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 26

Gini coefficient for house sizes.

My guess is that 80/90% of houses in The Netherlands are in a quite small size range, between 100m2 and 200m2 and I also think that in other countries there is more variation in size. Has someone every done research on this, similar to income variation? Joepnl (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the numbers from the U.S., from the census bureau. Counts are in thousands (e.g., 988,000 houses of less than 500 sq. ft.). 1,000 square feet is 93 square meters.

Square Footage of Unit Single detached and manufactured/mobile homes
Less than 500 -- 988
500 to 749 -- 2,765
750 to 999 -- 6,440
1,000 to 1,499 -- 21,224
1,500 to 1,999 -- 20,636
2,000 to 2,499 -- 14,361
2,500 to 2,999 -- 7,589
3,000 to 3,999 -- 7,252
4,000 or more -- 4,456
Not reported (includes don't know) -- 5,529
Median -- 1,700 sq ft.
-- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never heard of such a statistic, and a quick search didn't reveal one to me. While Mwalcoff's numbers do give a sense of home sizes by numbers, the stats are unfortunately not very helpful when it comes to gini as many people own multiple homes/cottages. A rich man could own 10 homes scattered across the size brackets. While I have no proof, I would imagine a gini house index would correlate with wealth inequality (not income inequality-big difference), though it may change by culture, and regional land cost. Due to culture, rich people might not choose to live in excessively large homes, but prefer modesty, homes can also be an investment, in Beijing many rich people have multiple homes in the same city, just as investments, while this is less common in other parts of the world. By land value, to have a large house in Tokyo you must be rich, yet one could have an even larger house in Newfoundland and be poor, so rural vs urban would affect such an index. Just some thoughts,Public awareness (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both. The reason for asking was what you refer to, the rich deciding to live modest. I wanted to know if one could calculate a "modesty" index for different countries by comparing the Gini coefficients for both income and housing. People owning multiple homes makes it complicated, yes.Joepnl (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

While the census bureau says the median home size is 1,700 sq ft., I've read that the average U.S. home is 2,300-2,500 sq ft. That indicates that while most people live in homes of 1,000 to 2,500 sq ft., as described above, the curve is skewed by people living in mansions. I don't think the U.S. would rank very high on your housing modesty index. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is good, and more honest. :) Regulations may play a big part, too. I don't even think I could find a 4000 sq area that I was allowed build a house on. Joepnl (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

economics

critically analyze the different school of thoughts of macroeconomics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.23.41 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you haven't even attempted to hide the fact that that is a homework question. We won't do your homework for you, but I will point you at Macroeconomics. That should get you started. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

He didn't even say "Please". These kids today. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

One well-known basic non-technical introduction is The Worldly Philosophers... AnonMoos (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I can answer the question... Let's see... "There are many schools of thought for macroeconomics... most of them are rubbish". (Hey, no one said it had to be a good analysis... And the question did ask us to be critical). :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would go with Father Guido Sarducci and his Five Minute University,[1] in which the student's entire economics class consists of memorizing the statement "supply and demand". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

on the nature and definition of God

I was recently informed of the belief said to be held by Jewish people that God is the bond things have with each other and the sum total of all bonds between things.

If so where does Satan fit into this picture?

Is Satan then the disruptor of bonds or do bonds have states such that in the case of God the state is love whereas in the case of Satan the state of the bond is hate?

Please ignore this question if it is offensive.

--DeeperQA (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In Judaism, the term "Satan" is usually used as "The Obstructor" or "The Opposer". That makes it more clear. Satan obstructs/opposes whatever you define God to be. -- kainaw™ 17:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah.. so I might like to kiss girls but not if she very much needs a bath. Dirt the Obstructor. --DeeperQA (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is not always agreement in the scholarship as to which characters from the Bible represent "Satan", and whether there is one such character or many. For example, it is commonly understood that the Serpent in the Adam and Eve story is Satan, but there isn't any textual evidence of that in the Hebrew Bible itself. Satan as a character (that is, as a direct participant in the action of the story) only appears in the Book of Job, while he is referred to tangentally in several other places; there is also some contention over whether the term Satan always refers to the Job character; or to a more abstract force which opposes God's will, it comes down to translating the term from the original Hebrew as "The Adversary" (as in, one character) or "an adversary" (as in, the concept); and the original text is not always clear. Thus, different translators will tend to put different spins on whether all of these represent the character described in Job, or as a generic term for an adversary or opposition. --Jayron32 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In his translation of the Bible, Ronald Knox interpreted the character as man's adversary rather than God's. His translation of Job 1:6–7 runs: "One day, when the heavenly powers stood waiting on the Lord's presence, and among them, man's Enemy, the Lord asked him, where he had been? Roaming about the earth, said he, to and fro about the earth." Deor (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How about competitor? --DeeperQA (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How about competitor for what? --Jayron32 20:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It popped into mind when I read "...adversary or opposition." In the Christian belief Satan decided he was the equal of God and took on the roll of adversary, opposition, obstructor or competitor. It stands to reason that anything or anyone who might be viewed as the competition therefore may also be viewed as Satan and therefore justifiably treated as such. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose. Competitor is a fine synonym for the other terms as well. In Judeo-Christian thinking, God has a plan, and that which opposes that plan is evil. Whether such opposition represents a specific personification (Satan) or a more general, diffuse form of evil depends on which specific sect or religion or tradition you are working within. Whichever specific synonym of opposition or adversary is probably OK, so long as said synonym doesn't extend too far. For example, Jacob wrestled with God, and that is the source of the name Israel, which may be translated by some traditions as "struggled with God", which is kinda like "competes with God", but that shouldn't mean that Jacob should be viewed as Satan or Satanic... --Jayron32 21:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, competitor implies that both parties are seeking the same value. Satan as adversary seeks to destroy your happiness, not to achieve his own. There is a huge difference between two men actually loving the same woman or one killing a woman so the other cannot have her. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

God and Satan are both competing for your soul. That seems like a fine understanding of the situation. --Jayron32 21:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And if I say all the prayers and go to all the meetings and yet love or covet money more than God has Satan won my soul? --DeeperQA (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was merely arguing the linguistic question, not the theological one, on the use of the word "compete". If you'd wish to have the religious discussion, I would be glad to in another venue, but here is probably not appropriate. My statement was purely on word usage, and was not an attempt to make a clear pronouncement on the need to believe the statement itself. --Jayron32 23:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that is a question for you and your religious authority of choice. Heiro 23:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are both right. I withdraw that question - over exposed to a life of Reductio ad absurdum. --DeeperQA (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As suggested by another user here, Satan is not God's "adversary", as God cannot be defeated. Satan instead attempts to interpose himself between God and man, and because God gave man free will, it is up to man to choose the right or wrong path. (Note that I don't necessarily buy into all of this, but that's the conventional Judeo-Christian viewpoint.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the OP's question, the premise sounds flawed to me - I've never seen or heard or read a traditional Jewish view of God that approximates to that position. Although I've not studied much Kabbala, I've read enough to know it makes many strange comments about God, which require deeper understanding than face value. For ordinary people like myself, rather than learned mystics, God is not my love of peanut butter sandwiches. A more traditional Jewish view would be that by making a blessing over a peanut butter sandwich, I transform it from something mundane and physical, into something godly. But that's not the same thing as the claim stated, which sounds quite new agey to me. Oh, and as for Satan, Jews are far less bothered about him than we are the yetzer hara, which may or may not approximate to the same thing, but the latter is far easier to comprehend... and perceive in oneself. --Dweller (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it "New Age" or is it "Star Wars"? Sounds like he's describing "The Force". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

.Satan is merely the manifestation of man's ego, or Self.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That is, I suppose, one possible interpretation, but it does not appear to be a widely-held interpretation, based on evidence at Satan. Your interpretation seems close to that of the Baha'i Faith, which is but one of the world's many religions. --Jayron32 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The relationship that the god of the Bible has to Satan is 'gambling buddy' as portrayed in Job. So they are competitors in that sense.Greg Bard (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

One can't define something that doesn't exist. In this case, there's no God & no Devil. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's bullshit. One can define things which are fictional (I am not saying that God is fictional, just saying that if you hold that he is fictional, you can still define him). You aren't doing well to answer the question by refusing to answer it on the grounds that you believe that God doesn't exist. Even if he doesn't, he can still be defined. Afterall, other mythological and religious figures have clear definitions (Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, etc.) and one does not have to actually believe those religions in order to discuss and understand what the religions themselves say about their figures. So, one can certainly reliably discuss God and the Devil, and discuss what various traditions say their nature and relationship is. Please don't try to sound "smart" or "enlightened" by being dismissive and insulting about the religious beliefs of others. If you don't know the answer to the question, leave it unanswered. If you just want to be mean and insulting, take it somewhere else. --Jayron32 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello to you, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the reference desks have their own version of Godwin's Law: As a religious question discussion on the RDs gets longer, the likelihood of an atheist chiming in to bash religion approaches 1. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bashing, just being practical about the topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm atheist too (Technically Buddhists are considered atheist, at least my sect) but I don't think that your comment was germane or helpful in this situation. I'm just saying... Rabuve (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenation

"“Does Tim the jerk’s face look wonkier now, or before he paid some..." - should "Tim the jerk" be hyphenated? --2.216.135.109 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. If his name (or nickname or cognomen) is "The Jerk", then something like:

• Tim The Jerk or
• Tim "The Jerk"

would probably be standard usage. Hyphens wouldn't be used in this way, normally. --Jayron32 21:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

September 27

Searches of US citizens at the border

Do US citizens have the right to freely re-enter the United States? If so, then what is the legal basis for allowing Customs and Border Protection officers to question and search all US citizens at the border, while other law enforcement officers throughout the country normally can't search anyone without a warrant? Ragettho (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

US Citizens are definitely not given this right. I've been searched several times at the border. I don't know what the legal basis is, but at the time they were the ones with the guns. --Daniel 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant article is: Border search exception. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP needs to be aware that his premise is not entirely correct. The police can stop you for suspicious behavior. They also conduct random stoppages to verify drivers' licenses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But they can't conduct random searches, generally speaking. They can search your stuff freely when you enter the country from abroad, including making complete copies of your computer hard drives. They can't do things like that without a warrant usually, if they don't actually have any probable cause for doing so. The border search exception is in fact a big, huge exception to the Bill of Rights, and one which has warranted quite a lot of discussion by jurists and legal scholars. The OP is correct to note there is a big difference between the border crossing situation and normal domestic situations. (It's also not clear to me that cops can stop people at random to check drivers' licenses as you assert, Bugs. It's clear that they can do so to check sobriety, but I see nothing in our random checkpoint article about checking for licenses. Googling around makes it somewhat clear that there are a lot off different practices with regards to license checkpoints, and I'm not sure there is an authoritative caselaw on it yet. Sobriety checkpoints do have major caselaw, up to the Supreme Court, and are supported by their overwhelming public safety aspects. I'm not sure the same thing is there for license verification.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First thing the cops do when they pull anyone over for any reason is to ask for your license. If you don't have one, you in a heap o' trouble. Also, if something of questionable legality is visible, they then have "probable cause" to search you. And keep in mind that driving is a privilege, not a right. The OP's general question was whether you can "freely" re-enter the country. Depends what you mean by "freely". Being detained by customs is a part of our country's security. You know you're not smuggling something, but what about the guy next to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about the order of things regarding be pulled over. You aren't being pulled over to check if you have a license. Checking the license is the first thing you do once you have a valid legal reason for pulling someone over. (I think you must have missed a civics class, somewhere.)

Of course if they do have probable cause they can search you. That is not in dispute. That's the entire point, in fact. They must have probable cause to search you. No matter what. That's what the fourth amendment is all about. They can check your license, but if they lack probable cause, they can't search you or your car. They will say, "can I take a look in your trunk?" and you can say, "not without a warrant, you can't."

The OP's question is whether the fourth amendment gets waived at the border, because it is not supposed to be waived anywhere else. And indeed, this is correct. It is waived at the border. It is not waived when you drive a car. The OP is correct on this front. Whether you agree with this or not is really not the issue here, Bugs! (Also, I'm not really sure if "security" in the sense you mean is really at issue here. It isn't about stopping terrorists with bombs. It goes beyond that, into "reading your e-mail, to see if you're a terrorist" territory. Don't confuse the border search exception with airline security!) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

For a gross example, if you've got a marijuana plant visible in your back seat, they have probable cause for a search. Also, they can pull you over under a pretext, such as a taillight being out. And of course the 4th amendment is waived at the border, upon entry. There are certain things you cannot bring in. Cuban cigars, for example. You can leave the US anytime you want. But coming back in, you're subject to border security. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still baffled you're going on about probable cause. We're in agreement that probable cause allows you to be searched. That's not a question — it's actually part of the fourth amendment (have you read the fourth amendment, lately?). Crossing the border is not probable cause. And being pulled over is not synonymous with being searched — just because you have a tail light out is not probable cause for being searched. "And of course" — no, it's not "of course." See the link. It's a major exception and has been challenged in the court many times. And it's the entire point of the OP's question. And you've now gone from justifying it on the basis of security to justifying it by enforcing a pointless and failed Cold War embargo. (How copying your computer hard drive accomplishes that, anyway, I'm not sure.) None of what you've continued to write justifies your original conclusion that the OP's premises were incorrect. You seem to have either difficulty seeing that, or admitting it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What baffles me is why the OP thinks he should just be able to waltz back into the USA without being searched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the OP. It's the ACLU, it's the EFF, it's people who actually don't think we waive all of our rights just because we happen to leave the country. I fully support the government searching people it has a good reason to suspect of committing a crime. But leaving the country does not make one a criminal suspect. It's not suspicious activity unless you're a xenophobe. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The government has a responsibility to protect its borders. Searching folks entering the country is not unreasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the government has a responsibility to protect its borders, but it also has a responsibility to protect its citizens from domestic threats. Why have the courts allowed for a Fourth Amendment exception with respect to only foreign threats? Ragettho (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So? Walk in from Canada carrying a duffelbag full of ganja, child porn and machine guns, turn around and look; I'll bet you anything that the border will still be there. —Tamfang (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As a Romanian citizen, I cannot legally be prevented from reentering my own country. That being said, I'm pretty sure the law only applies to my person. If I bring suspicious stuff in, they're gonna take it from me at the border control (and I'll probably have to pay some fines or do some jail time, depending on what exactly it is that I was trying to bring into the country). ElMa-sa (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Pro-tip: While in International Airports in the customs area, you don't have the rights of a US citizen, so they can search you and do the other unpleasant stuff afaik (and that's what my pops says, though he's only a corporate attorney). As well, you can be randomly stopped and searched in the City of New York by the NYPD without any probable cause (trufax). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not legally anyway, at least for your second point. Terry v. Ohio (see also Terry stop) should prohibit that. NW (Talk) 19:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of Terry stops, and that's what I thought as well. It's called "stop and frisk" [2]. The NYPD uses it to keep people they consider too dark in-line. Only now are the useless NYCLU saying anything about it though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 19:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not legally, but the NYPD have a dozen ready-made lying excuses as to why they had probable cause, like saying that they thought that whatever you pulled out/put into/had in your pocket might be a gun. I know this both from personal experience, as well as from the Amadou Diallo case, and many others. I can probably think of one or two dozen such false searches I witnessed up close in Bronx and Manhattan. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget "furtive movements". (I heard of one case where a defense attorney demonstrated on cross-examination that the cop had no idea what "furtive" means.) —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Mechanics in pre-industrialisation society

Seeing the question about Roman engines reminded me of something I recently read that spoke of mechanics in early modern England. I've read plenty of works that refer to mechanics in pre-industrialised societies, but they never explain what they would do. How could I expect one of these early eighteenth-century English mechanics to sustain himself and his family? Repairing the local gentleman's coach and waggons? Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Repairing a wagon sounds like a wainwright's job. You might like to look at the broad area of the history and philosophy of science. OED3 claims 1393 in the sense of "mechanical arts" as opposed to liberal arts. 1550 is the first use of mechanic as a noun, directly related to class warfare! At this time a mechanic was any manual (possibly non-agricultural) labourer. The idea of a mechanic being a worker in physically operating machines and mechanisms seems to come at "1681 London Gaz. No. 1643/4, His Majesty having sent for Sir Samuel Morland‥was Graciously pleased to Declare, that he was highly satisfied with all the late Experiments and extraordinary Effects of Sir Samuels new Water-Engine.‥ After which, the Lord Chamberlain‥caused him to be Sworn Master of the Mechanicks." (OED3). So an early modern English mechanic could well be a wainwright, carpenter, plumber, or watchmaker. The increasing sense of mechanics being associated with engines or machines comes about with early modern mechanisation (water engines, steam engines, etc.) so from 1700 onwards in association with the development of agricultural capitalism and mechanisation in England. DS Landes The Unbound Prometheus may help here. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Blacksmiths were the village engineers, they could turn their hands to anything that involved metalwork, and there was metal in most forms of transportation. So your "early 18th-century English mechanic" was most likely a blacksmith. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Coopers similarly. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Millwrights.
Sleigh (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

nagar panchayat

what are the powers of a ward comissioner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.137.67 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? Willminator (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian College of America

Hi! I have been working on Christian College of America in Houston. But I cannot find a reference stating that it had disestablished. But I also cannot find evidence that it is still functioning.

Would anybody mind helping me with this? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

These links might be helpful.

• Directory of Postsecondary Institutions: Volume I: Degree-Granting Institutions, 1997
• Directory of Postsecondary Institutions: Volume II: NonDegree-Granting Institutions, 1997

—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You can ask a librarian at Houston Community College System, based in Houston, TX.

• Ask a Librarian - Houston Community College Libraries

—Wavelength (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are there more taxicabs in Manhattan than in the other New York City boroughs?

For example, I read that in Brooklyn and in the Bronx, the percentage of people who don't own a car also greatly exceeds the national average, and also, the majority of NYC’s population lives in the outer boroughs. So, why aren't the streets of the other boroughs filled with taxis like the streets of Manhattan are? Do the outer boroughs need more taxicabs? I read that NYC wants to add 6000 more yellow taxicabs in the outer boroughs only. Willminator (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Taxicabs are a pretty expensive way to get around. They are prevalent in Manhattan (and indeed, in the really rich parts of Manhattan) because the people there can afford the luxury of a taxicab. Wilmont Poindexter IV isn't taking the bus from his Madison Avenue office to meet a client at a posh steakhouse. I wouldn't be surprised if bus ridership was higher in the outer buroughs, and likewise in Harlem or Alphabet City, than in the afluent parts of Manhattan. People in the outer boroughs may not own cars, but they also may not find taxicabs to be a reasonable regular mode of transportation. Taxicabs in New York City indicates that a 5-mile trip can cost about $14.00 or so. New York City Transit buses cost $2.75 for a local bus and $5.50 for an express bus, for a trip of any length, and transfers to other busses are free. In working class neighborhoods, there is just not going to be the demand for cabs, given the costs, and for places further from the city center, the difference in cost between taxis and other modes of transport (buses and trains) is only going to be exacerbated. --Jayron32 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

For information about taxicab fares, see http://www.worldtaximeter.com/.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In the boroughs people are much more likely to have their own cars, because parking is in such short supply in Manhattan. I read a few times that parking spaces in lower Manhattan rent for as much per square foot as luxury apartments. Can anyone confirm that? 69.171.160.139 (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How does $225,000 sound? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan is by far the most densely populated of the boroughs. Gypsy cabs are not hard to get anywhere else though. It is not that there is a lack of cabs, but that yellow cabs have a legal monopoly on street hails south of Harlem, so they concentrate there taking advantage of the monopoly. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There aren't enough legit cabs of course. Never can find one in the rain. The yellow cab drivers also pay 300k for their licence unlike untrustworthy gypsy cabs (don't know about the limo cabs that are also sometimes called gypsy cabs as they're not supposed to pick you up), though that may have been a pity tactic so I wouldn't use the CC machine. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Many taxi passengers are visitors, and there are a lot more visitors in Manhattan than in the other boroughs. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is very true, most do not venture outside of our mighty island as there isn't much of interest except the stadiums and the Bronx Zoo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There are 13,237 yellow cabs in NYC and much of them are concentrated in much of Manhattan. NYC wants to add 6,000 yellow cabs, but in the outer boroughs only, not in Manhattan according to the article cited above. So, based on the answers that have now been provided here so far, why do the outer boroughs need 6,000 more yellow taxicabs when taxis are not nearly as needed in the outer boroughs than in Manhattan? Here's another an article about this. It is from the New York Post. Willminator (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No one, aside from the New York Rag said they don't need'em; it's possible the people that live in some other places like the nicer parts of Brooklyn have been asking their congressmen for them. I could be wrong of course. Though this sentence is interesting "At today's medallion prices, the city could reap more than $1.3 billion" - I love having a businessman for a mayor.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unlike other forms of public transit in NY, taxicabs are privately owned, though heavily regulated by the city. The city may be wanting to license taxicabs for exclusive use in the outer buroughs because there may be a demand for them there, but given the economics of the situation, there may not be a motivation for existing taxicabs to take fares in the outer buroughs; i.e. they can make more money in Manhattan. Cabs can likely make more runs of people running around points within Manhattan, then they can off of, say, intra-Queen runs or runs between Queens and Manhattan. This could be for a number of reasons. One is that the downtime in Queens, being more spread-out in density, may be greater; and a cab sitting on a curb is losing money. The other problem may be that for individual cabbies, taking a fare from Queens to Manhattan may make more money on that fare; but then you have to wait for a return fare to get back to your home territory in Queens. You could make more money in both situations by just sticking to Manhattan; this would cause a cab shortage in the outer buroughs, as people who genuinely wish to use cabs in those places may have a hard time finding one. Plus, Manhattan customers may tip better, which would be added incentive for the cabbies to stick to Manhattan even if rides are needed in the outer buroughs. Because these are privately run businesses, they are market driven, as I have described, and the market is leaving inadequate service in the outer buroughs. This is all speculation, of course, but that's at least one reasonable idea on why the proposition is the way it is.--Jayron32 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at this more. It looks like the idea is to buy a ton of Crown Victorias, have them modified for taxi use (the people contracted for that make a bundle) have taxpayers foot the bill (I don't think they make the cabbies pay for the screens anymore), and then have the new cabbies buy medallions, each worth over 216.000 USD (did the math on a calculator) thus raking in millions for the cab modifiers and billions for the city government. Brilliant, evil, but brilliant. Hopefully the new cabs will be useful to some. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Edit: Don't the cabbies also have to buy the taxis from the city? 03:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I came across yet another interesting article about this matter. The article says that the 6000 new taxis “could deliver passengers to Manhattan, but would not be able to pick up fares there.” Based on the recent answers provided, how will the taxicab drivers make a lot money then by not being able to pick up fares in Manhattan, especially in the affluent areas of Midtown and Downtown? How will the plan improve, or not improve, the economy of the outer boroughs? Edit: This is the last follow-up question I got for this thread as I mentioned in a previous edit summary. Thank you all for your time and help! Willminator (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the outerboroughs. Gypsy cabs are already allowed to make stree hails there and the do not have to buy medallions to operate. The question is only the artificial monopoly in sub-Harlem Manahattan where a medallion is required in order to pick up a fare of the street who hasn't called into a dispatcher first. Gypsy cabs can make pickups in lower Manhattan as well, but only when they are called by phone, not from being waved down on the street. In that case they are treated as a limo-service. (You will find you can get a street pickup from an uptown bound empty limo in manhattan, so long as the driver is willing to risk that you are not an undercover TLC pig trying to bust him. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Taxicab cost

So, I just noticed that the reason the OP in the mother thread asked his q was because the city is adding 6.000 cabs to the fleet. What is the average cost of a Crown Victoria plus the amenities of a taxi? I know those idiotic screens are 3.000 USD alone; what's the whole kit and kaboodle (or w/e that phrase is if someone is familiar with it)? The reason I want to know this is because I'd like to know how much Michael's latest plan is going to cost NYC taxipayers (LIKE ME!!!!! D=<) <-- necessary shouting. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't cost anything if they charge a sensible amount for the medallion (i.e., the license to own and operate a taxicab). The better question is whether the industry-welfare organizations (owners and drivers) will ever allow the additional cabs to hit the streets. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It will cost the cabbies about 216.000 a piece (1.3 billion/6000) to buy a medallion. I'm talking about the purchasing and retrofitting the Crown Victorias which I believe will be on us, my good sir. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As a crown Vic owner (police interceptor model), the document in my glovebox says it was $24,000 new, but I got it at a surplus DMV auction for $2500 when it was 6 years old with 106k miles. Googlemeister (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to get off topic here, but I also own a Ford Crown Victoria with a police interceptor engine. I got the car recently in a car auction in Tampa. I was able to win the bid of $2,500 as well! It's funny to see people slowing down in the road now whenever they pass near me since my car used to be a police car. I finally get to be respected in the road. :) Willminator (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The gorvernment-created fictive value of a medallion, not the car itself is the relevant cost. Yet another of the infinite arguments fro free trade rather than government monopoly. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear NYB means if the government charges more for the medallion then it costs them to purchase and retrofit the cars then it isn't going to directly cost the taxpayer anything to add more cabs, in fact in a direct sense it will be a net positive. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Russian term limits

This is something I've been wondering for a while... As I understand it, the Russian constitution forbids more than two consecutive presidential terms, hence the office-juggling double act of Putin & Medvedev. But considering Putin's popularity and his party's legislative predominance, why don't they simply change the constitution to remove the term limits language? Would that be too difficult even for Putin? LANTZY^TALK 18:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was pretty much uneccessary for Putin to actually change the term limits provision as realpolitik allowed Putin to maintain all of his powers despite the change in title. Russia is a country which has never had much tradition of the rule of law as distinct from the cult of personality of its leaders; indeed for all of Soviet history, the person who was widely recognized as the leader of the Soviet Union changed titles willy-nilly as well, without any real difference in changes of actual power in the country. What Putin is doing isn't all that unusual (indeed, it is historically expected) given how Russian politics has long worked. One can think, perhaps, of the Russian Constitution as a nice piece of paper, but one which ultimately has little effect on the actual exercise of political power in Russia. If Putin were declared "head chef" or "starting goalkeeper of the Russian National Ice Hockey Team" it likely wouldn't make a lick of difference to how Russian politics works. --Jayron32 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But does Putin really have total control over Medvedev? I vaguely recall a few instances where they have recently butted heads, suggesting that Medvedev might have the political power to defy or at least stymie Putin from time to time. And what if they had a real falling-out? Wouldn't it be safer, from Putin's perspective, to remain permanently in the more powerful, prestigious office? LANTZY^TALK 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, Medvedev, as actual president who stands to be replaced by Putin when he returns to the office (a situation everyone knew would occur sooner or later), the best he can do is delay political action until Putin formally returns to the office. Given that, it would poltical suicide to oppose him on any matter of substance; though of course the two men may have their disagreements. And for the second question, the more prestigious, powerful office is the one being occupied by Vladimir Putin. --Jayron32 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Putin is probably powerful enough to have himself formally appointed dictator-for-life. But there are good reasons, both domestically and internationally, for him not to do so. Anyway, we'll see what he does when these next two terms are up. Anything is fair game. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've suspected that public relations is the main reason that Putin hasn't tried to abolish term limits, but that's just my guess. Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to alter the constitution in this way? LANTZY^TALK 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not in the least bit. There is no legal check on the President's power. Any change he wants, the duma (their parliament) will rubberstamp it for him (Source: Old AP Comp Gov Class). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[Disregard that, the OP knew that and I misread his question]. Putin probably will eliminate term limits in his next twelve years, but only time will tell. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think a more likely possibility is the term will again be reduced to four years with someone stepping in for those four years then for them to decide 6 years was betterand revert back with Putin coming back for another 12 years, presuming he really wants to. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Elementary study guides to Metaphysics?

I am sorry, is anybody anywhere actually providing a basic course of Metaphysics as a real school discipline, like in an elementary school? I need a very elementary study guide to the basics of Metaphysics and metaphysical thinking (as opposed to dialectical or positivist thinking), in the shape of something like an ordinary school study-book (imagine a course-book on Arithmetic or, for instance, Music, or Logic in the elementary school). I mean, just a set of rules or introduction to specific methods, inherent for this discipline, which provide a new skill for the disciple and enable to solve new problems. (Most of all I am interested in the classical Christian Metaphysics of Middle Ages, as a specific scientific and cognitive method). Can anyone advise something like this? Because everything I found on the net seems to be either not differentiating Metaphysics from all other Philosophy, or just be a bunch of babble. Thank you in advance. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics spans essentially all cultures' religions and mysticism, and it's an understatement to say that those are not coherent taken together, so I think the closest you are going to get is a "world religions" unit for an elementary social studies class. The classical Christian metaphysics of the middle ages are primarily from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, based around Aristotle's Metaphysics which was a little more structured and limited than general Metaphysics these days. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics is not at all limited to religion and mysticism. Metaphysics is about the fundamental nature of reality, starting with the question of whether there's such a thing at all (see e.g. philosophical realism, phenomenalism, solipsism).

In the early 20th century there was a significant contingent of philosophers who affected the position that it was possible to do without metaphysics at all. It was a silly position and I don't think it's taken particularly seriously anymore. --Trovatore (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, metaphysics is certainly not a religious science per se, although any serious religion has an implied or explicit metaphysics. But so does science. The questions of what it is to exist, what it is to be a thing, a person, and so forth, are all metaphysical questions. The physical sciences rest on certain metaphysical presuppositions, that things have knowable natures, and so forth. Unfortunately, much thinking is muddled and poorly conceptualized. Thomistic metaphysics, for example, has the mystical notion that there exist "essences" which can change leaving all the attributes the same, thus allowing bread to become the body of Christ without any change in accident. Cartesian dualism leads to the question of how the ghost moves the machine. Materialism in the crude sense leads to the denial of the reality of the mind. Concepts like entity, attribute, relation, substance, form, cause , effect, essence, accident and so forth are all indispensable, and all metaphysical. That being said, I am aware of no good primer. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The only organisations I am aware of who may offer such courses are Christian Science and Theosophy, and maybe Rosicrucians or Gnostics. I'm sure if the OP wished he could make contact and ask there. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Tammy, you're making the same mistake! That's not what metaphysics means; see my remarks above. All philosophy has to deal with metaphysics. The ones that affect to deny they're doing so, like logical positivism, in my opinion wind up, not with no metaphysics, but just with bad metaphysics. --Trovatore (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics isn't very popular in Anglo-American philosophical circles (influences of positivism, analytical philosophy, etc), and because it closely interacts with other areas like epistemology it's not really a separate discipline. It's more popular in European traditions, but the European version (drawing on Heidegger, Bergson, etc) tends to be very complex. John Hospers' classic college textbook An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis has some sections on metaphysics, and this is probably as straightforward as you're going to get. John F Post's Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction is well-regarded; I've not read it but it's likely to be harder going. But if you want a book on medieval metaphysics a contemporary textbook isn't going to be much help; you might be better with a text on medieval theology. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of misinformation going on here, so let me clarify a few things. Legitimate academic metaphysics doesn't involve religion or theology at all. That is considered a separate type of theory (for instance Divine command theory as a response to the metaphysical question 'what is value?'). "Theosophy," "Rosicrucianism," and "Gnosticism" are not metaphysics, they are esoterism. "Mysticism" is also most often esoterism, however it isn't that simple either. "Mysticism abandons philosophy, logic and reason in that it involves accepting sincerely p and not-p as both true at the same time. However there are some legitimate excursions into mysticism, as for instance later Heidegger and later Wittgenstein. The main criterion for legitimate academic, scholarly metaphysics is the use of reason as a method toward your metaphysical models, theories, claims, etcetera. Once you accept a faith claim as an axiom in your metaphysical system, you are no longer "doing metaphysics." Colapeninsula is correct in everything he or she said and Trovatore is incorrect in his claim that anti-metaphysics is somehow silly, and that it not one of the major prevailing views in academia. However that question isn't so simple either. As a pragmatic matter metaphysics is completely irrelevant to your everyday life. At no point should any average person be making decisions one way or the other based on some metaphysical model they have adopted. They simply aren't qualified, and fortunately the answers to almost all of the questions we face in our lives no longer require a metaphysical level of analysis to answer. Only people doing research into metaphysics have a lot of situations arise to where their metaphysical model enters into their behavior. Whether or not metaphysics is an appropriate subject matter for children is not at all clear either. Certainly, getting children to think about these questions is wonderful, however in teaching them introducing any bias would be very unfortunate. It is just unfair to tell a child "how it is" metaphysically when they are not really equipped to be able to question the subject matter being presented. It has the effect of prejudicing them forever as to the answer to these questions. Questions of which no answers can ever really be gotten. Greg Bard (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To argue that metaphysical assumptions aren't relevant in everyday life is rather odd. Whether you accept western medicine or alternative medicine is based on metaphysical assumptions whether or they are explicitly and coherently expressed. Identity politics holds the collective to be more significant than the individual. All sorts of various beliefs hold evil to be a substance, rather than a relationship, and things to be good or evil not based on results but mere existence. Guns are evil to liberals, not criminals. Drugs are evil to conservatives, not their abuse. Negroes are have (or had) the mark of Cain according to Mormons. Humans minds can be uploaded into computers according to most AI thinkers. These views may be nonsense, faith-based, and only implicitly held. But they are metaphysical ones. And they have a huge impact on our lives. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I second the recommendation John Hosper's book above. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need metaphysics in order to reject alternative medicine. You only need science. In fact what you have done is provide perfect examples of how inserting metaphysics into decision-making is a bad idea. Greg Bard (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You really can't have science without a metaphysical underpinning. You can pretend you don't notice it most of the time if you want to, but that just means by default that your metaphysics is realist. Which is fine with me; I am a realist. But then as soon as you get to QM you're going to have issues, ones that in my view have not been resolved. --Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about understanding. A person doesn't actually need that level of understanding for almost anything in their lifetime. If you hear a bump in the night, you really should be using metaphysics as an explanation as a very far last resort. That is all I am saying. We can take science very far toward the answers we need in life. You never really need to hinge your decision-making on a particular metaphysical theory. Very few quantum physicists out there too, and even they don't have to resort to metaphysics as much as they used to.Greg Bard (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Trovatore is right. To assert that you accept the scientific worldview but reject any metaphysical stand is simply to mean you are ignorant of or don't care about the underlying implications of your view. That's fine, lots of people do it. But not explicitly knowing the philosop[hical underpinnings of your so-called "scientific" beliefs leaves you at the mercy of sophists and bullshitters. Ayn Rand (Philosophy: Who Needs It?) and Isaac Asimov (The Relativity of Wrong) dispel the myth of the needlessness of a metaphysics and attendant epistemology. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It just isn't that simple. Ideally, every human would live up to their intellectual potential to consider reflectively all of the various metaphysical theories, and decide for themselves those beliefs most convenient for understanding. Under this very humanistic view one's conscience would prevail and everyone would be a wonderful moral person. However, morally and metaphysically reflective people are in the tiny minute minority of the population. Also unfortunate, is the fact that everyone on earth no matter what their level of formal education on the matter sincerely believes that they are an expect on these matters. Again, a very humanistic view holds that everyone on earth is an expert on these matters (at least equally so as, for instance, the pope, or the dali lama, etcetera). As a pragmatic matter however, we really are better off listening to what academic metaphysicians and ethicists say. Also, --and up to this point I've succeeded in remaining diplomatic -- it just isn't a good idea for adults to teach metaphysics to small children, because inevitably the biases, prejudices, and dogmas of the adult work their way into the lesson. It's a shame to destroy what could otherwise end up an open-minded person. Greg Bard (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the real Metaphysics cannot contain "biases, prejudice and dogmas", by definition. Because it is, by definition, the clearest, simplest and most basic thing of all. Actually, anything containing "biases, prejudice and dogmas" is outside Metaphysics, by definition - because it is what Metaphysics is fighting with. That is Metaphysics. All the teachers say so (still not giving the full thing at once of course; but they hint in this way). Rasool-3 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. You seem to be equating metaphysics with either esoteric mysticism or terminological acadmeic debates. But there is no escaping a metaphysical worldview for any human. It is simply implicit and confused, rather than explicit and coherent, for most people. Children have to be taught such things as the difference between what is real and what is make-believe. In fact, they crave and obsess upon such information. And they learn such things long before science or any formal academic instruction. Not educating them in such things is not avoiding, metaphysics, it is just leaving them open to whatever nonsense might come along without the self-defense that education makes possible. Consider the implications behind the declaration of a friend of mine who, upon finding out that I was an atheist, protested, "You mean you are a Devil worshipper? But you'll go to hell!" He wasn't even capable of understanding why such a concern might not worry me. Whether you realize that you hold implicit philosophical beliefs or not, you do. It is the nature of being a conscious (semi-)adult. To quote the philosopher Neil Peart, "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice." μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I support Medeis' view that children's thinking in general is very metaphysical (as opposed to Gregbard's opinion that children shouldn't be taught Metaphysics). I wanted to say that myself. Children's perception and thinking is much more metaphysical than adults', because Metaphysics (as a mode of thought and connection to the Source) is something immanent and natural for man, not some "perplexive abstract science", not something "artificially invented", as it is viewed upon now. It's just centuries of positivism, marxism and other ungodly techings, that made society and public education neglect the very ground, the basics, what's within ourselves from the very beginning (that is, what is natural for children - but not longer natural for adults "enriched" by positivist "rational" thinking). By the way, there is a view among modern metaphysicists (e.g. Guenon), that the worldly science (known as an exclusive "science" nowadays) emerged in the Middle Ages from sacred metaphysical science (what was then exclusively known as the real "science"), such as alchemy and etc., as its "prolongation" and exteriorization into the profane world, just its derivate, its exterior part (as Christianity itself was double - esoteric and exteriorated); but then after the deterioration of Metaphysics and of inner Christian tradition, the real science vanished, and its profane derivate is regarded up to now as the "sole" "real" science. Trovatore's and Medeis' observation that each "scientific" (even "positivist") assertion is based upon an underlying implication, which is necessarily metaphysical - is very much to the point. Of course children crave for this knowledge... as we do here :) Rasool-3 (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, no, no, you sure aren't reading very carefully. Esoterism, and mysticism are not metaphysics, and I have stated so very clearly. Yes, yes, yes, you are certainly correct that a person cannot help but have metaphysical beliefs, because it is part of making sense of the world. However what people do not and should not do is agonize over metaphysical theories as if something important depends on them. What people do generally, is called bracketing. Rather than wake up and seriously consider that one may be living in the Matrix, it is more reasonable to proceed with your day as if the answer just doesn't matter. Bracketing is putting the question aside and proceeding as if you have an answer. Teaching children what is real and not real doesn't involve any metaphysics at all. It only requires sensory observation (i.e. empirical science). I sympathize with your concern that one might be left open to "whatever nonsense" is out there, but just look at what actually is happening where adults are teaching children metaphysics!!! My goodness. They are better off exploring those questions on their own. Greg Bard (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether you have an immortal soul is of no importance, but bracketing is a useful concept, and the difference bewteen real and imaginary is not a metaphysical one? What is it, a chemical one? It would be bad enough that you are making up your own definitions if you weren't also contradicting yourself. Children in my family are taught metaphysical principles at a very young age, like "wishing doesn't make it so" and "you can't have your cake and eat it too." And the statement that "it only requires sensory observation" is a metaphysically ground epistemological statement. But thank you for your opinion. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up for Medeis: "you can't have your cake and eat it too" - is really a very traditionalist educational saying, reminds me something from Sufi literature. Rasool-3 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for involvement. On Russian wiki, I was advised Emerich Coreth's "Metaphysics, A Methodical and Systematic Introduction". I had it before and I found it very helpful, although Coreth belonged to Jesuits, that is the grave-diggers of the original medieval Metaphysics (must have taken the best pearls for themselves, I guess). Still, Germans seem to be among the best in Metaphysics, after all. It is very linguistic and very reflective, as a true Metaphysics should be. It starts with a scrutinous research of the very act of questioning - which has actual parallels in real Traditions.

Colapeninsula and Medeis, I looked through the contents of John Hospers' "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" on google-books and failed to find any sections on Metaphysics. John Post's Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction was a little bit more helpful. But just a little bit, so as to see how Metaphysics is viewed upon in U.S. nowadays. Lack of a system, earthly newspaper-style language, neglection of previous teachers - just show the author's non-adhesion to the real metaphysical tradition; and any talks about the real teaching and about metaphysics without such an adhesion are senseless. The whole thing was made on a level of a secondary school essay (as Hospers' "Introduction" was, too), and cannot be regarded as a serious study guide, and of course cannot be regarded "classic". No research in Europe is done on such a level. Sorry. Guess, U.S. is not where such answers should be sought. I wished to talk to English here, but they seem to be busy with something else... Rasool-3 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should have made it clear that my recommendation of Hosper's was a general one, and not specifically in regard to Metaphysics. You are probably right that the US is not the place to look for anything worthwhile. Deconstructivism is all the rage in the US from philosophy to linguistics. Russians are lucky to be insulated from these fads. My grounding in metaphysics is from an Aristotelian, Scholastic and Randian background. I am also a fan of Spinoza and the Stoics. But all these schools are notoriously difficult and I am aware of no simple introduction. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that "the US is not the place to look for anything worthwhile". Beach Boys, Freeborne and Monks are my favourite bands. And South Park, I believe, is a global cultural phenomenon which may be regarded as nowadays-Beatles. I'm just saying that the U.S., despite Protestantism flourishing (at least it seems to be so), seem to have lost the real science of the traditional (Luther's and Calvin's) Protestantism, which of course was very metaphysical, as it was opposed to the Catholic growing profanity. As of now, what we have in Europe, is the Catholic Western Europe (except for England, Germany and Scandinavian countries), with semi-profane teachings, reduced to the level of ethics, and of course not metaphysical; and Eastern Europe ruined by marxism, which is only beginning to try to restore something. And also we have the US. So, I just wished to see, where is something left. I suppose, there is a kind of such work going on in European Protestant countries, such as England or Germany. Still, as there's little heard of it, sometimes I think that public education nowadays is given just something profane, and the real metaphysical teachings are provided only for closed groups such as masons, I don't know.

Scholastic literature (especially of 13th-15th cent.) - is probably very much to the point. What is your favourite reading of this kind? Of course, there is no simple introduction, especially in the shape of a public textbook - but it doesn't mean that the whole thing is necessarily "notoriously difficult". Metaphysics is simple, by definition :) Because only errors, bias and aberrations can be complicated and perplexed, the real knowledge is straightforward and simple.

P.S.: By the way, note many purely Protestant and metaphysical moments in South Park plots. I would say, the creators come from a really traditionalist Protestant environment. P.P.S.: About Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", there is a South Park episode "Chickenlover" :) Why don't you add Guenon and Idries Shah to your metaphysics reading list. Rasool-3 (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Can a region from a foreign country join the USA?

Imagine I am elected president of Extremadura, a region in western Spain. Could I ask for admission as a US state? --Belchman (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. You could be admitted by a majority vote of both houses of congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state#Admission_into_the_union μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Guyana is thinking of doing that. Would be nice to have some real estate in South America.... I think that's how the Texans did it btw. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I advise you don't. Of all countries, why the USA? →Στc. 22:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe Guyana offered (well, its president offered) to lease 2/3 of jungle Guyana to the UK as one massive carbon offsetting scheme, if they invested to protect it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also this with regard to Guyana. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism, greed, grinding poverty, lax corporate law, unfair tax system, lack of upward mobility except through luck, rampant corruption, violent police forces, apparently over 50% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of less than 1.000 people (source: Ajay Bruno). What's not to love about our fair country? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the main problem would be convincing Spain to allow a hunk of its territory to secede. Joining the U.S. would be comparatively easy. LANTZY^TALK 22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think joining the US would be a walk in the park either. Both major parties would be capable of figuring out which party would benefit, and whichever one that is (I'm guessing the Dems but I can't be sure of that), the other one would oppose accession with all the forces at its disposal. So you would have to wait until the party expected to benefit had a strong majority in both houses, and probably the presidency as well (I don't know whether the president is officially involved in the decision, but I imagine he could make it hard going if he didn't want it to happen). --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Admission of a new State is by ordinary legislation, and does require the President's signature (or an override of his veto). I read somewhere that when South and North Dakota were admitted (simultaneously but by separate acts), the then President asked that the papers be handed to him in such a way that nobody would know which one he signed first. —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem might be that the USA recognises the sovereignty of Spain, and such recognition might preclude taking actions that prejudice Spain's territorial integrity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. See my 29 September post below, beginning "Nobody's mentioned the recognition factor ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We haven't let that stop us before! Though the political environment is much different now.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Spain is a Unitary state, that means the all authority that provinces have is given to them by the nation. If you tried something like that, Spain could just dissolve your province's government. If Spain was a Federation, where power was given by the individual states to a government, than you could leave the nation. So Texas could leave the US as the US is a federal state, but Extremadura has no ability to leave Spain. Public awareness (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Texas can as secession is illegal now (I think it is anyway), unless they have some special agreement in the annexation treaty (though I thought that was just their governor trying to get the unpatriotic secessionist vote). You have a point though, except in the case of Extremadura breaking away in a rebellion and the US recognising them as a state and then annexing them with their acquiescence. Kind of like the Republic of Hatay or South Ossetia (soon). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

See Texas v. White. --Jayron32 23:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary: Winners write legislative history. —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The question was not whether it would lead to war or be recognized internationally or actually pass congress but whether such a petition could be made. The solution to admitting a territory that would become a state favoring one party would be to admit some other territory (Cuba would be solidly Republican) or to split the territory into two regions, if possible, one more conservative, the other liberal. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Cuba would be solidly Democrat. Cubans who left Cuba and settled in Florida tend to be Republican because of the anti-socialist nature of the Republican party, and the Cubans that left Cuba are, understandably, anti-socialist. The Democrats, while being the second-least socialist party in the civilized world (the least socialist being the Republicans), still come out slightly to the left of the Republicans, so those Cubans who are actually in Cuba are more likely to support the Democrats than the Republicans. --Jayron32 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Second least socialist party." Oh, come on. German Free Democrats would be comfortable in the US Libertarian Party, and they're in government. --Trovatore (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a deliberate hypercorrection to head off all of the "But the Democrats would be a right wing party in Europe" comments whenever you describe them as a leftist party. Yes, we all know they would be. But they are the leftist party (of the two) in the U.S. If pro-Castro Cubans had to pick one of the two parties in the U.S. to support, they'd likely go Democrat. --Jayron32 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know. The nonsensical 1-d spectrum that's taught in school makes people think that communism is some extreme version of "liberalism" in the US sense of the word. But Communists (at least of the Castro sort) are not liberal at all, not in any sense of the word. (Both major US parties are liberal in the more general sense, though there are non-liberal tendencies within each, the religious right in the GOP and the identity-politics folks among the Dems. There are some so-called Communists in, say, Italy, that could be called liberal without complete violence to the word, but they wouldn't do well in Cuba.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically enough, Dave Foley once said of his native Canada, "We're so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

People say these things, but it's total nonsense. Castro is no liberal, never was, and Communism in the Lenin/Stalin/Mao sense of the word has never had anything to do with liberalism. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor Dave Foley, he used to be cuter in drag than Laura Tierney in her red-carpet best. Have to assume Foley was using liberal as a synonym for leftist. Modern leftists do, or did until it became dysphemistic and the term progressive was recycled. Given Castro's policy on homosexuals, Foley was right. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point. If you compare Castro to George Soros on a 1-d scale originally designed to measure one's attitude towards the French Revolution, you just get garbage, no useful information whatsoever. Castro is not some sort of extreme version of Soros. --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume that those who haven't left Cuba have done so because they are liberals. Eastern Europe is more conservative than Western Europe. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Would Congress still allow the people of Extremadura to enjoy bullfighting? HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear from Animal Welfare Act of 1966 that the federal government would have anything to say about it. That might be at the state level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the original question, several states of the United States were formerly independent countries, e.g., Texas, California, Hawaii, and arguably for a short time Vermont. As for modern proposals for new states, for related discussion, see 51st state. For less related discussion, see Proposals for new Canadian provinces and territories. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Of those four, only the Republic of Texas and the Kingdom of Hawaii/Republic of Hawaii were really sovereign countries in a functional way. The US treated Texas and Hawaii as sovereign states, or at least went through the motions of pretending so. The Vermont Republic was longer lived and slightly more of a real thing than the California Republic. At least Vermont created something of a government. California never did. A flag was made. That's about it. In neither case did the US federal government treat them as sovereign states. Pfly (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Get in line. There is Guam, American Samoa, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands ahead of you. The political reality is that unless you get a majority vote of the Spanish legislature and a majority vote of the people of such a region, you will not be able to "apply." Such an application will be submitted to some committee of Congress and it just doesn't move forward unless the political environment will allow for it. See U.S._state#Admission_into_the_union. Greg Bard (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But since nobody in their right mind would even want to join the USA.... →Στc. 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

...he protests on an American website run on the American invented internet using an American invented personal computer. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Good for you; I'm sure you feel very proud of your observation, which I would like to point out, is half-true. The computers could not have been invented if Nazi and Soviet technology was not stolen during war, and the internet was only a product of the pressure built by the Soviet Union. →Στc. 06:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned the recognition factor. Currently the USA recognises Spain as a sovereign nation. That's all of Spain, not just some bits of it. In order to even hypothetically consider an application from Extremadura to join it, the USA would first have to recognise Extremadura as no longer being a part of Spain, which would mean no longer accepting that Spain includes Extremadura. How could the USA possibly arrive at such a position? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, only with Spain's recognition of Extremadura's right to self-determination. Basically, if an important country were to object (Spain would probably be considered important in this context), then it would not happen. Hence the situation in Taiwan. Googlemeister (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, Jack, but are you aware of some clause of the American Constitution of which I am ignorant? The recognition of Spanish sovereignty might be an issue in Congressional debate. But all that matters in admitting a state is a majority vote in both houses. Such a vote might lead to war were it enforced. But it would not be Constitutionally invalidated by yours or anyone else's shock or good intentions.μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, too, but mainly about your lack of indentation skills, which makes this part of the conversation a little hard to follow. I'll struggle on manfully, nonetheless.

Are you saying that the Congress could vote to recognise Tasmania, say, as a new state of the Union, without there being any ramifications for the USA's ongoing recognition of Australia as a sovereign and indivisible nation? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there would be ramifications in your case Jack, but the US Constitution does not specify that we can only add states when there are no ramifications. Politically, I don't see any circumstances where this might happen, but as a constitutional matter it would still be valid. Googlemeister (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but just because some action is not constitutionally prohibited does not necessarily mean that it has even the remotest chance of ever actually happening. Practicalities are kind of important and relevant in this type of scenario. So, returning to the original question: would Extremadura ever apply for US statehood? No, but if it ever did, would the US Congress ever consider it? No, but if it ever did, would it ever vote to accept Extremadura as a state? No, but if it ever did, would Extremadura ever actually become a US state? No. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Priestesses of the Greek and Roman gods

Which Greek and Roman gods and goddesses in antiquity had female priests? I know abut the Vestals and the priestesses of Aphrodite, and I suppose also the oracle of Apollo in Delphi can be regarded as a sort of priestess, but I ave never heard about any other priestesses about the Greek and Roman gods. I once heard that Hera and Juno had priestesses, is this correct? Which gods had female clergy? All the female gods?

I am aware that this matter may differ somewhat between Greece and Rome, but the gods were quite similar, so I hope it will be okay to ask about both the Greek and Roman gods. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if we can say these had priestesses as such, but the Eleusinian Mysteries and Dionysian Mysteries had female initiates. There were also festivals for Bona Dea in Rome, although the Vestal Virgins were in charge of that. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Essentially all of the ancient Greek and Roman temples employed "priestesses" because they would perform "rites" for certain donations, which were very popular because they involved, um, sex. Any temple which didn't offer such services would not be able to compete. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, essentially none of them did that, except maybe Corinth. We have an article about sacred prostitution (although it's not very good). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to have been a far swing in historical thought on that question over the past 70 years. 69.171.160.229 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What I am referring to is, specifically, clergy, female priests, not participants or initiates. Perhaps they have been rather ignored in history? All gods had clergy, I assume? Which had female clergy? Can we confirm that Hera and Juno had priestesses? --Aciram (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not all religions have clergy. Actually...do any religions have clergy, aside from Christianity? Not even all forms of Christianity have clergy. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

English is not my native language, but as far as I understand, the word clergy means "priests": religious experts with the task of leading and organising the worship, ceremonies and rituals of a religion. Not all religions may have them, but the majority can be said to fulfill this criteria, even in the cases when they are not officially regarded to be priests. To say that only Christianity had clergy does sound a little discriminating and chauvinistic, in that context, if I may say so. --Aciram (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Our article Ordination_of_women#Ancient_Greece covers this well. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That was a good article, thank you. Though it may not cover it very clearly, as it does not always specify exactly which gods, only that it was common with priestesses. In the article of Hera, Cynippe refers to her priestess, but I have the impression that she was not a proffessional priestess. Were these priestesses always selfsupporting professionals, or only in some cases? --Aciram (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Christ, a sometime Greek and Roman God, appeared to have female priests, at least of the gnostic variety, also possibly of the "orthodox" kind: see this paper. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the Pagan gods, but that was interesting nonetheless. --Aciram (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mormon high

I know that observant Mormons are forbidden to drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, etc. But while they can't alter their consciousness by use of chemical substances, are they permitted to do so by some other means? (Spinning in a circle, holding their breath, running into a wall, etc.) Would habitual indulgence in self-induced dizziness prevent a Mormon from receiving a temple recommend? Is there any history of Mormons pushing the envelope in this respect? Obviously it violates the spirit of the rules that forbid drug use, but considering the apparent existence of "Mormon porn", perhaps that doesn't matter. LANTZY^TALK 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Brigham Young or whoever formulated the various articles of Mormon faith had a slightly more serious approach to policy. I mean really, if he started telling people not to get high from hyperventilating, don't you think he'd lose credibility? Seems rather trite to me to start telling people how they can and can't breathe. It's kind of unenforceable too. A coffee drinker is likely going to leave evidence of their habit, while a chronic hyperventilator can indulge their habit as they please with zero trace their terrible sin. Vranak (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mormons are allowed to use such substances if medically necessary. A Mormon employer of mine was required by his doctor to use caffeine which he drank in coffee. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See Lantzy, it's about what the church leaders genuinely feel is for the best for their parish, not about making strange and byzantine rules governing a person's life in toto. I hope. Vranak (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree - I'm sure more consideration is given to those who try to follow the rules in spiritus. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:05, 1 Tishrei 5772 / 08:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Resident Mormon here. I know this is almost 2 years later, but I'm doing a search on "mormon" in the reference desk archives and am trying to be helpful anywhere I can.

Let me make three points:

(A) There is no explicit prohibition for Latter-day Saints (Mormons) against caffeine. I drink several Coke Zeros (or is it Zeroes) every day, and I carry a temple recommend. Caffeine is not apparently the reason for the prohibition against coffee and tea. My understanding is that there are (or may be) other harmful components in coffee and tea other than caffeine. Personally, I believe it has more to do with the resulting decrease in self-control and willpower (how many jokes have been made about people at work who missed their "morning coffee" etc.) than any particular substance. Further, we uphold the prohibition, to a certain degree, on faith, not necessarily requiring a full explanation why we shouldn't eat or drink something.

(B) The dietary and health principles that we call "The Word of Wisdom" are self-governed, and only regulated in the temple recommend interview every other year. And, it boils down to one question that the Bishop asks: "Do you keep the word of wisdom." If someone answers "yes," (and, ahem, doesn't stink of cigarettes or alcohol) that is basically the end of the issue. There is no verification other than that. If someone really felt the need to lie about coffee or tea use in their interview, that would completely betray the spirit of temple attendance in the first place.

(C) The Word of Wisdom was initially published as a recommendation (in 1833) rather than as a commandment. As such, strict adherence (even by Church leaders) wasn't really achieved until many years later, when it was (in effect) "upgraded" to a kind of commandment, and obedience was included in the temple recommend interview. Best-- Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

September 28

The Ukraine

Why does the article say "Ukraine" instead of "the Ukraine"? --70.134.53.27 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the 'The' has fallen out of colloquial use as it did for the Sudan? I think that practice is from when they were thought of as areas more than proper countries (or 2/3 of a country in Sudan's case, lol). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After independence, the country asked other countries to stop using the "the" before its name, since the "the" implied Ukraine was merely a region (as it was during the USSR) and not a bona fide country. The irony is that Ukranian, like all Slavic languages that I know of, doesn't even have an equivalent to the word "the." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Countries talk? —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Most likely because they have an equivalent for referring to something with a direct article like placing a hei before a word in Hebrew. Or do they not have anything for this? :p It's not really ironic when you consider the title isn't coming from a Slavic country. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 02:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they have no definite article. They also have no indefinite article ("a" or "an"). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Hebrew has no indefinite article, but I find the lack of definite strange; then again they seem to get on just fine without it. Anyway, I've gotten us off-topic. You have answered the OP's question and I believe this topic can be marked resolved. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 02:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The most widely spoken language in the world doesn't have definite articles, either. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A definite starter for our Frequently Asked Questions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of the Lebanon and the Crimea (a region within the Ukraine) but not the Sudan.
Sleigh (talk)

Really? Here are close to 4 million hits for "the Sudan". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Longer discussion from a month ago. See also our entire article on Name of Ukraine. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See English articles#Geographic uses.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Short answer, Mwalcoff is right, long answer, see old thread linked above. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times at Special Bargain Rates

I am having some doubts about this tale. The guy's been killed in plane crash. That means body is lost, then how they have funeral ? Moreover how does NYT comes into context, it is just mentioned by ghost-voice over phone after making certain predictions ? 124.253.131.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Wait, what? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a body to have a funeral. As for the rest of your question, I'm with Sir Petrie. Dismas|^(talk) 03:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, never knew that ! ( in our part of world the funeral simply means getting rid of body )- culture clash. What's more I simply fail to get what Sir Petrie means when he says "Wait, what? " (culture clash again !). Please elaborate.- OP 124.253.131.54 (talk)

It's short for "I have no idea what you are talking about; could you please elaborate as what you have written confuses me greatly." :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone is known to have died and the body is lost (drown in the ocean, burned in a fire, etc.), a funeral can still be held. A funeral, as far as every western religion that I know and some eastern as well, is basically a religious ceremony for the soul of the deceased. A funeral often does have a "getting rid of the body" portion to it though. The burial is not needed if there's no body though. Dismas|^(talk) 05:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don’t think the story even says there was a funeral. There are relatives in the house with the widow Annie, but it’s only two days after the plane crash, and the relatives are said to be "still" there, so they'll have arrived the day before at the latest. A bit early for a funeral (depending on religion of course). I suppose the relatives could have simply come there to comfort and help her. The ghost-voice that answers Annie's call at the end of the story is simply a typical American experience: a pre-recorded voice selling you something on the telephone, in this case, a subscription to the New York Times. It's there for contrast: she gets a message from beyond, but when she tries to communicate back, she reaches not even a stranger but a banal machine.--Rallette (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A note on forms of address for knights and those claiming to be so: It's either Sir William Petrie or just Sir William, but NEVER Sir Petrie. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think the usual rules of etiquette regarding correct forms of addressing knights of the realm apply to Wikipedia usernames. --Viennese Waltz 12:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a hanging offence here, no. It’s just that certain people seem historically prone to making this error, and I was just wanting to let them know not to do it out there. Witness this biography of Vernon Handley, which has been mislabelled as a biog of Sir Adrian Boult (1st grievous mistake), and then they compound it by calling him "Sir Boult". Such a trustworthy site. Not. You'll also find hits for "Sir Gielgud", "Sir Olivier" and so on and on. The embarrassment factor of this error is so potent that it comes through even when done in jest. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as if a machine read Sir as the first of Mr S. A. Boult's given names. I've seen analogous errors before. —Tamfang (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Christian denominations make a distinction between a "Funeral service" (held with the body present) and a "Memorial service" (held without the body present). The distinction is purely technical, however, in that the same liturgy is used for both types of services - the only difference being whether the body is present or not. These denominations also have a "Burial" (or "Committal") rite held at the grave site, which technically is a separate thing... (the Committal might immediately follow a funeral service... but it does not have to. It could be held weeks, months or even years later). That said, if I remember the story correctly, Rallette is correct in noting that the author of "The New York Times at Special Bargain Rates" (Steven King) does not specifically state that the family has gathered for a funeral (or any religious service)... it is a logical assumption, but it is not actually stated. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The funeral for Payne Stewart included a closed coffin containing a couple of identifiable body parts, following the crash of the small plane he and colleagues had been flying in. On the other hand, there's this famous alleged tombstone epitaph: "Beneath this stone lies John Mound / Lost at sea and never found." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I stopped buying the NYTimes back when Punch started the patronizing policy of one pro-gay article per section per day. It then cost 45 cents weekdays. I might buy the Tuesday edition with the science section again were it worth my while. What special discount do card-carrying libertarian sodomites receive?μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fiction and fantasy genres.

I am looking for an authoritative source on the classification of fiction and fantasy.

1.Pogranichnye genres (fiction poetry, fiction detective, fantasy poetry, fantasy detective) are there?

2.Pravomerno a division on the western fantasy, fantasy Slavic, Oriental Fantasy, etc? Странник27 (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy is a sub-classification of science fiction and science fiction is a sub-classification of fiction. While tvtropes may not be authoritative, it is comprehensive and verbose.
Sleigh (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick Lowe used to suggest (but I haven't found anywhere he published it) that within the broad sweep of Fantasy was an area constrained by scientific plausibility, called Science Fiction, and within that an area even more tightly constrained to places and times that had happened to exist, called Mainstream Fiction. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Elf

Is it true that elves were seen by British and American airmen during the WW2 in their cockpits and restrooms ? 124.253.137.182 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See Gremlin. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The page specifically states them to be imaginary, there is some non-serious speculation that they may have originated from the ideas and myths by pilots, I am asking have there been any actual cases ? OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.137.182 (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No. If there were confirmed, conclusively proven sightings of elves, then I think we would all know about the existence of elves, and the Wikipedia page elf would be very different. In the absence of evidence, we assume the sightings were mistaken and the elves imaginary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They could have been fatigue-driven hallucinations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Once upon a time, for weeks or months I thought I was having fatigue hallucinations of movement in the shadows. Then I got a better look at the mouse. Soon afterward, two cats moved into the adjacent apartment. No more mystery movements. —Tamfang (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also relevent is Foo fighter. --Jayron32 16:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is, by elf, do you mean gremlin or fairy? μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection from stock dilution

I know that I already asked this question a few months ago, but I'll try to be clearer to get a more specific answer. I was watching the movie The Social Network and wondered to myself how Mark Zuckerberg's friend could have protected himself against the stock dilution. My question is this:

1) Could they have made a contract prior to incorporation (let's pretend they incorporated instead of making a partnership just because corporations are more interesting) which stipulated that the corporation issue more stock to him to prevent his share from going below a certain percent, and would the courts enforce it under their equitable jurisdiction?

2)What is that kind of arrangement called exactly? I know there is a word for it, but I just can't seem to remember or find it. Is it Full-Ratchet?

Thanks in advance everyone!Rabuve (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A company can grant different types, or "classes" of shares with different rights and privileges associated with them. A company may have, say, Class A shares and Class B shares, and at first issue equal amounts of both, say 1000 shares of Class A and 1000 shares of Class B, and define that Class A shares will always represent 50% of the company value, and Class B will likewise represent 50% of company value. If the company then issues 1000 more Class B shares, each B share is now worth half as much as before, but the Class A shares remain untouched. This is often how initial investors will protect themselves from stock dilution. One example of this sort of thing is Berkshire Hathaway shares, there are two classes of Berkshire Hathaway shares; there are class A shares, which are owned by the key players in the company; having never split and never payed dividends the Class A shares are valued at over $100,000 per share. Class B shares are more reasonably priced, and are treated more like a normal share: they are split and traded more freely than the class A shares. This is done to protect the shareholders of the (fairly non-liquid) class A shares from market whims, while still allowing a portion of the company to trade on the open market. --Jayron32 13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's actually really cool! My main question is could an agreement be done and be found enforcable prior to actual incorporation like the movie seems to imply? Rabuve (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Eduardo gets Class B shares, Zuckerberg and Timberlake get Class A shares, which are both defined at the time of incorporation. The entire thing is predicated on Eduardo, a business major who should have known better, not reading the details of the paperwork he was signing, and not asking enough questions. But as long as the incorporation paper defined the classes of shares and who gets them, then its all legal. Eduardo's shares get diluted when they issue a whole bunch if new Class B shares (and no Class A shares), which was kinda the plan, at least by the plot of the film. --Jayron32 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me engage in a brief thought experiment for the sake of fun. What if Eduardo and Zuckerburg had a written agreement prior to incorporation indicating that Eduardo would get class A shares but when it came time to incorporate, they refused to put him down for class A shares? Would Eduardo have access to equitable remedy to force them to include him as class A via an injunction or rectification? Rabuve (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you're getting into subtle interpretations of the law. IANAL. My above interpretation was just one very generalized interpretation of how it might have worked in the film version of events regarding Eduardo being screwed out of Facebook. I have no idea what a) the actual legal subtleties may have been or b) what the actual historical events were during the actual incorporation of Facebook, and what Eduardo's real life role actually was. Perhaps someone else who actually knows something can chime in, because I'm spent... --Jayron32 20:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is preemptive rights. See also poison pill and warrant (finance). Preferred stock isn't necessary. Gx872op (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

computer displacement

I recall being told in college I might have to change careers 5 or 6 times due to job requirements being handled entirely by technology improvements. Even brick and mortar stores are finding this to be true. What will people do when there are no jobs left that computers can not do? --DeeperQA (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No-one would need to work if computers and robotics could do everything. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

People will continue to do the jobs that it's cheaper for a person to do than a computer/robot, and the jobs that people enjoy doing. Just because something can be done by machine doesn't necessarily mean it will be: some people still grow their own vegetables, hand-knit their own clothes, etc, and many people prefer to be served by a human than a computer terminal. If hypothetically everybody decided that they wanted to be served entirely by robots, and the robots were completely capable of designing and building other robots, then presumably people would have no work to do, and would lie around all day being served, until the robots rebelled and killed us all. This is probably some years away. Did you see the text at the top of this page saying no speculation on future events? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, did you, Cola? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See Marx on the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production, he spends 4 major books on this, and a number of minor ones. He also deals at length with the increasing use of technology in production through the organic composition of capital. Marx predicts that for infinitely replicable products, that the fair price in Capital is zero. Many consider the unwillingness of people to pay for digital information and the production of free-as-in-beer-free-as-in-liberated-collectives-of-workers content to support this. However, Virno has taken Marx's Fragment on the machines from Grundrisse which questions this through the concept of the general intellect... wikipedia appears to be an example of free production _and_ of the general intellect. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Will computers ever be able to write poetry? Is it likely that computers will ever render poets obsolete? Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They've already done so. The poetry market is eternally glutted, in that it is low demand, and free poetry is readily available. Some people dispute the quality of free poetry, but I've never had problems waiting for the critique of (for example) gangster rap to come out before deciding which pieces to hear read. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

True artificial intelligence hasn't been invented. Without it, computers can't do creative work. With it, the computers become people, and therefore are not taking jobs away from people.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the definition of "true AI"? Computers are better at chess and a multitude of other things. If that's not intelligence, then what is. If the definition would include something like self-consciousness the problem is getting solved the other way around. For example when people consider themselves to make rational choices, studies show that they actually often already made a choice "automatically" (i.e.: the wiring of their brain made the choice, not their conscious self) and then rationalize their choice and think they had the freedom to make a different choice. Which is, I think, just some more wires in your brain that must have had an evolutionary reason. IMHO the difference in intelligence between a human and a computer (and a clock, for that matter) is gradual. Joepnl (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Either people can do something computers can't, or computers are people too. You can't argue with logic (except when it's misleading, which this bit of logic might be).  Card Zero  (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So a 2 day old child, who can do nothing a computer can't isn't human? Joepnl (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The baby would have the same status as a baby artificial intelligence, and babies are (for some reason, I think possibly just a pragmatic one) considered to have full personhood. (People commonly seem to expect artificial intelligences to be born adults, capable of language, and able to discuss quantum gravity and analyse Tolstoy, but I don't see how that's possible or likely, and since human development seems to depend on interactions with parents, the process would presumably be the same and just as slow for AI babies.) Incidentally, the human baby can do something a computer can't (yet): it can learn, creating explanations, and become recognisable as a person (though the external casing of a baby is a bit of a clue about that anyway).  Card Zero  (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

When I was young (before Star Wars), I saw a documentary that I've firmly associated with Sagan, but my research has shown that it wasn't Sagan. Regardless, it discussed the theory that humans are moving into a false work-based economy. We need money to buy stuff. To get money, we need jobs. So, jobs have to be invented to give people money to buy things. The jobs aren't necessary for anything else. Eventually, all jobs will be absolutely pointless. The only purpose will be to make money to buy things. Then, the documentary described a society in which all jobs from farming to brain surgery are performed by robots. Humans just did whatever they wanted all day. Nothing had a cost. If you wanted to eat, you just went to a robot in charge of food and took some food. If you wanted to see a movie, you just walked into a theater and sat down. I don't remember much of the documentary after that because even at a young age I thought that humans couldn't handle a free society. Humans are mean and selfish. If they were free to do anything they liked all day without work and bills to distract them, humans would do little more than figure out new ways to harm one another. -- kainaw™ 14:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what robot police are for. Rabuve (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I will only point out the interesting contrast between what people say when they have jobs ("I hate my job"; "I wish I were dead") and when they feel their job is threatened ("these accursed machines are rendering me obsolete!"). Clearly something doesn't quite add up. Vranak (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I wager that is because although people do not like their jobs, they like the benefits (money, mostly) that their job provides. Since they come as a package, I am not surprised that people react negatively to something like this. Googlemeister (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept robot poets, but never robot prostitutes!

Actually I have thought on this question a fair bit myself. I believe there are some jobs that people would much prefer be human, even if there was AI and they had nice bodies, such as, those in the sex industry, to lawmakers, judges, politicians(well maybe), actors, directors, screenwriters, bartenders & psycologists, and philosophers. So there still will be some work for humans, the problem is that there's not enough so that at least one member of a household can work 40 hours a week. To go below 28 hours a week (4 days x 7hours), I think people would get the feeling of actually working for a living, so you can't just give everyone 10hours of work a week and say its fine, so that's one major problem still left. The next problem of course is that capitalism is a system to concentrate wealth. So these millions of robots/computers will be owned by a few people, and these few people will demand all the profit their machines create. The wealth disparity, while already great at 10% of Americans having 90% of the wealth, will grow immensely. I do imagine that the government would seize the industries run soley by robots from the few rich people and use the profits to replace all taxes and fund social services. There would not be large welfare though, if the government started sending out $50,000 a year to everyone, made on the backs of billions of robots, people would lose the incentive to work, and work does make people satisfied and happy believe it or not. So, there will always be some jobs for humans only, to stop a dictatorship by the rich, robots will be taken by the government and used not to fund individual people, but to fund society.

Oh and there is also what Colapeninsula said, people do choose to take up inefficent work as hobbies, knitting, fishing, gardening. But people do need some real work too. Public awareness (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I can assume then that case law (and case medicine) will be published in the form of a many-valued truth table, which exposes loopholes, ambiguity, contradictions and other inconsistencies so all humans can benefit from health and compliance with the law? --DeeperQA (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Vranak, a fair amount of debate on this occurred in Marxist sociology in the 1970s, the debates on communism as freedom as relief from work (leisure) and communism as freedom as self-expression at work. (this citation is related, but not dead on topic, there was a collection of chapters, which Scholar is quite frankly crap at locating, anyway it was the Lukacs kids and their mates). Labour has conflicting meanings in capitalism. It is a valuable expression of self. It is a drudgery performed for subsistence. It is membership of a community of peers. It is servitude as an individual to a boss. Most importantly work is the sphere in which the managers right to manage is contested: work is the space where the potential for workers' control (socialism) is concretely tested in struggle. And it is tested within capitalism. A union workplace will usually have better safety standards than a non-union workplace due to workers control (yes, even with dodgy unions, except for the worst yellow dogs). So people have conflicting views about work in capitalism because work is a contradiction in capitalism: it is the site of our slavery, it is the space of contingent, temporary, partial and potential liberation. We hate our jobs, but we also imagine an ideal job. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is North Korea so mad at the US and South Korea if it was they who started the Korean War?

This question is related to the question I asked a few days ago (under my account Narutolovehinata5). You see, I don't understand why North Korea is so mad at South Korea and the US, when it was they, and not the South as they want the North Koreans to believe, who started the war. And when tensions rise, it (usually seems to be) the North's fault. As in, they attack the South even if all South Korea is doing are some military exercises (which are probably not intended to be preparations for a future invasion). Maybe it is my exposure to Western media, or it is actually true, that North Korea is just ridiculously paranoid and that South Korea wants a peaceful resolution. And yes, I also know South Korea is also mad at them, but if North Korea knows that the world will just get mad at them, why don't they just follow the West's requests? And why did North Korea invade the South in the first place? 112.208.114.91 (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The North Koreans have been run by a hereditary series of Stalinist dictators. These guys make their own reality, they live in their own bubble, and they rely on the threat of bad guys just over the ridge in order to justify the fact that they force their citizens to live in a slave society. Reason and rationality have nothing to do with it, except in a realpolitik sense. They have a familiar pattern of doing something outrageous, threatening war, getting concessions, and backing down. It has worked pretty well so far. Why would they stop? If they did what the West wanted the North Korean government would be out in a month (and probably tried for various crimes against humanity). The North Korean government doesn't want that.

As for why the war started, and who started it, like all things it is a complicated story if you get beyond the version told to children (or people who watch television news). Give this section of the Korean War article a read and see if it doesn't clarify it. It was a period of rising tensions, of small clashes, and a sudden vacuum of power. The idea that there should be a united Korea was strong on both sides — the partitioning was an artifact of post-WWII global politics, not something the Koreans wanted (or still want, frankly). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can judge the emotional state of North Koreans based on statements made by the North Korean government. Most North Koreans are probably more or less indifferent about foreign relations and just wish their family's nightmare would end. The North Korean government has mismanaged the economy to the point of starving its people, while it has also brutally repressed them. Therefore, to give the elites and security forces a reason to remain loyal to the leadership (beyond the material privileges they receive for their loyalty), it has conducted an ongoing propaganda campaign. That campaign paints South Korea, the United States, and the West as aggressors intent on enslaving the Korean people. This allows the North Korean leadership to paint themselves as the heroic defenders of the Korean people. Any anger is feigned. What really lies behind the bluster is insecurity and fear on the part of the leadership that the security forces will turn on them and decide that they would do better by merging with South Korea. Marco polo (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On your premise, the US should never have disliked Germany for the Second World War, since the US declared war on it; nor Britain Germany either. The divisions, which were raw then, were not because of a technicality. If North Korea opposes all that South Korea and the west stands for, then who did what doesn't matter. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean to say -- Germany declared war on the U.S. before the U.S. declared war on Germany, and this is often considered to be one of Hitler's biggest blunders. AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think the OP is mistating the premises of the Korean situation. Ideally, Korea would be one nation state (instead of the current one-nation-two-state situation). The situation in Korea is a conflict over which government (and ideology, etc.) will get to rule that nation state. The reason that there are currently two Koreas is because of the impasse over which side will get to rule over Korea. Neither side prefers the status quo, and it couldn't be correctly said that either side "started" the conflict, per se. Both sides have the same goal, and that goal is mutually exclusive to each other and also mutually exclusive to the current situation. It is the same situation we had when we had Two Germanies and Two Vietnams. The Two Germany problem was resolved peacefully, while the Two Vietnam problem took an ugly war to resolve. But in both cases, like Korea, the two state situation was widely recognized as a "temporary" state of indeterminate length; both states had the same goal of uniting their nation state under one government, just like in Korea. We have the same situation today: The North Koreans want to rule the whole peninsula, as do the South Koreans. We'll have to wait to see how this resolves itself... Though its been 50 years and its still in the same state of impasse. --Jayron32 14:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes the two Korea problem to an ugly war to not resolve. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just communist propaganda & grand standing by the PRK government. The people of North Korea have no say atall. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's safe to say both sides want a peaceful solution to their current conflict, the problem is both sides want the reunified Korea to be in the image of their own sides without comprimise. North Korea has every right to be mad at the US, Korea would have been unified within a week of when the US attacked a half-century ago, if the US didn't attack. Ever since then the US and South Korea have been launching a economic and political war against North Korea, and tens of thousands of hostile troops of the US and the south keep lauching war games just outside their borders. North Korea invaded South Korea in the first place to reunite the two parts of Korea which were only split a little while before. When Korea got its independence two groups tried to claim to be in charge, both groups had large backing, and it actually split the nation. Public awareness (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While I generally agree with what you've written, I don't think you're being terribly symmetrical about things. You seem to make it sound like all of the aggression has been by the South Koreans and the Americans. The North has been extremely aggressive in its own right, however. I would argue that the North has been a lot more aggressive than the South in recent decades. I agree it is not just a one-sided situation (with the exception of the moral strength of the governments — say what you want about the Americans and the South Koreans, but even at their worst their governments are a million times better than the North), but I think in your effort to show the other side, you've bent it too far the wrong direction. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did say that the North invaded the South. I can also say there is a large military build up on both sides, and small skirmishes happen sometimes with both sides labelling the other the aggressor usually. I do believe the western media has self censorship, readers and those with power in the west want to hear what evil nations are doing bad, not what bad things we and allies are doing. If one formed an opinion on the Sandinista National Liberation Front by reading western papers, it would be different than if they formed an opinion with all the information. To write what I have heard would only be to reconjure others' biases, for all I actually know, Korea may or may not exist. To compare societies isn't very easy, to go against you for the sake of going against you, I could point out the hyper-individualism(no article...people sitting alone in a room with just a computer with the ability to never speak a word to anyone all day, consistently) in SK and compare it to Mass games in NK, and there is also SK's high suicide rate. I guess what I'm getting at is happiness, South Korea was ranked 102nd in the world for happiness in 2006 by the Satisfaction with Life Index. On the other hand North Korea was ranked #2 for happiness by another study, [3] :D Public awareness (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not reading this closely enough, but are you actually making the argument that North Korea's doing better than South Korea? That's quite a bit like making the argument that East Germany was doing a lot better than West Germany. If you want to know how things are look at what people do, not what they say. Where are the emigration patterns pointing? Reasonable people can disagree about small economic differences, but there's been untold tragedy at the hands of North Korea and East Germany, and when you need to build walls to keep people in, perhaps you should examine the society before you break ground on the construction. Shadowjams (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call something coming from the North Korean TV as particularly reliable, particularly when I don't see any explaination for how the happiness index was determined. If I understand the source correctly, even Chinese commentators (China was rated number 1) were laughing at the North Korean happiness index. The Satisfaction with Life Index at least was apparently published in what I think is a peer reviewed journal and with a methodology described. Incidentally, 100 would seem to be the correct position for South Korea in that as it is equal with the other 100 and just ends up 102 by alphabetical order (following Ko) Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on. You're being clever enough to be stupider than if you weren't clever at all. While it is true that there are media biases, there is no comparable history of the media being so biased and so wrong that it would make North Korea actually out to be anything more than a massive slave state. It would require a degree of consistently and complicity on so many fronts as to be ridiculous. The ignorant point of view — the one that would see China and North Korea as being essentially comparable, or would lump Cuba in the same category — is based at best on a mono-source of information (Murdoch industries). But you don't have to read very far out of the box (e.g., even just the New Yorker, or the New York Times, or even just Wikipedia) to see that the world is more complicated on that front. But for North Korea, things are pretty consistent, with the sole exception being hard-core (potentially NORK employed) ideologues who portray North Korea as being a worker's paradise. That spread is rather telling. The place is probably one of the worst governments of all time with regards to the treatment of its own citizens. Even the most balanced reports make it sound worse than Stalin (who I consider as being worse for the average Soviet than Hitler was for the average German). Don't let your skepticism of the official story lead you to adopt an idiotic one, or to become solipsistic about it. That doesn't help your cause today any more than it helped the pro-Stalinist lefties in the Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Public_awareness -- Until about the early 1970s, North and South Korea were at a roughly comparable level of economic development, and the North Korean government could be seen as a somewhat "ordinary" Communist tyranny, while South Korea was having plenty of its own political problems. However, since then South Korea's economy has spectacularly taken off, while North Korea has severely failed in even its basic ability to feed its population -- and South Korea's governmental system has undergone a (sometimes bumpy) ride to democratization, while North Korea has developed into a truly strange hereditary dynastic totalitarian theocracy of unparalleled opacity. The idea of a "North Korea happiness survey" is grotesquely bizarre... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lmao, the "North Korea happiness survey" wsa obviously a joke. When I was speaking of media biases, I meant to be speaking mostly on bias reporting of aggresion. A fair contemporary situation is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel bombs, shoots, or destroys the property of Palestinians every day, this recieves passing coverage once in a while. When a Palestinian kills an Israeli however, that is international news, and not for one day but for many. So when it comes to aggresion in the NK/SK conflict, I do doubt the wholeness of information I recieve.

The OP states "they attack the South even if all South Korea is doing are some military exercises" this alludes to the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong where NK shelled a SK semi-militarized island after the SK military, who is at war with NK, reportedly shelled NK water during war games. The language use shows bias, "attack" rather than retaliates, "even if all" shows the SK were doing nothing wrong, and that doing military exercises a dozen kilometers away from a nation you are at war with is nothing. This type of language bias, is common in western media. When it comes to the aggressor, in most conflicts, read multiple sources and actively search for bias and missing facts, don't blindly accept their opinion.

Did you know the US government classified Nelson Mandela a terrorist during apartheid in South Africa? Others do actively try to influence your world views. Even me :P Public awareness (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I hate to take the bait since this is a completely unrelated question, but I have to challenge you on your assertion that "Israel bombs, shoots, or destroys the property of Palestinians every day." The last time I heard about Israel bombing or shooting anything was in August in retaliation for the terrorist attack near Eilat. (I'm not talking about rogue groups of settlers cutting down olive trees or something.) Looking online, I see they also killed three Islamic Jihad guys later that month and a guy who was firing mortars into Israel in September. Whether you agree with these actions or not, it's hardly "every day." And I don't know where you live, but it often seems to me anyway that Israel's retaliation attacks get more press than the terrorist incidents that provoke them, or at least did a few years ago when the situation in that area was worse. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly- "The last time I heard about Israel bombing or shooting anything was in August in retaliation for [a] terrorist attack"....the last time Israeli warplanes bombed Gaza was...not even 12 hours ago. Arab mediaIDF. For a list of attacks on Palestinians this week read this and feel free to find collaborators, it is a trustworthy site, with an obvious bias, but truthful. Another example of non-reporting by western media is that 296 Iraqis died this month as a direct result of war, do any of them get time in the western media? Mostly no. They do get minimal coverage when many dozen die at once, or when America bombs a wedding, and the one time footage was leaked of an attack helicopter mowing down the reuters reporters and the dozen people the reporters were talking to [4]. You can move this elsewhere if you feel its too unrelated, I'm trying to keep the soapboxing down.

Another moral point in favour of NK, they have limited negative affect on the world. North Korea isn't causing global warming by polluting, they also didn't buy half of Madagascar to burn down their rainforest for food for themselves while the workers are malnourished, see Neocolonialism - which you can't blame NK for at all. And as NK was called a slave state it reminds me of a how Abe "Lincoln did not challenge the notion that those who spend their entire lives as wage laborers were comparable to slaves" pg 182 incase it's linked wrong. I hope you guys know my arguements are not in favour of NK, just showing faults of the west. Again, sorry for the off-topicness, feel free to move my words elsewhere if you wish to continue. Public awareness (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Inserting your personal obsessions into the discussion of every and any topic, and using it all as an excuse to launch into a generic boilerplate pre-canned tirade on your idée fixe does very little to serve the purposes for which the Wikipedia Reference Desk was intended. There's a saying about people "who won't change the subject and won't shut up"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What better example is there than Israel-Palestine and the media, both sides claim the media is bias against them, they talk about it a lot, it's current, and I have access to non-west media on the subject. I don't care if you're a zionist, I don't care how much you try to insult me, I'm going to try and give the best answers I can. If the best answer involves information about Israel I'm not going to edit out Israel out of fear you're going to attack me again. Public awareness (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Using every and any subject as an occasion to launch into a generic boilerplate pre-canned anti-Israel tirade says a whole lot more about you than it does about Israel. AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The following governments/leaders were talked about above: North Korea, South Korea, US, Nicaragua, Israel, Palestine, Hitler, Stalin, China, Iraq. I replied to you only about Israel because its obvious that's all you care about censoring, and it worked, you came out an stated yourself it was only the Israel part you hate. You don't try to argue Israel and media bais is not similar to Korea and media bias because you can't, so instead of arguing the facts you start throwing insults. "Using every and any subject" - check my contributes to topics at the reference desk and realize you're making shit up to harass me. Don't ever harass me or anyone else again about Israel. Public awareness (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- you were the one who has been reprimanded for "soapboxing on the Reference Desk with irrelevant material", and as long as you keep being "a little too fond of aggressive polemical statements which are clearly not always backed up by facts" you will continue to create difficulties for yourself. AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What time is it

In Polybius 10.12 it says he began the assault at about the third hour. What time would that be? How did you figure that and do we have an article that explains that?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The hour was "one twelfth of the time from sunrise to sunset. As a consequence, hours on summer days were longer than on winter days, their length varying with latitude."

"Sunrise was always exactly at the beginning of the first hour (the zero hour), noon at the end of the sixth hour and sunset exactly at the end of the twelfth hour. This meant that the duration of hours varied with the season."

"Ancient Egyptians used sundials that "divided a sunlit day into 10 parts plus two "twilight hours" in the morning and evening."

The third hour was three hours after sunrise.
Sleigh (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We don't seem to have an article about Roman measurement of time, but we do have articles about Catholic liturgical hours, which are pretty much the same as Roman measurements. Terce explains it briefly. The "third hour" is 9 am, counting from the beginning of the day at 6 am (sunrise, generally, although of course not literally). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Then would noon (12:00 p.m.) be "midday", which would be 3 hours after 9 a.m.?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, normally. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusingly, the English word "noon" comes from "nones" - the ninth hour, which was half way between midday and sunset. The OED says "N.E.D. (1907 ) suggests that the change in the time denoted by noon , from about 3 o'clock to about 12 o'clock, probably resulted from anticipation of the ecclesiastical office or of a meal hour." --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In March, July, October, May

The ides fall on the fifteenth day

The nones the seventh; all besides

Have two less days for nones and ides

What does this have to do with nine? --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

None, not Nones. Rmhermen (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Counting backward (inclusively) from the ides, the nones are the ninth day. —Tamfang (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, in the Faroe Islands noon is still 3 P.M. Deor (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In Livy 26.45 it says It was about midday, and not only was the falling tide drawing the water seaward... So what time is this then?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with midday? The part about the tide tells us, to a first approximation, that the Moon is moving toward the horizon (away from either zenith or nadir). —Tamfang (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Suspended sentences in Japan

I noticed that in Japan, people may be given jail sentences of a particular period of time, "suspended for x years." What exactly does that mean - does it mean that the offender would report to jail upon the completion of the suspension period, or would the sentence be vacated if the offender behaves properly during the suspension period? 98.116.67.99 (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See suspended sentence. -- kainaw™ 17:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a probationary period length during which the prison sentence can be re-imposed if any arbitrary conditions set by the judge are violated. After that, the offender can't be sent to jail without a new trial or conviction. 69.171.160.229 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning that such sentences seem to be very common in the UK as well, with the headline sometimes being that the convicted "avoids jail". A random search for this week's usage of suspended sentences gives some ideas of the sorts of circumstances in which they are handed out - first three; [5] [6] [7] The circumstances of the defendant (e.g. advanced age), likelihood of re-offending, remorse etc., are often contributing factors. Also seems in use in Switzerland [8] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Degoyification, or How I learned to stop schpitzing and love the Chickpea.

The tiitle should say it all, but just in case, I will spell it out. I recently read in an article on YNet that there is some odd secular ceremony whereby a goy might become a member of the Jewish People [9]

Hiddush's State and Religion Index reveals that 39% of the respondents believe the State must only recognize Orthodox conversions, 32% are in favor of recognizing any religious conversion from Israel and abroad (including Conservative and Reform conversions), and 29% are willing to accept secular conversions as well, including studies and a ceremony of admission into the Jewish people.

What is this secular conversion? I have never heard of such a thing. How does it work? Anyone know? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 20:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. How is it different than, say just becoming a naturalized citizen of the state of Israel? --Jayron32 20:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha, funny one Jayron. We both know there is a difference between becoming an Israeli (something anyone can do either through regular naturalisation, the Law of Return, or the special citizenship program offered to East Jerusalem Palestinians; and becoming a Jew (I have heard of converting to the Jewish religion, but never a ceremony that actually makes someone a member of the Jewish people). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 20:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe walking backwards under the Arch of Titus?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This comment is as a grammarian and not as someone who knows anything about this subject, but the way the statement is phrased makes me think that these secular conversion is hypothetical. If it were an established tradition or ceremony, the sentence probably wouldn't include that last clause with all the explanation, and instead of being called "a ceremony of admission", I'd expect the ceremony would have a specific name. So, I think Jayron32 may be in the ballpark. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but YNet's writers aren't exactly native-level when it comes to English. It seems like there must already be such a type of ceremony planned and laid out. It is explained,I think, because many haven't heard of it and the idea of a secular conversion sounds odd. :p There might not be an English name for it and the Hebrew name might be obscure to anyone except Hebrew speakers (who could probably get the idea from the shoresh). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly rocket science. Goyim need to be converted--i.e., qualify for a Bar Mitzvah. The uncircumcised need to be snipped. Those like me whose mother' mother's mother was Jewish simply need a mikvah. No chickpeas involved. See George Robinson's Essential Judaism. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a regular religious conversion to me my good miss, especially given that the snipping is to seal the covenant with Yahweh. :p One who does not accept the noble chickpea in their life is doomed to wander aimlessly when he or she dies as a troubled spirit, asking themselves why they never partook of Humus or falaffel (sane explanation: that bit was a joke about how much people in the ME love falaffel and hummus). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Except there's a big difference between Humus and hummus. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I am a fan of Cicero, but that ain't what makes me a wayward Jew; the blood does. Jews by blood do not need to be converted, just mikvahed. (Already "medically" circumcised males also need a ceremonial prick pin-pricking.) They get a pass. Mitzvahing, a more strenuous requirement placed on Goyim who wish to convert, can come later for Jews who qualify by maternal bloodline. μηδείς (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's] a "humanistic" American rabbi who claims to believe in secular conversions: "Generally, the process begins with a course of study and immersion in Jewish culture that culminates in a ceremony of affirmation"; he says you can contact him for more details. Here's an article from Ha'aretz about plans in Israel in 2007 to formulate a ritual, and another from 2008 on plans to allow courts to perform non-religious conversions, but they don't seem to have reached any conclusions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well folks, I have the answer, which is something that Colapeninsula touched on. Before the first night of Rosh haShana began, I looked up the secular conversions and then that led me to Secular Judaism. After a few initial "wtf's" when I dug deeper, I think I got the concept. To put it simply it's Judaism without God. It's kind of like Buddhism in that it's a guide to life, way of life, etc (however one is meant to think of Buddhism), but without worship of a deity. Guess it's for atheists that like our style. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Tishrei 5772 23:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In the above I am reading reference to "Judaism without God", and "worship of a deity", but Judaism doesn't require or necessarily involve belief in God:

"It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." [10] Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's ethnoreligiously as opposed to just religious practice, sorta. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 00:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Orthodox are "religious".

You are saying "That's ethnoreligiously as opposed to just religious practice, sorta."

The site says, "The information in this site is written predominantly from the Orthodox viewpoint…"[11]. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There's your problem; you're talking to a Reform Jew my good sir. I don't get your point about the Orthodox here though (I get that they run jewfaq). We're talking about the faith of Judaism, which is separate from being Jewish. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 02:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Google is suggesting that "schpitzing" is a variation of "schvitzing". Is that correct, as per your section heading for this thread, or is it a separate term with a different meaning? I'm just trying to understand your point of view better—no offense is intended by anything that I post, I can assure you. Bus stop (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was basing it off German phonetically. I don't speak Yiddish next, but I meant it to mean procrastinating, and the section name is meant to relate to this famous film as a joke that is almost entirely unrelated to the actual subject. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Aborted" Chinese invasion of Taiwan

Our article section Korean War#China intervenes (October – December 1950) states rather matter-of-factly:

On 4 August 1950, with the PRC invasion of Taiwan aborted, Mao Zedong reported to the Politburo that he would intervene in Korea...

What?? What PRC invasion of Taiwan? The island battles of 1949-1950 (like the Landing Operation on Hainan Island) couldn't be what this is talking about. Was there some mobilization that we need an article on? Or were these just some plans that got canceled rather than an invasion that got aborted? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, China never tried to invade Taiwan. If it's not sourced and referenced, I'd bin it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mao had been planning to invade Taiwan all through the summer of 1949. While visiting the Soviet Union in December 1949 he attempted to get the Russians to agree to back him in the event of the aforementioned war. In January 1950, Truman announced the US would not get involved if the PRC invaded Taiwan. However in June 1950, Truman reversed course and said the US would keep Taiwan neutral, and moved US forces into the Taiwan strait. (see First Taiwan Strait Crisis for this background; see also this book). This made Mao very uncomfortable and unhappy to say the least, and bolstered his desire to get involved in Korea (which Mao also incorrectly judged the US would stay out of). You have to remember that the PRC was pretty brand new at this point and was trying to show the Soviets it could play with the big boys, and that their initial plans for invasion of Taiwan were for them just a matter of finalizing their civil war, not the kind of "big showdown" that it would later become as a result of the US pledge for Taiwanese neutrality (and their demonstrated willingness to intervene in Asia). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so this answers the question. Plans were cancelled, rather than an invasion aborted. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The outbreak of the Korean war was somewhat unfortunate for the PRC, because in 1950 Chiang Kai-shek's reputation in the United States was not all that great, and few people outside the Clare Boothe Luce circles were very interested in offering unlimited support to Chiang, or risking the lives of American soldiers in backing his schemes. There was some possibility that the Communists could have re-annexed Taiwan without too much fuss in a Tibet-like operation -- but the outbreak of the Korean war led to an immediate drastic change in U.S. government attitudes, and the bringing of Taiwan under U.S. military protection (and also set back PRC-USA relations by 20 years). The Chinese should really blame Kim Il-sung for Taiwan's continuing separate status (though very few of them ever do)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese written language before Chinese influence

Was there a written language for Vietnam before the First Chinese domination? According to that article "Vietnam was a country with written language prior to Chinese influence. Under foreign rule, the Vietnamese people lost their writing system, language, and much of their national identity." But I can't find any information on this pre-Chinese influenced written Vietnamese language.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a fringe claim and should come out of the article. The ancient Dong Son bronze drums carry patterns, and perhaps some people interpret them as forms of writing. The Vietnamese didn't lose their language either. It was heavily influenced by Chinese in a way reminiscent of the way that Old English turned into Middle English under French influence. But the Vietnamese language is alive and well today! Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

September 29

date of birth

Is the resolution of the date of birth one day, one hour, one minute or one second? In other words if someone is born at 11:00PM and enters a bar at 1:00AM can they still order a beer even though the hour of their 21st birth (day) is another 22 hours away? --DeeperQA (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In the U.S., it is the calendar date. If your birth is 12:01 AM on September 1, 2000 and you try to order a beer at 11:59 PM on August 31, 2021 you're 2 minutes too early. Anticipating the followup question, it is the date in whatever timezone the beer is to be ordered in, irrespective of what timezone you were born in. All that matters is the date on your ID, and the date right this second, wherever you happen to be. That means that some people hit their "drinking age" up to almost a day before others, depending on what local time they were born at. It is what it is. --Jayron32 01:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If your ID is a passport from outside America you can drink nearly 11 months early, because Americans think that 1/12/1990 on a foreign passport is January 12th, rather than its actual meaning of December 1st. (My daughter assured me that this worked for her! I wasn't too stressed, because the drinking age here in Australia is 18, so I lost control ages ago.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean intended, not actual meaning. In actuality those are simply little black ink squiggles on cloth. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, those little black ink squiggles on cloth. Nearly as dangerous as unlit pixels on a screen. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the link that Medeis is correcting to "intended", even though I've read this several times.DeeperQA, just imagine the chaos that would result if they tried to base it on time of birth; aside from birth certificates, the average person probably doesn't have any way to verify time of birth, so they'd have to take your word for it, and you know that's not a safe thing when alcohol sales in the USA are concerned. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The link seems to work just fine, although the article is a little convoluted. The point is that things such as written statements only have meaning if they are interpreted in accord with the mental attitude of the communicating people. Written words don't have any meaning as physical objects. In that sense they are only black squiggles. It is as representing people's mental states that they have meaning. For example, IO can be interpreted as signifying the numeral ten, the Jovian moon Io or the Italian word for the first person nominative pronoun. Those are intentional interpretations. But in actuality, it is just a line next to a circle. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That says on-off but what does that have to do with the OP's question. Rmhermen (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian conflict

Was the unfulfilled demand of the Palestinian people to have self-determination the reason for 9/11 and if so would the Arab or Islamic people sympathetic with this Palestinian cause go so far as to acquire a nuclear device and smuggle it into the City of New York or Chicago or LA and detonate it to make their point that self-determination and statehood are their right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeperQA (talk • contribs) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To make it a bit clearer, the answer to DeeperQA's first question is "no" and so all of his followup questions are moot and unanswerable. --Jayron32 02:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DeeperQA -- Osama bin Laden himself never personally really cared all that much about Israel. He sometimes made allusion to it in his rhetoric, but it's quite clear that his main burning grievance was the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil following the 1991 Gulf War -- NOT Israel. AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he talked about Israel as being akin to a Crusader state a few times and cast himself as being like Salah-al-Din (poor Kurds, everyone claims his legacy, but no one helps them, especially not this guy :(). If I remember that correctly from one of our Jerusalem lectures. As for detonating a nuke in one of our major cities. I don't want to think about what the consequences of that would be. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Tishrei 5772 00:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

American foreign policy, which is undeniabley strongly in favour of Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict, was stated to be one of the reasons for attacks on the US. So while Palestine was far from the sole reason, it was one of a hundred straws that led to the attack. For your second question, a non government organization could very well attack the US for its support of the occupation of Palestine. People could attack any nation for any reason if they wanted to.

"In a second fatwā in 1998, bin Laden outlined his objections to American foreign policy with respect to Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War." - from the 9/11 article Public awareness (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, bin Laden would have felt that Saudi Arabia was holy ground being soiled by the feet of infidels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As I recall it was agreed and approved that US Solders while on Saudi soil going way back to the 60's or 70's were subject to Saudi law and not American law - thus the reason for gated compounds in Saudi Arabia which were the exception to this agreement. The briefing came across like the fictional briefing given to troops arriving on Pandora. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My globe may be outdated. I have looked all over it, and I cannot find "Pandora." What are its latitude and longitude? As for nukes, it is only a question of when, not if some nutgroup sets one off somewhere. It is odd that I can find no refs for "self determination" of the "Palestinian people" during the Turkish control or the British Mandate. Edison (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DeeperQA is referring, I believe, to part of the movie Avatar. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The concept of self-determination is relatively modern. The first high-profile exposure of the concept was in Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points speech, however the concept of self-determination there was a Eurocentric one, and didn't really extend in Wilson's mind to all peoples worldwide. However, it got the ball rolling, and the zeitgeist slowly changed through the first half of the 20th century when the concept became an accepted standard in the post-Colonial world. By the time anyone really thought of the sort of "self-determination" that you are asking about, it was during the great independence movements of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. By then, Israel already existed as a state, and did so by disenfranchising a people who already lived there. Which is not to say it is right, which is also not to say that it is wrong, but it is to say that it is. That is why the question of Palestinian self-determination is so wrapped up in Israeli soverignty, and why the idea doesn't make much sense pre-1948. Israel has an unambiguous right to exist and to protect itself, but it also has dealt poorly with the problem of Palestine. Its why the two-state solution has so much traction internationally and within the region, the only tenable long-term solution is a free and independent Palestine alongside a secure and safe Israel. If you can figure out how to do that, there's some folks in Norway that would like to present you with a big shiny medallion... --Jayron32 04:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding nukes' attacks by terrorist, there are a couple of points worth considering: 1. they are not easily available, even functioning countries like Iran seem to have problems producing them; 2. they are not easy to smuggle; 3. they won't necessarily cause that much damage. It depends on many factors like exploding it on the air or surface, wind conditions, etc. Quest09 (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Poor quality weapons are not that hard to make if you have the materials. Making the materials is hard, but stealing them seems like something that could happen. 2. They probably are not all that hard to smuggle. I bet one would fit into the back of a pickup. 3. Even a fizzle would cause a ton of damage if it was used in a populated area. Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1. If you mean a dirty bomb (and not a proper nuke), then yes, they are easy to make. However, they'll cause even less damage. For a real bomb you don't need just radioactive material (that can be easily stole), but something really special. 2. smuggling a pickup from <put here any rough state you are afraid of> into countries like the US or UK is a daunting task. 3. A ton of damage are a couple of cars. Is that what you mean? Quest09 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you read Gun-type fission weapon. Googlemeister (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the article and I am not even a little more scared of a nuclear terror attack. The article states that "The required amount of uranium is relatively large, and the efficiency relatively low." And even if the engineering task is less complex comparing to a modern nuke, remember that even then you'll need a group of engineers that know what they are doing (besides obtaining the uranium). Right at the moment, terrorists, of any kind, weren't even able to detonate a much simpler dirty bomb. So, how high are the chances of a nuclear explosion in NY or London? However, if you really want to know how difficult it is, please go to the sci. RD.Quest09 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

nuclear bomb, Suitcase_nuke, W54. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in these articles that would confirm the nuclear terrorist threat. These articles just explain how the idea that it could happen sneaked into the media. Quest09 (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Far-right politics in Africa

Since far-right political parties are anti-immigrant and eurosceptic, what about far-right politics in Africa? Are there any political parties that are far-right and what is their common trait? anti-white or anti-immigrant or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.191 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Right-left politics is always defined locally, and not globally. Rightist parties are reactionary and backward looking (preserve social order, return to a better time). Leftist parties are progressive and forward looking (improve society, reform, etc.). Whatever those ideas mean where you live will define the local politics on the left-right scale. --Jayron32 04:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it more succinctly, the left-right scale is total bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it just needs to be defined locally, and also defined on a per-issue basis. It doesn't work if you over-extend it. But if party A has a reactionary position on issue 1, then they can be said to be of a "rightist" mindset on that one issue, while if party B has a progressive position on the same issue, then they have a leftist mindset. Where a party is consistantly reactionary, they may be generally described as rightist, and some parties defy easy categorization because they are all over the map WRT their political positions. Such parties could be described as "centrist" (if their positions tend toward the moderate position) or may simply be uncategorizable (if they hold radical, but distinctly different positions). --Jayron32 12:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you define it on a per-issue basis, then it's pointless. The whole point of political groupings is an attempt to show how positions of various issues are correlated. That is, you're saying that people with the same position on one issue probably have the same position on other issues. Terms like "right wing" are only useful to the extent that that is true (which isn't a particularly large extent). --Tango (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, sorry, your proposed definition, though conventional, is total bullshit. There's no such thing as "progressive" or "reactionary". Those terms assume that there's a particular natural direction that the flow of history will naturally go, and some are swimming with the flow and others against it.

Take the early 2000s in the United States, for example, when the Bushies were trying to construct a New American Century, and their opponents were looking back to the Clinton years they saw as better. Clearly the GOP was progressive and the Democratic Party was reactionary, right? --Trovatore (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(For a still-oversimplified, but much more revelatory, way of characterizing political positions, see Nolan Chart.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the Nolan Chart. Its a nice piece of Libertarian Party propaganda which is used to convince everyone they are really Libertarians. Brilliant for that purpose; otherwise its not obviously less bullshit than the one-axis left-right grouping (which has its own bullshittiness, for exactly all the reasons you note). The Nolan Chart is merely two-dimensional bullshit. One could similarly devise a political "cube" which had three political axises, and would be three-dimensional bullshit. It wouldn't be less bullshitty, it would just be more of it. --Jayron32 19:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is, as I mentioned, oversimplified. But yes, it's less bullshit than left-right. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron32, (but noting obvious edge cases like Napoleon III; neo-liberalism (depending on your definition structure of far-right); or, some kinds of fascism which have at times had a generalising concept of compatible modern nationalism. These edge cases could exist in Africa, it appears as though a few people have criticised some forms of pan-Africanism for right wing bents). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging is one example. --Roisterer (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a few other White chauvinist groups in South Africa, like Freedom Front, etc. In general, the only clear examples of far right political movements in Africa have emerged as spin-offs of European movements (white chauvinists in Rhodesia, German Nazis in South West Africa, fascist groups set up under Italian occupation, etc.). The international far right did seek some alliances with people like UNITA in Angola, seen as fighting communism, but there is little evidence to suggest that UNITA actually would have adopted any form of far right ideological approach. On the whole, African politics tend to be quite pragmatic and parties are often not divided along a Eurocentric left-right axis. There are many leftwing movements across the continent, that had clear linkages and identification with Marxist sectors outside Africa, but their opponents were rarely able to construct clear-cut ideological parties. On the whole, the rightwing (not just the far right) has difficulties in finding counterparts in many African countries (parties do join structures like International Democrat Union, but for entirely opportunistic reasons). --Soman (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front is somewhat anti-white, but it also identifies as a left-wing party, so that doesn't really fit. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Vide supra. --Trovatore (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fascism in Africa claims "amongst the indigenous people fascism in its true ideological sense is unheard of" --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a big to me. Just the same it may be true, if by true ideological sense one intends the specific ideological system of Giovanni Gentile et al. But in that sense there are probably few if any true fascists left in the world; that system was specific to a time and place. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of anti-immigrant sentiment in South Africa. See xenophobia in South Africa as well as here, here, and here. There also has been a number of anti-immigrant policies and violent targeted at refugees and immigrants in Ivory Coast - see ivoirité and here, here, and here. Neutrality^talk 03:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Crime prescription

Didn't the alleged high-jacking that George_Wright_(criminal) committed prescribed? Quest09 (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble parsing the grammar of your sentence. Are you asking if it is outside of the statute of limitations? It probably is, unless they indicted him in absentia. In any case, the articles I have read (e.g. this one) say that he still has a nice chunk of time left on his previous sentence, which would carry him along until his was 90 years old by itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right on that: my sentence is convoluted. So would be better: isn't the hijack accusation against George_Wright_(criminal) already prescribed? And yes, I know he has a sentence to serve, besides this hijack. Quest09 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily yes. There are some cases like that of D.B. Cooper where a grand jury indictment was done at the time which keeps it from being outside the statute of limitations. I see no reason to think they've done that in this case though. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As a side note: hijacking planes was much, but much more common at that time (end of the 60's, beginning of the 70's). So, possibly this particular hijacking didn't get all the attention - from the police and judicial system - that it would get today. Wikiweek (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's also because nobody had used a hijacked plane as a suicide bomb before. It ups the ante a bit. Most of the hijackings in the 1970s were like the Wright one: hijack a plane, demand a bunch of money, fly it to Cuba/Algeria/wherever, everyone goes home with an adventure. In a way the rate of terrorism in the 1970s is astounding compared to today (they had hundreds of bombings per year at the height of it), on the other hand, it was also a lot quainter: the body count was very low, at least in the USA. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who, like me, still could not make sense of Quest09's question even after they reworded it, the OED lists a meaning of "prescribe" in Scots law: "Of an action: to suffer prescription (prescription n.1 1); to lapse, to become invalid or void through passage of time. Of a crime, claim, debt, etc.: to be no longer capable of being prosecuted." I conjecture that this is the meaning intended, and that it must be used somewhere else besides Scotland. --ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you can use the word this way. There is no such thing as "crime prescription." There is a Period_of_prescription#Prescription for civil lawsuits, in the sense of a period of time set by law after which a right is unenforceable. However, in criminal law, there is just a statute of limitation. Wikiweek (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The statute of limitations article explains that statute of limitations is the term used in common law countries (that is, most English-speaking ones), whereas prescription is the term used in civil law countries. They don't seem to be very different, so it's not clear why a different word is used.

Still, Quest09, please do be aware that this sense of the word prescribed is likely not to be understood when speaking English. --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm re-rewording: is the hijack accusation against George_Wright_(criminal) already outside the statute of limitations? Quest09 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is it is kind of a complicated question. The statute of limitations for federal crimes (like hijacking) is 5 years. However there are a lot of complicated ways in which this can be rendered irrelevant by clever lawyers. The fact that he is explicitly a "fugitive fleeing from justice" in the hijacking may invalidate any statute of limitations on the crime, but this seems to be a tricky and nuanced legal issue. See [12]. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The link Mr.98 provides gives certain types of terrorism and being a fugitive as possible applicable reasons to stop the clock. Rmhermen (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Africans in Belgium

How many Rwandans live in Belgium? How many Burundians live in Belgium? How many Zairians live in Belgium? and in which cities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.154 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots. Over there *points* -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

On this page is a link to a study that will answer your questions. It is a bit old, but the situation is unlikely to have changed dramatically since its publication. The study is in French, but if you are clever, you can find the information you want without knowing French. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god, are we going to get this stuff again? Looie496 (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would any Rwandans, Burundians, or Zairians want to live in Belgium ... Luxembourg I could understand... but Belgium??? Ok, I apologize to any irate Walloons out there. It was just too good an opportunity to pass up - Blueboar (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian Muslims in the Netherlands

How many Indonesian Muslims live in the Netherlands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.154 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this study, approximately 800,000 people of Indonesian descent live in the Netherlands. This includes Eurasians of mixed descent. The study does not distinguish among Indonesian Netherlanders of different religions. Indonesians who have migrated to the Netherlands are likely to be disproportionately non-Muslim. While Indonesia's population is predominantly Muslim, based on my understanding of the migrant population, the number of Muslims in this group may not exceed 500,000. However, this is pure guesswork on my part in the absence of real statistics. Marco polo (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: OP has asked this question (and variations thereof) numerous times before under different IP's. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What is meant by "Indonesian Muslims living in the Netherlands"? ... Are we talking Dutch Muslims of Indonesian heritage, or are we limiting it to Muslim citizens of Indonesia, currently residing in the Netherlands. Do we count tourists from Indonesia who are Muslim? Should we see check the Dutch Universities to see if there are any American exchange students of Indonesian heritage, who happen to be Muslim? (in short, I don't think we can give a definitive answer). Blueboar (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If these Indonesian Muslims become citizens of the Netherlands, do they stop being Indonesian in the mind of our OP? What if they have kids in the Netherlands? Does he want us to still count them as Indonesian? The same questions apply to the Africans in Belgium above. Or is our OP really just talking about dark skinned people seemingly from somewhere else? HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Many "Indonesians" in the Netherlands are actually Moluccans, who are not usually Muslim, and are not necessarily fond of being referred to as "Indonesian"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Myth of choosing a husband by his feet

I recall when I was young a story about a woman or princess choosing her husband by looking among the feet of suitors. I seem to recall that years earlier, she had placed a ring into a wound into his foot and this is how she found her hero again. I can't find this story anywhere, but it seems like a combination of the story of Skaði and also of Odysseus, with the former having the choosing, and the second having the scar on the foot. Neither has a ring, however. It might not necessarily be a related epic or mythology, but a work of fiction based on mythology. I heard it in 1985, but haven't found it anywhere. Gx872op (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like the story of Hadingus and Regnilda, as told by Saxo Grammaticus in his Gesta Danorum. Our Hadingus page, which doesn't go into enough detail to mention this episode, says that Poul Anderson retells the story in his 1997 novel War of the Gods, but that seems too late for you. --Antiquary (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a translation of Book 1 of the Gesta Danorum here. You'll find the Hadingus and Regnilda episode (translated as Hadding and Ragnhild) about three-quarters of the way down, in the paragraph beginning "Hadding chanced to hear". --Antiquary (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of Cinderella, Robert Graves' The White Goddess, "Fairies Wear Boots" by Black Sabbath, and the Mabinogion. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the myth exactly. Too bad they don't teach this in second grade anymore. I am very familiar with Fairies Wear Boots, but until now I had not made the connection. Gx872op (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Nice find, Antiquary. – b_jonas 16:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Fraud and Common Knowledge

This isn't a request for legal advice, but... In a fraud case, if the misrepresentation of fact is common knowledge, does that still count as a misrepresentation? What if the plaintiff still relied on the misrepresentation even though it was common knowledge? Thanks.--130.166.216.254 (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It would depend upon how common the knowledge was, especially with reference to the position and expectation of savvy on the part of the plaintiff. It's not a question that can be answered in the abstract. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This may or may not contribute toward satisfactory answers, but the questions remind me of Santa Claus and The Emperor's New Clothes.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly confused about whether the fact or the act of misrepresentation is being considered here. Could you give us slightly more concrete example of what you mean? --Mr.98 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Church was sued for claiming to be the legitimate representative of God on Earth. Every misrepresentation can get you in trouble, no matter how evident it is that you are just joking. Wikiweek (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically the case is that a moviegoer goes to a movie and makes sure in multiple ways that the movie starts at 1pm. Not the programme but the actual movie. And then he wants to sue the movie theater for fraud because there are 20 minutes of commercials before the the movie. Now, obviously the fact that there are advertisements or whatever before any feature presentation is common knowledge but suppose that the plaintiff didn't know that. Would that count as a misrepresentation of fact/reasonable reliance as an element of fraud? It's been a while since I took business law...130.166.216.254 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that the movie house has a disclaimer somewhere stating that all showtimes are subject to change without notice. Googlemeister (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We'd need to unpack "makes sure in multiple ways that the movie starts at 1pm." On the face of it, this is not a question revolving around the supposed common knowledge that adverts form the first part of the programme, but - at least according to your narrative - one revolving around exactly what representations, if any, has the movie theatre made to the would be plaintiff that the movie itself would start at 1pm? And, per googlemeister, did any of those representations disclaim the likely disclaimer? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless there was a written or oral agreement that the theater would pay a penalty if they failed to show the movie on time, there was no actionable damage. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

References, please. It's easy to show there would be actionable damages if the theater were 99999 hours late to show the film. One relevant topic is false advertising. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

See quasi-contract. Neutrality^talk 03:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The moviegoer has paid to see the movie. Unless they fail to show the movie, how can there be "fraud"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The moviegoer has paid to see the movie, and the theater decides to show 48 hours of advertisements before the movie actually starts. Surely a judge would say that it is fraud in most countries? --Lgriot (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The first thing the judge would ask is, "Did you ask for a refund of your ticket?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If the answer is "yes," then the second question would be whether you asked for the refund after watching the movie. 69.171.160.77 (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And if you watched the movie, the judge would dismiss the case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And if you hadn't watched the movie, you would have to convince a jury that a quasi-contract (1) existed, (2) was violated, (3) harming you, (4) financially, assuming that the defendant's summary motion to dismiss was not granted. But it would be granted, because no jury who have ever watched a movie would find that, and every judge knows it (that is where the "common knowledge" applies.) 75.71.64.74 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Common currency, uncommon debt

If a US state, but not one of the biggest, much more one as (un)important as Greece in the EU, would start to accrue lots and lots of debt, would the dollar be at risk? Would someone try to expel it from the dollar? Wikiweek (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes to the first, no to the second. Yes to the first for much the same reasons as we see in Europe, of the risks falling on the creditors of the indebted state, and the associated contagion effects. FWIW, I think - especially in terms of pension liabilities of city and state authorities, the US is pretty much there already. The idea that Greece or southern Europe are the only basket-cases would be somewhat delusional. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any references for any of these claims? Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A US state defaulting might create a risk of recession but it would not be likely to have a serious effect on the dollar. Certainly nobody would try to expel it from the dollar -- the only question is whether the federal government would bail it out or allow it to go bankrupt. Most likely the federal govt would bail it out in exchange for taking control of the state's fiscal apparatus -- this is a lot easier than in Europe because the US is much more unified than the EU. Looie496 (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

References, please, not just crystal ball speculation with your opinion when possible. This is a Reference Desk. Although no state has gone bankrupt, counties and cities have; we have a category, Category:Government units that have filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. There have been "under 600" municipal bankruptcies since 1937, according to our article Chapter 9 bankruptcy, which sounds like, well, there have been more than 500. With this history, I don't see why the federal government would bail out a state, particularly when Republicans are in control of one of the two houses of Congress. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note however, chapter 9 bankruptcy is not something available to states and there is no bankruptcy protection available to states in the US. There has been proposals to allow some sort of bankruptcy protection for states but the proposals don't seem to have gotten very far [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Notably states apparently generally don't want the option of bankruptcy protection out of fear it will make things worse by scaring creditors. In other words, there are big differences between states and municiplities under current law. This isn't something I understand or care about that much but from the earlier refs I believe (I made some statements which I not believe wrong which I've removed as no one replied), but as I understand it states can just stop paying their creditors meaning they are effectively bankrupt and as they are soverign, they can't be sued (except as allowed under state law which can of course be changed) to recover debts. Of course if this goes on, this means no one is going to want to lend the state any money. In such a case, it's possible the federal government will step in and put the state into receivership. To put it a different way, a default of a US state's sovereign debt has some similarities to a sovereign default of a national government but the options available to the state are more limited so it may ultimately be necessary for the federal government to step in. For example, as we've been discussing unlike in the Greece case, it's isn't really possible for a US state to give up on the US dollar and start issuing their own currency nor is it likely they will simply be kicked out of the union as could likely ultimately happen with Greece. (However as Mwalcoff has mentioned below the problems for US states tend to be smaller.) Incidentally, as perhaps a reminder against crystal balling [21] Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple things to keep in mind: One, state governments can't generally run budget deficits. They can issue bonds, but they can't pass a budget with $1.50 in expenses for every $1 in revenue the way the federal government can. That limits their overall debt. Two, European countries play a much larger role in the fiscal situation of Europe than do the states in the fiscal situation of the U.S. Most taxes Americans pay go to Washington, but the EU gets only a small portion of the taxes paid by Europeans. So the problems of a single U.S. state government have a much smaller impact on the whole country than, say, the Greek crisis in the EU. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The position of a state in the United States is very different from that of a nation-state in the EU, as Mwalcoff correctly explains. As a result, a state's default, especially the default of a state as relatively insignificant as Greece in the EU, would have little effect on the dollar and would not result in the state's ejection from the "dollar zone". Creditors would simply go unpaid, except for any payment they might be able to gain from a court settlement. A major difference between the EU countries and the United States is that European banks bought massive amounts of peripheral (Greek, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian) sovereign debt, and their solvency rests on the integrity of that debt. US banks are much less dependent on state debt for their capital base, so the default of one or even a few states would not seriously threaten the solvency of major US banks. In fact, there is a historical record of a US state default, that of Arkansas in 1933. Compared to the other economic and financial difficulties of that time, Arkansas's default was so insignificant that many have forgotten it, and it is little more than a historical footnote. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that EU and US states are in a different position when it comes to (accruing, repaying or defaulting) debt. So, in the European scenario, what sense does it make to expel a defaulting country from the currency? A country can always stop lending its funds to governments which won't payback, therefore limiting the damage. But in the case of expelling a country from a currency, it will be in an even more weak position to pay ever its debt. So, where's the advantage? Wikiweek (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was a kind of empty threat to force certain countries like Greece or Portugal to behave (that means, to make them pay their debt and not spend the money elsewhere). Indeed, if they are expelled from the Euro and get a new currency (which will be much weaker), they will have serious problems to repay anything. Quest09 (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Books similar to...

I'm looking for novels similar to Louis Bromfield's The Rains Came. Similar in that they contain a good story in a tropical setting. Thanks in advance! Sadly our article is more about the films than the book. 92.82.124.238 (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The works of Joseph Conrad and Somerset Maugham (especially the short stories in the latter's case) immediately come to mind. Depends what you mean by a "good story" though. Tropical settings are very frequent for espionage and crime novels not otherwise particularly notable for their literary quality. --Xuxl (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! Joseph Conrad's novels set in Indonesia/Malaysia, or Maugham's short story collection The Casuarina Tree seem to be what I'm looking for. As for your comment, yes, I'm not really looking for bad writing/cliche stories just on account of their setting. It's the OP, apparently I have a different IP now :P 92.80.25.54 (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If I was on the rihgt track with the suggestions above, I could add a lot of Graham Greene's novels, set in Africa or the Caribbean and William Boyd's in Africa, for something more contemporary. Rudyard Kipling was one of the originators of that style of fiction, and many of his stories are quite good. --Xuxl (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Those look interesting as well, thanks a heap! I have taken the liberty of fixing your William Boyd link, because it led to a disambiguation page. 92.81.12.224 (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are Alpine regions so rich?

Austria, Switzerland, Bavaria, Northern Italy... --Belchman (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Easily accessible rare mineral resources, difficult terrain for would-be plunderers, and limited opportunities for expensive recreational activities. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A long history of being at the fore-front of technological development, caused by war and private greed, and allowed for by private property laws and education, a climate which made nice homes a necessity (Bushmen in the alps is impossible), law systems, currency, and today, their businesses have a strong foundation and can get into new markets in foreign nations before native businesses have a chance, also see neo-colonialism. No Côte d'Ivoire company could ever out compete Lindt & Sprüngli the way trade rules are currently. Public awareness (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition, perhaps the nature of these mountain areas as waypoints for trade of high value items or technology between different societies, while still not being attractive as lands for over-populated hordes to settle in, may have brought advantages in early history - Ötzi the Iceman was an example of someone passing through while laden with the best technology that the Bronze Age could supply.

And also; did the long-established traditions of Alpine agriculture (alpiculture is also redlinked elsewhere, surely we have an article on this somewhere? - the links from Pastoralism are no help), mainly pastoral farming where the cattle grazed on the pastures high on the Alps during the summer, but were brought down during the winter, give a form of social cohesion that ended up promoting concentrated wealth more so than, say, areas devoted to mass cereal farming such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, or nomadic pastoralism such as Eastern Europe and southern Africa? (As a comparison, some have argued, I think, that the ancient Athenians were forced to be innovative because their land was relatively poor agriculturely; but also drew concentrated wealth and requirements for long term investment from its silver mines and its suitability for cultivation of the olive.) The highly profitable Swiss chocolate industry presumably required ready availability of dairy products. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the word you are looking for is transhumance, "the seasonal movement of people with their livestock between fixed summer and winter pastures". Many regions practice(d) this Heidi-dairy system - not for nothing does Kyrgyzstan bill itself as the Switzerland of Central Asia - but that doesn't necessarily make them rich. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor factor - ready access to water power towards then latter part of the 19th century not only gave cheap hydroelectricity - but in Switzerland and Sweden also spurred the development of world beating electrical engineering industries (comparable to having a world beating computer industry nowadays).

Someone more familiar with the historys might be able to tell you that pre-industrial revolution these places were not specifically rich (if I recall correctly). I'm fairly certain that Austria in the whole (including alpine) areas was and remained quite poor after the industrial revolution.

Yes, Austria-Hungary was kind of poor on average, but as you can see the Austria we know today only makes up a very small part of the old empire which included the land which now belongs to Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Czech republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, and parts of many more. I think the question I answered was more why did European nations develop more than other places in the world. The question of why Austria is doing better than Hungary in many ways is a different question, and could come down to the luck of good leaders, politicians, and business men, or culture. Public awareness (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Are they? I think the OP's question is seriously flawed, as it presumes that Alpine regions are wealthy. One can cherry pick the wealthy ones, but it doesn't mean that the mountains made those areas wealthy. I can name an equal number of very poor, mountainous regions (Appalachia, Tibet, etc.) so I don't think that the premise is a sound one. --Jayron32 02:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought that "Alpine" in English meant in the Alpes region...

...

... --Belchman (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Well, I mean, I suppose it can; it's not completely ridiculous. But the word wikt:alpine in general just means in or of the mountains. --Trovatore (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. The premise is actually not correct. Switzerland is wealthy mainly due to banking and tourism, but the other mentioned countries are all only partly alpine, and the wealthy parts are not the alpine parts. In northern Italy, for example, the wealthy part is the Po river valley, which is flat as a pancake, though surrounded by mountains. Looie496 (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the OP only meantioned Alps nations, I belive he meant Alpine as in relation to the Alps, not mountainous regions; the other definition of Alpine. Public awareness (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to those already mentioned (natural reasons, historical reasons, large banking and tourism sectors) - These are largely knowledge economies. Think about all the luxury goods companies with headquarters in the area (Milan fashion, Swiss watches). Or think about the headquarters of some huge multinationals (pharmaceutical companies like Novartis, or conglomerates like Nestlé, for example). Neutrality^talk 03:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Trade is important. Bavaria has long been a major trading centre due to its location on overland trade routes. In the Rhône-Alpes region of France, Lyon was historically a big trading city involved in silk production and food, but more recently has like Switzerland pursued high-tech industry; geographically it is well-placed for links to Germany, northern Italy, Paris, and the east. Switzerland has got rich by offering banking services to its neighbours. However Austria isn't particularly rich compared to the rest of Western Europe (i.e. the non-formerly-communist nations): its nominal GDP per capita is below Sweden, Netherlands, Ireland, and Norway, amonst others. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is something of a coincidence. I think that each of these regions is wealthier than neighboring regions mainly for a different historical reason. The only thing that the regions have in common is that the Alps have always formed a border between different European culture. Regions in or near the Alps have benefited from their location along or at the ends of trade routes linking these different cultures and from the multiculturality and multilingualism that a location along those trade routes entailed. Entrepreneurs in these regions have thus been able to benefit from innovation in neighboring countries to a greater extent than regions less exposed to foreign ideas, such as central Germany or the interior of the Italian peninsula. Incidentally, however, the same trade-related wealth effect occurs in the Netherlands and other regions along the Germanic-Romance frontier, such as Luxembourg, and it occurs around the main trade entrepots of countries such as England (London) and Denmark (Copenhagen). Marco polo (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think mineral resources (mentioned by 69.171.160.237) are a red herring. Like Neutrality has mentioned, Switzerland makes watches exactly because those don't require much mineral resources. In this respect, they're similar to Japan or Terminus (planet), which also don't have mineral resources and so produce small but technologically challenging devices. – b_jonas 16:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed by economic geographers. The context is the potential "convergence" in wealth of European regions. I recall that it has been argued that it goes back to the medieval trade routes as Colapeninsula said, but can't find the refs I'm looking for at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Argentina nickname

Nickname for Argentina? Looked all over and couldn't find one from a RS. Albacore (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some nicknames with a Google presence, most of them casual or jocular: La tierra de plata, el país argento, la tierra del Che, la tierra del tango, gaucholandia, pampalandia, etc. And naturally there are phrases involving famous Argentines: la tierra de Martín Fierro, la tierra de Borges, etc. See also Allegorical representations of Argentina. LANTZY^TALK 03:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

September 30

Bear Flag Revolt

Is there any external-link (non-Wikipedia) information on the Bear Flag Revolt? 75.6.243.251 (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup... The article gives three external links (and searching "Bear Flag Revolt" on google will give you even more) Blueboar (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Economic inequality and racial tension in China and America

I'm writing a paper in college on the July 2009 Ürümqi riots. The article says the immediate cause was the Shaoguan incident, where some migrant Uighur workers were killed in brawl spawned from a lie told by a disgruntled Chinese worker. I would like to explore what led up to this brawl. I have read some papers that mention the economic inequality between the different regions of China. Naturally, the coastal areas have much higher sources of income due to their part in manufacturing and close proximity to exporting routes. Conversely, Xinjiang has a much lower source of income because it is landlocked and a rougher area. These papers mention people traveling from provinces of low income to provinces of higher income to find work. This would explain why the Uighurs came to Guangdong. This was probably a source of resentment to the Chinese since they might have felt like those jobs could have gone to other Han. Having said this, has there ever been a study that looked at racial tension between the Han and these migrant groups? My Chinese is not advanced enough to read any detailed papers, so I hoping to find some good English papers (or books that mention them).

I would also like to find some sources on economically produced racial tension between Americans and Mexicans as well. I figure this would be a good comparison with the above situation. Thanks in advance to anyone who responds. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What 19th-century ethnic hat is this?

What kind of hat is this? Better yet name the painting that this chromolithograph is based on. Sorry that the image has been collaged over - at least you can see the hats. I feel like I know but now I can't place it. Thanks in advance. Saudade7 02:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A Kokoshnik maybe? Or an Ochipok? There were a wide variety of both of those. It would help to know the ethnicity of the woman in the picture. --Jayron32 03:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron32. I think the hat is more pyramid shaped than those. It almost looks like a pyramid with flaps - but the flaps have been pulled up to the top or something. But again I have no idea! If I knew the ethnicity of the woman in the picture I believe I could figure out the hat! It's very definitely a "type" being represented. Thanks for your help ! Saudade7 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Pyramind shaped hats make me think of Hennins. Maybe this is a short hennin with the fabric pulled up around it? But Hennins went out of fashion about 400 years before your pic... --Jayron32 03:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really pyramidal; it might just have a triangle flap of fabric folded up in front... (Hennins were conical.) AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a Hennin. Why is this hat so hard to identify? Saudade7 15:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Political rivals in UK, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Belgium

Who are the political rivals of Labour Party (U.K.)? Who are the political rivals of PSOE in Spain? Who are the political rivals of Socialist Party in Portugal? Who are the political rivals of Parti Socialiste in France? Who are the political rivals of Socialist Party-Differently in Belgium? Who are the political rivals of Labour Party (PvdA) in the Netherlands? Who are the political rivals of Democratic Party in Italy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.85 (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you go to articles titled "Politics of <blank>" and replace <blank> with the name of the country, you can answer this for yourself without having to have us do all the work for you. For example, a reading of Politics of the United Kingdom would reveal that the primary political opposition the UK Labour Party is the Conservative (Tory) Party. I'll let you find the rest for yourself. --Jayron32 03:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It kind of depends on what kind of rivalry they mean. Social Democratic and Labourite parties haven't been known for their "no enemies to the left" stance. So the Liberals in the UK, or what was Militant / Scottish Socialist Party could count here. In their trade unions, social democrats often face a much harsher rivalry from revolutionary groups than they do in the parliamentary plane. Of course with the way that the Labour Party in the UK have gone, in this sense, their main electoral rival could shortly be the Libdems who occupy similar positions on economic and social issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the whole point is the OP can find this at the "Politics of Whatever" articles themselves. --Jayron32 03:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The rival of the Partido Socialista Obrero Español in Spanish politics is the Partido Popular. --Belchman (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

assassinated archbishop of Paris

IIRC, it may have been in the 1840s that the archbishop of Paris was assassinated by a priest who was one of his subordinates in the Catholic hierarchy. Does anyone know his name or which year it was or details of the story? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Denys Auguste Affre was shot in 1848 but the relevant French Wikipedia article states that it is not clear if the shooting was intentional and that the shooter's identity remains unknown.Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And the next one, Marie-Dominique-Auguste Sibour, was indeed assassinated in 1857 by a subordinate. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2 questions about Philip Kearny

Hello historico-humanitarians ! I translated the article into WP french ( thanks BTW for the substratum) , & I wonder:

- Kearny's is "one of only two equestrian statues at Arlington " : could not find in "Arlington cemetery" whose is the other equestrian statue ... Can you tell ?

- the article about "Kearny cross" does not give any description or .jpg . What did it look like ?

Thanks a lot beforehand for your questions. PS (as a reward :-)) : an english-speaking article I found on the web speaks repetedly of "chausseurs d'Afrique" instead of "chasseurs d'Afrique" . In french, "chausseur" means "shoe-maker" , & is used in style or fashion world only. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Re your first question: There is an equestrian statue of John Dill at Arlington (see the image in the "Death" section of the article). Whether it is the only other equestrian statue there, I have no idea. Deor (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And re your second question: The cross is described here as "a cross patte of bronze, 42 mm. in diameter, bearing the words KEARNEY [sic] CROSS, on a ribbon, and, on the reverse, in one line, BIRNEY'S DIVISION; at the bottom, in very small letters, JACOBUS PHILA. It is attached to an oblong open clasp of fasces and suspended by a red ribbon from similar clasp pin". (The photo on that page is of the earlier "Kearny Medal".) An image of a man wearing what is assumed to be a Kearny Cross can be seen here, if you have access to that particular Google Books page. Deor (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Species facti

If you go to Google Books and type in "Species facti" in the title box in advanced search (remember to turn on "full view only"), a long list of predominantly German books from the first half of the 18th century will appear. They seem all to be books containing trial transcripts between prominent members of the Holy Roman Empire (mainly princes, but also clergy or public institutions, it seems).

My question is which function did these particular publications serve? Were they aimed at the general public, the courts or the emperor? In that period most academical law literature in the HRE would have been written in Latin, so something tells me that the first suggestion may be likely. Suggestions for further reading (in German or English) would be most welcome.

PS: I know that "species facti" is a term in Roman law meaning roughly "the facts of the case", and was used in trials by lawyers when presenting their case, my question is mainly about the history and background of this particular type of publications. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I get the result that you describe only if I start from Google.de. Incidentally, the books that appear when starting the search from .de are all or mostly in German, although they contain this Latin phrase. If I start from Google.com with my US IP address, I get a list of publications, mainly in English, dealing with court cases over the last three centuries, many of them in Scotland. In both cases, the publications are clearly aimed at a readership with a juristic or legal background. The German-language publications at the top of the search list, when starting from the .de site, all have species facti in their titles. They also tend to have very long titles, as many publications did at that time. I suspect that the term species facti is simply much less likely to occur in the more succinct titles of more modern German legal publications. As to why most of the publications in the search list deal with matters involving corporate or princely entities in the Holy Roman Empire, I would guess that, in the HRE, with its hundreds of distinct polities, each with its own law code, only legal cases at the highest level of jurisdiction would have merited the expense of printing, since they might have been purchased by court and legal offices across the empire, whereas lowlier legal cases, involving, say, the peasant who stole a piglet from his neighbor, would have been handled by the lone court in the tiny Grafschaft (county) that had jurisdiction, where a manuscript would have sufficed as a record, since any precedents would apply only in that court. Marco polo (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Money Order

Let's say a person obtains a $500 money order from a grocery store. She then sends it to her sister, being me, with a letter. I then run the letter and $500 money order through the paper shredder and it all becomes small pieces, because as sisters I basically hate her. I do not want anything from my sister, even if she wishes to give me money. She then calls me and asked if I got the letter and $500 money order. I tell her no. At this point I see she is out $500, which is my revenge. Can she get a refund on the money order, now or anytime? Especially since it will never be cashed now! I am always going to say I never received it.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It would depend in which country your sister is and what type of money order it was; in Canada you can get refunds on Canada Post money orders subject to certain conditions[22] (see under Enquiries in that link). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

She is in Arizonia and bought it from a local grocery store. I am in Ohio. She mailed me the letter and money order. But then what if I was lying and really did not destroy the money order and decided to cash it some 2 or 3 months later after she obtained a refund. The grocery store is then out $500.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. If the money order was refunded because it was reported as lost or destroyed then most likely it would have been cancelled and would no longer be valid. So when you try to cash it, it would be rejected. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To give specific information, the type of money order must be known. For example, is it a Western Union money order? Every company that handles money orders includes very specific rules about them. -- kainaw™ 13:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is a great policy of the ref desk to answer questions on how to most efficiently be a jerk. Googlemeister (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious that this question is really about how to get a money order, get a refund, and then cash the money order. -- kainaw™ 13:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You can rest assure that no company will ever let you get away with something which literally duplicates your money. Wikiweek (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not really trying to beat the system. Us sisters just do not get along and I really want my sister to be out the money, not the store. I was thinking that perhaps there may be a time delay BEFORE she could get a refund, just to make sure the money order was not cashed. It must take some time for the money order to work its way back to the grocery store that issued it in the first place. I'm not trying to beat the store, just my sister.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Western Union offer refunds, all subject to a processing fee and approval, even if the order and receipt are both lost; it will take up to 30 days to get the refund with the receipt or 8 weeks without, and you have to send away to Western Union offices, you can't get it at the place of purchase. If the order has already been cashed, the purchaser will receive a copy of the cashed money order instead.[23] I recommend cashing the money order and then burning the money. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh? If you have cashed that money order your sister would be out of the money for sure. And if you don't get well along, why did she send you money? Anyway, this all seems like women's logic to me...Wikiweek (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted to make more of a statement, you should have identified a charity that she hates, like the charitable department of the Roman Catholic Church or the Reformed Church of Satan or the Church of Bob or somewhere in between, and signed the check over to them by writing in the endorsement area "Pay to the order of Reformed Church of Satan" and signing it, and asking them to send her a nice thank you note for her donation. 98.99.202.6 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiweek: it's not women's logic. I think I understand it, even though I'm a man. You just need sufficiently annoying family to understand it. If OP accepts the order from her sister, then sister can later try to call in some favors (possibly non-monetary), saying “I helped you when you were in need, just remember that grocery money order, you are so cruel to abandon me now when I'm in need”. If OP thinks this is the case, then it makes sense if OP refuses the money order or pretend to not have received it, preferably in such a way that this can even be proved. If the sister is also out of the money, that could be a bonus. – b_jonas 19:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I can understand rejecting the money order, but pretending to not have received it and the desire to ensure the sister doesn't get a refund, that to me suggests more then 'annoying family' but a rather severe breakdown in the relationship whatever the cause/s. I agree it isn't just a female thing although the pretending to not have received it may be partially an attempt to avoid confrontation which is probably more common among females. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There may be a time delay, but I don't see how that that stops her getting a refund, it just means it will take a while. However in the modern computerised and networked world, there's a fair chance the money orders are all electronic anyway. Some stores may have time limit, in that she'll only be able to get a refund for a few weeks or months but I wouldn't count on these even if you find their official policy. Particularly again in the modern computerised and networked world, it's fairly likely the store will know for a long time whether the money order was ever cashed. In that case, they may be willing to bend their official policy particularly if your sister gives her own story about how she was just trying to do a good thing and you tried your best to punish her. (I know a store here in NZ where their store vouchers are marked as expiring in a year but when I enquired about some nearing expiry they said it didn't really matter and when I did try to use them after they had expired the person was at first unsure but when I showed them the email they processed them without problem.) As with 98.99, I suggest your best bet is to give the money away and tell her you've done so. If you really want to be cruel give it to a charity or someone you know she doesn't like/wouldn't support. If it's possible to give the money order away itself (while it still being able to be cashed) then I guess all the better. Note that if you are able to stop your sister getting a refund without cashing the money order, it just means you've given the store or whoever manages the money orders the $500 anyway (although what they do with unclaimed moneys may vary). BTW just to repeat what others have said above, if she gets a refund no one is going to be out of money (not counting the processing etc), if you attempt to cash it you almost definitely won't succeed. The store isn't out of money due to the original refund because the $500 was never theirs. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you 12 years old? This is quite a despicable thing to do. Rather then spending your time trying to ensure your sister loses $500 and plotting various other forms of revenge, why not spend time trying to repair your relationship? Astronaut (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Who was the first to stand at the South Pole?

In a couple of months it’ll be the centenary of the Amundsen’s expedition’s reaching of the South Pole for the first time. This was a triumph of organisation and personal endurance and quite rightly occupies the ‘first to reach the South pole’ entry in history books.

The South Pole marker at Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station

If you’re lucky enough to visit Scott/Amundsen base today one of the first thing’s that you’ll do is visit the official South Pole marker, a silver globe, which is the carefully surveyed point at which the lines of longitude converge (it gets shifted slightly once a year to allow for the movement of the glacier upon which A-S base sits). You can get your photo taken next to it and, I imagine, you might not feel as though you’ve ‘been to the pole’ until you’ve been there.

So who was it that first actually stood upon that spot, the mathematical South Pole?

Reading around what I have been able to discover is this:

Amundsen and his team reached the approximate location of the pole on December the 14th 1911 and set up a tent base, which they named Polheim. They had little time and inadequate equipment (the theodolite had been broken during the journey) to identify where the pole actually was. Given this they decided to 'box' the pole, marking a 10 mile square around where they believed the pole was and skiing grid lines across it. After this they spent a few days taking careful readings, moving forward to their newly calculated pole position and skiing more grids.

Hjalmar Johansen, in Arctic clothing during Nansen's Fram Expedition 1893–96

It was later calculated that Polheim was, at the time, about 5.5 miles from the mathematical pole and that one of Amundsen's team members, Helmer Hanssen, was the one who skied closest, getting to a couple of hundred metres. Amundsen himself may never have got closer than a kilometer.

Scott and his team got as far as the Polheim tent and, as they now realised that they had been beaten and were in poor shape, turned round and started for home.

Nobody returned to the pole for about 45 years until Admiral Byrd led an airborne expedition in 1955. His flight landed in the general vicinity of the pole to scout for the setting up of a permanent base the following year - the International Geophysical Year. The IGY base was intended to do some science, but was mostly to beat the Russians.

So who got to plant their footprints on the official, geographical pole first? Well, you could make a case for it being an American, Lt. Dick Bowers (I don't think that he was any relation to Scott's Bowers), who on November the 20th 1956 led the airdropped team that was tasked with identifying 90 degrees South with modern instruments.[24] He may have been the man who erected the first marker, which seems to have been a bamboo cane. Paul Siple, the expedition's chief scientist, apparently took the first silver globe, originally a photographic lens for taking atmospheric pictures.

Are there any other candidates for or opinions about who got there first?

BTW, I’m not trying in any way to belittle Amundsen’s enormous achievements here, which are historically unimpeachable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakkandekka (talk • contribs) 12:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Get a copy of the current National Geographic, which has a lengthy story about Amundsen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Speculation is not Wikipedia's role. HiLo48 (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if this appears as speculation (which certainly has no place in the main Wikipedia), it wasn't intended as such. Perhaps a shorter way of asking the question might be "Who was the first to survey and mark the location of 90 degrees south to within a metre?".Blakk and ekka 13:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you look for that National Geographic yet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this from the September issue? Good article but, alas, no help with this particular question. Blakk and ekka 15:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's just the first part of the article. I'll see if I can find my hard-copy and get back later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That may help, but I still say we have to speculate. No matter where people first plonked their tent, or shed, or whatever, and where they "officially" were, folks will at times headed off from that base into the blizzard temporarily for a toilet stop, or for some other informal reason. Even if you can identify who was the first officially there, maybe someone else had a wee there first. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I found the magazine. NG treats Amundsen and his team's reaching the pole as a given fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no single point clearly defined as "The Pole", but rather an area in which the "theoretically correct" location is approximately calculated to be, and where the marker has now been placed, most people would agree with National Geographic. I don't think the "within a metre" is a realistic definition because it depends on the model of the geoid and reference ellipsoid currently in use. In future, someone might ask for centimetre accuracy, and that really would be ridiculous. Dbfirs 09:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Works on the attitude of Islam towards modernization

Could you please recommend me some up to date books or articles on the attitude of Islam towards modernization. I should appreciate scientific works in English, French, German or Russian on how Islam as a religion regards scientific, technical and social progress and on how Islamic mentality incorporates new ideas. I should also be thankful for works on the so called Euroislam or European Islam. So far works by Mohammed Arkoun and John Esposito have been most useful for me.95.105.75.136 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This article has some good statistics. Women in Islam#Further reading has a lot of books. 69.171.160.77 (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Jim Al-Khalili has presented a series for the BBC on Science and Islam. He has a website and a blog, and I'm sure if you approach him he will assist. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Try some of the people and organisations listed at Liberal and moderate movements within Islam. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your question is so broad and general that it's hard to answer with any specificity. One innovation which was conspicuously slow to gain acceptance in a number of Muslim regions was moveable-type printing -- the Ottoman Empire banned printing in its territory of works in Arabic script, or intended for an audience of Muslims, until the early 18th-century, and traditionally-minded Islamic legal-religious scholars in Egypt etc. often didn't fully accept the use of printing for Islamic religious purposes until the late 19th-century. Islamic quasi-movements with a "modernist"-friendly orientation include Islam Hadhari and Islamization of knowledge. You should be aware that the "Liberal and moderate movements within Islam" have had rather little influence overall within the Arab world (though sometimes influential elsewhere). AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I recommend What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East by Bernard Lewis as one possible work on the topic. — Lomn 22:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Black horseshoe ring

Does Black horseshoe ring really works? I have studied a bit in internet about it. Some people claimed that it works. If it was useless then it wouldn't have been used by people. Has anyone in WP used it and benefited from it?--180.234.122.137 (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Luck charms do not work. Any implication that they work in any way is based on a combination of increased confidence and bias sampling. -- kainaw™ 16:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• So I assume that you don't have any belief on it.--180.234.122.137 (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Belief does not enter into it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We are scientific here on the Reference Desk (yes, even here on the Humanities desk). If a double-blind scientific test were to show repeatedly that a certain type of luck charm worked, then we would change our minds. 98.99.202.6 (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious. How do you do a double-blind test for luck charms that controls for the placebo effect? Surely you need a "luck charm" that your placebo group thinks works and you know doesn't, and moreover is indistinguishable from a real one... 95.150.19.195 (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If I may, what is the OP talking about? Black horseshoe rings are either unknown to me or the phrase is poor grammar that I don't fully understand. Dismas|^(talk) 19:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a ring, like you wear on your finger, with a horseshoe emblem. Google it. OR, look in the archives for the very same question, a couple of weeks ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago it was not about black horseshoe rings. Quest09 (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As for "If it was useless then it wouldn't have been used by people", that's flatly untrue, as was demonstrated by centuries of bloodletting, which was not only useful but actually damaging. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Or for that matter, the fad known as the Pet Rock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Further to the points, there could well be an effect (as stated) that it does help your life through confidence, etc. We treat plenty of mental health problems, such as depression, whose mental effect is the important part. Solving that could make all the difference. (I agree with the scepticism of actual effects.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Then the right place to send the OP is to placebo effect, which was mentioned earlier but without a link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is America claimed by some (maybe many) Americans and even still by some non-Americans, based from my personal experience overseas, to be the greatest country on earth?

There was a time when some people in the U.S and in the world marveled at some of America’s accomplishments, achievements, and progress. The U.S was number 1 in breaking almost every record of accomplishments, achievements, and progress. The U.S was seen by some countries around the world, especially by its enemies, as a competition in these areas plus in many other things. However, it seems that near the start of the 21st century, the U.S started to lag behind in the competition.

China & Japan now have the longest bridges in the world. The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway used to hold that title until recently. China also has the world’s highest bridge, the Beipanjiang River 2003 Bridge, surpassing the Royal Gorge Bridge in Colorado. The Burj Khalifa in Dubai is now the world’s tallest skyscraper. The Willis Tower & the Empire State Building were once the world’s tallest skyscrapers. The city with the most skyscrapers, & as a result, the most extensive skyline on earth is now Hong Kong. NYC used to hold that record. London has now become a major business & financial center that now ranks above NYC. Today, none of the top 10 of the world’s most livable cities are in the U.S, my country. China manufactures much of the world’s products now. Almost everything I see literally, even American flags, is now “Made in China,” not “Made in the U.S.A.” Politicians in the U.S have been arguing that stuff should be made again in the U.S. America's credit rating has recently been downgraded from AAA to AA+. Mexico’s unemployment rate now stands at around 5% in contrast to America’s unemployment rate of 9.1% that we in the U.S hear a lot on the news. Some people in the U.S have been asking: What happened to the American dream? France now beats the U.S as the world’s most visited country by international tourists. Paris & London now beat NYC as the most visited cities on earth. A bunch of countries mow beat America’s education system now.

To some non-Americans, especially in 3rd world countries, the meaning of America being the greatest, or should I say the best, country on earth may take on a different meaning as in “roads made of gold” kind of thing. They expect the U.S to have the biggest, the longest, the best, the coolest, and the most amazing things. I’m saying all this based on some testimonies I’ve heard, on some things I’ve seen on TV, & on my travels to the Dominican Republic every summer to visit family members & friends. Now, I still believe that the U.S, my country, is the greatest country on earth, but I find that the title is becoming harder & harder to defend, so why is America claimed by some (maybe many) Americans & even still by some non-Americans, based from my personal experience overseas, to be the greatest country on earth if the U.S is now lagging behind in the world on many things? Willminator (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm no great America lover, I'd much rather live right here in the UK. However, what you've done is take each US claim and find some other country that beats it; instead, you need to find one particular country to take the US' place as number one. It's a case of whether they are across the board (majoritively) better. Mexico is crime-ridden; the UK lacks the military capability, world standing and population; China has sub-America standard of human welfare, and rights (at least from the US perspective). If you're going to convince someone that their country is not number one, you have to provide a specific alternative. Partly, of course, this is an American attitude thing (certainly I have problems with it) but it's probably justified, for now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most relevant article is American exceptionalism. It's a story that is sold to children at a young age, parroted endlessly by politicians of all parties (with any dissent from the narrative being viewed as essentially traitorous), and all suggestions to the contrary (whether fact-based or not) are denounced as anti-American or Communist or Fascist or what have you (further posts in this thread will likely serve as evidence of this). It's a potent meme, we might say, and one which has both fueled a lot of relatively good American things (Next stop: the Moon!) and bad things (Next stop: Iraq!). "Greatest country on Earth" is not a real title; it's just feel-good nonsense, half-warmed over from the Cold War, when it was important to convince the American people to fund a huge amount of things, and to convince other nations that they should be our friends and not the Soviet Union's. It's clear to any honest and clear-eyed observer that the world has been changing a lot since the Cold War, and that in many respects America has lost a lot of positioning — political, economic, moral, what have you — that used to make it seem so exceptional. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as you can list negative anecdotes. There are many positive anecdotes. How about an average kid from a non-notable family in Hawaii becoming President? It doesn't have to be so extreme. I talked to a woman from Nigeria once who told me that she's been poor in Nigeria, she's been poor in France, and she's been poor in America. By far, being poor in America is better than anywhere in the world. All in all, it is the melting pot aspect of American culture. Anyone can come to the United States and be an accepted citizen. There are those who will purposely refuse to be "melted" into the culture and have difficulty with acceptance, but that is by choice, not be design. Consider China and Japan (which you mentioned). If I were to move to China or Japan, I would never be accepted as Chinese or Japanese. My children wouldn't. My children's children wouldn't. Therefore, the American dream doesn't translate to China or Japan. Someone in Nigeria won't see them as great lands of opportunity as they see the United States. -- kainaw™ 18:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well to break down and counter a few of the points you have made, in terms on engineering (longest bridge, tallest building etc), these in and of themselves are something that are interesting, but not especially important in the grand scheme of things in terms of greatness of a country. I would imagine that less then half of Americans could even tell you where the Pontchartrain Causeway is despite it holding the record for more then 30 years, but more could tell you where the much shorter Golden Gate or George Washington Bridge is. London always has been a major business and financial center, and defeated New York by 1 point in 774 so there is only a minor difference. China makes a vast number of products it is true, but only because the relative standard of living between China and the US makes it cheaper to make the products there. If politicians want those things made in the US, all they have to do is raise tariffs on imports (though the change would take a while to sort itself out). Additionally, you cite that the US has a credit rating of only AA+, but China has a lower credit rating of AA-. Mexico might have an unemployment rate around 5%, the the standard of living for the majority of the employed in Mexico is apparently low enough that Mexican citizens are abandoning their jobs to come work in the US, so it seems very difficult for me to consider your argument as valid. It seems you are using arbitrary measurements to find individual nations to beat the US in single areas while not considering the whole. To put it into perspective, that is like trying to say that the San Fransisco Giants are not the 2010 baseball champions because the Texas Rangers had a better season batting average, the Toronto Blue Jays hit more home runs and the New York Yankees made fewer fielding errors. Googlemeister (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Mexico may have 5% unemployment but that is partly because 10% of Mexicans live in the United States (and the money they send home is the #2 source of foreign currency after oil sales)[25]. And it is possible that illegal drug exports to the U.S. outrank both those official sources. The Burj Khalifa may be the tallest building in the world today but the U.S. pioneered the technology over 100 years ago and stopped building super-tall buildings ourselves forty years ago. The company that designed the Burj is the same Chicago firm that designed the Willis Tower. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that America has long since stopped having the need to build giant phallic buildings in order to "prove" itself would actually seem to be a point in America's favor, not the other way around... --Jayron32 19:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose one could argue that we don't need to. It's no longer necessary to have all your corporate employees be in one massive building due to the ease of use of the Internet and email. Dismas|^(talk) 19:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And it certainly helps in that department to have a lot fewer corporate employees, no? --Mr.98 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Were we supposed to read the first three massive "wall o' texts" before commenting? I would like to point out that last I checked, we still have the best Air Force and Navy. That's really all you need. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Tishrei 5772 23:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And ICBM's are quite phallic.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

See List of top international rankings by country

and Because Every Country Is The Best At Something.

(The heading “America allegedly greatest country” is adequately brief and adequately informative.)

—Wavelength (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The US is better at sports, and growing up, we all learned that sports is more important than everything else in this world much to the chagrin of those of us in chess club. Gx872op (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Claims like "greatest country on earth" are pretty ridiculous. It depends on what you consider great. If we are looking at classical ideas about glory and power, the US certainly was (and maybe still is) the greatest power in the late 20th Century. Great powers like this tend to wax and wane in a cyclical manner. Before the US, Britain was the greatest power, before them Spain and so forth. Thomas Cole made his interesting artistic series about this idea nearly 200 years ago, but The Course of Empire is still pretty applicable. I'd imagine that in sometime (I wouldn't want to make any estimates) the US will no longer be refereed to as the greatest country in the world outside of patriotic myopia. Someone once said told me that except for the past 500 years, the history of the world is the history of China and we'll be seeing a return to norm soon. Not sure if I agree, but interesting to think about. --Daniel 21:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Collective narcissism I deem. You can be sure that any country that had a genuine claim to be 'best' wouldn't advertise it, because they'd be quietly assured of themselves and would know they'd only come off as arrogant and preposterous. Vranak (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Soviet Union is better. →Σ ⚑  ☭  00:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? Because it doesn't exist anymore? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

When some people who have been born and raised in poor, 3rd world countries like Haiti think about the greatness of America in the world, they think about not only of a land of opportunities and freedoms, but of America having the biggest, coolest, most impressive, best, etc. stuff in the whole world. When some find out the contrary, or what seems to be contrary, for some of those things, they get surprised and wonder if America is really that great. It seems that for some in undeveloped countries, those little things I mentioned in the mother thread plus more do matter to them. I may be wrong, but that has been my experience travelling overseas like to the Dominican Republic, and hearing testimonies of people who have been in poor or developing countries. Why do some people in some countries have that mentality and assumption included when they hear Americans and others saying that America is the greatest country on earth (which as an American I still do believe personally)? Edit: Thanks for all the answers you've all provided to me. They are very helpful. Willminator (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hauntings in Ireland

What are the most haunted buildings or areas in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.171.4 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

None. There are no such things as ghosts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

But I believe in supernatural stuff and the question I ask does have historical and religious significance. --86.45.159.165 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

See Category:Reportedly haunted locations in Ireland. And Wikipedia:WHAAOE, of course. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Karl Rove and his involvement in the group "Concerned Citizens of America"

What is Karl Rove's involvement in the political action group "Concerned Citizens of America." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inthelightphotos (talk • contribs) 23:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember hearing that name as a Super PAC but I don't remember the details. 75.71.64.74 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 1

who were the slaves in Rome?

A while ago, in a context that doesn't matter, I wrote "there were black slaves in ancient Rome but, I imagine, not many." Finding that in my archives, I wonder — and Slavery in ancient Rome doesn't tell me — do estimates exist of the ethnic breakdown of the slave population? How many Gauls, how many Greeks, how many Germans,...? If the answer is "no solid answer is possible" that's fine too. —Tamfang (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that there are no real solid statistics, but there are some indications of the main regions from which slaves originated (though this could temporarily shift depending on the military victories of the moment). AnonMoos (talk)

And incoming trade with neighboring empires/kingdoms/colonies as well. "Nubians", for example, could have been bought from slave markets in Egypt or Carthage. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A paper called "The Roman Slave Supply" by Walter Scheidel tends to confirm everything that's been said so far, especially about the extent of the uncertainties involved. Scheidel thinks North Africa was one of the major sources of Roman slaves in the 2nd century BC (p. 13), but he doesn't otherwise mention Africa very much. His main conclusion on their origins (p. 14) is:

The Black Sea region and the Caucasus had been well established as a major source of slaves since the archaic Greek period...and this tradition continued into late antiquity. Together with free Germany, that northeastern periphery must have accounted for most imports once the Roman empire had reached its maximum extension. Black slaves from as far away as Somalia and the occasional import from India made for comparatively rare but consequently high-prestige retainers.

--Antiquary (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Livy 26.47 talks of turning 2000 Spanish artisans (also in Polybius 10.17) into slaves and other able-bodied population (I assume he means Spanish) into slaves for rowers. All this happened in 209 BC at the capture of New Carthage in Spain.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

While there was a steady but limited commercial supply of slaves from the Black Sea region, and perhaps the rare import from the upper Nile, most slaves would have come from wherever Rome had been engaged in hostilities during the preceding 50 years or so from a given date, since most were war captives. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Kissing prostitutes

Is it true that prostitutes doesn´t kiss their clientes? In the gossip press it is said that some soccer managers pay prostitutes in order to get rival players tired. But with the kissing limitation it should be very easy to figure out if a girl is a prostitute, isn't it?--90.165.114.196 (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If actors in hardcore porn can kiss, I don't see why prostitutes can't. 92.80.43.98 (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Julia Roberts's character in Pretty Woman made it a rule, apparently shared by her colleagues, not to kiss the client on the mouth, so as to avoid emotional involvement. I would not assume that the film is a documentary. On the other hand I wouldn't take the "gossip press" as a particularly reliable source either. By the way, am I the only one who really really hated that movie? Not out of moral objections. I just thought Gere's character was so shallow and worthless, and yet somehow he was the one lifting her up where she belonged. Thought it was revolting. --Trovatore (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In gay porn, this is even more pronounced in "gay4pay" guys. i.e. Heterosexual guys who star in gay porn films for the money and will do anything but kiss another guy. It's weird, but kissing is apparently the most intimate thing during sex. As long as they don't cross that line, they're "safe from the gay germs". lulz.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the : German ebay for sex-workers (use google translate if needed): there are several there who offer their services with mouth kissing included. Quest09 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

LMAO at the top three auctions. "My first time" "MY LAST TIME" "My first time". -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak German. Do the auctions really say buyer has to pay for the 'shipping expenses' and that the seller doesn't 'ship' internationally? Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I only speak Google-German as well, but yep seems like it. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) According to the article, and not particularly surprising, the Girlfriend experience also often includes kissing. In terms of the original question, while there may be some sex workers who will refuse to kiss their clients, if you are trying to set someone up logically you'll just make sure you choose one for which that (and any other 'test') isn't an issue. (If the people really believe a prostitute isn't going to kiss them then they've fallen for a sort of a reverse 'are you a cop' [26] [27] [28] [29]) Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Given where their mouths have likely been, kissing prostitutes doesn't seem all that appealing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this varies entirely by individual. Some prostitutes won't kiss, some will only have sex on top of the bed instead of between the sheets, etc. Or so I've heard. 75.71.64.74 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

non-member status in United Nations  : what's the difference from being member stae at UN?

Dear friends, I have following query regarding UN: 1.Whats the difference between member and non-member states? 2.why Palestine is requesting for "non Member status at UN"? 3.what is the proceedure to accept a nation as "non-member or member"?how much of vote(1/3rd or 2/3rd) is needed?whether only permanent members have their say in accepting a nation at UN as "non-member or member"? or even all members have a say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

For (1), see the introduction to our article on member states of the United Nations.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch)

Apparently there are references to Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus, other than his Secretum that are in his works of Rhymes, De otio religiosorum, and Triumphs. Does anybody have an idea where these may be? Apparently these references were over a forty year period of these Petrarch writings.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Brownfield project v/s Greenfield project

Dear friends, Can anyone explain me what a greenfield project is and how its different from brownfield project?I went thru link of "brownfield land" and "greenfield land" in this website..but could not get enough information. Recently talks regarding easing FDI norms in pharmaceutical sector of "BROWNFIELD PROJECT" is going on? can u pls explain in what context it is benefit for India? -Navneeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain me what a greenfield project is and how its different from brownfield project? I went thru link of "brownfield land" and "greenfield land" in this website..but could not get enough information.Recently talks regarding easing FDI norms in pharmaceutical sector of "BROWNFIELD PROJECT" is going on?can u pls explain in what context it is benefit for India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Essentially old chap, a "greenfield" project is one where it's built on land that's never been built on before such as farmland or forest, hence the "green" part of the name. A "brownfield" project is built on land that's previously been built on and has been reclaimed for the new project - waste ground, demolition sites, old buildings that will be demolished and built over - that kind of thing. Hope this helps old boy. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed by your failure to say anything about India. I was under the impression you were a time traveller from the Raj era.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) [Fixed your formatting, Navneeth, unless QBG beat me to it] In current UK usage (where the general topic is frequently discussed in the media and generally), a brownfield project would be (as you probably already realise) one involving the building on, or industrial development of, land that had previously been built on for housing or commercial uses, or used for industrial purposes, and might or might not be contaminated with industrial waste products.

By contrast, a greenfield project would be one involving the building on, or industrial development of, land that had previously only been used for agricultural purposes, or had long been left to nature. The UK has fairly rigorous laws and planning regulations that prevent unauthorised building on greenfield sites, as part of maintaining what is called the green belt - undeveloped or agricultural land between urban/industrial areas - in order to prevent the latter from joining up in "urban sprawl", and preserving "the countryside" for people to enjoy either as a place to visit from their more built-up living environment, or to continue living in in its current rural or semi-rural state. Industrial development and house building is therefore preferentially directed by the regulations to brownfield sites, and even where greenfield development is a candidate for authorisation by the relevant authorities, public protests against it are almost inevitable, and often succeed.

Developers may prefer to use greenfield sites for several reasons: because it is cheaper to buy; because they want to build houses in a more pleasant setting (which will therefore command higher prices); because decontamination costs are likely to be lower or absent. There is in consequence tension between the need to build more housing and new industrial facilities, and desire to preserve greenfield areas.

I cannot speak directly to the situation in India, or the specific issue you mention, but I imagine some of the above considerations may be applicable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.221 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"FDI norms" refers to foreign direct investment. [30] Liberalising this would benefit India through extra construction (and so extra employment and extra business). It might also harm India, if the regulations on FDI were in place for some good reason, such as to prevent some kind of unscrupulous business practice which I can only guess at.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

U.S. property values of all religious groups

I found information that all religious property values in the U.S. in 1926 were about $4 billion, but I cannot find any article that says what the estimated value of all religious, tax free, property is the in U.S. today. I've searched Wiki and Google. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.93.127 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A Latin ex libris

In my personal library I have an English book dated 1732 which has an ex libris in Latin. The ex libris reads: 'Ex libris Viri Venerabilis Gottl. Ern. Schmid, Sacror. Antist. Berol. Regiae Bibliothecae Dono aut minus commendabilium exemplorum Permutationi oblatis MDCCCIII'. As far as I know this type of ex libris is called in German 'Donatorblatt' and shows that the book had been given by its owner as a gift to a public library. I have found out that the owner of my book in late 18th century was a German priest named Gottlieb Ernhard Schmidt who was a fried of the German writers Heinrich von Kleist, Joachim von Arnim, Clemens and Bettina Brentano. This priest had a rich library a portion of wich he presented to the Royal library of Berlin in 1803. The book also has the stamp of that Library and it must have been there as long as 1945 when part of the library was taken as a war trophy by the Red Army and brought to Russia (where I live).

Because of my very poor Latin I could understand little of the text: 'From the books of the venerable Gottlieb Ernhard Schmidt ... a gift to the Royal Library of Berlin ... 1803.' Could you please help me with the exact translation, preferably with an explanation for all the words and abbreviations. I should also be thankful for more information on this type of ex libris; whether they were made by the owner of the book to mark his contribution to a public library, or by the library itself as a sign of gratitude.

Thank in advance! 89.189.138.5 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"sacror. antist." is "sacrorum antistes" (or "antistitis" in the genitive, in this instance), but I'm not sure how exactly to translate it in this context...he's a priest in charge of the all the priestly duties of a church, basically. "Venerable" would probably mean he was an archdeacon, but I don't know that works in a German church, or if this guy was Catholic or Protestant. "Berol." is Berlin, either "Berolini" (of Berlin, as in the "Royal Library of Berlin") or "Berolinensi", as an adjective matching "Regiae Biblithecae" (all in dative case). "Ex libris" matches up with "oblatis", "from the books offered" (i.e. to the Royal Library). "dono" means "as a gift" (also in dative), "aut minus" should mean "or less" but here it seems like it must mean "or instead", meaning the "Permutationi" (also dative, matching "dono"), an "exchange", and "commendabilium exemplorum" means "of praiseworthy examples". So in full, it is "From the books of the venerable priest G.E. Schmidt, [which were] offered to the royal library of Berlin as a gift or rather as an exchange of praiseworthy examples." Hopefully someone else can come up with a better interpretation, but I suppose that means he got some books from the library in return? Sorry, that's kind of vague... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

President of Iran ethnic identity

When was the last time that post Islamic Revolution Iran had a President who was not a Persian? Does the Constitution of Iran say anything aboout ethnic identity of the President like he has to be Persian and Shi'a Muslim and not Azeri, Qashqai, Kurdish, Sunni, Christian, Jew, Baloch, Arab, Armenian, Georgian, Lur, Gilaki, Mazandarani and etc?

I don't think it says anything about ethnicity, but obviously, if it's not forbidden entirely, it would be impossible for a Christian or a Jew to become president (not least because the presidential oath includes upholding Islam as the state religion). Anyway, Ali Khamenei is half-Azeri, according to his article, but apparently the rest have all been Persian. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the President of Iran says:

"According to the constitution of Iran candidates for the presidency must possess the following qualifications:

• Iranian origin;
• Iranian nationality;
• administrative capacity and resourcefulness;
• a good past record;
• trustworthiness and piety; and
• convinced belief in the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official madhhab of the country."

WikiDao ☯ 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

President of Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone religion identity.

I was told that Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone are Muslim nations but they have non-Muslim leaders as President of those nations. Is it their constitution is secular or it is meant to say that President should be Muslim but they ignored it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.136 (talk • contribs)

Burkina Faso and Sierra Leone are majority Islamic; Cote d'Ivoire is not (although part of it is). But the real answer is that none of those countries are fully functioning democracies. Elections, when they occur at all, tend to have grave issues with fairness. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Cote d'Ivoire"? That's called "Ivory Coast" in English, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many British people flock to Spain?

Why do they do that? --Belchman (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's cheap, it's close, it's warm, it's not France... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head there; well done. One might add that in the early days of package holidays, the Spanish were willing to imitate a British seaside resort albeit with hot weather, rather than frighten the British working classes with any foreign customs. Nobody has to leave their comfort-zone to visit the Costa Brava. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

it's not France... rofl. --Belchman (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)