sort of throws that particular factoid into the article made me suspect maybe this was one of those pop-cultural things that are blatantly apparent to an American, but less so to an outsider - something that would result in a reaction of "well, that's just terrible, for obvious reasons" - wherein the reasons aren't obvious to me. Incidentally, I dug up the blog reference as well, if that's any help: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/page/2/ - it's right there in the second and forth entry on that page. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Tischreden online?

I've not had any luck finding an online version of Picker's edition of Hitler's Table Talk (in German). Does one exist or is it still under copyright? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Per German law, it is still under copyright until 2015 (70 years after the death of the author). When Hitler died his entire estate went to the state of Bavaria, which has since refused to allow new German editions of Mein Kampf; they probably also try to prevent publication of his other works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably be able to get one from some of the white supremacist organisations, in English at least. For a German language version you may have to try one of the larger German libraries. AllanHainey (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How is the African union funded?

I looked at the article but it doesn't say. Does each member state contribute some money like the EU?--178.167.195.246 (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This press release states that "The budget is expected to be financed from membership contributions and assistance from development partners." There is a 2006 report on emerging options for funding the organisation here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are "development partners"?-178.167.195.246 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, all the international organisations, governments, banks and so on who either invest in, or give aid to, Africa - there is unlikely to be a single list of them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

...and corporations.--Wetman (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church List of Banned Books

I just read that up until 1832 Galileo's books still appeared on the Roman Catholic Church's list of books which Catholics are forbidden to read. Is such a list still in force, if so can someone direct me to it? AllanHainey (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Index Librorum Prohibitorum meltBanana 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article, it sates that it was abolished in 1966, so no, it is not in force. Aaronite (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Invasion of Alaska in World War 2

The Pacific Ocean was a wide area for the Japanese army to cross in World War 2. Did the Japanese ever try to cross into Alaska to invade Canada & the U.S.? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

They captured Attu and Kiska in the Aleutians. The Alaska Highway was built at least in part to counter a perceived invasion threat, but it never actually happened. Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They sure seemed to want to for a while. Our article Aleutian Islands Campaign has some further information about that attempt, including that they did in fact occupy some outlying Alaskan islands for a brief time. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A minor side note of interest -- it's fun to look at Kiska in Google Earth. They've got the former harbor and airfield at high-resolution, and you can quite clearly see where things used to be. The bomb and shell craters are rather spectacular, as in that part of the world they don't erode away or overgrow quickly. For example, see [51° 57.128'N, 177° 33.032'E]. Antandrus (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read that the Alaska campaign was a feint to divert American forces away from Japan's main offensives further south (just as the Allies spent considerable efforts to persuade the Germans that they'd attack elsewhere than Sicily and later Normandy, e.g. Greece or Scandinavia). The Japanese also sent some incendiary balloons into the forests of the Northwestern United States, which might be just an interesting curiosity had not a few people died from the successfully-set fires. Dashiell Hammett (author of The Maltese Falcon) and some enterprising but very lonely, bored and isolated troops in one of the farther U.S. outposts (I think Adak) exploited its excellent geographical position for intercepting radio communications to put out a regular bulletin of current world events—or so I read in an article in The Nation years ago. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A pregnant mother and five children were killed by a Japanese balloon bomb in Oregon in 1945, the only lethal incident of that kind, according to the wikiarticle. See also Battle of Los Angeles for a false alarm that resulted in six deaths.

Self-Corrections: I was wrong about the bombs, although carried by flammable hydrogen balloons (which were automatically ignited 90 minutes after dropping their payload), the bombs themselves don't seem to have been incendiary (however, there was some Allied concern that it would be possible for the balloons to carry biological weapons). Also they were launched after the forest-fire season and weren't specifically aimed at the forests. They spread farther than I'd thought, as far as Arizona and Michigan. The Wikipedia article on the Japanese campaign in the Aleutians says that the theory that its main intent was diversionary has been discounted by more recent historians who point to factors such as control of the Great Circle air route over the North Pacific to Europe and North America. For an overview of offensives aimed more closely to population centers than Alaska, Hawaii or Greenland, see Attacks on North America during World War II. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No Kings

Resolved

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

---

All countries like India, Japan, Germany, England, France etc. have so many, indeed uncountable number of kings in the history. USA seems to be the only exception. Why is that ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Ascton (talk • contribs)

The modern country of the US is a new country founded only 234 years ago, whereas countries with uncountable numbers of kings in their history have existed in some form for many hundreds or thousands of years. Back then, having kings was the most common form of government, so any country that was around would have had a king. I should point out that the land that now makes up the US had kings from 1534 to 1776, and before that it was divided by the aboriginals into many small regional governments, so there was no unified area to be king of. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the thing about 1534 to 1776, what exactly do you mean ?{{subst:unsigned|Jon Ascton}

King of France and its overseas departments, King of England and all it colonies, etc.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before the 1534, the area that now makes up the US was ruled by many small local governments. Starting in 1534, different parts of the US were ruled by the kings of Spain, France, and Britain (and to a lesser extent, Netherlands, Sweden, and Russia). In 1776, the part ruled by the British king declared independence from those kings and has had a president as head of state ever since. Eventually the rest of the US joined the independent part to form the country you have today. You can go to Colonial history of the United States to read more about this time in US history. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(more edit conflict) I don't know about 1534 (Cartier claimed "Canada" for France - maybe that included some parts now in the US?), but back to the original question: Very many states have no Kings in their past. Japan, from your list, did not have any king I'm aware of. Finland has not had a king since its independence. Neither has (modern) Israel, or Albania, or Luxembourg, or the Czech Republic, or Turkey, or South Africa, or Argentina, or Mexico (which had an emperor, though, just like Japan), or Peru... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I depends on what you call part of a country's history. The modern country of France is the French Fifth Republic, which was founded in 1958, but it would be silly to say that there has never been a king of France. The same could be said of all of the countries on your list. As for my 1534 year, I don't know when New France expanded deep into the US, but in 1534 it included the shores of the St. Lawrence, which I would guess includes upstate New York. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Modern Albania had a king. See Zog of Albania. --Jayron32 00:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed, it's just confirmation bias, as well as fuzzy accounting for when the history of a "country" begins, and what it means to "have a king". There are many (usually fairly young) countries that have never had a monarchy. Peru and Chile are in some ways similar to the United States and, since independence, haven't had a king. You claim Germany has had many kings, but I disagree. The area where Germany now is has had kings rule portions of it, but the modern state of Germany has not. The current France has never had a king. Why do we count monarchist France as being the same country as modern France, but aren't willing to consider colonial North America to be the same as the modern United States of America? Canada has a Queen, but she doesn't live there and probably couldn't care less about how the country is run. Buddy431 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Dumping on the poor old Queen again, who has made 20 visits to Canada during her reign and repeatedly expressed her enduring interest in and affection and admiration for Canadians. Whether Canadians themselves reciprocate the feeling is a different question, but the sincere interest of the lady herself is beyond question. Personally, I would have retired to Tahiti long ago and told all my ungrateful subjects to bugger off, but that just shows what a sweetheart the old girl is, still hard at work anyway. Textorus (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't meen to question her majesty's sincerity, but I think that's kind of a silly argument. Most countries have their head of state visit more often than once every 2.5 years. In fact, many even have their heads of state live in the country. Saying that she has visited 20 times in 57 years isn't really saying a lot. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

She does have a lot more countries to visit than any other head of state. Just about the one thing you'll find politicians, political commentators etc of all hues all agree on is her deep commitment to the Commonwealth and particularly to her Commonwealth Realms. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Arctic Gnome, you are confusing two entirely different issues, as I specified in my comment. Nobody but an ignoramus can doubt, based on tons of reliable sources, that the Queen has a genuine interest in Canada as well as all her 15 other Commonwealth realms. And as a Canadian yourself, you know perfectly well that she is represented, personally, by a Governor-General for all the day-to-day tasks required of the Canadian monarchy; so it's not like you folks have been simply ignored for years at a time, as I understand it from this side of the border. Now - as to whether this system of a shared or divided crown - which Elizabeth II didn't dream up on her own, it was that way when she got the job - is a workable or even advisable system, well, that is of course for you and your compatriots to decide. Frankly, I have a strong suspicion that the whole system will come loose at the seams after the demise of the current monarch, whom God preserve. But I admire Her Majesty very much for her tireless devotion to duty, whether her own subjects appreciate that or not. She could have been painting her toenails on the beach at Cannes all these years, you know; but as a person who has made the best of a truly rotten job, she's quite a remarkable woman I think, who won't be fully appreciated until its far too late to tell her so. Textorus (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that she takes her job seriously, has respect for her realms, and is a competent and intelligent person. Furthermore, the idea of a foreign and hereditary head of state does seem to work well enough, as we've gone this long without descending into political anarchy or dictatorship. The question comes down to a matter of political philosophy and how one views the relationship between the people and their monarch. Does the job of personifying the state need to be done full time, or can it be designated to governors general? Can one rule with consent of the masses by virtue of them not campaigning to change the system, or does consent need to be renewed via term limits or elections? Will someone perform better at a job if they are born into it or if they win a competition for the job? Good arguments could be made for both sides, and I don't think that you can label either side as right or wrong. I will say, however, that if a general referendum ever showed a clear majority opposed to the status quo after an educated debate, we would have to change it, because she really can't rule without at least having implicit consent of her subjects. This is probably only a matter of time, because as primarily British-descended people become a smaller percent of the population, some prime minister will eventually figure that he can gain political capital by holding a referendum, and her support level has always been a bit shaky here given the francophone population. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt it will come to that in most or all Commonwealth realms, eventually. Certainly the experience of my own country has amply proven these 200+ years that the monarchy is not essential, and perhaps your country will decide the same thing one day. Which is your privilege, of course, as it was ours: We the people, and all that. I do hope it won't be during the lifetime of this Queen, though, because from all I've read, upholding and promoting the Commonwealth has been one of her guiding interests all along; and I suspect future historians will discover she has been a quiet influence for peace, tolerance, and goodwill behind the scenes in many ways not now generally recognized. A great lady, and a classy dame; they don't make them like that anymore. Textorus (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, a country can stay in the Commonwealth of Nations even after getting their own head of state. India and the African countries did. It's now like a club for democratic English-speaking countries, (similar to the Spanish-speaking Hispanidad and French-speaking Francophonie). I think even if every member state got its own head of state, people would be happy keeping the British monarch as head of the organization for tradition's sake. Your country should think about joining, it has its own athletic and cultural events and whatnot. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the invitation. Joining the Commonwealth, what a marvelous idea. And it would be totally appropriate, for all the reasons you mentioned; now why didn't I think of that before? No doubt Her Majesty would give us a warm family welcome, too. Only thing is, sigh, it would probably just be seen here as another devilish attempt by our allegedly atheist-muslim-fascist-communist President to deliver the country into the hands of the Forces of Darkness, and that would cause no end of a screaming row. But I love the idea, though; makes perfect sense. Textorus (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Australia has never had a king. Nor New Zealand, unless you go back to the Maoris. Nor South Africa, unless you count kings of individual tribes. In fact there are lots of exceptions. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you count the people in our List of Australian monarchs or List of New Zealand monarchs. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a List of South African monarchs? It should include Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II. DuncanHill (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

India has never had a King. Ireland has never had a king, etc.--178.167.195.246 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

India had a King from 15th August 1947 to 25th January 1950, when it became a republic, see King_of_India#King_of_India_and_Pakistan. Ireland had a King from the establishment of the free State until 1949 when it became a republic. See Monarchy in the Irish Free State. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland had kings well before the free state; Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid was crowned King of Ireland more than one thousand years earlier. India, likewise, has had hundres of maharajas in its history, which is a king-level position. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thus always to tyrants.

• The United States of America came into existence as a constitutional republic and has been one ever since. (The State I am in right now, Virginia, has as it's official motto: Sic semper tyrannis – "thus always to tyrants"). Did you really not know this, Jon? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You do realize that "Virginia" was named by Queen Elizabeth I and Sir Walter Raleigh, and the region was settled as a British Tobacco colony, right? 1776 marked the point of revolution - same people, same territory, different name. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Different country. A new one. Please see our Declaration of Independence. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • lol - that's either ridiculous or unnecessarily parochial. or both. By that logic, we'd have to say that France has never had a king either, since they had an equivalent revolution in the late 18th century and became a new nation. and, of course, China has never had an emperor (because of the Maoist revolution) - the forbidden palace belonged to some unknown people who existed before the modern state of China came into being. And neither Cuba nor Mexico has any relation to Monarchy either. Sorry, but you can't mix and match your definitions of 'state' to satisfy your personal preconceptions. --Ludwigs2 21:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The Virginia General Assembly repeatedly calls itself "the oldest continuous law-making body in the New World" given that it was established in 1619 (for example, here). So they seem to think that the British colony and the US state are a continuation of the same political entity. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good solid points, Ludwigs and Gnome. (And "Louisiana" had an Emperor before Napoleon sold it, too.) France went through some administrative changes, but remained France in the same sense that an adult used to be an adolescent used to be a child. The US "budded" off the British Empire as a de novo national entity with the key feature of royal-sovereignlessness. That's the way I see it, and I'm the one who gets to say. Me and my army. :) Foggetaboutit. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I find it kind of funny that you can simultaneously quote a document that discusses self-evident and inalienable political truths while also suggesting that truth is determined by military strength :P. Nevertheless, I agree that there is some validity to the argument that the federal union of the United States did not exist until the states actually joined together. Maybe we should say that the federation never had a king, but the individual states did. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• I find it funny that the above statement about Louisiana's emperor is wrong - the Louisiana purchase was in 1803, with formal transfer of ownership on March 10, 1804. Napoleon crowned himself emperor on May 18, 1804. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)brilliant point steven :) Before they became States of the Union, sure. But that event was more "discontinuous" than the sorts of transitions many nations have been through. The US became a new independent national entity by due legislative process and was made fact (despite objections) by declaration on July 4, 1776 -- it did not exist before that date. It did not come from nowhere, either -- all the various component sub-entities of it each had their own previous histories, of course. And note that the declaration itself hardly seemed to matter at the time and was mostly ignored: it was the the army and navy that made it happen, and it wouldn't have happened otherwise no matter how self-determined or legislatively self-evident it may have claimed its new existence to be. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

aaaaah, yeah. Jingoism at its best. Please keep in mind that all nations (from the lowest to the highest) maintain armies; there's nothing special about that at all. and you can certianly engage in historical revisionism to paint whatever picture of the US you so desire - that was a major pastime in the 19th century, when every one idealized the US as being somehow free of European history. As I said, that perspective is either silly or parochial. --Ludwigs2 04:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• "The United States of America came into existence as a constitutional republic and has been one ever since." I am not sure what you find silly or parochial about that statement. Enough, Ludwigs. I see no substantial disagreement here. :) Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The parochiality and silliness lie in the dual assumptions that (a) the US congealed out of thin air, with no relation to the previous forms of governance that ruled Europeans in the continental US (all of which were monarchical - remember that the Boston tea party was a revolt against taxes levied by a king), and (b) the assumption that this in some way makes the US special. as I said, and will extend here, if you want to take this kind of blindered definition, then it is equally true of Cuba, Mexico, and in fact of most of the central and south American nations (almost all of which came into existence by revolting against European powers), and also most of the African states, possibly India (which I think went straight to a republican form after relieving itself of Britain) and most of the south-east asian nations. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an ex-colonial nation that wasn't 'invented' as a non-monarchical system after breaking free form the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, or what you will, because most of those nations were built by colonials steeped in Enlightenment-era Liberalism who encouraged such constitutional ideals. Maybe Japan and China, but then Japan was never as thoroughly colonized as African or South American nations, and China went fairly quickly to communism after they claimed independence from the colonial system (12 years or so between the boxer rebellion and the establishment of the Chinese republic). Your claim has no historical scope. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All this in response to a question from your ol' friend Jon, Ludwigs2...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

no. all this in response to misinformation. I have nothing against Jon except that he's a bit childish; he'll grow out of that in time. but if we're going to answer one of his questions we should at least do it accurately. --Ludwigs2 07:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, even the opening question itself is mistaken, as, other than the European emperors of colonial times, the USA itself also had a king. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Le Roi est Mort: "[o]n the reeking pavement, in the darkness of a moon-less night under the dripping rain..., Norton I, by the grace of God, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, departed this life". lolz :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This highlights a hidden truth. San Francisco is the only city in the US that has a decent sense of humor. --Ludwigs2 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Many countries which "had lots of kings" are now the combination of several smaller countries. This is true of Germany and of the UK. Parts of the UK had separate kings back in the day. Parts of Germany had separate rulers back in the day. In the land constituting the present US, there were indeed once numerous local native kings or rulers such as Chief Powhatan, who was considered a "King" rather than just an "Indian Chief" by the Europeans of his day [2], as in this writing from 1612:[3]. Edison (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• To sum up (I think): India, Japan, Germany, England, and France have all at one time or another been ruled at least nominally by a monarch as those countries (I'm counting Victoria for India in a way that George was not to the Colonies -- debatable, I know). USA has never been ruled by a monarch as the USA. That seems to be the only real difference specifically in regard to your question. Beyond that, it breaks down into a lot of points-of-view so there's not really any one answer to try to give you. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In the case of federal countries, it's pretty much a matter of whether you count the union as a different entity from the sum of its parts. A similar question would be: if your ancestors moved to Boston in 1710, can you say that your family has lived in the US for three hundred years, or have they only been living in the US since 1776? I would argue the former, but the later is technically true. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence: no one real answer to this question. And given that Jon's the one asking it, that may have been the point... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Well, the Federal Republic of Germany never had a king, either. Nor the Confœderatio Helvetica. You are applying diffent definitions - why is the FRG "Germany", but the US not "America"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The German Empire had a Kaiser and became (loosely speaking) today's "Germany" by transitional processes with histories firmly grounded in that region and that culture. I see a difference between that and the case of the US declaring itself a de novo national entity as a constitution republic in the way that it did. I can also see no difference at all. It is not hard to have both your perspective and mine, because this is a fuzzy topic and the OP's question itself is not precise. I really see no reason at all for the amount of disagreement in this thread. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the anger above comes from a failure (perhaps convenient) to define terms. The States of the U.S. never had a King as they exist today, but they did as colonies of Britain. I don't know how much of a war you need before Virginia the state is no longer a colony... and that goes for other nations too.. but I think that one met the test. France would be a good example of another example. If you want to talk geographical regions, then North America had hundreds of sovereign nations (as they continue to be recognized by the U.S. government) prior to widespread western settlement. But that goes on ad infinitum until the first homo sapiens set foot on a piece of ground and declared it his own, or maybe until the first one laid up with an ankle sprain envisioned government. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Every Man a King" (Huey P. Long) or "Monarch of all he surveys" (William Cowper on Alexander Selkirk, the model for Robinson Crusoe) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are we counting kings from before other countries existed but the countless native cheiftains and foreign kings that ruled the USA aren't counted?--178.167.184.77 (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• It turns out that Jon actually wanted to know: "What I am asking is that - of course there were Red Indians out there, but why the hell they not have a well defined history like other countries?" And my response to that question is:

You could start with our article Native Americans in the United States for the history of Native Americans (no one calls them "Red Indians" here, Jon) in the United States. It is a sad one. But it's there. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Law is the King of America." --John Adams, 1776.

"He thought he was the King of America / Where they pour Coca-Cola just like vintage wine." --Elvis Costello, 1986 (referring to the OTHER Elvis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.55.219 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the problems in the premise of the question and the use of the ridiculously archaic term "Red Indians", I'm starting to think that Jon might be trolling us. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Never. Jon is in India. Red Indians is the term we are accustomed to use for them here.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye gods it just goes on and on. <sigh> See also User talk:WikiDao#"No Kings" at the Humanities Desk, arcgnome. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Soviet Wartime (?) Song

Does anyone know the name of the song in the background of this video? Cheers --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's "Тёмная ночь" ("Dark Night"). Music by Nikita Bogoslavsky, lyrics by A. Fatyanov and V. Agatov. English words by Hal David). Here are lyrics and translation. It gets mentioned in these WP articles. It was composed for the movie Two Soldiers (1943), directed by Leonid Lukov. You can watch and listen to Mark Bernes singing it in one of the original scenes here. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Cheers! You're a star! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Paleographic “Identifont”

I'm looking for a page that helps to differentiate between a diversity of medieval fonts. (Preferably more differentiated than “insular” vs. “humanist” vs. “Textualis”.)

I found a page like that some days ago, with a lot of questions to answer (each answer was a page-intern anchor link) and some three example images for most questions (and a red backgroud, I think, if that helps...), unfortunately I didn't bookmark it and can't find it again.

Thanks in advance if someone can give me a hint where I found it or where I might find something similar :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalkühl (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Font" is a term usually applied to printed text. For hand-written text, the term used for a style of writing is usually "Hand" (e.g. Chancery hand or Court hand) or "Script". We have a Category:Medieval scripts, but that doesn't appear to be quite what you remember. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to start with the penmanship article - it has a lot of links that might take you where you want to go. Also the calligraphy article. --Ludwigs2 07:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Corporate personhood in Canada

What rights to corporate persons not have in Canada? I'm assuming that they cannot vote or have custody of a child. Are there any others? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.203.6 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the articles Corporation and Legal personality? Those as well as the linked references should give you some idea of the limitations on corporate rights generally in Anglo-American law, which would include Canada; though of course particular details may vary from one country, state, or province to another. Textorus (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

September 20

Marx's ecclesiastic friend?

Did he have one? A book says he had one by the name of Thomas Munser who was German and who organised peasants in very large numbers. Reactionaries plotted and killed him and Marx broke into tears hearing the news of his death. My guess is that the guy who wrote the book (who is a priest) mistook Thomas Müntzer for a friend of Marx and used his imagination copiously. Or, am I wrong in my guess and there really was a priest friend? The book in question is the autobiography of Father Vadakkan and is in Malayalam --117.204.89.132 (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a specific answer to your question (I don't think anyone ever kept a list of Marx's personal friends), but Marx himself was nowhere near as anti-religious as later Marxists, and there was a fairly significant Marxist movement among certain Catholic orders at one point (particularly in Germany and Latin America). It's not at all impossible for Marx to have had a religious friend who was butchered by reactionaries, since a lot of people that Marx liked ended up being butchered by reactionaries. --Ludwigs2 05:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems very unlikely that anybody would have been organizing large numbers of peasants in Germany during Marx's era. Given that the communists wrote extensively about Thomas Müntzer, it seems pretty clear that he's the person in question. Looie496 (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

However, it seems unlikely that Marx would shed tears (except possibly metaphorically) over the death of someone 400 years or so before him. And I wasn't talking about revolutionary organizing; Marxist catholics were much more into the 'brotherhood of man' aspect of marxism, and developed small enclaves and organizations dedicated to communist-style social organization. all very non-threatening, though it didn't stop a few of them from getting axed. --Ludwigs2 06:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that Marx was told the story as a child, and when he came to the part where Müntzer died he started crying? That is the only explanation I can think of. If the author claims that Marx and Müntzer were friends, I would seriously question the veracity of the author and any other fact contained in his book. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(OP here). The author's knowledge is certainly questionable. However, if one wants to say that he is plain stupid on this they have to confirm that there existed no friend of Marx by this name. Marx and Engels had repeatedly referred to this 16th century priest in their works. Marx's friends and relations are well-documented. So, if there had been a friend by this name he would have been mentioned in Marx's biographies and reminiscences about Marx. If there was such a friend who is not mentioned in such works, our erring author who lived in the 20th century also wouldn't have known such a person. So, I guess one can say with near certainty that the author mistook the 16th century rebel priest for a friend of Marx. --117.204.83.197 (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

While that may be an explanation as to how the mistake came about, it does still not exempt the author of the charge of sloppy research. It would not have been difficult for him to discover his error, any decent printed encyclopedia would have had an entry on Müntzer. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Plainclothes nuns

Are there any Catholic nuns who don't wear some sort of habit? What about monks? LANTZY^TALK 04:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Garments for monks and nuns are determined by their particular order, and vary. Most orders have "formal" garb for religious purposes, some have obligatory garb that ought to be worn at all times, others allow the sisters and brothers to dress as they like outside of official events or jobs. Generally speaking, anyone who joins a monastic order is likely to want to display the fact when doing anything related to the order's purpose, so you are more likely to see habits and robes when you encounter one in a religious setting than if you encountered one on the street. Priests tend always to wear the collar in public, nuns from conservative orders usually wear some abbreviated version of the habit in public, otherwise all bets are off. --Ludwigs2 04:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, a note on regional variations. Here in Texas and across the Deep South, I haven't seen anyone of any denomination wearing a clerical collar outside of church services, or an identifiable habit, for at least the last 30 years. All that is as gone with the wind as fedoras and beehive hairdos down here, as far as I can tell. Had one college professor, a nun, in the mid-1970s who wore conservative pink and yellow pantsuits with a cross necklace; can't remember anything visible like that since then, although I'm sure there are nuns in Texas. Somewhere. Textorus (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All I know is that this is a broad and complicated question, whose answer differs between the different orders. Vatican II (the Second Vatican Council of the early 1960's under Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI) encouraged or permitted many monks and nuns (including enclosed ones) to engage more closely with outside society; this included adopting dress that separated them less from the lay world and that hindered them less in performing their works of mercy. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of OR (though this isn't an article): a relative has in the past been employed by the professional associations for leaders of Catholic religious orders in the U.S. I agree in general with Ludwigs2's remarks, though the part about "priests tend always to wear the collar in public" is perhaps too sweeping.

Non-Catholics may not be aware of the distinction between secular priests (those "belonging" to a diocese, the typical parish priest) and religious priests (members of an order such as the Jesuits, the Marists, the Dominicans). Some male orders have both priests and brothers (e.g., the Franciscans), others only one or the other role.

Just as some religious (male or female) feel more comfortable or more professional in a distinct form of dress, whether a traditional, pre-Vatican II habit or a modified, more recent version, others find that distinction places too much of a barrier between them and the communities they serve. The dowdy blue-skirt-and-jacket, mini-veil look for sisters, for example, can be hard to find even at a motherhouse -- except on TV or in the movies. --- OtherDave (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Christians

I wish to know more about how Chinese Christians practise and integrate their two cultures. --59.189.217.187 (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on Christianity in China, if that's any help. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in OMF International, which started life 150 years ago as the China Inland Mission. They have a lot of experience in integrating the two cultures. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Lottie Moon is a pretty central figure. --Jayron32 00:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the smallest element copyrightable/trademarkable?

A single letter? One note? 76.27.175.80 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

First, copyright and trademark are totally different. You can trademark a single note. You can trademark a single letter. You can trademark a color. You can trademark totally common words. (Apple, for example.) Etcetera. Trademark just means, "I am using this logo/name/noise/brand in a specific commercial context." It doesn't require any creativity at all. It just requires you to associate it with commercial activity and be the only one doing it. So if your company's commercials always have a clarinet playing C-flat at the end, you can trademark that, no problem — but it only matters in situations where a rival company selling a similar product might be using the same note (you don't get to ban orchestras from playing the note, for example). If your company is named "X", that's fine, as long as no one else has the active trademark in your domain. If you stop using the trademark, you lose it. You can search the US Patent and Trademark Office trademark database and find all sorts of one-letter trademarks. The company Orange in the UK has trademarked the color orange for the purposes of telecommunications advertising, for example. That doesn't mean no one else in the world can ever use the color orange, it just means that if you are running a telecommunications company, your logo cannot be made to be confusing with their logo.

As for copyright, in US copyright law, you need to be able to make an argument that there is artistic creativity in the work in question. That's going to be hard to do with something that is extremely short, if you are copyrighting the text itself and not the presentation. There's no hard-and-fast "lower-end" but a haiku could probably be copyrightable, and that's a pretty minimal length, although as you can see that it is still long enough to allow a near-infinite amount of variation. We discussed this a few months ago, too. Of note is the USPTO's guideline that says that you cannot copyright "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents."[4] --Mr.98 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your intelligent answer, Mr98. As a side note to what you were saying above, it seems like Vonage would clash with Orange as Vonage is a telecom company and they use a lot of orange in their commercials and packaging. 76.27.175.80 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if the two companies had worked out some kind of agreement on this matter. These kinds of things are rarely left for chance amongst big corporations, because the stakes are very high. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My only disagreement with anything Mr.98 said above is his last statement, because human error and the Peter Principle rule, even at large corporations. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not correct that there is any requirement for artistic creativity. In the US, with a few exceptions, all works are copyrighted automatically, without the author having to do anything. Copyright is violated when somebody copies the specific expression of a copyrighted work. If something similar is produced independently, there is no copyright violation. These rules don't apply to trademarks. Trademarks have to be assigned in order to be valid, and even an accidental duplication constitutes infringement. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., however, there is prescedent for unintentional copyright violations. Even if you coincidentally violate copyright (i.e. your infinite Monkeys come up with the complete works of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.), you can still be liable for doing so. See My Sweet Lord and Cryptomnesia. --Jayron32 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your cited sources support the claim that unintentional copyright violations that relied on a copyrighted work still have liability, even when these were subconcious. They don't support your claim if you just coincidentally violate copyright, such as if your infinite monkeys come up with the complete works of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., you will be liable.

Of course, in most situations, it's likely to be difficult to prove you didn't subconciously violate copyright even if you are able to convince a judge or jury you didn't conciously and intentionally violate copyright. If the similarity is great enough, the judge or jury is going to think "well this is similar enough, the person must have been copied in some way even if perhaps they didn't do it intentionally or realise they were doing it".

But to use an example, if there is some Truman style reality show, and this persons entire life is clearly recorded and it's proven they never read the works of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. (including any abridged or modified versions), nor was anything done to them to try and stimulate the conditions that may lead to such a work, and it's also proven they entirely by themselves came up with a work or multiple works that are similar to that of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., I don't see anything in the sources you've provided that show this will be a violation of copyright in US law. (I'm not saying it won't be, simply that I don't think the cases where it's been held that the person did rely on the copyrighted work, they just didn't do it conciously, necessarily have a bearing on a case where someone really does not rely on the copyrighted work at all.)

The monkey's thing is a somewhat different case, since in this example, it seems likely someone is doing the selecting of the work, likely a publisher. It's possible this publisher would be liable as even though technically the work itself didn't rely on a pre-existing copyrighted work. In other words, perhaps it would be argued by selecting the work because it was the same as a pre-existing copyrighted work this violates copyright. The monkeys couldn't be liable because they are monkeys but even if they could be, it's not clear they would be liable.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that while the Berne Convention does indeed mean that copyright immediately applies to things which are eligible for copyright, there is a limit to what can be copyrighted. My understanding is that "artistic creativity" (or rather "threshold of originality") does play a role in that determination. For example Feist v. Rural determined that mere collection of names and phone numbers are not eligible for copyright. However, the bar to originality is set extremely low, and pretty much any deviation from a straight collection of facts renders the work copyrightable (at least those portions which are original). -- 174.24.192.84 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with 174. This is what I meant by creativity ("originality" is the more correct term and I always forget it). Agreed as well that it is a low bar, but there is a bar (and one that would come into play when considering the lowest unit of copyrightable information). It has nothing to do with the automatic registration clause (I'm not saying you have to make said argument before being awarded copyright — what I meant is, if it is going to be legally upheld, those conditions must be met). Note there are some queasy areas — see e.g. Bridgeman v. Corel. Don't know about accidental infringement problem. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

'

Three points. First, there is a creativity, sometimes called "artistic" component that's absolutely necessary in U.S. copyright law. See Feist v. Rural for a full explanation. It's absolutely correct though that it's small. Second, the My Sweet Lord case is a clear example of how a random arrival at the same work is in fact not a copyright infringement, unlike patent law. That decision is the emblematic example of the "subconscious infringement" doctrine, which is, right or wrong, probably the same, but technically, if you could prove you never had access to the work, then it's not infringement. Finally, the Berne Convention isn't binding in the U.S. insofar as it hasn't been enacted in Title 17 [and other applicable parts of the Code]. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(But the parts relating to automatic registration have been enacted, which is all that matters for our purposes here.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true that registration isn't required anymore nor are most of the other formalities (things like the copyright symbol, renewal, etc.), but they're still important at the damages stage and for proof of copyright. There is no automatic registration, but there is automatic protection. But neither of those formally affect the creativity component (which is constitutional). If I understand you, I think you're saying that as a practical matter it's not very relevant, in which case I agree. Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

US City in Canada

I'm trying to find this on Google maps, but it either isn't clearly identified or missing... Around the Great Lakes region, there is a U.S. city that is only accessible by either going into Canada by land or by water. In other words, it is disconnected by land from the mainland, but is not an island. It is merely a lake-front city inside of Canada. Does anyone know which city this is so I can use it as an example in a completely different topic? -- kainaw™ 17:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not thinking of Sault Ste. Marie are you? Not sure of one like that but which can be reached directly by land from Canada. Or does that river count? There's someplace like that in the Pacific Northwest though I think... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Point Roberts, Washington and the Northwest Angle are both this sort of thing. — Lomn 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Northwest Angle is what I was looking for. Thanks. -- kainaw™ 18:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought so. But, to make it clear, it's not a city. In my road atlases the only place marked within the area is a village called Angle Inlet, which is so small that none of the atlases even shows a population for it.

Point Roberts is a similarly situated location on the west coast; and there is also the Alburgh Peninsula in Lake Champlain, which is a weaker example because it has road bridges connecting it directly to the rest of the US. Both of these have substantially larger population than the Northwest Angle, but still no cities. --Anonymous, 18:32 UTC, September 20/10.

Since the followup question (below) is about access by road, rather than access by land, it should perhaps be noted that because there is no road along the Alaska Panhandle, there are three cities or towns on the Panhandle that can be reached by land within Alaska from the main part of the state, but not by road -- to get there by road, you have to go through Canada. Two are Skagway and Haines, which are only about 20 miles apart by water, but about 340 miles apart by road. The third, much smaller and farther south, is Hyder. (And the state capital, Juneau, is also on the mainland but isn't connected to anywhere by road!) --Anonymous, 17:50 UTC, September 23, 2010 (copyedited later).

Canadian city in the US?

Are there any reverse examples? Canadian towns (not on islands) that can only access the rest of Canada by road via the US? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

From List of enclaves and exclaves, we have: St. Regis Mohawk Reservation and Campobello Island. -- kainaw™ 19:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that Campobello I. is not an example, being, you know, an island. The other one's real, though, and I did not know about. Damn Wikipedia for exposing my ignorance again! --Anonymous, 22:50 UTC, September 20/10.

Campobello Island is only accessible by land from the United States. That is why it is an example. -- kainaw™ 03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Of "Canadian towns (not on islands)"? --Anon, 05:45 UTC, September 21, 2010.

I found that page AFTER asking the question above. -- kainaw™ 19:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

just so we all understand why this is, the US and Canada settled the details of their border using a modified version of Pokemon playing cards. a couple of the midwest representatives had some highly evolved water-types that skewed the outcome. Or at least, that's what I've heard... --Ludwigs2 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In the east they used the somewhat inaccurate Mitchell Map and in the west they used surveys of the 49th parallel... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fascinating list! The article on Akwesasne has a little map showing the borders. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

September 21

Name of This Byam Shaw Painting

Hi. I've been scouring the internet looking for answers and have yet to have any success. I am trying to find the name of the following painting by Byam Shaw: http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/jasonminor2/Byam20Shaw.jpg

I know that it is from the First World War era (possibly painted in 1917, although that is only an educated guess), and is 'Canadian' in subject. I've only thus far been able to find information on his more famous Canadian-themed painting, "The Flag".

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

216.191.137.135 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I poked around a bit looking for it but no luck. If you live near a large library, you might see if they have (or can get through ILL) a copy of The Art and Life of Byam Shaw, by Rex Vicat Cole, 1932, which apparently is the definitive work on this painter and might tell you the title of it. Good luck. Textorus (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of wikilinking Byam Shaw in the question header. DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A similar theme is depicted in his They Would Take Him to the Armoury Before He Left Them, c. 1907.--Wetman (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This one?[5] An illustration for Pilgrim's Progress. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful to recognize the heraldic symbols. Other than the "leopard" of England and fleur-de-lis of France I don't know what they are. One of them looks sort of like an artichoke. Looie496 (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, those are golden maple leaves, not artichokes! See coat of arms of Ontario. The coat of arms of New Brunswick is represented too. I couldn't find the illustration. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the girl kneeling at the front is in an old version of the arms of Quebec. Girl on the right is New Brunswick, girl on left is Ontario. I think the chap's shield may be an old coat of arms of Canada. I suspect the idea is daughters (provinces) girding their father's (Canada's) loins before he goes off to battle. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the thing below the maple leaves. A little further investigation shows that the salmon and thistle (that's what it actually is) come from the Coat of arms of Nova Scotia. Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I found this; "The Strong Arms of Canada" which is in a similar mood and format[6]. It appears in a book called "Canada in Khaki"[7] although sadly there doesn't seem to be a companion piece. Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And this page [8] asking the same question! Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

EUREKA!!! If you download the pdf file here[9], it's on page 32 (of 224) of "Canada in Khaki" (a different edition to the one linked above) and it's entitled "THE CALL". Phew! Alansplodge (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Bravo, good job. Textorus (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Unfortunately, it came a few hours too late. I was looking for the answer as part of a weekly trivia challenge that my WWI History class has for bonus marks. My professor informed us of the answer yesterday morning (after the deadline). No one in the class of 25 found the answer. So kudos to you for finding that! And thanks to everyone who helped! 216.191.137.135 (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Using representation other than a Native Title Representative Body

In this news story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/21/3017302.htm a native title claim group, the Mayala group of the Kimberley, is asking that it be represented by a body other than the Kimberley Land Council. As I understand it, the KLC is a Native Title Representative Body so the claim group can only deal with the KLC. It seems like the Mayala group have no legal standing to pursue this case, so I'm wondering why the Federal Court would hear it at all.124.149.25.167 (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal standing is a complicated issue, involving a preliminary analysis of the merits and potential remedies. Reasonable people often reasonably differ on issues of standing. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even know that "legal standing" was a specific technical term. I'll say it another way. As I understand it, all Aboriginal groups in the Kimberley must use the KLC as representatives to resolve Native Title claims. I'm pretty sure the Malaya Mayala can't choose anybody to represent them in Native Title claims, since I've heard that it is mandated by the Native Title Act that the KLC is the only body that can represent Aboriginal claims. If I'm right, that the Malaya Mayala can only be represented by the KLC, then why did the Federal Court hear the case in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.25.252 (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well to be blunt, the most obvious suggestion would be you are wrong, particularly since 'I've heard' isn't a particularly good source. From [10] it seems the KLC is the 'peak Native Title Representative Body' for the Kimberly region. [11], [12], [13], [14] and [15] have some discussion of representation and the role of NTRBs. [16] in fact seems to discuss people being represented by a variety of different groups. [17] mentions 12% of cases don't have representation from the NTRB and that Tasmania doesn't even have one. [18] as well as one of the earlier sources suggest that the current system has received criticism, in particular that it is difficult to get financial assistance which means people are forced to use NTRBs because they can't afford anyone else (but not because the law stops them using someone else).

Notably while these sources suggest that these bodies have been mandated (well have statutory obligations), recognised and receive government support to provide legal representation, nothing I've seen from these or from other sources I've found in my searches suggest that the government has mandated, whether in the Native Title Act or in some other way, that people must rely on these bodies, and can't chose who would represent them.

Of course even if they have, it's possible a party may argue such a requirement (which seems grossly unjust to me) is a violation of the Constitution of Australia or some other area of law. BTW, from the source you've provided they are Mayala not Malaya.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the Malaya are able to allege (they need not prove, initally) that they are not being as well represented by a body appointed to represent them by statute, and that they have more fundamental rights to competent representation, then they can likely challenge that narrow portion of the statute. I don't know much about rights in Australia, but if lawyers have been involved there is probably a fundamental right to representation which takes precidence over the Native Title Act. 208.54.5.65 (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Another good point and somewhat distinct from what I've suggested. Even if it is mandated that a party must use a NTRB and it isn't held that this in itself is a violation of the Australian constitution or some other area of law, it's likely the Mayala could allege the NTRB isn't adequately representing them so they need to use someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank to all who answered. A special thanks to Nil Einne. Those references you supplied were a great help not only in helping answer the question I originally asked but also other questions that I had in mind. They are a good resource and I appreciate the time you took to assemble them. Thanks once again.203.56.233.122 (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Graduate Medical Education

How does the Medicare Graduate Medical Education system insure that there will be a reasonable number of medical professionals and specialists to meet demand? Is http://www.cms.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/06_dgme.asp useful in answering this question? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

GME subsidizes the costs of training medical residents ([19] [20] [21]). This provides an economic incentive for hospitals to take on otherwise-less-profitable new MDs. It's not clear that this is synonymous with ensuring that demand is met; the links above discuss concerns regarding both the total number of and the distribution by specialization of residents covered by the program. Note that this discussion can be extended to the general case of whether subsidies are useful. — Lomn 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

September 22

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

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

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

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

Dutch West India Company.

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

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

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

Russian Motorways

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

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

Super-Injunctions in the UK

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

My questions are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

advice for starting a wiki with porn images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see how

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Red Rose Stories is another case where the person involved pled guilty because, amongst other things, they felt they survive the long trial or prison sentence they risked [23]. (I initially mistakenly claimed they felt they couldn't afford it but reading the source it doesn't support that claim).

There's also the case of Max Hardcore who is currently spending time in prison. In his case, it appears from the article and other sources he plans to appeal so his case may eventually reach the Supreme Court [24] so he may eventually win (i.e. watch this space), but he'd still spending the time in prison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 23

Religion

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

American Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Novus ordo seclorum

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

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

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

What police incident was this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assonance Picture

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

September 24

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the UN General Assembly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

(Good question. ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bicep chain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republicanism in Australia versus Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify Thing

Question collapsed; it's already on the Miscellaneous desk

Good afternoon ,i will like to know your what you think about this item, what is it, from wear it was made and how old is it . it is metal yellow colour ,it is hand job.thank for your help. Thanks PIC: http://img828.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=72217107.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martand7 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Do you have any information for us about where you think it came from, where you obtained it, or where you live? Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I find that in Lithuanian but i dont known where it come (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

London Mayoral Elections

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

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

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

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

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

Archie and anti-Oshoism

Long time back I read an Archie comics, of course I can't recall exact wording of each character but the moral of the story was that ideal American youth should keep away from such cults. In it Jughead somehow gets entangled with Osho (did he wear an orange robe and a mala? don't remember, it's been a really long time), but nevertheless becomes a "victim" of the cult and starts saying things like -"we're all on a long journey", and "to a flower it's fall is end of the world" and other such nonsensical things. Everyone including Archie, Veronica, Betty and even Reggie is really worried about what will become of him. Then Archie makes up his mind to do something about it, perhaps he goes to a library and finds a bigbook of ridiculous quotations or talks about it with Mr.Weatherbee and in the end they somehow manage to cure Juggie by convincing him that anyone can thinkup and say such things like "to a toadstool even a butterfly is an airplane" and there is really no need to be impressed by such cult-leaders. And in the end-frame all the gang is shown with their arms around shoulders of each other, proudly addressing the American youth to keep away from the silly Indian guru "who preaches from the backseat of a limo". (Osho or Rajneesh is never referred to directly but only as "the guru who preaches from the backseat of a limo"). Does anyone remember reading this comicbook and please recount the exact story, i.e. how they "cure" him etc. ? Were there anyother Archie comics targeted against Osho. Thanks.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Military might of Iran compared to Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Difference between Cape, Mantle and Cloak ??

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Enlighten me?? :)

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

OED Online has:

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

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

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

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