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

October 27

Checking edit

hey, i'm working on the following page privacy policy . Can an experienced Wikipedian, take a look at the edits and let me know what they think? Thank you.(Kanesham 16:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

NRHP reference number for Des Moines Beach Park (Des Moines, Washington)

I'm trying to find the NRHP reference number for Des Moines Beach Park (Des Moines, Washington). I can find lots of information about the park, and many assertions that it is on the NRHP, but I can't find its reference number anywhere.

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome, where I'd expect to be able to get this, seems useless. I've tried entering the names of several places that are definitely NRHP listed, and none of them turn up anything at all.

Anyone have a way to get the number? - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The NHRP reference number is 353480; the name under which the property is listed is actually "Covenant Beach Bible Camp". A PDF of the 2004 nomination form can be seen here. Deor (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Although it fits our definition of a reliable source, Focus is quite unreliable from a technical point of view: its search screen is often going down. Umm, that number is not possible — the first two digits are the year in which the property entered the NR system (e.g. when the nomination reached the National Park Service), and the Register didn't exist in 1935. One place you can go is a website maintained by User:Elkman — it always gives the reference number for the property. In the past, http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com (which is somewhat unreliable for smaller things, but can be counted on for the reference number) would also have been a good source, but right now it's not working; I don't know if it's just temporarily down or if the website has ended. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The "record number" given on the page one gets to by searching for "Covenant Beach Bible Camp" at the search page linked in Jmabel's original post is indeed 353480. The "Item No." given on that page, on the other hand, is 05000313; perhaps that's the one I should have cited. Deor (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never before observed "record numbers" on Focus; what he's requesting is definitely the reference number, which indeed is what you were trying to find. Hmm, I just realised that I'd failed to give that number, which Elkman also shows as 05000313 — his website is drawn directly from the NPS' main database, and it's online more often than Focus, so I'm sure that this is the right number. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks in particular for those other sites. I knew the official one and nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, but Elkman's is new to me. - Jmabel | Talk 15:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Henry Hoolulu Pitman

Does anybody know who painted the portrait of Henry Hoolulu Pitman (1843–1863) who served in the American Civil War on the Union side and where the portrait is currently located at (I imagine it'll be a musuem)? Shown here and elsewhere on the web.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe try to find out which museum and if they know? Dualus (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

US Police Promotion (Dexter Season 6 SPOILERS!!)

In the sixth season of the US TV Show Dexter, Debra Morgan is promoted directly from Detective to Lieutenant. Is this in any way realistic? --Rixxin (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Within the Miami police department, detective seems to be a position, not a rank. - Nunh-huh 17:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the department, but see Police ranks of the United States. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Miami is the pertinent department. - Nunh-huh 02:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Remote naval orders in the 1700s and before

Our article Scilly naval disaster of 1707 states vaguely that after the unsuccessful naval engagement, the British (et al) fleet "was ordered" to retreat. This got me to wonder: How were orders relayed from the home country to naval fleets in the 1700s? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Written instruction conveyed by courier vessels; packet boats.

ALR (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As Admiral of the Fleet Sir Cloudesley Shovell accompanied the fleet, I think it's safe to assume that he did the ordering, since he would have been the highest ranking officer in the Navy, apart from the First Sea Lord in London. Communication between their Lordships at the Admiralty and ships at sea was by written dispatches. They would be carried by Post riders to a port where they would be taken aboard a small, fast sloop-of-war and sailed out to the desired ship. In 1805, HMS Pickle brought the first reports of the Battle of Trafalgar off southern Spain to Falmouth on 4 November - ie 14 days after the event, but there had been a severe storm in the interim. At the turn of the 19th century, a chain of semaphore telegraph stations were constructed to hasten the landward side of the process; the first line could pass a simple message from London to Deal in sixty seconds. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

One other option is giving the commander conditional orders - "engage the French fleet, then X, unless Y, in which case Z". This might involve sealed orders, to be opened in case of some particular critical event - this is still done today with some missile submarines. Shimgray | talk | 16:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The Admiralty would issue written orders to the senior officer at the start of a deployment; how they were achieved would be down that officer. He would keep their Lordships appraised of important developments by written dispatches, as outlined above. Any amending orders could be sent by return. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, also this case has it easy: the British had soldiers in North America, where it took about a month for a message to get there and another month to get back. – b_jonas 18:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably quicker than India though. Alansplodge (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that when the first transatlantic telegraph cable was constructed, one of the few messages sent before it broke was an order from London for two regiments to remain in Canada rather than sailing for home - they'd earlier been ordered back due to the rebellion in India. It was estimated at the time that this saved about £50,000 in shipping costs, etc - about a sixth of the entire cost of laying the cable. Communication delays were a remarkably wasteful thing... Shimgray | talk | 19:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

... by our modern-day standards. Some of the early Governors of New South Wales were recalled to Britain, and that would have taken many weeks for the news of recent antipodean goings on to reach London, many more weeks for the recall notice to be shipped out down under, and many further weeks for the disgraced former governor to get back home. But that was the best technology they had, so they didn't expect any better and probably didn't see it in terms of waste. They weren't sitting around going "If only someone could hurry up and invent email!". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all! Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Digital vigilantism

A few days ago, apparently, the hacker group Anonymous released a bunch of hacked records relating to a child pedophile ring.

My questions (which are not legal advice, thank god!) spring from a US legal context:

• Would being on said released list likely be considered probable cause for a search warrant?
• Would any evidence related to vigilantism of this sort be admissible into a court of law?
• Can evidence obtained from vigilantes taint a prosecution?
• If it is admissible/probable cause, are there any checks in place to avoid having law enforcement use hacker rings of this sort as a way around the protections of the Fourth Amendment?

I'm curious, obviously, if this sort of digital vigilantism is actually capable of doing good, rather than just causing a lot of pedophiles to wipe their hard drives in the best case, or bungle actual prosecution in the worst case. I'm asking about this from a pure policy standpoint — not a request for legal advice, obviously, and the connection to pedophilia is not super important to me as a specific thing (I don't like pedophilia, obviously, but I wonder what precedent we set when we allow the "worst case" bad guys to dictate policy that inevitably starts to be applied to lesser offenses). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As to your 2nd bullet, you would think that links in the chain of evidence being untestable (because the leakers aren't made available for examination) would make the evidence fruit of the poisonous tree; the defence could legitimately question whether the leakers had invented the evidence or misidentified their clients. But it seems German tax authorities are intending to go ahead with prosecutions based on stolen Swiss banking information. To be sure, authorities can intimidate the hell out of suspects incriminated in this manner, hoping the suspects will plea-bargain rather than risk their future on esoteric questions regarding whether that evidence is really admissable. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no poisonous tree involved, unless Anonymous was acting as an agent of the government—though the defense could still use your proposed argument that leakers had invented the evidence or misidentified their clients, or that the list was in some other way unreliable. I suspect that would keep this from being introduced as evidence. - Nunh-huh 17:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the question in this case is really whether evidence obtained illegally by a third party and then delivered to the police is admissible. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In the US, I believe evidence taken by "private persons" and handed to the police is admissible; but not if the police set it up so that effectively it was a police search. See this link. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll answer each in turn.

• 1) The evidence would most likely be sufficient for a search warrant. Probable cause is a low threshold. Anonymous tips can be the source for evidence supporting the warrant, but the affiant law enforcement officer must use reasonable judgment to determine the reliability of the source. The warrant could be attacked if the circumstances known to the officer at the time of affidavit were such that no reasonable person could have concluded that the source was reliable. The police need not identify the source of its information.
• 2) The question of admissibility is a difficult one because of the number of ways evidence can be excluded. The record which led to the search warrant would likely not be admissible at trial unless a foundation was made by the members of anonymous who brought it forth. Documentary evidence must be authenticated. If the record was assembled by someone, it most likely constitutes hearsay. If it is a computer print out, it isn't hearsay because computers don't speak. To invoke the hearsay rule, the declarant must be a human being either writing or speaking, the statement must be offered for the truth of the matter it asserts and not for some other purpose, and the statement must be made out of court without the possibility of cross examination. Should members of anonymous testify in court under oath, they can testify to what they observed. Theoretically, the prosecution could grant them immunity in exchange for their testimony. Otherwise, someone would need to testify to lay a foundation for the record: how it was produced, what it says, and that it ties the defendant to an illegal act.
• 3) It is possible that vigilante evidence could taint a prosecution if it were actually used at trial. Most likely it would not be used at trial but only as support for securing a search warrant to obtain independent evidence of a crime. Illegally obtained evidence by private persons is admissible in most states (see, United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109), but there are a few where it would be illegal: PA, VA, possibly NJ, and WI. Pennsylvania, for instance, has heightened privacy rights than the rest of the country as identified in the rather ridiculous case of Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa 1996). Privacy rights are so great in a few states that police will not use any evidence from illegal sources that infringe on that right, but will conduct their own independent investigation through legal channels.
• 4) This isn't a significant policy issue at the moment because we don't have many hacker rings reporting crimes to police. We might see development of the jurisprudence to protect privacy interests should it become a problem, but police regularly use informants and grant immunity to confessed criminals. If a hacker ring is working on behalf of law enforcement, that evidence might be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search. As soon as the flow of information becomes organized, defense attorneys will have stronger arguments for suppression. Law enforcement is conscious of this and will do what it can to distance itself from illicit evidence as much as possible. Fewer defenses mean a stronger case and less costly prosecutions. Gx872op (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that a juror should have great skepticism about such evidence, because the site was hacked into. Though I doubt, in this particular case, that hackers had 100 GB of child porn waiting to plant, the records of who was a member of the site might also have been compromised. If "Anonymous" had a beef with someone, maybe there were 1499 members on the list before he accessed the file! Of course, you don't have to really be an ueberhacker to do this - if you have the necessary will, you could pose as an anonymous pedo, join a site, using your enemy's credit card number you've copied while he was at a restaurant; provided you use a proper proxy there's no easy way to prove he wasn't the one who accessed it. Which is one of many reasons why I think that censorship is always wrong, even when practiced by Anonymous. Wnt (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Original rail tracks or ties, etc.

Is there any place (North America is what I'm most curious about, but anywhere will do) where the original tracks, ties or whatever is still in use? I don't mean the line, but the actual physical pieces. I'm thinking of the cross-continental mid-1800s tracks. I imagine they must have been gradually replaced over the years. Mingmingla (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The Northeast Corridor south of New York from what Amtrak employees tell me. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 17:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Just about all the track in the UK has been replaced since WWII by Continuous welded rail. This article suggests that some older track may be in use on Preserved railways. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In a rural Minnesota town I know, the train line was installed circa 1900 and the original equipment (ties and rails) was used until about 1955 to pick up farm products from the grain elevator, without improvement or replacement. It is still there, but no longer has trains going over it. With old poor condition track, the freight trains would go extremely slowly (15 mph) so that a derailment was not a disaster. Edison (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this would only be possible for tracks first installed fairly recently, say, within the past 20 years. Tracks and ties (especially old wooden ties) just don't have a safe use-life much greater than 20 years. Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Crossties are treated and do not rot as fast as untreated lumber. In original construction of the transcontinental US railroad, because there was haste to satisfy contracts etc, I expect that plain untreated wood was commonly used, then the road was upgraded to better engineering practice in a few years. Also trains got heavier over the years, so upgrades were needed. Granted, ties rot over time. But why would a 20 year old rail which has seen little traffic not be usable? Rails fail from a combination of manufacturing defects and heavy usage. Rail life is given as a function of "millions of gross tons" which pass over the rail, with higher wear on curves and grades.Rails are inspected and tested to replace them before the break or before there is excess wear. Page 533 has a sample calculation showing a 25 year or so life for rails in the textbook example, based 30 million gross tons per year and 132 pound (modern) rail. This is not stated in any way as a "max life" for lightly used rails. A British book describes a rail serving 15 years on a heavy use route, then being ground to restore the profile of the top, and serving another 25 years on a lighter duty route. Then it could be reprofiled and used another 25 years, or 65 tears total. Of course in the example it has been moved to lighter use. The rails of a little-used siding or spur would thus not deteriorate as much as a heavily used mainline rail. Many industrial building also have sidings which may see little use but still be usable with minimal maintenance. Maintenance would include "tucking" gravel under the ties, replacing loosened spikes, and maintaining the alignment of the rails (not swooping up and down, and keeping them the right distance apart.) I once did this type of work on a short run of railroad track. It was common practice for railroads to have the date of production and other information (rail rating) stamped into the ends of ties, or to have "dating nails" driven into the ties. I found one book which says the "optimistic average tie life" would be 30 years. (Their actual data imply a slightly longer replacement interval in practice). But I remember reading an article from the small town which was losing its rail spur line bemoaning that the deteriorated line was still usable after 50 years without having had maintenance, for moving grain cars at low speed at harvest time. Maybe ties had been replaced without the newspaper folks having notices. It is a common practice to remove and replace deteriorated ties, while keeping the rails. The ties and rails are not generally installed and left to deteriorate, with annual depreciation, until they are useless. Rather they get periodic maintenance as needed to maintain the quality of ride and safety. The spur to a closed factory or abandoned mine would be the most likely case for railroad mileage still usable for light loads at low speeds after many years of little or no maintenance. Even so the British book cited above from 1992 says of Queensland Rail, a narrow gauge line "Many of these original lines are still in service, still with the original rails.." It is not clear what year those rails were placed in service, but he says the line began operations "125 years ago" Edison (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The last pieces of track from the place where the Golden Spike was driven to complete the first U.S. transcontinental railroad were removed in 1942, the article says. But even those pieces may not have been truly original. As Edison makes clear above, it's doubtful that any truly original pieces of track remain anywhere in the U.S. because from the beginning, railroad companies have always had to replace rails and ties periodically: as engines got bigger and heavier, rails likewise had to increase in weight. Also, ordinary wear and occasional breakage required track to be replaced, as did the general conversion from iron to steel rails after the Civil War. Railroads were not sentimental about preserving original rails. My guess is that if there is any original track left, it's a few bits in museums, or perhaps buried at the site of some long-abandoned branch line. Also - journalists and authors not conversant with these facts often make misleading statements about "original tracks" when all that's original is the location, not the rails and ties themselves. Textorus (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Prisons in Elizabethan Era

I realize back in the day, since the Middle Ages, prisons were used as holding facilities until trials could be made. But in the Elizabethan Era, were prisons also used as punishments or were they still used as holding facilities? Thanks. 174.93.67.107 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This says they were just starting to be used as a form of punishment. It's been emotional (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean just in England, or in other countries as well? Michel Foucault argues in Discipline and Punish (page 115 in the paperback version of the Second Vintage Books Edition) that in France, prisons were only established as a solid means of punishment (as opposed to facilities for the arbitrary detention of people the kings disliked) in 1810. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Foucault was a philosopher who loved playing with words and ideas, not a factual historian, and he was aware, even proud, that he sometimes screwed things up and even contradicted his own writings: "he preferred not to claim that he was presenting a coherent and timeless block of knowledge." So I wouldn't take anything he said as the definitive pronouncement on any subject. You'd be much better off reading some reliable histories of the Elizabethan era to get the truth of the matter. Textorus (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Qing Consorts of Han Descent

How many wives and consorts of Qing Dynasty emperors were of full or part Chinese Han descent?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Unspecifyable, because genetic drift makes such ethnic division meaningless. Can you rephrase the question referring to specific genes instead of their expressions? Dualus (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

How? It's not a question about genetics. I think you can just tell by surnames. Manchu and Mongol have more than one syllable surnames while Han Chinese only have one or at the most two syllable surname.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a worldwide perspective of archived news, specifically, German and British

What is a website that can give me a worldwide perspective of archived news for Paul Robeson like http://news.google.com/newspapers does for primarily the USA, specifically looking for German and British papers66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Google does have a UK edition (and probably a German edition too) for News, so maybe selecting google.co.uk will give you the UK perspective. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

October 23

New PDF versions of census maps

Hi! I need a PDF of a 2010 census bureau map for Topanga, California. Where may I find such a map? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What kind of census bureau map? There's tons of census data that can be mapped. On the Census's American FactFinder site there's a mapmaking tool. You can zoom into the place you want, select what data to map, and download as a PDF. You can also bookmark your map. So I zoomed into the general Topanga area, turned on census tracts and "places" and whatever was on by default, and made a bookmark. I think this link will take you to my rough map of the Topanga area. The mapmaking tool is GIS-based and might take some time to figure out. There's a help page here. Pfly (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant a map of the boundaries of the Topanga CDP.

Something like this: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US0609598&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on

The link you did provide is helpful - I would like to have a PDF version so it can be archived

Thanks

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any countries which have a Parliament but do not have a Prime Minister?

I am not talking about emergency cases, I mean if there are any countries which have a parliament or call their legislative body a parliament, but do not have the position of Prime Minister (as in, the office does not exist). Are there any cases, or do all parliaments have a Prime Minister and vice versa? And do not include countries where the head of state (ex. President, King) is also the Prime Minister. 112.208.107.94 (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you mean one that doesn't have a position named Prime Minister, the German Federal Republic has their Chancellor and President but no PM afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Tishrei 5772 02:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean countries with parliaments but without the position of Prime Minister (or some other equivalent e.g. Chancellor, Taoiseach). 112.208.107.94 (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well here is a helpful list for us to look at that might answer the question. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Tishrei 5772 03:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Does South Africa count? They have a Parliament and a President, but no Prime Minister. Or do you mean countries with a legislature called a 'parliament', but where no member of the legislature has any executive authority? --superioridad ^(discusión) 03:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of a country which has a parliament but the position of Prime Minister (or some other equivalent such as Chancellor, Premier or Taoiseach) does not exist, but that works too. Conversely, what countries have a Prime Minister but do not have a Parliament? Do not include Saudi Arabia, the King is also the Prime Minister. 112.208.107.94 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, but I'm asking what exactly you mean by 'Prime Minister or equivalent' and 'President'. You talk about legislatures that are called parliaments, which suggests that you care about the names of offices, but "Prime Minister" essentially means "a head of government drawn from and selected by the legislature". South Africa, as I said, has a President and does not have a Prime Minister. However, the President of South Africa is a member of the Parliament of South Africa, elected by the National Assembly. --superioridad ^(discusión) 05:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It all depends on what we call a parliament and a prime minister. See for example Parliament#Parliament government and Prime minister. Some might say that regardless of official titles, it isn't a real parliament without a prime minister who answers to it, and it isn't a real prime minister without answering to a parliament. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

When I said "that works too", I was referring to the idea of a countries with a parliament but no member of the legislature can have executive power. I don't consider South Africa's President to be a Prime Minister, he does not count, he's a President, not a Prime Minister. However, since South Africa does have a parliament but does not have a Prime Minister, South Africa can be an example of such a country. 112.208.107.94 (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

List of countries by system of government might be of use. Browsing it took me to consider Switzerland. The Federal Assembly of Switzerland is, according to our page, "Switzerland's federal parliament." As far as I can see there is no Prime Minister. There's a Federal Chancellor of Switzerland, but unlike the Chancellor of Germany, the "Swiss Chancellor is not a member of the government". Pfly (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

More browsing: The Parliament of Ghana used to have a prime minister, the Prime Minister of Ghana, but has not since 1972. Pfly (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Bit more. Our Politics of Morocco says the country has a "parliament" and a "prime minister", but the PM is appointed by the King of Monocco, which is seems quite a stretch of the term "prime minister". Apparently that was also how things worked in Tonga until 2010, with the first election—rather than royal appointment—of the Prime Minister of Tonga. Other possibilities: Sudan; the National Legislature of Sudan is called "parliament" on our page; no PM as far as I can see. The Parliament of Sierra Leone has a "speaker" and majority and minority "leaders", but no PM. The legislature of the Maldives; our page says, "generally resembles the parliament in any liberal democracy". It uses the word "parliament" a couple times. No PM. Our National Assembly of Malawi page calls it a parliament, or at least as having "members of Parliament" (MPs). It has a speaker but no prime minister.

Interesting, browsing through these things, a loose pattern seems to emerge--in the Americas republics and constitutional monarchies appear to tend toward "Congress-like" legislatures, while in Africa and Eurasia they tend to be "Parliament-like". Perhaps it is in part a matter of terminology. Many legislatures are not officially called "parliament" or "congress", rather things like "national assembly". It seems there is a range of possible ways to organize a legislature/government, with the terms parliament, congress, assembly, etc, sometimes used rather loosely. Some pages that might also be of note here: Parliamentary republic (and Westminster system) and Presidential system, the two of which strikes me almost as the poles of a spectrum, with Directorial system and Semi-presidential system somewhere in between. Also Constitutional monarchy, which may involved a "parliament" or a "congress", or something else altogether. In short, terms like "parliament" and "prime minister" are not well-defined across all nations. This topic sucked me into doing some research because I've never quite understand all the differences between the Westminster system (which I mainly encounter via Canadian, British, and Australian politics) and the presidential system as it works in the US (which I'm quite familiar with, being from there). In recent years I've tried to follow and understand Canadian politics more than I used to (ie, not at all), but the way its Westminster parliamentary system works is so different from the US system. Every time I think I have a decent understanding, some new thing comes up I had never heard of, such as prorogation. From the sidelines I watched the 40th Canadian Parliament prorogued, if that is the way to say it, twice recently. For someone from the US like me, parliamentary politics can seem very strange, even alien. This thead goaded me to learn a bit more about this gap in my understanding of world politics. Sorry for going on and on! Pfly (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The specifics on Morocco aren't entirely unclear from the article although it does mention "On June 17, King Mohamed VI announced a series of reforms that would transform Morocco into a constitutional monarchy" but from what it says it sounds like the biggest difference is the King can technically rule by decree and also suspend the constitution. I think you misunderstand the 'appoint the PM' part. In a large number of Westminister style constitutional monarchies, the Prime Minister is nominally appointed by the monarch or their representative. This includes Prime Minister of New Zealand, Prime Minister of Malaysia, Prime Minister of Canada, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister of Australia (see the articles). However by convention, the monarch or their representative will only appoint the person able to command a majority support in parliament or it's equivalent because amongst other things, otherwise the PM will lose a vote of confidence in the first session which means, usually again by convention, they need to resign immediately and even if they don't the monarch or their representative needs to dismiss them anyway. If the monarch or their representative does appoint someone who doesn't enjoy a majority support, you end up with a constitutional crisis like the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis (although that went beyond simply appointing someone who did not have majority support like the fact the monarch or their representative can theoretically usually dismiss a government at will). In other words, I don't see anything unique about Morocco vis-a-vis the appointment of the PM by the monarch.

Edit: Prime minister mentions the various ways a PM comes in to office. As noted and per what I said earlier in Westminister style system the monarch or their representative appoints the PM technically without reference to parliament. In an early edit I gave Japan as another example where the monarch appoints the PM but removed it for now. Our article on Pm suggests only parliament is involved but our article Prime Minister of Japan suggests that while the PM is first elected by the Diet (which is different from the Westminister style), they are formally appointed by the emperor which seems to suggest they belong in the same category as Ireland. This appointment is probably entirely ceremonial (i.e. unlike in Westminister style governments, the Emperor can't appoint someone else or refuse to make an appointment) as is apparently the case with the Taoiseach but it may remain technically true the emperor is the one who appoints the PM. Our article on Pm also gives Prime Minister of Spain as an example where the monarch first makes a nomination which is submitted for approval, followed by an official appointment after approval and Prime Minister of Thailand as a different example although from our article on PMoT I'm not convinced the description in Pm is accurate.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just one comment. The crisis in 1975 in Australia was not the appointment of someone who couldn't command a majority in the lower house, irregular and unprecedented as that was. That was in fact the governor-general's way of resolving a crisis that had been developing for months. The crisis was the stalemate that came about when the prime minister, whose party commanded a clear majority in the lower house, could not get his budget bills through the opposition-controlled Senate. The opposition was demanding he call an election as their condition on passing supply, and he refused on the grounds that it was his prerogative alone to call an election and he was not going to be forced into it. The governor-general's action certainly put the cat among the pigeons, politically speaking, but in constitutional terms the crisis was now over because supply was quickly passed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Nil Einne for pointing out my misunderstanding. Obviously I didn't read our PM article. So, do I understand right now--that in most Westminster systems (Canada being the one I'm most familiar with) the PM is technically appointed by the monarch, but in practice, most of the time, the leading party in parliament chooses its leader and the crown appoints that person? Pfly (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, my point about the 1975 were that the GG actions while generally accepted to be within his reserve powers and were his attempts to resolve the crisis (which did largely succeed) was fairly controversial because amongst other reasons, he appointed a PM who could not command a majority. Anyway I primarily wanted to clarify the majority bit to note that in some (or many?) countries a PM (or government) doesn't need a majority of MPs supporting them on issues of confidence and supply, simply a majority of MPs who vote yes or no. I.E. they can rely on MPs abstaining as well. And this only has to be on confidence and supply issues, this is probably clear to anyone who knows about the Canada situation but you can end up with a minority government where sufficient parties agree to support or abstain on confidence and supply to keep a government in power, but where the government needs to convince sufficient parties or MPs to obtain a majority for every piece of legislation. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I am still confused by the OP's question. AFAIK, a "parliament" is a legislature, and I am not completely clear how a Parliament should be treated differently from a Diet, Duma, Congress, or other similarly named body. Secondly, also AFAIK, a "prime minister" (also "premier", "chancellor", etc.) is the name given to a "head of government" for those countries that have a "split executive" (i.e. different offices for head of government and head of state). So, is the OP looking for countries which have a legislature, but no split executive? There are dozens, the United States springs to mind as a well known one. Most of the Americas (saving Canada and some Carribean islands) seems to fit as well, see Presidential system, look at the map for countries in Blue. --Jayron32 16:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In general I sympathize with Jayron's point, but I was taught in an American public school that a parliamentary style of government is different from the American, with the latter's three co-equal branches. That establishes a possible difference. And my understanding is that historically the Duma and the Estates General were only called into session by and could be dissolved by the monarch. The British parliament seems to maintain the appearance of serving at the monarch's will, but could the Queen dissolve parliament and fail to recall it solely at her pleasure? μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Queen could decline to take appropriate advice from her prime minister. The circumstances under which she'd do this are extremely remote, and would have to involve a major change in the monarchy (HRH joins the Militant Tendency?), a disloyal government or opposition (ie: a parliamentary revolution), or a situation where one of the major forces in parliament no longer represents or controls its constituency, and where its constituency is exercising the powers of parliament but where the other forces in parliament are unable to take action (dispensation committees in the Winter of Discontent going 1917, coupled with a Tory brainfade of the highest order, and effectively a Royal coup against Parliament). These are not common occurrences—the Queen and her family concentrate on personal activities; Liberals, Labour and Tory are all loyal; and, the State would use massive and concentrated force against incipient popular revolution (1926 United Kingdom general strike). For cases where the monarch did intervene in parliament, and their difficulty in doing so, see 1630–1800 in parliamentary politics :) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But see the Lascelles Principles. The current monarch is too wise and experienced, I'm sure, to do anything just on a mere whim, and my impression from all accounts is that every politician in Britain nowadays takes great care not to allow any circumstances to arise that would involve The Queen in a political decision, which is not something she has any desire to be involved in. But . . . history takes some strange twists and turns, you never can tell what odd situation might arise one day, when the monarch would feel strongly that refusing a dissolution would be more in the nation's interest than any other course of action. That, I think, is what unnerves us Americans looking at the Westminster system, where always deep in the heart of things there lurks one little spot of mystery, the last remnant of royal prerogative - as opposed to our system, where everything (so we think) is all spelled out, wrapped up tight, no ifs, ands, or buts. (The mysterious deliberations of our Supreme Court are in fact a continuation of that same royal prerogative, but nobody who understands that wants to say it out loud.) Textorus (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

... our system, where everything (so we think) is all spelled out, wrapped up tight, no ifs, ands, or buts - not sure I follow that, Textorus. There have been 2,564 U.S. presidential vetos, compared with the fact that the last time any British monarch withheld Royal Assent to an act of parliament was Queen Anne in 1707. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I take your point on that, Jack. Unlike in the Commonwealth, in the States the veto is not a "reserve power" at all, but simply a power of the president's political office, which he is fully entitled to use simply because he thinks a measure is bad policy. For a bill to become law, it must command the political assent of both Houses and the President (or a rare 2/3 supermajority in both Houses in opposition to the President). The president's assent is not at all a formality, but is part of the legislative process. --Trovatore (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was making the contrast between how the two systems operate. A Westminster parliament is not just the upper house and the lower house (or the sole house in a unicameral parliament) - it includes the monarch. Yet the monarch has very little power in practice; a bill cannot become law without her assent, but she has no real power to refuse assent. In the USA, the President is part of the system whereby laws came into existence, but he is not a part of the Congress, and he does have a great deal of power. Which is probably as it should be since he's elected to not just be a figurehead but to actually get things done. So in the UK we have an element of the parliament (the monarch) who always goes along with what the other elements jointly decide, and in the US we have someone who is external to the Congress (the president) but can and often does decide that what the Congress wants ain't gonna happen. I'm sure we could never agree which is the better or fairer system, so I'm not going there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying anything about which was the better or fairer system. The point I was making is that the US presidential veto, unlike the UK royal veto, is a normal part of the system, so it's not an exception to having everything "all spelled out, wrapped up tight". We are told that in the UK, everything is up to a majority in the Commons, and Textorus' point is that, well, there are these obscure exceptions that aren't really supposed to be used, but are formally still there. Since the US presidential veto is not an obscure exception, but rather a normal political tool, it doesn't appear to me to count as a counter-point. --Trovatore (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

When I think about the difference between US-style presidential/congress type systems and parliamentary-style (of which I'm most familiar with Canada), several points stand out as obviously different. Of course there is the existence of a Prime Minister of Canada. There is the role of the monarch, which includes the Governor General and the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. There is nothing remotely equivalent to these things the US, I think. Also the idea that the members of the Cabinet of Canada are appointed by the monarch, via the governor general; that cabinet members must be members of parliament, whereas in the US cabinet members are forbidden to be members of Congress. Then here is a the Senate of Canada appointed rather than elected, population-based rather than state/province based, and apparently not nearly as important as the House. To an American like me, it seems like the position of PM, one of the most important, should be chosen by popular election rather than by appointment. Finally, there is the apparently common dissolution of parliament, prorogation; and the notion of dropping the writ. From what I understand, people in Canada never know when the next election will come until it is upon them. This contrasts with the US fixed-term election cycle. Have I outlined a basic difference between most parliamentary and congressional states? Pfly (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Pfly. To answer Jack of Oz: the President's veto power is clearly spelled out in our written Constitution (which you don't have, not really - unwritten "conventions" play a large part in the Westminster scheme), and is unquestioned as far as being a valid exercise of executive authority; as you say, it has been used thousands of times - controversy arises only on political grounds, not constitutional ones. Likewise, everything else that makes up the machinery of government is spelled out clearly: if A happens, then B results, and C is the outcome. (Please, no cracks about hanging chad; let dead elephants lie.) By contrast, consider the 2008 attempt by Stephen Harper to avoid a vote of no confidence. I followed the situation with interest at the time, and I well recall the prolonged speculation in the Canadian media about whether the Governor-General would or would not grant a request for prorogation, and whether she would accept the coalition of Grits-NDP-Bloc as a government if she did refuse Harper's request. She regally kept him waiting for nearly 3 hours (no doubt it was very good for his character) one fine, crisp winter morning at Rideau Hall while she consulted constitutional experts. At last Harper emerged with the quiet announcement that the GG had granted his request - but it was clear that she really didn't have to do so. What capped all this for me was that then the networks had no real explanation for her decision - conversations between PM and GG amount to privileged talk and are not recorded for the media, and there was absolutely nothing that required the GG to explain herself to the public - and I don't believe she ever did. (A few days later, some little bird on her staff leaked an anonymous summary of that morning's discussions to the press, but I suppose that was cheating.) My rather long-winded response here is meant to illustrate that it is unimaginable that any such crisis could occur in our system, without a word of explanation being demanded by all concerned. That's the mystery and uncertainty I was referring to in my earlier comment. The only comparable thing here is with our Supreme Court, in certain circumstances. Better? Oh I don't know. Different. Like a favorite brand of beer, it seems to suit us, and we like it. If your brand suits you, well then, drink up mate. Cheers! Textorus (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the US government is totally spelled out. There have been and can still be occassions where something comes up and it isn't clear whether the president, Congress, or whatever, has some particular power. The first example that comes to mind is during the United States debt-ceiling crisis some argued that the president could issue an executive order to pay the debt even if the ceiling was passed. I think the idea was not widely held, but it was not exactly clear. The situation had never come up and was not "spelled out" anywhere. There have been numerous times in the past when unclear situations have come up and they certainly still can. Often the result Not everything can be spelled out in advance. A famous example is Andrew Jackson and his decision to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia. Hmm, actually, the most famous example is probably whether states have the right to secede. That brought about a rather heated constitutional crisis. Pfly (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ack, excuse my garbled sentences. I was being attacked by a gang of 2-6 year old boys while I wrote it, really! Pfly (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Pfly, there are some few gray areas that fall under the "debateable" heading, until settled by constitutional amendment, a Supreme Court ruling, or most regrettably, force of arms - which is why I used "(so we think)" in my original comment. But it's fair to say that for all ordinary purposes, the system is much more straightforward and spelled-out than the Westminster system, which depends so much upon unwritten conventions - and when things are written down (e.g., the monarch or her representative can veto laws or choose a PM at will), they don't mean what the words say; a Wink, Wink has to be interpolated by the reader. Textorus (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

etymology of 'sin' and relation to word 'China'

Hello, I am a university student. I'm taking an ancient history course, and my professor mentioned that the religious word 'sin' originates from the word 'China.' He says that this occurred because the Chinese and their customs would appear "different" to the peoples that created the concept of sin.

I can't find any evidence online that agrees with his statement. Does anyone know anything, or can anyone find anything that backs up his statement? 169.231.13.182 (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds dubious to me, but who knows. The Wiktionary entry, wikt:sin, says it's related to the verb to be, which seems even weirder, unless it relates to the Kafkaesque notion of existential guilt, the wrong that one does simply by existing. --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it has Kafkaesque notions, but it is related to that verb, which is very very old in Indo-European languages. China used to be known in Greek and Latin as "Seres" or "Serica", which is related to the word for silk, because that's where silk came from. Later it was called Cathay. "China" itself is a relatively recent name. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

But what is the rationale? Is it sin merely to be? --Trovatore (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Latin sōns/sontis means "guilty [of a crime]" not "sin" per se. When you consider the root means "to be" (PIE *es-ont- cf. "is" and "ontogeny") can also mean "true", it's fairly obvious why it would be so.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The OED says, under its entry "Sinaean", which is referenced to from the "Sino-" entry, "Etymology: irreg. < late Latin Sīnæ , < Greek Σίναι (Ptolemy), probably < Arabic Sīn , the empire of China." It's "sin" entry says "Etymology: Old English syngian < *sunigôjan , < *sunjō". It appears "sino-" comes to English via Latin/Greek/Arabic, while "sin" comes via Germanic roots, although the OED does add about "sin", "The stem may be related to that of Latin sons , sont-is guilty." But even if there is Latin influence on "sin", it appears a difference Latin term than the case of "sino-", but maybe I am missing something (or the OED is!). Pfly (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty good answer, but, for future reference, questions about etymology are best directed to our language desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

EO has different info, and China does not come up:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The origin of sin from "to be" in Old English (think sie sind in German) is very widely attested and comes from the confessional sense of "them's the facts". See Skeats. Clinton knew exactly what he has doing when he said it depends on wwhat the meaning of is is. μηδείς (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP's professor is certainly confused. It's a common mistake for non-academics to confuse word origins in this way - I'm surprised that a history professor would do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Homophony at some point does not imply common origin. As already pointed out, the origins of the Modern English "Sino-" already existed long before China's existence was known to Europe, from Sanskrit Sīna (चीन) which made its way into Ancient Greek Σίναι (who were long familiar with India by trade through Persians and later invasions) and Late Latin Sinae (6th to 7th centuries AD). "China" itself is a later form of the name introduced by Marco Polo (Italian Chin, c. 1254-1324) probably also from Persian with the same Sanskrit origins. It in turn entered the English language through French, becoming the Modern English "China".

It's more evident when you examine the cognates, the Old English word for "sin" was sunne or synne from Germanic sünde (cf. Modern Finnish synti, German sünde), though the word is related to Latin sōns/sontis, it did not come from Latin and none of them remotely resemble Sinae. The existence of a consonant cluster nt -> nd -> nn also persisted in the Middle English word sinne (pronounced with a lengthened n as in "thinner"). The spelling sin only came around in Modern English, as with similar words in Modern English (Modern English bin, thin, grin were all originally spelled as Old English binne, þynne, grennian respectively). It may not seem like much of a distinction in Modern English, but the single n of Sinae and its cognates and the double nn of sinne and its cognates are quite significant differences in etymology.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"You will never be successful."

I have a feeling that when [redacted] told me between 6th & 7th grade, "You'll never be successful," my mind may have been rewired according to his words. But hopefully this is just irrational paranoia.

Can anyone find anything on any hugely successful luminaries, who may have been told something to the effect of what [redacted] told me, in their formative years? Thanks. --70.179.174.63 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fred Astaire: "Can't sing. Can't act. Balding. Can dance a little." -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Albert Einstein was supposedly told "You will never amount to much" at school. The Beatles failed the audition with Decca, who told them that they "...have no future in show business". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[question redacted]

There's a long list of conspicuously successful people who ignored such discouragement here. --Antiquary (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tim Martin named his (omnipresent in the UK) pub chain after the teacher who said he'd never be a successful businessman. 129.234.53.239 (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Elvis Presley was supposedly told to "go back to driving a truck, because you'll never make it as a singer" at an audition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You really can't fault people for predicting the opposite of success for those who go on to be especially preeminent people. It is their unusual qualities that make for their oversized success. Such qualities are easily mistaken for flaws because they do not represent the then-prevailing ingredients necessary for success. Of course hoards of imitators and emulators cloud hindsight so we now look back at these negative assessments as particularly wrongheaded. But we are blinded by a changed landscape. Sometimes it is the contributions of overly influential individuals that was influential in changing that landscape. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's proof we're all wasting our time here on Wikipedia. It will never work. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tis better to have edited and been reverted than never to have edited at all. Out, out, brief WP:Afd'd article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia cannot possibly work in theory. It only works in practice." Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is." -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Again by Bob Lind Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Edison's schoolteacher pronounced that he was "addled." Thereafter he was home schooled by his mother. He had some successes in later life. Edison (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Pygmalion effect. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Aliens buzzed me and turned off my nukes literature?

I am looking for fiction and non-fiction literature compatible with e.g. http://ufohastings.com assuming that extraterrestrials are friendly and are in the habit of turning off nuclear missiles. Is Paul (film) an example of this? Dualus (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rendlesham Forest incident. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul (film) is not an example... while the alien is friendly, no nukes are involved. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What the SCI-FI novels miss out, is that after a few years these 'friendly' aliens will have taken all our well paid jobs, got all our children addicted to their whizo technology, and have persuaded our women to were long skirts. I say blast them out the sky's before they land. --Aspro (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there or were there any countries who allow or have allowed naturalized citizens to become prime ministers, presidents, kings & queens, or dictators?

Also, are there or were there any leaders of any countries such as prime ministers, presidents, kings & queens, or dictators who are foreign born? I know that in the U.S under the Constitution, a naturalized citizen can't be president. Willminator (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This might help give you some ideas. I know that there isn't any particular rule against it in many countries. I don't know if the US is in the majority or minority with that law. Mingmingla (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Since at least the early modern period, most European kings married foreign princesses, and those women thus were foreigners who became queens. Charles I of England, George I of England, and William III of England might also be of interest to you. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Michaelle Jean, the former governor general (de facto ceremonial head of state) of Canada, is a Haitian immigrant. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In most countries the concept of citizenship is a modern notion, and until the 20th century it was surprisingly common for states to be led (and, indeed, armies commanded) by people from other states. As European kings and ruling princes usually married foreigners, they almost always had many foreign relations, which tended to make those in court circles more open to non-natives being promoted. In the Middle Ages, the Church of Rome (using Latin as its lingua franca) also had much more mobility of the same kind in its appointments than we see now. Moonraker (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The heading Naturalized citizens as rulers is adequately brief and adequately informative.

• Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenneger and Adolf Hitler were both born in Austria and ruled elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In Australia we don't care where you're from. Both our current Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were born in the UK. Any citizen can become PM. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Italian-born Sonia Gandhi could become PM of India. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the question should be reversed: are there any countries, except the United States, that discriminate (or used to) against foreign-born citizens? — Kpalion^(talk) 08:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is the U.S. legislation that breaks the pattern. Argentina has the same rule, perhaps other Latin American countries as well. The usual is to allow all citizens equal rights to run for office. Israel is an extreme case, where most of the office holders for a long time were recent immigrants. --Soman (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been racking my brains (pl.) but can't come up with any other country. I'm surprised there's not a popular movement to amend the US Constitution to remove this worn-out provision. People flocked to the USA in their teeming millions from every other country in the world to feast on its egalitarian offerings, but none of them could ever aspire to the top job in the land. Take a boy born in, say, Switzerland who was brought to the USA by his parents at the age of 3 months, who became an American citizen before he went to school by virtue of his parents' naturalization, and whose native language was AmEng - why should he be forever barred from running for President for having the temerity to be born a Swiss citizen and not an American citizen? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no good reason I can see, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. The last time the issue flickered briefly was when Orrin Hatch proposed removing the restriction, presumably in favor of Arnold, and I hope I don't have to say Arnold who. Didn't get much traction even when the gov was popular. The bar to amending the constitution is very high (you need 2/3 in both houses, and then 3/4 of the several states) and I'm pretty sure there are at least 13 states where it's a non-starter for the foreseeable future. --Trovatore (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Our Native-born citizen suggests it's sometimes a requirement but doesn't give any examples other then the US. It mentions Japan in another context but Foreign-born Japanese makes it clear there is no limitation on a naturalised Japanese becoming a member of the Diet and therefore PM. This is of course a significant point, in countries that have a PM who is the head of government as a member of the legislature able to avoid a majority opposition you will need to either have a ban on a citizen who isn't 'natural born' become a member of the legislature or have the situation where certain members of the legislature can't become the PM. But anyway as others have said, it seems to be a rare legal requirement although in quite a few countries it'll likely be a significant political hurdle. P.S. I added this above below despite the indenting as it relates to the issue by Kpalion. Nil Einne (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the early Hanoverian kings and queens of Great Britain were foreign born. You could also say that because James I of England was actually born in a foreign country (he united the crowns himself), he was foreign born. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The question was about naturalized citizens, not necessarily foreign-born people. The citizenship of the current British monarch and her forbears is a moot point in any case. Is Elizabeth a British subject and a New Zealand citizen and a Canadian citizen and a Papua New Guinean citizen and a Jamaican citizen and an Australian citizen and .........? Or none of the above? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was answering the subsequent question "Also, are there or were there any leaders of any countries such as prime ministers, presidents, kings & queens, or dictators who are foreign born?" No reference to citizenship in that section. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Queen is certainly not a subject of herself. As to whether she could in some sense be considered a citizen of her 16 realms, mmm . . . I'll leave that one to the lawyers. But as she doesn't even need a passport, the question is moot, IMO. Textorus (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Queen is certainly not a British subject; if anything, she would be a British citizen! There's a widespread belief that a) British citizens are termed "subjects", and b) that this terminology signifies a conceptual difference from "citizenship", but neither of these are accurate. The term "subject" was mostly abolished with effect from 1st January 1983, and now remains in existence only for some minor transitional cases - to be a member of the residual group of "British subjects", you have to be someone previously covered by the term, but without citizenship of any specific state. Most cases involve people from pre-Partition India or Ireland, I believe, though I'm not sure detailed statistics are available.

At birth, she will have been a British subject under the then-extant 1914 law. Philip naturalised before marriage in 1947, so she will not have lost that status by marriage. In 1948, she will have become both a British subject and a "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"; the debate is presumably what happened after 1952, though, as you say, it's a fairly academic point... Shimgray | talk | 12:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point about the Queen certainly being a British citizen before 1952. She has never renounced British citizenship and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the law that someone loses citizenship upon accession to the throne, and given that "citizenship" is a concept created by statute, I think that's the end of the matter. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original question. Some more I can think of off the top of my head: Éamon de Valera was American born, of an Irish mother and a Cuban father; he was at various times Taoiseach and President of Ireland. Hitler was, as hinted at above, born in Austria. The number of royal heads of state (kings, regnant queens, emperors, etc.) who were foreign born is almost too numerous to name them all. Besides the early Hanoverians mentioned above for Britain, there was also William III of England, many of the early Norman kings of England were born in France, such as William the Conquerer, William II of England, Stephen of Blois and Henry II. Maximilian I of Mexico was Austrian, Otto of Greece was Bavarian, George I of Greece was Danish, Ferdinand I of Bulgaria was born in Austria to a German princely house, Eric of Pomerania was from Pomerania (then German-speaking, now Polish town of Darłowo), but was ruler of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway under the Kalmar Union. There's many more. --Jayron32 15:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And add to that, Poland for quite some time was in the habit of electing mostly foreign born men as their kings. As also was Novgorod, if you count fragmented parts of a former Russian state as foreign to each other. 148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination is definitely not the proper word. There is certainly no such thing as the "right" to be elected President of the United States. The concerns of the writers of the US Constitution are quite clear within context. They had just fought a war of independence against a German monarch. And they were not too keen on having a French puppet set up in his stead. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I called it a "worn-out provision". It had its purposes back then, but these days it doesn't seem to have much use or relevance. Americans are welcome to migrate to my country, become naturalised, pay their taxes, take part in all aspects of Australian society, get elected to Parliament, and in the fullness of time become Prime Minister. Australians are welcome to migrate to the USA, become naturalised, pay their taxes, take part in all aspects of American society, even get elected to Congress - but may never aspire to the presidency even though our 2 countries are said to be each other's best friend and closest ally. Put it this way: if they were writing the US Constitution today, would this provision be there? I very much doubt it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, but that's a dangerous line of reasoning — the First Amendment might not be there either.

Anyway, I agree with you, it's a blot on the constitution and ideally should be removed. But it isn't going to be, at least not until something fundamentally changes, and there are more important battles to fight. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

But an American could never be King...Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course they can. See older versions of Line of succession to the British throne, which included many Americans. They're never going to get there, but simply because they're too far down the list, not because there is any legal barrier to an American acceding to the throne. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone actually wants to know why the provision for natural born citizenship in the U.S. is required for the presidency, the best thing to do is to go to the people who, well, actually wrote the Constitution to see what they say about it in their own words. In this case, The Federalist Papers actually covers the topic in a few places. Federalist No. 19 deals with the issue of eliminating the possibility of foreign influences over the government of the U.S. It holds up the elective monarchy of both the Holy Roman Empire and of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as a models of what can go wrong; Poland especially was used as an example of "what can go wrong in the U.S.", from the source text:

"If more direct examples were wanting, Poland, as a Government over local sovereigns, might not improperly be taken notice of. Nor could any proof more striking be given of the calamities flowing from such institutions. Equally unfit for self-government and self-defence, it has long been at the mercy of its powerful neighbors; who have lately had the mercy to disburden it of one third of its people and territories."

Poland, and to a lesser extent the HRE and Switzerland, are used repeatedly as examples of federations which don't operate well. In the case of Poland, it was the influence of foreign-born heads of state which were cited as the source of the downfall of Poland. The danger of foreign influence is dealt directly in Federalist #2-5, it was certainly on the mind of the framers of the constitution. Particular precedents for this paranoia, besides their conflict with the "German" British monarch George III was a move by Nathaniel Gorham to invite a Prussian Prince to become King of the United States; there were several other discussions involving other European princes as well, see [2].

Also remember that, in the original intent, the President was not directly elected (he still isn't, but the electoral college is bound more to state popular elections than they were in the Framer's day). The fear was that a powerful and rich foreign prince could first come to America and purchase citizenship from congress, then pay off electors to make him President, and then using his role as President to involve America in affairs that were not in its interest. This, by the way, was pretty much what led to the downfall of Poland-Lithuania which gets mentioned in several of the Federalist papers specifically. By requiring that the President be born in America, it prevented that from happening. Whether such a provision has relevence in the modern world is a matter for a different discussion, but it is there, it is real, and it had a real reason for being there in the minds of the people who wrote the Constitution. --Jayron32 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Shame I didn't say that. And how unimaginably horrible it must be for foreigners, being safe from the horror, the horror, of having to serve as president of the worst country ever. Can you imagine the shame of being forced to be President of the United States of America? I mean really. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Say what? --Jayron32 00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That anti-Hanoverian sentiment and fear of a foreign pretender for the newly independent state were the historical context for the concerns of the writers of the Constitution? μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite explicitly, actually. If you read the Federalist papers, they are volumes and volumes of historical context which provide justification for the writing of the Constitution. They spend many of said papers discussing both historical and contemporary forms of government as found throughout history, and looking at the positive and negative aspects of them, and how such forms of government and of federation helped inform and shape how the constitution was written. In these, and in other writings by the writers of the constitution, they explicitly cite problems with other governments, and specifically and repeatedly go back to the problem of the Head of State and his accountability to the people. In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor's accountability is to the sovereign princes who elect him (and not the people). In the case of Poland, the King of Poland is accountable to the foreign powers which bought control of the Sejm to elect him king, this is all well covered in Federalist No. 19; the rest of the Federalist papers are an excellent read into the other aspects of historical study of government as it informed the writers of the Constitution. You should, you know, actually read them. I should also note that your second question in no way clarifies your initial sardonic statement, an explanation of which would be nice. --Jayron32 03:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, that's a terrific explanation of why the US HAD the natural born citizenship requirement for President, but what I don't get is why it still has it. Obviously global circumstances have changed, and the chance of foreign intervention in US governance has been microscopically small for a very long time now. Is it too hard to change? HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel sure I speak for the majority of my countrymen when I say the Constitutional provision in question would prevent a massively overrich and overweening oligarch like a Rupert Murdoch from ever becoming president, no matter how many congresspeeps he was able to buy. Which is certainly a comfort in these unsettled times. There is no support here for changing the natural-born requirement, guys, so you might as well find something else to ruminate about. Textorus (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

@HiLo48: The reason the provision still exists is because of inertia. Laws don't get changed because it would merely be a good idea to change them, there needs to be cause to change them. "It doesn't make sense in the modern world" isn't sufficient cause usually. General opinion that the law doesn't have any need to be isn't, in itself, enough reason to generate enough interest in the government to change it. There needs to be real demonstration that the law is causing problems. My opinion that the law "isn't right" doesn't mean shit. Even if millions of people believe that the law "isn't right", that's still not sufficient. For governments to act, the government needs to feel the existing law is somehow causing problems or getting in the way of something that needs to happen. There was a minor movement a few years ago led by some members of Congress (Orrin Hatch I believe was involved) to repeal the provision when it looked like Arnold Schwartzenegger may have been a possible Vice Presidential or Presidential candidate. It never gained any steam. Again, laws don't change the second they become unneccessary, they only change when they become a real problem. This is independent of my feelings towards the laws. I have feelings. My feelings are irrelevent to political realities. That's an important thing to understand when I need to assess why the world exists as it does. The law exists for the reasons I note above. That I have a feeling about why it should or should not exist doesn't mean jack shit. I am still capable of explaining why it still exists, and accepting that as a true set of reasons, without feeling that those reasons are right and just. It is possible to understand a world which does not exist how I want it to. HiLo48, that is something perhaps you should consider as well. --Jayron32 15:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that there's no support to change the natural born requirement, as Textorus suggests. Surely some would want to eliminate the rubbish generated by the Birthers. But I can certainly understand the goal of wanting to keep "our" Rupert away from the White House. And Jayron, as I've already said, your explanation of why the rule was created was great. What's harder to understand is the inertia you describe. Do Americans of today really think that the founding fathers wanted their ideas cast in concrete forever? HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Textorus's glib response is somewhat incorrect. I think depending on how the question was phrased, some sizable percentage of Americans would respond anywhere from "not caring" to "mildly interested in seeing it changed" to "it's OK the way it is". But instant response to popular opinion is probably not the best way to design a public policy system. Instead, there needs to be actual reasons for the policy makers to go through the work of changing the law. And those reasons, in nearly every case I can think of up till this moment, have involved laws which have real consequences for large numbers of the population, and very rarely are about isses which are merely "just not right" in the sense that this issue is. The process for doing so is not trivial, constitutional amendments are governed by Article Five of the United States Constitution and it's only happened 18 times in 235 years of history (once for the first ten, and 17 other times). As I said, there has recently been an effort to overturn the provision, but it never gained momentum; evidence of the political inertia. Americans today don't spend considerable energy thinking about what the founding fathers did, overall. They spend a lot of time trying to work hard (or in some cases find work) to provide food, shelter, and other necessities for themselves and their families, and the rest of the time watching American football, and for most Americans that doesn't leave a lot of time for studying political history or for debating issues of constitutional policy. As far as the people who do spend their time pondering these issues, the notion that the "founding fathers wanted their ideas cast in concrete forever" is actually very close to a real sentiment among a large number of political thinkers, see Originalism and other threads that follow from there. --Jayron32 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As George Washington said in his Farewell Address: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We in the U.S. have a surfeit of important, pressing issues to deal with just now, and this theoretical topic is miles down at the bottom of the list. If it ever gets to the Top 10, we'll deal with it then. Unlike the happy citizens of all the other countries in the world, who don't work for a living, never worry about paying the bills, and have all the time in the world for both, um, soccer and abstract debates night and day about minor points of constitutional law - we're a little busy at the moment here. Textorus (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not much of an excuse. Hatch's Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment looks perfectly reasonable to me; why not just enact it? Shouldn't take much time if people were only willing. But they aren't, probably because of some silly Manchurian Candidate fantasy almost entirely unrelated to the (now outdated) original reasons for the restriction. --Trovatore (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Textorus was partially joking although perhaps serious on the more important things to worry about bit. However I agree a legislature can't ignore stuff just because they have more important things to do, and it should be easy but in reality I think would lead to a lot of debate and time spent.

The silly thing about the current law (at least by my reading of President of the United States#Eligibility) is someone who was born to non American parents outside the US who's family migrating a month after their birth and who was soon naturalised staying with one parent and of course grew up in the US, served in the US armed forces and became a war hero, at some stage voluntarily and unnecessarily renouncing their citizenship/s of birth, and later became a highly successful governor of Texas for 16 years eventually leaving despite a popularity of 94% while still taking the time to look after their single parent, to give someone else a chance would not be able to run for president.

Meanwhile their sibling who was born in the US but left with the other parent when they were one month old and then grew up in say, North Korea, eventually going to serve in the armed forces (but made it clear they didn't want to give up their US citizenship) and fought against many US allies (but not the US itself), widely feared due to their active participation in war crimes and then went on to become a well known academic (but not involved in making policy) in North Korea who repeatedly denounced the US, eventually running away leaving their parent behind when the North Korean government was overthrown and making it to the US and then being found and sentenced to 14 years in prison in the US for war crimes (but not treason) would after the completion of their term (presuming they aren't sent elsewhere for trial) be eligible to become president. (I don't believe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Participants in rebellion would apply here and from what I can tell while serving in the armed forces could lead to loss of US citizenship, this only happens if it's done with the intention of giving up US citizenship or if the person is engaged in hostilities against the US [3] [4] and I don't see that anything I outlined counts as treason although the provision for automatic loss in the case may be in doubt anyway [5].)

While I acknowledge in the first case there will likely be a change in the law before it becomes an issue and in the second case the person doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected even presuming the law doesn't get changed, it does lead to the question of the logic of the current law. Even in a less extreme case it seems obvious 'natural born citizen' vs non-natural born is as much of anything an accident of history and not really reflective of a person's suitability to be president which ultimately is probably best left up to the voters.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

At least part of the reason is to exclude even the most infinitesimally small chance of a president having some sort of divided loyalty, and anyone who was born a non-US citizen could have divided loyalties. Lee Harvey Oswald, at the height of the Cold War, went to the USSR and declared his intention to renounce his American citizenship and adopt Soviet citizenship. Now, that didn't eventuate in his case, and he always remained an American citizen - but even if he had changed sides formally, and then later resumed his US citizenship (unlikely, I grant you, but we're discussing hypotheticals here so anything's fair game), he would still have been eligible to be elected president (assuming he wasn't rendered ineligible for other reasons, such as being incarcerated for life for a presidential assassination), because he was a "natural-born" American citizen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

October 24

Billy Giles suicide letter

Where can I read Billy Giles's suicide note? --Belchman (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I can find extracts, but not the whole thing, which it seems is quite long. This may interest you. Moonraker (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already read that. Anyone? --Belchman (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Peter Taylor book Loyalists only printed extracts from the four page letter. I would assume his parents are in possession of the original letter and showed it to Taylor, who just picked out pertinent bits to put in his book.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:-( --Belchman (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the Musical Notes time scale??

The microsound article says: "Microsound includes all sounds on the time scale shorter than musical notes, the sound object time scale, and longer than the sample time scale" What is the time scale of musical notes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.162.193 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That page, Microsound, seems to be describing the time scale of microsound, not "the time scale of musical notes". It says the scale is between 10 milliseconds and 0.1 second (100 ms). So it seems to be saying that "musical notes" are 0.1 second or longer. This is a concept I hadn't heard of. The Sound object page offers a bit more. Looks to me like the microsound page is not very well written and perhaps ought to say something like "...on the time scale shorter than sound objects and longer than samples...", or just "...all sounds between 10 and 100 milliseconds..." The link to Sampling (signal processing) is not very useful, as that page nowhere describes "the sample time scale", whatever that is. Pfly (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, the book referenced on the microsound page, Microsound, by Curtis Roads, is on Google Books. It appears not all the pages referenced are previewable. But this page talks a little about the "time scale of musical notes", and defines musical notes to be between ~100 ms and ~8 seconds. Also, page 3-4 provide a basic overview of various "time scales of music". Pfly (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

why would a great reckoning in a little room strike a man dead?

I apologize for posting this twice, but I think maybe the language desk doesn't get much traffic. I paste below the questions and answers from there:71.101.96.129 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone were unaware of the Marlowe reference, what would this mean: "it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room." (Shakespeare, As You Like It, III, 3). Why would that strike a man dead? (I am not referring to the whole line, i.e., the idea of being misunderstood, etc. -- just the idea of a "reckoning in a little room" and why it might be fatal.)71.101.96.129 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is widely believed that this is a reference to the murder of Christopher Marlowe, who was stabbed after a meal in an argument over the "reckoning" or bill (or check, if you're American). --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

... and I would guess that the scandal was fairly well known to Shakespeare's audience, especially with its suggestion of corruption in high places. Was Shakespeare getting in a dig at Thomas Walsingham, or at Robert Cecil of the Secret Service, just as modern comedians weave in comments on current scandals? Dbfirs 08:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And to actually answer the original question (which specifically said "If someone were unaware of the Marlowe reference"): not a thing. Without that context it is an image with no import. --ColinFine (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. Is there anyone who disagrees with Colin's statement that the phrase is meaningless except in the context of Marlowe? "Reckoning" can also mean "the end" in a religious sense, or "the bad consequences" in a historical or personal sense.71.101.96.129 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I thought Shakespeare was just playing with the words (aware of the partial double meaning) , but didn't dare state so in case I'd missed something that experts were aware of. Thanks Colin. Dbfirs 21:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

END OF PASTE FROM LANGUAGE DESK.71.101.96.129 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Reckoning" in Elizabethan/Jacobean English generally meant settling a bill (check, etc). People can be struck dead by an unexpectedly large check/bill/account (this is a common trope in comedy, though I'm not sure how far back it goes). Since the context is about a poet being appreciated ("When a man's verses cannot be understood, nor a man's good wit seconded with the forward child Understanding, it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room") the connection to Marlowe seems inevitable.

There might possibly be an allusion to the phrase "day of reckoning" which originally meant the day a bill is due but is sometimes used to refer to a more serious kind of adding up, the last judgement at which all our sins are listed. Google Books returns various 17th century results for this[6], the earliest I can see being Thomas Cooper from 1609, whose use is clearly extended from the bookkeeping sense. I see no evidence of "reckoning" in Shakespeare's day meaning anything other than a literal or metaphorical settling of an account, so it isn't closely connected to someone being struck dead - although the idea of an event, even a death, as settling an account is possible.

There is a lot of commentary on this phrase, however, and I'm sure a proper search of academic journals (which I can't do at the moment) will reveal more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

General Knowledge - Business related question

Which global brand has historic links with Hannibal and Julius Caesar?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Roman Meal Bread? P.S. Which website did you get that quiz question from? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Elephant Brand? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rubicon? --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer is: Wikipedia... its global in scope and has links to history articles about both Hannibal and Julius Caesar. (do a win a prize?) Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Constutional rights for civialians

What is the constitutional right for an individual to drive a motor vehicle on public roads in the USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.248.98 (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Constitution makes any mention of motor vehicles. In any case, courts unanimously agree that there is no such right. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your question involves three issues: the privilege of operating a motor vehicle, the Freedom of movement under United States law granted by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the common law right of access to public roads and waterways. Protection of the right of access and the privilege of operating a motor vehicle is granted by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, meaning that revocation can't be arbitrary or capricious. In some cases, a person who is denied the right or privilege is entitled to a hearing and review of the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction. A person who is prohibited from using a public road might bring a challenge based on the Due Process Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the common law right of access. The right is not absolute and it is not fundamental, so it may be restricted provided that there is a legitimate government interest and the restriction is reasonably related to serving that interest. The so called reasonable basis is a low threshold and almost always will the state win on constitutional grounds. The common law grounds are another matter, and a person does indeed have a fundamental right to accessing public roads from their property, which may include crossing private property to do so in some circumstances. The right does not necessarily mean by car, however. Gx872op (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words, there isn't one, but you have some recourse should the privilege be denied. Mingmingla (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

State manuals provided to applicants for a drivers license assert quite emphatically that driving is a privilege, not a right. In fact, that is a possible question on the written test for a driver's license. Gx872op is quite correct to state the common law right of access to a public right of way by foot. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How do US States and the Federal Government legislate regarding horse access to the road. Is horse use of roads generally covered by the same statutes that regulate motor vehicles? Bicycles? Walking? Where on-road light rail and trams exist, are these covered under a road use statute? To what extent do other fonts of law (I understand that US counties and local government areas have some legislative power) regulate the use of non-motor vehicles? … Not asking for legal advice, but the "vibe" about various approaches to this area of law by legislatures (NSW, for example, has omnibus acts covering all these uses, with a body of law covering the roads across the entire state). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In the U.S., highway laws are pretty much set by individual states, which license and regulate both vehicles and drivers, so every state has a large body of statutes governing highway use - overall, fairly similar, but the details may vary from state to state. The federal government, as far as my understanding goes, doesn't directly control highway laws - except that if the feds really want to do something (like lowering the speed limit nationwide) they can tell the states, "if you don't change your laws, we won't give you any money for new highways or repair of old ones." Most states will quickly fall into line then. States generally allow cities, towns, and counties to make ordinances regulating traffic within their boundaries (e.g., you can park here, you can't park there, speed limits in business districts or residential neighborhoods, etc.). As to your question about horseback riding on highways, see this site for links to the laws in various states, which differ widely. As a personal observation, though, I can tell you that it's not common to see people riding horses along a public highway nowadays, even in rural districts of Texas, and when they do, they always make sure to stay well off the pavement, so it's not much of an issue. People going any considerable distance other than a short pleasure ride would tend to load the horses on trailers and take them where they wanted to go. Textorus (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about horses on roads, except that there are some regulations in at least some parts of the US. There's also horse-drawn wagons/buggies, which are not uncommon on roads in Amish "Dutch Pennsylvania". I came across a horse-drawn wagon on a relatively significant state highway in Missouri (I think the area had a lot of Mennonites). I don't know what regulations horse-drawn wagons have. The few I have seen all had a big bright red triangle on the back, like in this photo. As for bicycles, there are various regulations and laws, varying from state to state and even between counties and cities within a state. Some places require bicycle licenses, and many are thinking about requiring them (Seattle, for example). As an example of the kind of bicycle laws and regulations one might find in the US, this page lists a bunch of California laws on the topic. Note the provision allowing cities and counties to require licenses if they want. Pfly (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is part of the ordinances of the city of Hays, Kansas pertaining to bicycles. The city does require bicycle licenses in order to ride on the city streets legally. The city's ordinances supplement a general statewide set of traffic ordinances, [7], which addresses a number of odd things you didn't mention, like, you can't use a snowmobile on roads except under a few conditions (such as, go figure, the road is impassable by cars due to being covered with deep snow!). And this one, which amuses me for some reason: "No person upon roller skates, or riding in or by means of any coaster, toy vehicle, or similar device, shall go upon any roadway except while crossing a street at a crosswalk and except upon streets set aside as play streets." Pfly (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a fairly standard 4th subject for this font?

I recently visited Framlingham, and spent some time examining the font in St Michael's church there. This is an octagonal font, which the visitor notes on a board provided by the church claim is 14th century. It has fairly standard (as I understand it) Suffolk lions and wildmen around the base, and the eight sides of the basin alternate between symbols of the four Evangelists and angels holding shields. The four shields held by the angels carry symbolic theological symbols, so one has the Scutum Fidei for the Trinity, one has three chalices with hosts to represent the Eucharist, and one has a complicated but clearly standardised combination of the cross/crown of thorns/spear/nails/flails/cup on a stick. The fourth angel holds a nearly blank shield with faintly differentiated areas, and the visitors notes just vaguely say it is defaced: one assumes that it was either defaced by the iconoclasts or not recarved with the others by Victorians for the same reason.

Now, I can guess at a likely subject (presumably it was a Marian image to represent the Incarnation of God, and was defaced for being an image of Mary), I don't actually know. Is there a standard fourth thing that would go with the Trinity, the Crucifixion, and the Eucharist in this context? And is there a standard form of it?

Thanks. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This page claims that the font is 15th century. You're probably right that the missing shield was a symbol of the Virgin Mary; a Fleur-de-lys or Mystic rose are likely candidates. Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my links, Alan. Could you create the redirect on scutum fidei to the capitalised version? I've been caught by that before. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your wish is my command ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:-) Thanks. Oo, Fleur-de-lys and mystic rose are interesting ideas I hadn't thought of: I was trying to imagine something that would fit the character of the others, and either of those would fit, especially the fleur-de-lys. Do you happen to know if either can be found in similar contexts in Suffolk around that time? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm searching at this very moment. So far, I've found this photo of the font at Saint Nicholas, Blakeney in Norfolk: "The octagonal font dates from the 15th century; its carved panels alternate images of the symbols of the Four Evangelists with seated figures of the Doctors of the Church (Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, and Pope Gregory I). The central column carries shields depicting the Instruments of the Passion and the Holy Wounds. The eastern shield is unusual in that a sword is shown with an ear stuck to it. This refers to the story of Saint Peter striking off the ear of Malchus, the High Priest's servant, in the garden of Gethsemane." Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The technical name for "combination of the cross/crown of thorns/spear/nails/flails/cup on a stick" is Arma Christi... AnonMoos (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

English church furniture, J. Charles Cox, 1907 says; "About the middle of the 15th cent, the singularly happy and beautifully executed idea of depicting the Seven Sacraments of the Church, on the vessel dedicated to the initial Sacrament, occurred to the designers of the more elaborate English font. It is exceedingly probable that not a few of the fonts thus embellished were destroyed by Puritan violence, to whom such subjects would be eminently distasteful, but there are at present existing in England twenty-nine examples, which are thus distributed..." (follows a list of churches - but sadly not Framlingham)

"The pedestals are usually adorned with eight figures in niches, and the bases further enriched with small representations of the four Evangelists and their symbols. All their bowls are octagonal, and consequently some other subject had to be designed for the eighth panel. In nine cases the Crucifixion forms the subject in the eighth compartment, in seven instances the Baptism of our Lord, and on three fonts the Last Judgment. There is a single example of each of the following subjects: the Communion of the People, the Assumption, the Virgin and Child, the Holy Trinity, Our Lord in Glory, and the Martyrdom of St. Andrew at the church of St. Andrew, Melton. The eighth panel at Farningham, Kent, shows a figure kneeling before a crucifix, which is probably intended for the donor of the font. In the three remaining cases the eighth compartment is either blank or hopelessly defaced." Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a photo of the Framlingham font with an extract from the church guide book. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. very interesting! The History of Framlingham, in the county of Suffolk, begun by Robert Hawes, Gent., with considerable additions and notes by Robert Loder, 1798 says; "...an octagonal font of freestone, adorned with eight blank escutcheons and an old type.". If the shields were blank in 1798, then suffolkchurches.co.uk (linked abve) is right and the carving has been re-cut. However, rather curious that there are only four today. Oops... wrong church - this part of the chapter is describing Saxtead church. Despite describing in detail every monument in Framlingham church, I can't see any mention of the font. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

---

By the way, I'm not an expert in dating medieval carvings or anything like that, but from the materials I gathered for the article on the "Scutum Fidei" or "Shield of the Trinity" diagram, it appears that its use in church decorations was much more common in the 15th century than in the 14th century. The Shield of the Trinity diagram is found in manuscripts written during the first two thirds of the 13th-century, but then seems to fall out of use for over a century (as far as the available surviving evidence indicates), and the earliest solidly-dated use as a church decoration that I've come across was the 1383 memorial bronze of John of Campden (or John de Campden), warden of St. Cross, Winchester, described in a book by Charles Boutell... P.S. I've added a link to the Flickr photpgraph of the shield on the font to the Shield of the Trinity article. thanks. -- AnonMoos (talk)

Observance of Canada Day on June 30

If July 1 (Canada Day) falls on a Saturday in a given year, what institutions would choose to observe Canada Day on the Friday before, i.e. June 30? 74.101.118.93 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Canada Day page says "If it falls on a Saturday, the following Monday is generally also a day off for those businesses ordinarily closed on Saturdays." Does that answer it? Pfly (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Influence of Saturn on people (in Portuguese)

Há algo de verdadeiro sobre o que ouvi ontem a noite sobre a influência de saturno sobre o homem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.125.35.35 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Translated to english: Is it true what I heard last night about the influence of Saturn on man? I have no answer, as I made the above translation using a combination of intuition and Google Translate. I'll let someone who speaks portuguese translate the answer "No" into portuguese for me. --Jayron32 18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that all depends on what it was he heard... if he heard that "Saturn does not have an influence on man" then the answer would be "yes". :>) Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? Cassini-Huygens Voyager 2 Astronomy Astrology --140.180.26.155 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

on the last one. --Jayron32 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly had an influence on Galileo. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly attracts everybody. It's not a significant influence (is it even measurable? *numbercrunch* Should be 2E-6N... equivalent to the weight of 0.2 mg on Earth - small, but measurable), but it is an influence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that the gravitational attraction? From the perspective of people on Earth, the only force that Saturn would exert is a tidal Force, which is (approximately) proportional to the inverse cube of distance. Using a minimum Earth-Saturn distance of 1.2E12 m (8 au), and an Earth radius of say 6.4E6 m, and the mass of Saturn as 5.7E26 kg, the maximum tidal acceleration of Saturn on a person on Earth is 2.8E-13 N/kg, or about 2.9E-14 g. For a fat 100 kg person, that's 2.8E-11 N, or 2.9 ng (I hope I got those conversions right). Referencing our handy Orders of magnitude (mass), that's on the order of the mass of a human cell. In comparison, the moon's tidal force is about 1.1E-7 g, and the sun's on the order of 5E-6 g. Buddy431 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I went for plain gravitational attraction, missing (or, if you are generous, ignoring) the fact that the Earth will be attracted equally. And I used the Sun-Saturn distance as a rough estimate (about right on average), and, importantly, a very muscular 100kg person with strong bones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Old cups

If someone very rich in the 16th century, in Ireland, were to prepare an alcoholic drink, such as wine, in a particularly expensive and ornate beverege container, what would they use, and what would it be made from, some sort of ornately carved crystal or glass, perhaps, or would such materials not be common for drinking at the time? Also, if the container is not made from typical glass, could it still be called a wine glass?

148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Too early for Waterford Crystal, but imported Forest glass might have been available. Gold or silver are other possibilities. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A container for drinking that is not from glass, but from some metal, would be termed a goblet or chalice. There are also tankards, but these are typically not filled with wine. Neutrality^talk 00:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Although Falstaff used to drink sack by the quart, which is a very big tankard by anyone's standards. Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just found a picture of Falstaff with a large flagon and a smaller beaker - so perhaps he would decant it in a more civilised manner than I had imagined. Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Pewter, perhaps?
Sleigh (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith, silver goblets. Drinking from silver goblets causes blue blood.
Sleigh (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Shades of The Court Jester:

The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle
The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!

Great movie if you've never seen it. --Ludwigs2 15:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Following my link above to Beaker (drinkware) is rather unprodutive as it only mentions modern plastic cups. This snippet view on Google books says; "For nearly a thousand years silver beakers graced the tables of princes and prelates, in castles and manor houses." (Small antique silverware by George Bernard Hughes, 1957). Antiques Glossary at antique-marks.com says; "Beaker {drinking vessel - 11thC) Drinking cup without handles or stem, and usually with a foot rim. Early beakers were made in wood, glass and pottery, although by the 11th century there were silver, silver-gilt and gold examples. In the 18th century, glasses generally replaced beakers for table use." Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Scipio Africanus

Would Scipio have worn a tunica when he became a Quaestor at the age of 24? When might he have started wearing a tunica?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

He always would have worn a tunica, like everyone else - that was just a basic undergarment. You probably mean a toga, and as quaestor he presumably would have worn a toga praetexta, a white toga with purple trim, like the other public officials. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I get it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hu Jintao a dictator?

How come Hu Jintao is count as dictator? I thought China is doing just fine but one of my textbook, China is consider not free country. I thought China have nice transportation systems. Two websites i fouind Hu Jintao is belong to 5th world dictator rank. I never hear Hu commit killing to Chinese peoples. Hu does not cause any genocides at all. I thought dictator is mostly on killing people a little bit on everything. Sexual harassments, gender racism, genocide-China I don't think it have any of those. Does dictator and genocide match. Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame is black/brownbelt on genocide-I wonder why they are not world's worst dictator-they suppose to be list there.--69.226.40.225 (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dictator is a generic term for a head of state who is neither democratically elected nor a hereditary monarch. Since the People's Republic of China is not, in any way shape or form, a democracy, dictator is a reasonable term for its leader. Not every dictator need be a bad dictator. See Benevolent dictatorship. --Jayron32 00:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think that "dictator" mainly refers to someone who has personal despotic power, so I'm not sure that Hu strongly qualifies... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree (with Jayron). A dictator has "sole and absolute power", according to Dictator, which jibes with my understanding of the word. Hu Jintao is no Mao. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because the leader of a one party state requires others to pull the trigger for him doesn't make him not a dictator. The answer depends on the definition. But by most liberal definitions, yes, a dictator. I agree entirely with Jayron's comments. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I agree that a dictator doesn't need to be bad. However I think many would suggest Hu Jintao is not a dictator even if certain political figures in the US suggest otherwise [8]. Others could probably explain this better then me but the Politburo of the Communist Party of China and others in China simply have too much power and influence for it to be accurate description. I'm of course using a definition of dictator close to what our article uses rather then the one Jayron32 gave which seems an odd definition (under which a ceremonial head of state could be a dictator if they weren't a heriditary monarch or elected). Note neither dictator nor Hu Jintao suggest he is a dictator. Nil Einne (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Not really. A dictator has sole and absolute power; it is a personal characteristic. Post-Deng Xiaoping China cannot really be described as an autocracy, but as an authoritarian regime with a collective leadership. While Hu is certainly a powerful individual, in China power is concentrated within the Politburo (24 members) and its smaller Politburo Standing Committee (5-9 members).

See our article on paramount leader: "Following the death of Deng...the term has seldom been used, since power is held more-or-less collectively by the members of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China with the General Secretary acting as a first among equals figure and different factions [e.g., the Shanghai clique] jockeying for influence. Policy decisions are thought to be made via majority vote of Standing Committee members following internal discussions." See also Generations of Chinese leadership. Neutrality^talk 00:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"First among equals", as in Princeps?

I would say something like "chief oligarch". Marco polo (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that the original poster's reluctance to call Hu a dictator, based on the PRC having a "nice transportation system", has a strong echo of he made the trains run on time. --Trovatore (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree - and just as (or so I hear) Mussolini's train-running abilities are exaggerated, the impression that the PRC has a "nice transportation system" is simplistic. Domestic flights are often two or three hours behind schedule as a matter of course. The non-flashy non-bullet trains are dirty and crowded, and yet many people prefer them to the new bullet trains because at least they don't break down or crash as often, or as badly when they do. The big cities are in permanent gridlock, while more rural areas don't have proper roads (sometimes due more to corruption than lack of investment). Compared to most western liberal democracies, China is a long way away from having a "nice transportation system".

Back to the original, it would be quite ridiculous to call Hu a dictator. The country is ruled at the top by a collective leadership composed of the Politburo, and neither Hu or any other member of the group can impose their own wills or even their policies with ease except at the margins by influencing certain policy decisions. Probably the only area in which Hu has more influence than his peers is in theoretical party ideology, and even such influences are subtle and much delayed by the time they filter down to practical policies. For the most part, the groaning weight of the party and state machinery runs itself by inertia, and not even Hu can but nudge it a little, and only with a great deal of effort. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Authoritarian" and "Totalitarian" are dodgy cold war theoretical constructs, produced by the American social science system, to justify then state ideology. They're also not meaningfully predictive of social behaviour. Dictator is a similar term, this often is used to exclude analysis of the actual social relations of power. In the case of mid twentieth century Germany, it is often used to avoid discussing corporate, junker, military and popular responsibility. In the case of the Soviet Union the idea of "dictatorship" is used to avoid detailed analysis of the relations between union, firm, party, management and state. China's networks of power, graft, promotion and policy formation have always been more complex than a flow of policy determinations from a centre being implemented without failure or dissent at a periphery. Populism, and the discovery of policies in grass roots practice, has just as significant a role in modern states without a loyal opposition, as it does in modern states with loyal oppositions. Neutrality's specific points above about Hu's personal power answers the specific question. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

on your entire first sentence. George Orwell wrote Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for socialism, as I understand it, and Orwell was not an American, and it's quite patronizing and incorrect to claim Orwell was a slave to the American social science system. (And the Cold War didn't start until rather after 1936.) Actually, I call on everything you wrote, Fifelfoo; it's glib and false to claim the only reason the word "dictator" is ever used is to try to pin it all on one bad guy and avoid a broader view. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Functionalism versus intentionalism. Orwell's fairly free use is tied to his Lion and Unicorn period work and Orwell has characterised his work in other ways, see his Penguin edition of letters. GADDIS, J. L. (1993), The Tragedy of Cold War History. Diplomatic History, 17: 1–16 is critical of the historiography of the Cold War on precisely this point, citing Jeane J. Kirkpatrick. Dictatorships and Double Standards,” Commentary 68 (November 1979): 34–45. as typical of the theoretical construction's use in "diplomatic history" or Soviet Union bashing. Kirkpatrick's theory resulted in explicitly wrong predictions because of its desire to construct the "authoritarian" as "our friends" and the "totalitarian" as the implacable other. The link between the authoritarian / totalitarian thesis and a peculiar self-justifying US state ideology is transparent in the analytical material of the 1950s and 1960s as any cursory reading of Congress of Cultural Freedom front organisation publications during the 1950s will demonstrate. These opinions which are strangely absent from the British theorisation of enemies and allies in their opposition to the soviet system. I don't think this is explicable in terms of the British giving asylum to a better kind of right-wing emigre. As far as sociology, David Paul Haney The Americanization of social science: intellectuals and public responsibility in the postwar United States Temple University Press, 2008 goes over the link in detail between the CCF sponsoring these theories and Seymour Martin Lipset at page 100. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the best description of Hu Jintao would be "first among equals in an authoritarian, single-party political system." Yes, I know China has many political parties, but they have no power at all. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

October 25

Are contracts copyrightable?

I've read a theory that the text of a contract is in fact not copyrightable in the US because the text is functional rather than being merely an original work of expression. If another party wanted to create a contract that was intended to bind the parties in exactly the same way, the exact same text would have to be used, and, this theory goes, that's fine. Is there any law or court precedent in the US supporting this theory? Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A contract is an intention to be legally bound and as such is a public record. I could imagine that a fill-in-the -blank document could be copyrightable, but how in the world would it be specific enough to cover the desired stipulations? Any real contract binds real individuals, and representing oneself fraudulently is fraud. Seek legal advice if this regards some actual matter before law. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, no. (But I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice). There is the "blank form doctrine" (or "blank form rule"). In Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), the Supreme Court held that "Blank account-books are not the subject of copyright" - this is because of the idea–expression divide - the expression of an idea is copyrightable, but the theory itself is not (but see )

See 37 C.F.R. 202.1 (here):

Material not subject to copyright. The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained... (c) Blank forms, such as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in themselves convey information."

For a relatively recent application of this rule, see Advanz Behavorial Management Resources, Inc., 21 F.Supp.2d 1179 (C.D. Ca. 1998) involved a copyright infringement action involving blank forms used for home health care management ("Medical Social Service Follow-up," "Daily Visit Route Sheet," etc.). The headings and abbreviations in forms were apparent and there was no accompanying text that imparted information to the reader. The Court held that the "blank form rule" denied copyright to such a form, which required the user to supply information rather than itself supplying information.

Here's a memo from the University of Arizona's general counsel's office about the subject. Neutrality^talk 03:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Blank forms are not contracts; the reasoning is fallacious. They are entirely different sorts of documents and entirely different copyright questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Fill-in-the-blank forms certainly can be contracts. See standard form contract. Neutrality^talk 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Some contracts may very well be copyrightable. The Contract everyone here agrees to when posting (see CCAS) is copyrightable and protected. The statutory exclusion you're reading is addressing that constitutional gray area about non-creative things like tables of contents, and lists of random numbers. The more recent case on that is Feist v. Rural. Feist is the much more modern statement on Baker btw. As for the OPs more specific question about functional text... that's actually a very interesting legal question. As a general rule the text of a long, specific contract, might be copyrightable, however the intent of the contract, or the idea behind it, is certainly not. And if there's no other way, or easier way, to express that idea, then it can't be either. This is the stuff of law school exams and there's a lot of nuance in it. You should appreciate that nuance to really ever answer this question. I'd give you some law review cites (i know they exist) but i don't have access to them right now. If this is something you're really into leave me a message and I'll try to dig some up for you.

But no, contracts are not public record, not by any stretch of the imagination. While some of these may become public record in court cases, there are often contractual terms, even settlement terms that are either protected by court order or held secret. The agreement you made at the gas station last week to buy gas was certainly just as much a contract as anything else, and yet you wouldn't dare think that "public record" would you? Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant in court cases, that is why they are written down in the first place, to be verifiable to the relevant parties and in court if necessary. That doesn't mean a judge won't seal such matters in cases of trade secrets and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the fact that they are meant to be legally binding would make them uncopyrightable. It would put limits on the degree to which one could try to use copyright to control them, but that's what fair use is for. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty thoughtful essay on the very question at hand from the New York Law Journal. The basic conclusion of the author is that there isn't any reason to think that contracts are not copyrightable. There have been lawsuits over this for significantly novel types of contract styles. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Contracts have copyright protection in some cases. We regularly copy other lawyer's works.[9]. Most of us use standard form books which are designed to be copied by the attorneys using them. Most contracts are not registered with the copyright office nor do they contain a copyright notice. While they still enjoy a copyright provided that it is an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium, the remedies available are more limited without both registration and notice, i.e. ©. The biggest issue is demonstrating that your contract is original, not that it has more functionality than creativity. The utility of a contract is not the same as the utility of a ledger or phonebook. Fair use is the worst defense to use in this context. It is an affirmative defense, which means that it assumes the ownership of a valid copyright. Fair use claims, "Yes the copyright is valid, but the use is fair." The whole issue of originality, utility and first authorship would be mute with a fair use defense. Contracts that become public record through a court filing still retain a copyright, but fair use would probably allow them to be posted elsewhere depending on the context. For instance, a contract where the position of a comma costs a company millions of dollars might find itself online somewhere based on the public interest as part of a news story.[10] If someone copied that same contract and used it for commercial purposes, the fair use defense would be weak because of the weak 1st Amendment arguments for the use and the transformative use does not weigh in favor. The case taught in most American law schools concerning fair use, mostly because the opinion is masterfully clear on the subject, is Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group.[11] Like all fair use cases, the court passes over the ownership of a valid copyright fairly quickly. Whether a contract will enjoy copyright protection in a particular context will be very fact specific and open to the interpretation of the judge if it gets that far. Gx872op (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I only invoked fair use in the context of someone saying, "you can't reprint the contract I signed to show to others involved in this legal dispute, because it's copyrighted." This seems to be the concern of people who want to claim that they couldn't be copyrighted because they are legally binding. There's no doubt that such a use would be fair use though; in any case, being copyrighted can't exclude something from discovery. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Mr.98 and Gx872op and Shadowjams; I have some very interesting reading now, particularly this PDF which was linked to by Gx872op's first link. Thank you! Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

where is our copiale cipher article?

I was surprised that after the New York Times wrote an article all about "to crack one of the most stubborn of codes: the Copiale Cipher, a hand-lettered 105-page manuscript that appears to date from the late 18th century", there is no Copiale Cipher article on Wikipedia. Where is it? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Trying not be facetious, but it's because no-one has written such an article yet. Wikipedia has an enormous coverage but there are still many notable subjects that are still waiting for someone with the interest/enthusiasm to produce an article on them. Perhaps you would like to make a start? Mikenorton (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Also... is it possible that it has another name? For example: Do we know who created the cipher?... if there is a bio article on that person it could be mentioned there, but not by the name "Copiale cipher" (not saying it is... just that it could be). Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a description of the cipher. Mikenorton (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

While there are currently 3.7 million Wikipedia articles, there may well be or have been even more than 3.7 million people, events, and things which have existed which are notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Thus the encyclopedia's coverage of things is constantly growing. Edison (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

See Copiale cipher, a stub I created, which all are welcome to expand and improve. Edison (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The writing "copiales 3" appears at the very end of the text. Is copiales some German term for for "copy everything?" Trying to figure out why the scribe might have written it at the end of a manuscript about Freemason-like rituals, I Googled it along with "St. Andrews," mentioned in the text as important in the history of the Masonic lodges, and found "Copiale prioratus Sanctiandree;: The letter-book of James Haldenstone, prior of St. Andrews (1418-1443)". So if it is a Latin word, what does it mean? Google translate provides no translation of copiale or copiales from Latin to English, but does translate it from Spanish as "copy them." Edison (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wiktionary, "copia" (1st decl., thus pl = copiae) means abundance (see etymology of copious). Maybe somebody with a somewhat less rusty knowledge of Latin can hint on the suffix "copia-les" ? --188.22.103.39 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's "copiale", plural "copialia", and it means a register, or as above, a "letter book". I don't know the ultimate etymology, but maybe the OED would have it, or a big medieval Latin dictionary (Niermeyer, maybe; Du Cange doesn't have it). I'm not even sure it's from "copia", but I suppose that's likely. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you're all making sense and speaking nicely, otherwise I'd be accusing you of coprolalia.  :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We are left no closer to analyzing why a copyist, book owner, or book user would write "copiales 3" at the end of a nicely copied and expensively bound manuscript. I could see it being "copy 3" out of an edition of "x." Was "Copiales" ever a name, as of a scribe? Would "copia les 3" make any sense as in instructing a Spanish-speaking scribe to make 3 copies? Edison (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't answer the question, but Niermeyer's Medieval Latin Lexicon has an entry for "copiarium" meaning "register", and I could see how that could become "copiale" in another form of Latin, or in French (although "copiale" doesn't seem to be a French word either). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Copiales is a plural form of Copiale, meaning a collection of copies. The manuscript itself (not in the German or English texts) has on bottom of page 68 "Copiales 3? Rth|" (all scratched out) and on the last page "Copiales 3. Rth|". The dot after the 3 is used after numbers in that time (today omitted) and Rth| is the usual abbreviation for Reichsthaler. I would guess that the scribe who copied it received 3 Reichsthaler for copying through page 68 and another 3 Reichsthaler for the rest. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To confirm this, a journal that appeared in Leipzig in the year 1764 (very close to the manuscript) records a fee of 1 g| (1 Groschen = 1/24 Reichsthaler) per sheet (2 pages) for official "Copiales" by a scribe. 24 sheets would cost 1 Reichsthaler and 72 sheets 3 Reichsthaler. With the complicated text here, the scribe could easily charge 1/24 Reichsthaler per page. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Does reading things which are written in the manuscript count as WP:OR, or can this information be added to the article, per WP:BLUE?  Card Zero  (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Was Albert Einstein a pantheist?

Einstein's religious views are very similar to pantheism, but in the article Albert Einstein's religious views he is quoted (here) saying "I don't think I can call myself a pantheist". What was the difference between his views and pantheism? Did he ever answer this question himself? Or perhaps he was a pantheist after all?

Thanks, Oh, well (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very close. I think panentheism is probably a better description of what Einstein believed, though. The distinction, as I understand it, is that the pantheist says the universe is God. The panentheist believes there is a universe, and there is God, and they are muddled up inseparably. So in the latter there are two entities — the universe and God — but in the former there is only one (universe/God). Theological hair-splitting. If you called Einstein a pantheist, you'd be pretty close to the mark. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am personally concerned when people attempt to describe my spiritual views with single word labels. Einstein was a far more complex person than me, so I'd suggest giving up on simplistic labels for him. HiLo48 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Both "pantheist" and "panenthiest" are extraordinarily vague anyway. They tell you more about what he didn't believe (personal God, etc.) than what he did believe. They are akin, in Einstein's case, to a vague certainty that there's some order behind the universe, but that's it. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that he wasn't a panentheist. As you said, the difference between the two is that pantheism states that God and nature are one, and that therefore supernatural phenomenons can't exist, whilst panentheism regards nature as part of God, allowing God to perform miracles. Einstein repeatedly rejected the supernatural, and I can't think of any other reason why he would refer to God as more than the universe, but if you know a reason please comment. As for the simplification in labeling him as a pantheist, I agree that his views were much deeper than of most pantheists. However, calling the Pope a Christian is also a simplification, but he still belongs to the category of Christian people, and Einstein's beliefs do seem to match pantheism. Anyway, I want to know what made him say the quote above (maybe because he indeed thought it's too simplistic, and didn't want his beliefs summarized that much). Oh, well (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think belief in miracles is entirely separate from both of those ideas. Einstein obviously didn't believe in miracles or interventionism. I don't think panentheism is at all interventionist, for what it's worth. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Expensive degrees vs. cheap PhDs

How does is come that going through a university degree program can be very expensive, but the working force that can offer a degree (=PhDs) are normally horribly paid? Shouldn't degrees be cheaper or PhDs well-paid? Quest09 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, public school teachers are horribly underpaid. However, university professors are paid a reasonable amount. An anecdote: My private sector computer work nets me around $60k/year. Teaching at a university (without tenure) nets me around $70k/year. If I were to teach at public school like my two neighbors, I'd be making around $30k/year. -- kainaw™ 20:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably you are not teaching something related to humanities. Even in the US, they seem to be meagerly rewarded, unless you are tenured... Quest09 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A beginning tenure-track job in the humanities pays less than half of that, generally. At really high end places (e.g. Ivies) they pay $50K or so. Adjuncting (non-tenure track) varies hugely. At the highest end (e.g. Ivies) it can pay around $35K. At the lowest (most exploitive) end, it's more like $2K per class. I will note though that many humanities degrees are not expensive except in terms of opportunity costs. My PhD cost me basically nothing except six years of my life — all the rest was either paid for by scholarships, fellowships, research jobs, or teaching jobs. But I went to a relatively rich university where lots of job opportunities (i.e. teaching) were always available. People I know who went to poor universities (even highly acclaimed ones, like the UCs) usually had to go into some degree of debt to complete the PhD. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Australia has a homogenous payment structure for academics of all disciplines nationwide (with regional variations depending on union strength post 1990). These are generally in-line with equivalent "ranked" public K-12 teachers. In neither case does the cost of the degree to the individual or the state have a serious influence on the earning potential. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

School teachers really do seem to be underpaid in the US. In the UK, the main scale for teachers has a maximum of £32,558 [www.tda.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/teaching-salary-scales.aspx]. A university lecturer is paid on a "spine" [12], with spine point 44 a ceiling many people reach, £45,155. So there is a definite "rate of return" to a PhD, but also the possibility of getting to the same point in a school teaching career (either by becoming a head teacher - principal - or by being an advanced skills teacher). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The economics of higher education in the US are kind of complicated. Here's a go:

• The main reason the humanities are paid so little is because there's virtually no threat of abandonment. That is, an engineer needs to be paid something close to the industry rate, because otherwise they will simply jump to industry jobs. (They might accept a lot less than actual industry jobs because of the promise of doing their own work, or something like that. But it's got to be comparable.) There is no such threat in the humanities. An English PhD or a History PhD or (god forbid) a Philosophy PhD is not going to be able to make any kind of comparable leap. There is simply no sector out there that is seeking them, no place that they are uniquely qualified for other than the university. I can speak from experience (both mine and my friends') that when trying to jump into the non-university world, a PhD is more often than not a stone around one's neck. Potential employers tend to view on as simultaneously (and paradoxically) over- and under-qualified. Overqualified because you have a fancy degree that makes it clear to all around you that you've got a lot of firepower, perhaps more than their job (or co-workers) need. Underqualified because you have essentially no job experience to go with your level of education. So you've got the education that says, "management," but your experience says "entry-level." That's an uncomfortable paradox for a potential employer and it makes you look like a pretty problematic potential employee. The humanities of course exacerbate this when they use impenetrable jargon (everybody sounding like a poorly-translated French professor), pursue what appear to outsiders to be frivolous topics ("'Shoulda put a ring on it':The Semiotics of Beyonce's Single Ladies"), and generally act like asses in the presence of non-university people (it is an often vocalized mantra in the university system that anyone who is not in the university system is some kind of dilettante or fraud).
• Compounding this is that there are significantly more PhDs produced each year than university jobs, making it a complete buyer's market. This is especially insidious because the universities are the ones who also get to control the number of PhDs there are per year — they are both the producer and the consumer of PhDs. Why do they glut the market? Not necessarily because they love making the world miserable (though one wonders), but because having lots of graduate students (the embryo stage of the PhD) means that you are able to do more undergraduate teaching with fewer professors. Undergraduates pay the bills, in the end. So you get grad programs with huge numbers of entrants, fund them on a pittance, and then force them to do all of the heavy work of teaching (the grading, the sections, the one-on-one interactions) while the small number of tenured professors do whatever pleases them. This might not be awful if they were preparing those grad students for the reality that awaits them once they finish, but they foster the idea — purposefully or inadvertently — that everything will "work out" and the "cream rises to the top" and other such nonsense. This is despite the fact that since 1970 — when things started going decisively sour in the PhD-to-job ratio — there have been endless pleas by various members of the academy to start training grad students to do more than just work in the university. Instead of doing this, the direction of scholarship has been towards increasing specialization, increased insularity, increased retrenchment: the response of a crowded field (and perhaps an inferiority complex with regards to the sciences).

So there's the basics of it. Nobody can really threaten to leave, and they're dispensable anyway. It's an awful racket if you ask me. When you're 22 or so it seems like a good way to avoid jumping into a cubicle, but when you're in your 30s on the other side of it, it starts to look a lot more dismal, and the "learning for its own sake" suddenly looks like a very poor personal economic strategy. I say this as someone who has managed to make his humanities PhD pay the bills, but I've seen a lot of people flame out, too. If you'd like to read more depressing discussions of the current state of the university system, the most depressing place of them all is The Chronicle of Higher Education, which includes, even amongst its "positive" columns, recommendations that new assistant professors refrain from having children, cut their own hair, and steal furniture out of the trash of universities with rich students in order to make ends meet. I'm not even exaggerating. (I'll show you the life of the mind!) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

While the above is true; it doesn't fully or adequately explain the poor salary rates of Engineering PhDs. (let me get out my table of skill relativities from 1940 for comparison... yes I've seen this argument before a wages tribunal... it worked out about as well as expected). Academics face a number of simultaneous problems in using industrial muscle to force management's hand. One is the deliberately cultivated glut in labour market supply. One could speculate that the triumphalist claim in Australia is correct, where in the 1950s employers declared that the high school skills shortage was solved as declining wage rates indicated, onto the graduate skills shortage; and extend this forward in time. But I don't think the glut is sufficient. Other glutted skill groups manage fine. There's the diversity of cultural identifications and skill differentiations within the shop, and this causes problems as Taylor and Ford demonstrated. There's a worker mentality that they're not workers, but even as white collar workers in the 1940s, 50s and 60s were being proletarianised, their consciousness changed to reflect their material being—I've seen some examples of this in contemporary academia, but it isn't nearly as successful as Nursing unionism. However, the largest problem is the turn-around time on the production process. The seven year academic production cycle is still a serious element of the humanities. The fantasy of the 3 year book project is quite often just that. The sabbatical cycle, and the throughput of Undergraduates to PhD graduates in a straight through movement (3+1+3 in Australia) is indicative. Even in areas where turn around times are faster, and greater capitalisation is evident, the sunk costs of labour or "General Intellect" if you want to get all Virno, mean that the production process as a whole is very slow. Obviously individual papers fall due periodically, and withholding this labour is not effective. Withholding labour in student graduation (the classic "marks ban") is a fraught process.

I also suspect that a PhD catering to non-University employers will fail to cater adequately to University employers. Of course, I've never seen a boss reduce the quality of the product to increase throughput... Fifelfoo (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, I just realised that I implicitly accepted that academic workers shouldn't marry, have children, buy furniture or get haircuts for money. Then again that's good advice, "What keeps a man alive?...". Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding — and I don't have the statistics in front of me at the moment — is that an Engineering bachelor's degree is among the most lucrative one can acquire; a master's adds to lifetime income significantly, but an Engineering PhD does not. I suspect there is some other dynamic here regarding the labor market. What I would be interested in knowing is where the engineers with PhDs end up. If they are primarily in academia, then that's the source of the wage decrease right there, because even if engineers are going to be at an academic pay grade, even if they get paid a lot more than historians. If they do not — or cannot — jump into better private industry jobs with a PhD (which I suspect in the case), then the additional degree adds little in that department, either. This strikes me as a separate dynamic from the glut, and a totally separate situation from the humanities. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Are Northern Ireland's murals going to be replaced?

According to this murals in Northern Ireland are about to be replaced. Is that confirmed? I can't believe they will destroy Northern Ireland's most distinctive feature. --Belchman (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the murals of Northern Ireland are a notable tourist attraction and part of its cultural history. They give tours throughout the city where some of the worst violence and sectarian killings occured, so it's stupid and hypocritical to replace the murals in a vain attempt to sanitise the recent past. Belfast has already lost a lot of its old Victorian buildings through urban renewal, if they paint over the murals, there will be nothing left for tourists to photograph!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I'll have to hurry if I want to see Northern Ireland in its true beauty in my lifetime. --Belchman (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, those of us who have to live there are less happy having to put up with murals glorifying gangsters and thugs. In any case, most of the murals have always been regularly redesigned and repainted. Since the ceasefires, many of them have gone in a less paramilitary direction. There's one on the (loyalist) Woodstock Road celebrating great footballers from Belfast. The side of the (nationalist) Short Strand bus depot is a virtual bulletin board, repainted every time there's an election coming up with murals supporting the Sinn Féin candidate of the day. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

They don't have to replace the murals with white painting. They can just replace them with other murals, which do not condone violence. Quest09 (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Identifying my philosophy

I am unable to sort out this one philosophy I hold. I know it, but I can't put into words or explain it to others. One part of it is if you consider a spectrum of options given to a certain question, my response might be orthogonal to the choices given to me. It isn't necessarily middle of the road. Some examples:

• The March 2011 SAT essay question asked whether reality television was helpful or harmful. I said that it was neither and depends on the situation.
• Gordon Gekko's "Greed...is good.". To an extent, my response would say it is neither good nor bad.

Can someone please help put this view into words. --Melab±1 ☎

Pragmatism? Quest09 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Relativism? --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it might be partially relativistic, but I do hold absolutes, like killing someone is a violation of their rights. --Melab±1 ☎ 22:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wimpyness? Looie496 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Melab±1 ☎ 22:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You're concerned about nuances. Could be called pedantry, though I think there's a fine distinction. 213.122.36.164 (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comes off as kind of negative, to me. --Melab±1 ☎ 00:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a philosophy. Just differentiating among situations is just plain common sense. There is no way of answering at a SAT essay if reality TV is good or bad and the examiners don't expect that you state one or the other opinion. They want to know how you defend an idea. Quest09 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I approach things orthogonally and hold the belief that the issue at hand has other options, if that makes sense. --Melab±1 ☎ 00:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Skepticism?  Card Zero  (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I can describe your philosophy only as "different from theirs". Whenever people try to get you to describe a class of things as good or bad, it depends on you accepting their belief that the class is significant, i.e. a conclusion of their philosophy. Now with more information one might try to describe your philosophy, but that is all that I think can be done with the information provided. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This may be of help. I hold the idea that Ayn Rand believed egoism was a virtue, whereas altruism is immoral. Supposedly altruism always leads to death. I agree with the idea that an individual hold's no obligations to others and vice versa (primarily because of pondering unrequited love and scenes in movies where someone does something that ends in someone not loving them anymore). She would probably agree with me their, however, I also dislike her idea the egoism is necessarily a virtue and extend my statement to one has no obligations to themselves or others. This is probably where she would go berserk. --Melab±1 ☎ 22:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, is this compatible with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"? Wnt (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article, and it talks about some True Will over the ego. Doesn't make much sense. My English teacher commented "Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." after I had tried to explain my philosophy to him. --Melab±1 ☎ 23:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a "philosophy" at all, rather a sensible reaction to badly constructed multiple choice questions. I hate it when I have to answer questions like that--when the answer should be "it depends", or "none of the above", etc, but those aren't answers you can pick. Wanting to pick "it depends" but not being given the option isn't a philosophy. It's just a badly worded multiple-choice question. (just to note, I was responding to the original question, not the ones asked later in this thread) Pfly (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading the later bit, about Ayn Rand, egoism, altruism, etc--I'm not sure I quite understand. Which beliefs are hers, which are yours? What does "obligation" mean exactly, also the terms egoism, altruism, virtue, and immoral. These words can have many shades of meaning. Pfly (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the way I view these things that is a philosophy. --Melab±1 ☎ 00:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but it is hard to say what other philosophies yours is like without knowing what those terms mean to you. Given the mention of Ayn Rand, I assume egoism means Rational egoism, altruism Altruism (ethics), and obligation Moral responsibility or Moral obligation. What exactly virtue means is less clear, other than "good". I know very little about Ayn Rand, but in general I'm reminded of Nietzsche. I haven't read very much of his work, but Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a rather amazing book that delves into these kind of concepts--morality, obligation, good and evil (virtue and vice you could say), self and others, in ways that might be similar to what you're talking about. The book gets into many other things too, like "God is dead" and Übermensch, which may or may not resonate with your philosophy about morality. It is also written in a highly metaphorical poetic style, unlike most philosophy books. I have only browsed Beyond Good and Evil. It also explores issues of morality, virtue/vice (good/evil), moral responsibility, and so on. Personally, I don't think anyone has an absolute duty to do or not do anything whatsoever, for others or themselves. Things like virtue, vice, moral, immoral, obligation, even self and other, are meaningless except within some context or framework, I think. But then, contexts and frameworks arise whenever we perceive and understand reality in any particular way. There are many ways of perceiving and understanding, so notions like morality and responsibility arise meaningfully in a variety of ways, none of which is absolutely true and right. On the far side of nihilism I find boundless altruism, at least until regular life as a zombie kicks in again. But that's just me. (hmm, it might sound like I'm describing perspectivism, but while it's a fairly close match, I don't agree with the idea that "there can be no knowledge of a thing in itself.") Pfly (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Casuistry? Not a philosophy but an approach to thinking by considering each case as it comes up, ie a form of reasoning. (In the article) utilitarians & pragmatists use the form. It's also described in this section[13] as "applied ethics" or moralist reasoning. I like it because it avoids emotionalism, attitudes of the times, and social brainwashing in considering certain questions of behaviour, ethics etc. It would be nice to see a tickbox named "Other" in tests. Does "orthogonal" mean you like to see statistics of a thing? Manytexts (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your assumptions about the definitions are correct, Pfly. --Melab±1 ☎ 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are Republican murals of better quality than Loyalist ones?

This is a well-executed Loyalist mural. I took this photo in Ballymacarett, East Belfast in 2001. I believe the mural is still there

That's a general tendency that I've noticed. Compare both here for example. Republican murals shown there are much more elaborated and colorful, and the portraits generally resemble better the people they portray. --Belchman (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many elements to art appreciation and art critique. Particularly in terms of political art the standards vary. The famous George Lukacs once presented an apologia for socialist realism on the basis that actually existing socialism had existed for far less time than capitalism and so socialist realism would necessary be inferior to grand realism—his apology is more than a little hollow. From the examples you posted I noticed that republican murals displayed more advanced graphical design techniques: however, this could simply indicate the commodification of republicanism and the alienation of republican elites from their constituency. (Consider how "slick" US politics graphic design is, and simultaneously, how alienated the US working class is from the US political process). In contrast the primitivism of the loyalist works could indicate a local and popular meaning. If we examine some of the political claims in the works, many of the loyalist works on the site you showed had a very local (brigade specific) context. The republican works made claims to more general, society wide concerns. To be honest, I find the execution of both works (from this level of "detail") to be very similar: the medium is sparsely populated with content, and the subjects are generally displayed for who they are rather than the graphic content of the work. (The number of works, and the community dedication to the form, are certainly greater than in my neighbourhood where block-end murals are highly stylised and influenced by the New York Graffiti style). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the Spanish civil war as recounted by Tom Lehrer: "Though [Franco] may have won all the battles, We had all the good songs!" I would guess that Republicans/Nationalists have diverse resources of Celtic historical art and world-wide left-wing propaganda posters to draw on, while Unionists might tend to stick more to tried and true Orange Order / British Empire iconography... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a photo of a Loyalist mural I took in Ballymacarett, East Belfast quite close to the Harland and Wolff shipyard. It is well-executed and depicts Captain James Craig and Major Frederick Crawford of the original UVF and Squeaky Seymour and Joe Long, who were volunteers in the contemporary UVF. Needless to say, the area was staunchly UVF when I visited it ten years ago.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've often thought that while republican murals often resemble political cartoons, loyalist ones look more like naive folk art. Probably has something to do with republicans being politically better organised than loyalists, with correspondingly more thought being put into style and message and perception. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

One can also compare the superior quality of republican ballads to those of the loyalists. Here is an example of a typical loyalist ballad: The Men of the UDA. It just does not compare to the The Broad Black Brimmer!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Underdog rebel" is an inherently more artistically interesting position than "defender of the established order". I think this is fairly independent of the actual merits of the respective cases. I have never listened to the Horst Wessel Lied, but I'll take a flyer and speculate that it's quite stirring. --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Sash My Father Wore is probably the most famous of all loyalist songs but even that doesn't invoke the warrior spirit like the Irish rebel songs. On the other hand, the lambeg drum makes more of an impact than the bodhran!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Kyrie

How is Kyrie pronounced? --75.33.218.167 (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

[14] as in Kyrie--Aspro (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that as Kyrie#pronunciation notes, a trisyllabic pronunciation is far more common, though it doesn't elucidate what that pronunciation is. Wherever I've sung it, it's always been trisyllabic /ˈkɪ⋅ri⋅ɛ/, except when singing the Byrd 4-part mass, when it was mostly /ˈkɪ⋅ri/ as on the howjsay site. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical sing-song Greek via Latin is is a little different from Koine Greek or classical pronunciations (Attic etc.). The OP did not give any context as to why the query arises so we're all guessing.--Aspro (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In English, kee-ree-ay. In Greek the first vowel was like a French u or a German u umlaut. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancient vowel sounds are notoriously elusive. The sound of the "υ" changed in Greek and probably went through the stage of sounding like the German "ü". (Isn't this a question for the language desk?) Moonraker (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no controversy over this. See Ancient_greek#Vowels. The letter y was used in Latin only to express this sound which was called "Greek i" and still is so called in French and Spanish. The IPA symbol /y/ is used to represent the Close front rounded vowel for this very reason. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But as Moonraker said, the sound of Greek vowels (and diphthongs) changed throughout the centuries. Since "kyrie" is typically associated with the Christian hymn, it wouldn't be pronounced with the "classical" vowels. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian right of return

Has there been any research on how many Palestinian refugees would actually return to Israel if given the chance to do so? Would it be enough, as Israel claims, to destabilize the country? --140.180.26.155 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the research is by town planners and not so much about destabilisation but about how to fit more people into what is really quite a small country. In particular, the availability of water for agriculture, horticulture and domestic use. It's certain that not every Arab person with a historic link to the area would actually return; the proportion who would must depend on precisely what was being offered. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How many would return depends on the circumstances of their current location. My guess is that most Palestinian refugees in Lebanon would opt to return, given that Lebanese society rejects and largely despises them. Of those in Jordan (where they're far more "settled" and integrated into society) a far smaller proportion would likely opt to return. As an aside, some Palestinians have fought for (and, in some cases, won) residency in Israel under "skilled migrant" "student" and "family reunion" categories. (They are, however, exceptions). I'm sure some gay Palestinians from the west bank have (paradoxically) sought "refugee" status in Israel, though I'm not sure how the immigration ministry and courts have viewed such applications. 58.111.224.157 (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

140.180.26.155 -- I don't think that anyone knows or can know at this point what the number would be. However, one thing is clear -- the louder and the more insistently the Arabs talk about how the right of return must be absolutely unrestricted and without any limitations whatsoever, the more a significant portion of the Jewish Israeli public becomes correspondingly convinced that the whole thing is really not about humanitarian concerns at all, but rather about malicious plans to try to destroy Israel the long way around... AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask a question? Does a Jewish person born and raised in say, the US or Europe, have more right to live in Israel than a Palestinian refugee who wants to return to what he or she believes is their rightful homeland? It also amuses me that there is concern that the Palestinian refugee only wants to return out of malicious intent to destroy Israel. jewish people from around the globe who are now domiciled in Israel may not have had any family connections to Israel anywhere in their past. This could be construed as propping up Israel as a Jewish state and any Palestinians coming back to Israel may not go down very well as it would begin to eat into the Jewish majority, depending on the number of Palestinains who choose to return to Israel. Would having a Palestinian majority destroy the Israeli state? I don't think so. Would it diminish a Jewish state? Perhaps. Carson101 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When or if the Palestinians get leaders who will put an end to the suicide bombings, the problem will fix itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Integrating West-Bank and CisjordaniaGaza into the respective Arab country

Would it be possible? The former would be part of Jordan and the latter of Egypt. Is that a tragedy? Quest09 (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean "Gaza", since the "West Bank" and "Cisjordania" are synonyms. In any case, Jordan annexed it from 1949-1967, but only a few other countries formally recognized the legality of this measure (some sources say only the U.K. and Pakistan), and Jordan decided to relinquish all claims in the late 1980s... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Right and thanks for the answer. I am amazed that this is not discussed as a route to peace. Quest09 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Jordanians did much more than any other Arab country during the 1949-1967 period to integrate "their" Palestinians into the fabric of Jordanian society, but it didn't insulate Jordan from the political currents sweeping though the Arab world, and it wasn't enough to bring about Arab-Israeli peace. In early June 1967, the Israelis were telling Hussein of Jordan through all channels that they wouldn't attack Jordan if Jordan didn't start hostilities, but Hussein felt that he had to initiate hostilities against Israel or be publicly considered a vile traitor to the cause of pan-Arab nationalism by the so-called "Arab street" -- even though Hussein was very well aware that initiating hostilities against Israel would be far likelier to have overall negative results for Jordan than positive ones.

So Jordanians might say that they've already done more than their fair share , while Palestinians might say that they didn't go through decades of struggle to be ruled over by somebody else... AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. We have a Wikipedia article on Three-state solution, but historically that's mostly been advocated by right-wing Israelis (though this may be changing after the Hamas takeover of Gaza...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The West Bank was occupied by and treated like an integral part of Jordan from 1948 until Israel won the Six Day War in 1967. Jordan continued to claim it until 1988, when it renounced all claims to the territory (in favor of the PLO). By that time, the idea of a separate Palestinian nationality had gained sway. The whole argument of the Palestinians is that they are a separate nationality from the other Arabs, so they need their own state. As far as Jordan goes, the last thing the non-Palestinian rulers of that country need is 3 million more Palestinians. As for the Gaza Strip (occupied by Egypt from 1948-67), Egypt apparently didn't want it back when Israel withdrew from the Sinai in the 70s, and Egypt would have no interest in that hotbed of violence and radicalism now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Egypt's and Jordan's positions 1948-1967 were very different. The Jordanian monarchy annexed the West Bank. Egypt on the other hand always maintained that Gaza would be part of a liberated Palestine and that the occupation was temporary. Mail to Gaza was sent to 'Gaza, Palestine' between 1948 and 1967. --Soman (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Closest political party (US) to ideology

I took the Political Compass political ideology quiz, and my result was [15]. Given that I know nothing about where US political parties are on this scale other than Democrat and Republican are in the top right quadrant, what are a few (notable and preferably non-local) political parties in the US that most closely match the political ideology position I got? I would also be interested in where the Socialist Party of Kansas would be placed on this chart given that I have a friend who affiliates with that political party (FWIW, his political compass was [16]). Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably the anarchist or left wing of the Libertarian Party (United States), see Mary Ruwart, and Noam Chomsky, or the Democratic party (United States) (although they are practically the Communist party in terms of nationalization of wealth and the Insane Clown Posse in terms of policy and civility nowadays) or maybe the Green Party (United States). μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky is not associated with the LP, and is in fact sharply critical of it, somewhat to the disappointment of some LP members who see him as a potential ally. --Trovatore (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, I did not mean to imply it. He calls himself a libertarian lower case. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Political Compass" must be taken with a grain of salt. Anyway, you don't appear to be too radical of a leftist, and while the Democrats would be considered a center-right party by international standards, it is a "big tent" and includes "bottom-left quadrant" folks like Dennis Kucinich and Sherrod Brown. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When in opposition to the Republicans (whom I assume the OP would not align with) the Democrats are usually position themselves as the party of tolerance against Republican anti-gay, anti-immigrant policies, which he might see favorably. But for the last several years the Democrats have driven the size and intrsuiveness of the state through the roof. That doesn't sound left libertarian to me. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, I am registered to vote as a Republican due to the fact that I feel I can have more of an impact all in all voting in Republican primaries in Kansas versus Democrat primaries. And to be honest, I can actually tolerate Republicans like Jerry Moran just fine, it's when they start getting the likes of Jim Inhofe or even somewhat Sam Brownback that my tolerance wanes. However, you are correct that the "tolerance" stances of the Democrats tend to appeal to me. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'll really 'love' Tom Tancredo, J. D. Hayworth and Rick Santorum then. Your strategy of registering to vote in the primaries is impeccable. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Medeis characterization of the Democratic Party in the U.S. does not actually match their positions or actions in any real sense, but it does closely match the characterization of the Democratic Party by their primary political rivals, the Republican Party. That is, such a charactization is what Republicans, who are trying to get elected want people to believe about the Democratic Party, and does not actually match how the Democractic Party actually behaves. --Jayron32 03:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Free and universal education, a highly progressive income tax, death taxes, a central government bank, government control of the roads and the media, nationalization of capital and employment? Those are the planks of the Communist Manifesto. I didn't make them up, nor did I force the Democrats to adopt them in the main or the GOP to adopt them in part. The implicaation that I make the comparison for partisan reasons is false. Read the original Marx. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The awesome thing about your response is that, it its very rediculousness, it obviates the need to present any actual response to it. That is, the comparison of either major American political party (or, as you have done above, oddly, both of them!) to the ideals of Communism/Marxism is so absolutely and totally rediculous, no one has to actually respond to it. It stands up as one of the most patently silly theses I have heard that I don't see the need to refute any of it. It wonderfully refutes itself by being so rediculous. --Jayron32 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Red-iculous. Brilliant pun, Jayron, love it. Textorus (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm seriously interested in the attempt to portray the CPUSA as communist, or the Communist Manifesto, written due 1848—prior to the majority of Marx's serious work on capitalism—as communist. The Manifesto doesn't discuss the abolition of value or the centrality of working class self-emancipation. Critique of the Gotha programme is more representative of a mature programmatic assessment in Marx. Then, of course, there's the problem in assuming the attempts to influence statist parties by a 19th century political economist from a petits-bourgeois background is a sufficient representative of "communism." The very American Preamble to the IWW constitution is a far better representation of communism, having been written by workers who intended to use industrial weapons to immediately reduce the boss class to a historical memory. The incidental fact that none of these positions (with perhaps the exception of the nationalist and pro-"class peace" CPUSA) has any relation to the Democratic Party's politics is incidental.

To answer the original poster, supposing the political compass adequately represents your views, you may be interested in "social democracy" (not to be confused with "democratic socialism"), "progressive" or "labourite" policies—you can either be permanently isolated on the "left" of the Democrats, or investigate third parties. You may find some agreement regarding socio-cultural freedoms with the libertarians, but at the moment the most influential style of soft-left centrism (your position in the chart) tends to be associated with the pro-capitalist greens parties. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an obviously dumb/jingoistic comparison, one that conveniently ignores all of the myriad of ways that the comparison doesn't work. It's not a comparison which is even remotely useful for the OP, and it was clearly meant to just spark a debate on here, like many of said user's posts. The invocation of the ICP makes its frivolity even more apparent. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

October 26

Is this a genuine North Korean philosophy textbook?

I found this textbook on Archive.org which claims to be a North Korean textbook criticizing the "bourgeois" philosophies of Freud, Darwin, James and Sartre. http://www.archive.org/details/GuidingLightOfDestiny

It is also hosted at the U of Oregon Asia library http://e-asia.uoregon.edu/taxonomy/term/589

However doing an extensive google and worldcat search I haven't found any evidence that such a work was ever published in North Korea by the Foreign Languages Publishing House. Can anyone familiar with the topic, determine whether this book is genuine or fraudulent?

--Gary123 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks authentic. Do note that North Korean publisher wouldn't coordinate with ISBN or list books in int'l library system. --Soman (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The publishing house is real; the LoC records has over 500 items published in English by them (though only a handful in recent years). A number of the other works posted by this user match up with recorded books issued by the same publishing house under the same titles, which seems to support the likelihood of it being authentic - it certainly looks plausible, in terms of production style. Shimgray | talk | 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I read a few pages of it, seems too weird to be fake. The first sections contain a bizarre mix of hardline Marxism and strange versions of Greek myths with the characters and locations all mixed up. --Daniel 15:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Tahitians in Hawaiian

Does anybody know of any distint demographical population of Tahitians living in Hawaii today and how many? Distinct from a general term such as Pacific Islanders or Others.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I do remember reading somewhere about modern day Tahitians in Hawaii, but the article on Hawaii says nothing and I am not well-versed in the subject. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

friends and similarities

It's understood Yu-Na Kim and Mao Asada are good friends despite being rivals. But I was wondering if Mai Asada is also good friends with Yu-Na Kim. Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What sub-penny stocks are the most promising and why?

Some penny stocks out there that are currently trading at $0.0099 or lower that also DTC eligible are promising to invest into. Which ones would you suppose are, and why so? How likely is a failure-event to happen with the stocks you mention? Thanks, --70.179.174.63 (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As with a number of your questions, this one starts with a questionable premise. Why do you believe any of them are 'promising to invest into'? As you were told list time (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 28#Zecco can't give a history of stocks' asking prices. Anyplace that will?), one of the reasons why they are trading so low is because the market thinks a failure-event is fairly likely and investing in them is definitely not a sound strategy. As our article says, the big 'advantage' to 'investors' for penny stocks is they are easy to manipulate. In any case, no one is likely to provide advice on specific stocks on the RD, as they shouldn't and as we've told you countless times, there is no get rick quick scheme we can provide you. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who added the first fact tag but since I provided a direct link to the last time the OP asked, it was fairly silly. As for the second fact tag, I'm not going to dig thru the countless times the OP has asked about ways to make money quickly. Edit: See it was the OP [17]. I've attempted to help you here and below and several other times because despite the fact you often seem to ignore our advice because I've believed you genuinely want help. If you are to continue to deny, as you did with that Indian braces/orthodontist question, you are the same person as the one who asked a very similar question before using an IP belonging to the same ISP and geolocating to the same area (admitedly seemingly the wrong area here but both IPs do that) which in this specific case disappeared from wikipedia not long before your IP above appeared, and who tends to often ask related questions revealing similar information, I have no choice but to conclude you don't genuinely want help. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We are neither licensed nor qualified to give financial advice. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the original poster may have been prompted to research this question because of the disheartening surge of penny stock web advertisements that I have noticed on major websites over the last couple of months, promising that there's a guy who has made a fortune so you may be able to, too. To the original poster: Penny stocks lose almost all investors all of their money; they are businesses who are likely to fail, and on top of that, penny stocks are pretty easily manipulated, as seen in the film Boiler Room. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Fox News so popular?

Whenever I hear about Fox News, it is always cited as being "unfair and unbalanced" with a right wing bias in its reporting. (This is, of course, partially due to the fact that I live in Norway where the media is more liberal than its US counterpart, and secondly due to the news sources I choose.) However, the article on Fox News states that Americans find it to factual in its reporting. Even 43% of democrats find its reporting to be accurate. So, my question is: Given that Fox News is frequently criticised for being right wing and biased, why is it still viewed so favourably by Americans, Democrats included? V85 (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be important to distinguish its "news" programs (which seemed to be fair-and-balanced the last time I looked) vs. its "commentary" programs (which are typically right-leaning). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's probably also important to distinguish between "Accurate" and "balanced". You can create a very strong bias simply by picking and choosing which stories to run. APL (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people like it because it justifies their own views. Other people watch it because it goes against their views and they are addicted to the adrenaline rush they get when they get angry with some talking head on the television. -- kainaw™ 14:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the other cable news channels (CNN and MSNBC) are boring. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Those who watch it because it goes against there own views and they get an adrenaline rush don't seem to think it through. If they stopped watching what they thought was right wing rubbish then the channel would lose viewers and therefore money through advertising. If there were a sizable amount of people who thought this way perhaps there would be less of Murdochs views on television. I personally would not watch a channel that constantly pushed their own views so much that other views did not get a look in. Carson101 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but ... I watch Fox news precisely because it is biased towards the conservative viewpoint. It is a counter weight to those media outlets that are biased towards the liberal viewpoint. By watching multiple news channels, representing multiple political viewpoints, I get a more complete picture of all sides of political/social issues. Which better allows me to form an informed political opinion of my own. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've yet to encounter any mainstream media outlet is the US that is biased towards a "liberal" (i.e. left) viewpoint. From this side of the pond, the core of the US political spectrum stretches from right-of-center to "you gotta be kidding me" cave men. I'd call Noam Chomsky an inconvenient centrist over here ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of perspective. In general, the political center in Europe skews more to towards the left than the center in the States. ie, positions that are considered "liberal" in the US may not be seen as "liberal" in Europe. Thus, while the majority of American networks (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS etc.) may not seem "liberal" to a European, they are seen as being biased towards the liberal from an American viewpoint. However... Fox is really the only news outlet that presents the American conservative viewpoint. That means it is the only network you can go to if you want to understand that viewpoint. Hence its popularity. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am American, and I find that all of the US networks have a rightwing bias, in that none of them seriously question a political economic system skewed toward power for large corporations and wealthy individuals. Hardly any US network ever presents a truly socialist perspective, except occasionally to deride it. The farthest voices to the left that are taken seriously would be considered right of center in any other country. Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse Marco polo's statements above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't overestimate how popular TV news is generally, except for the half-hour evening news programs (and even those are not watched all that much). During the day, most people are not watching TV, and if they are they're mostly watching entertainment. During the evening, more people watch TV, but again overwhelmingly it's entertainment programs. The half-hour nightly news is most people's limit, if they even watch that. Media pundits and political professionals have Fox and CNN and MSNBC etc. on all the time, and material that these networks feature seeps into the more general discourse to some extent, but the actual viewership is quite small. Herostratus (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends truly on your view of "left". In the U.S., any policy in which the government is going to take over and handle an issue is commonly seen as "left". Any policy in which the private sector is going to take over and handle an issue is commonly seen as "right". Support for government health care is left. Support for commercial health care is right. Support for increasing government regulations on power companies is left. Support for deregulating power companies is right. It is much more a big vs. small government topic - which is radically different than the view of left and right outside of the United States. Perhaps there should be a wholly different pair of words to define it. -- kainaw™ 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Economically, yes. However, the right tends to be pro-government-control on social issues. In your parlance: support for government control of who gets to be married = right, while support for private decisions over who marries who = left. And any of a number of other issues. --Jayron32 16:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Two other key issues are the military and government support for certain kinds of business. The right in the U.S. tends to support expensive military interventions overseas even though they increase the share of GDP going to government. The right tends to support tax breaks and subsidies for certain kinds of business, particularly oil companies. The left tends to oppose such interventions and the spending they entail. Put another way, the right tends to support a larger role for the U.S. government supporting certain kinds of corporations, in people's bedrooms, in other people's countries, in fact in any area other than intervening in the economy to protect the environment or to help the less advantaged. The left tends to support a smaller role for the U.S. government in people's bedrooms, supporting big business, and in other people's countries, but a larger role in such areas as protecting the environment and helping the disadvantaged. Marco polo (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your original question, I don't think that Fox News is viewed favorably by most Americans. It has a substantial group of partisans, mostly Republican. A minority (43%) of Democrats apparently feels that its reporting is accurate. This may mean no more than that they think its statements of facts are indeed factual. It does not necessarily mean that 43% of Democrats think that Fox News is balanced in its selection of the facts it reports. I think most Americans recognize that Fox has an agenda. Many, probably most, Americans avoid it for that reason. Marco polo (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you kiddin me? Glenn, Icecold Coulter, The Newt, Michelle Maglalang Malkin, Shannety, Scientology Susteren, Billy Reilly, what more do you want?! Facts? It's not Comedy Central! DS Belgium (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather more prosaically, a US friend of mine claims that Fox has considerably fewer, and considerably shorter, ad breaks than CNN and its other competitors. That would suggest that CNN is expected to pay its own way, but FN is subsidised by the rest of the Fox family. I know that Fox' UK cousin Sky News is heavily subsidised, the continuation of which was a factor in the (finally abortive) discussions regarding NI fully acquiring Sky. Personally I can't help but observe that, at least for Sky News, they seem to have a news anchor (and sports anchor) hiring policy that's largely based on looks rather than journalistic quality. Put together that would suggest that humans have a low attention span and like pictures of pretty girls. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get all of that. I was busy looking at pictures of pretty girls... Oooh, what's that... --Jayron32 23:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I read a study once that argued that Fox News doesn't turn people into Republicans; rather, it attracts people who already are Republicans. The Fox News viewership is overwhelmingly Republican, or at least far more Republican than Democratic. Fox viewers watch it because they agree with it. I don't think Fox News is viewed favorably by a majority. In 2010, Sacred Heard University did a survey in which Fox News ranked highest when people were asked which TV news source they trusted the most. It also ranked highest when they asked people which TV news source they trusted the least. Clearly, Fox News is very polarizing, and people either love it or hate it. Incidentally, another poll found most moderates and the vast majority of liberals distrusted Fox News. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't watch Fox News. You monitor it.Greg Bard (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you required to make air quotes with your fingers whenever you say the second word of that channel's name? --Jayron32 01:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As job rejection is a guaranteed constant, are there ANY other "ways in?"

The economy may be shared by everyone, but I have a set of disorders (AS/SPD) and haven't worked since July 2009 (which was a temp job), so that make me harder to employ. A critical friend says that I wouldn't win any cases in which I suspect an employer detecting a disability, as a reason to reject me. (At least the university's attorney is free.)

My therapist promises that internships would increase the chances of future employment, but with a 2.3 GPA, how hard is it to land an internship in the first place?

With an 85 on the ASVAB, I could put that on my resume, but medication alone disqualifies me from any branch of the military.

Institutionalization is potentially free, but only if my Healthconnect (a subsidiary of Medicaid) makes it so. With my case, would they cover it? (Doubtful, IMHO.)

From Sallie Mae alone, the monthlies would be $557.15 at the current level of what I owe them. My rent is $350 before utilities. My SSI is $674/month. What sum does that make? A pretty horrid outlook!

I have some rough drafts of future planned novels, but how much does it cost to apply to publish them? What is the rejection rate? Even if my books ARE published (which is a long shot at this juncture), what are the royalty rates? (1% of the book price per book, or 1% of the net-only profits? That's a guess though.)

SRS promises to make "incentives" to employers to hire me once I graduate. Therefore, they can influence them; make it easier for them to hire me, but can't force them. (That gives some hope, but I still feel shaky over this.)

Failing all that, my only safety net is to defer loans by continuing college in some form (by at least 6 credit-hours per semester.) This may take on more loans, but would this beat not leaving enough for rent, compounding interest and/or surcharges for late payments and default fees? (Seems to in the present.)

There are allegations that Sallie Mae could still track me down if I flee the country (though AFAIK, garnishments can only happen to bank accounts in the same nation as the garnishers.) This is to say nothing of the compounding that would continue. (If I left school with $90k in debt, and left the nation for 25 years without payment, excluding late and other default fees, the total owed would be over a half-million dollars. {$616,362.77, assuming an average of 8% interest.}) I would only flee with the objective that I pay them back under my own terms, therefore not being squeezed tighter than I'm comfortable with.

There needs to be another "way in" to having a steady income in order to keep me above water with the student loans. Are there possibly jobs that do not require interviews anywhere that may take me in? (Where would you suggest?) Other than that, what would those other ways be? Thank you, --70.179.174.63 (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you forsee problems getting a job in the future and haven't yet graduated may I suggest trying hard for internships (even the best students often face a few rejections and ultimately you don't know if you can get one until you try), including when you have to go for a interview, and concentrating on improving you improving your GPA may be two of your most important tasks? About the internship, there must be help for this at your university but at a guess as with seeking a job it may help if you concentrate on your strengths. E.g. if you are resonably comfortable speaking or writing Hindi or Mandarin, are there any internships where this may be of use? Of course I don't mean you should ignore personal development in other areas, it sounds like you are already getting help learning to best cope with your disability but from what you've said you may also want to learn how to write a decent resume and to improve your interview skills (i.e. job seeking skills) and perhaps personal confidence (it sounds like you're convinced you're never going to get a job which may not help) and people skills (as has been said before if people keep holding 'grudges' consider whether it is entirely their fault). The good news is you can probably get help with these at university for close to free.

Other stuff like worrying about changing your IP (and whatever caused you to need to change it), earning money off eBay, trading in penny stocks, frankly any get-rich quick schemes, and also trying to convince people of the wonders of washlets likely should take a back-burner as they don't sound particularly important if you feel you're struggling at university or in life in general.

There's nothing wrong with thinking rationally about your future but you probably should abandon the idea of running away. Not because of whether or not someone can come after you for your student loan, but because if you're a recent graduate without much money and without a brillant record and can't get a job in the US, there's little reason to think you have any chance of legally working in (not counting working holidays and stuff like that) or migrating to another country unless you can get or already have citizenship by birth or descent.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a very good source of decent money, but at a site like Elance at least you can bid on jobs using proof of your degree, some proficiency tests they administer, and whatever you say to potential buyers. I have no idea if this actually works, though. Wnt (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In my limited experience with elance, it seems like the majority of the jobs go to contractors from countries where the pay rates are much lower, at rates about 1/10th what an American contractor would expect. I assume many of them are probably competent, but some of them are clearly scams. (Some of them bid on every single contract, even ones that are technically impossible to complete.)

Not to discourage anyone from trying. Some people claim to have had better luck than me. APL (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

One thing to try is Coffee and Power, Philip Rosedale's new venture. I think it hasn't quite taken off yet, but at least keep watch on it, because it may get fairly big. For all that, the real thing that will get you a job is connections. In Australia (I think everywhere) there is a saying, "it's not what you know, it's who you know", and trust me, unless you are in a boomtime, this is not at all facetious. If you can manage it, start anything freelance, for any fee, to get your name out there, and find out what you are good at - I took up part-time tutoring, and it nearly led to a teaching career (but that's another story). I have a minor disability, and I had trouble finding a way in, so I can appreciate at least a little how hard it is. Generally, at least in Australia, government jobs are more secure and less fickle when it comes to people with disabilitites, but I don't know anything about the US government as an employer. Good luck. It's been emotional (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A company made news this year (example article) by saying it specifically wants to hire software testers who have Asperger's. Here's another article about the same startup, and that led me to the jobs4autism website, which seems to point to many resources. But I have to strongly recommend that you use your university's career counselors on this one. It is their job to specifically help you. They will be able to help you a thousand times more significantly than your Internet searches and questions here on the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Comet Tuttle, but let me say this. You might want to focus on developing a skill or skills that will enable you to make money without working for an employer. I have known some people make decent bucks (enough to live modestly on) just taking care of people's lawns and gardens, or cleaning their windows and rain gutters. If you are handy with tools, there's always a need for general home repairs/cleanup, possibly starting in your own neighborhood (put flyers on people's doors with your phone number/email address). Or if you have some artistic talent, that might be another path to self-sufficiency if you can find a niche market for your creativity (I have heard of people who make a living painting murals or stencils in people's homes, or by catering/cake baking). And of course some people have found ways to make money just by running some kind of internet site or business, though from what I've seen, programs like Google AdSense don't really work well. On the other hand, some people have come up with improbable ideas and prospered with them: see this amusing website, which has gotten the author not one but two book deals so far. Whatever you do, I really wouldn't advise racking up a mountain of student loan debt: it just keeps getting bigger and bigger with interest and late charges piled on, you can't get rid of it through bankruptcy, and it could well hang over you for all the rest of your life, making life that much harder for you - if you do find a steady job, they can and will garnish your wages, taking a sizeable chunk out of every paycheck. Nor can you run away from it: it costs more money than you think to emigrate to another country, a lot more than just the airfare, and in any case, any country that's nice to live in is going to screen you first to ensure that you don't end up on the welfare rolls there. So do some brainstorming with friends, counselors, and family, and think seriously about finding a line of work that you can do independently, would be my best and strongest advice. Good luck to you. Textorus (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What community colleges offer the cheapest online courses per credit-hour?

At least for a Kansas resident?

Even though it's to protect myself financially, I could still gain practical skills from these online courses.

I would intend to work while in college, and the easiest way to juggle the two would be with online-only classes. Possibly driving commercial vehicles long distances would be all the more reason to anyway. Thank you, --70.179.174.63 (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer is almost certainly "Kansas community colleges" because otherwise you would have to pay out-of-state tuition at some other state's college, and that is usually waaay more than in-state tuition. Private online colleges have hefty tuition fees also. If I were you, I'd start with my nearest community college and talk with an admissions counselor about fees and coursework. But a caution: online courses require a great deal of motivation and self-discipline, and some people find them more challenging than regular ones for that reason. Textorus (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A culture where only the corrupt rise to power (2nd try)

I'm trying to remember a term which consists of a surname (I think it starts with a "W", not quite sure though) and is followed by "law", "rule" or "principle" or something similar. It's a theory or an observation rather about the social dynamics in certain modern organizational or societal sectors whereby a climate of corruption and lawlessness has become so prominent that in order for anyone to rise to power in this climate they must themselves be willing to take part in the corruption. I know we have an article specifically discussing it, but I'm unable to recall its name or otherwise locate it.

In my previous attempt to find this term here on this page I got the following suggestions: "iron laws" and kleptocracy.

I'm reposting now, hoping someone this time around will know the key term. __meco (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasta? Flamarande (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton (he of the "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" remark) has a number of quotes at the bottom of his article that suggest he would have agreed with your premise, but left no body of work or any named law or rule that I could find. Bielle (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a name for a prevailing social milieu that is corrupt but baksheesh is one name for bribe. I stumbled upon this nice collection of quotes some of which are on-topic. I'll keep thinking. I like the question. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Still nobody has come up with the term. I suppose the guy who defined this state was either a sociologist or an economist. __meco (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Stab in the dark, on the "Sociologist" and "W" thing, but Max Weber spent a lot of his thought thinking about the legitimacy of the state with regard to how it behaves. Maybe a lead? --Jayron32 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the individual is a contemporary figure. Also, I don't want to emphasize too strongly the name starting with 'w'. It could be another letter. __meco (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We have Category:Political corruption in the United States and Category:Political corruption. Also William M. Tweed, Tammany Hall, and the article Political corruption. Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is the word "kakistocracy", meaning government by the worst.--Rallette (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And as to Acton's famous principle, Frank Herbert once refined it a bit: it's not so much that power corrupts, it's that power attracts the corruptible. But I don't know that anyone's ever called this "Herbert's Law" or anything like that.--Rallette (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not "Herbert's Law" and it's not "kakistocracy". The term was used by a guest on the "Keiser Report" several months ago. That's where I learned it the first time before forgetting the name of it. __meco (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I know Immanuel Wallerstein wrote a lot about corruption and modern politics, but I don't know that there was ever a 'law' named after him. I've never heard of that particular 'law' - closest I can think of is the Peter Principle - and it's the kind of thing I ought to be aware of if it exists. but… --Ludwigs2 17:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Aithihyamala

Aithihyamala(ഐതിഹ്യമാല) is a book of mythology or folklore of Kerala written in Malayalam by Kottarathil Sankunni.In that book there is achapter (16. Kaaladiyil Bhattathiri )in which sooryakaladi Bhattathiri is cursed(ശപിച്ചു) by a yakshi and a gandharva.But both said if he go to thiruvaloor temple he wont die.my question is 'even he went to the temple,his curse is not removed and he died'..why? .Anybody who read the book please answer --nijil (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hiram Clarke Civic Club

How do I check if the Hiram Clarke Civic Club has a geographic boundary? I cannot find a website or an e-mail. The group is registered as the "Hiram Clarke Civic Club, Inc." in the state of Texas Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean a "Geographic boundary"? Do you mean if they own land? If they do, a local Recorder of deeds will have them on record. You should be able to find (with some work) if they own land and what plots of land they own; the register of deeds or similar office should have public Plats which show who owns what land. --Jayron32 18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so much that it owns the land, but it has a service area.

An American homeowner's association has a geographic boundary of houses that it provides services to

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You hadn't mentioned what kind of organization it was. If it is an HOA, then yes, it will have a defined service area. Do you have a phone number for the organization? You could contact them. --Jayron32 20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll check Google Books. I hoped that such a thing would appear in print... WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.houstontx.gov/cao/civicclubs.pdf gives the phone number (713) 729-3631 WhisperToMe (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried calling the number, but I didn't get a response. It's okay as http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2003_3668949 tells me what the boundaries are.

Jayron, thank you for your help!

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Actions against collaborators after WW2 in Western Europe

Are there any articles on that topic in enwiki, or any other language? All I find is nl:Repressie (België) about Flanders. Nothing on Wallonia, where more people received the death penalty. No article on the Netherlands.. DS Belgium (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For France, we have an article on the "Épuration légale". The French Wikipedia has a bunch of articles about this. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an omnibus article located at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II which may lead you to more articles and/or references on any topics you are looking for. --Jayron32 20:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal purge in Norway after World War II __meco (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Where, indeed, Vidkun Quisling was executed. Related to Belgium, we have Victor Matthys and José Streel, both executed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good links, thanks, but I might have given the wrong impression talking about death sentences, I was mainly thinking about the "mob rule" so to speak, the extra-judicial actions. The dutch article about Flanders mentions it, people put in cages in the Antwerp zoo, women with their heads shaven, rape, etc. But it could well be that other countries haven't documented these as much, in Belgium it remained a hot topic because Flemish collaboration was in part related to the language problems. But thanks for your troubles everyone. DS Belgium (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pursuit of Nazi collaborators talks about it, country by country. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

October 27

Succession from the union

Excuse me for asking a question that has no doubt been extensively chewed over. If a state wishes to succeed from the United States, petitions congress for permission, AND congress is amenable to granting this wish(!) what exactly is needed? Can an act of congress alone authorize a succession? Or is there a need for a constitutional amendment to allow permitting successions? (No, such a thing is NOT "impossible", the civil war notwithstanding). 58.111.224.157 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean secession, not succession. Quest09 (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated. See Texas v. White.

Basically the supreme court ruled (Based on the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation) that secession is not legally possible "except through revolution or through consent of the States.". But as far as I know the procedure for that "consent" isn't really specified anywhere, but clearly it would take more than just the consent of the congress. Perhaps it would take a form similar to the procedure for admitting new states? APL (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still secession, not succession. Huge difference. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. But I liked it better my way. APL (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already said that. I don't understand how people do not secede to understand the difference. Quest09 (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said "still". Language change is a real phenomenon, but the meaning of the word "succession" did not change between 8:09 and 8:20 today. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Secession is fine, but succussion from the Union can't be beaten. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing succudes like succuss. But wait, why are we all talking like Kiwis all of a sudden?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

APL, the procedure for admitting new states is by Act of Congress, as specified in the Constitution. Which means, as with any other piece of legislation, both houses have to agree on a bill, and the President then signs it into law. But the Constitution says nothing about letting a state go out of the Union, so there's no specified mechanism for that; no doubt the lawyers (to say nothing of the politicians and the journalists) would have a field day if there were ever a serious drive to get Congress to pass such a bill. And even if it got enacted, the matter would surely end up in the lap of the Supreme Court, and they might say that's a no-go. But it's never been done by Congress or the courts, only briefly by force of arms, so who knows? PS - Some people are still prepared to argue that there was no legal basis for America's successful, if treasonous, secession from the British Empire. Textorus (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Under those criteria, there's no end to the infinite regression back to the first proper state, and indeed back to the first organized tribe of humans. At some point, reality must be considered when compared against purely intellectual exercises such as this. --Jayron32 15:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, since the legal basis for the English colonists' earlier expropriation of Native American lands, often at musket-point, is even more questionable. Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

When I saw that article, I was very surprised to hear that anyone argued that it was legal. Americans at the time were subject to British law and I think it is pretty obvious that fighting the British authorities is against British law. A new state being created in a way that was within the law of the predecessor state has never been a requirement for recognising a new country, and nor should it be. That doesn't make it legal, though. --Tango (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The European colonists mostly justified the taking of Native American land using one or another aspect of international law (as it had evolved in Europe anyway), at least after the earliest foothold planting stages. Of course it was never hard to find casus belli, fight and win a war, then claim territory by right of conquest. Nice and legal, right? Pfly (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Witikind

I would like to know some things on Witikind. I have tried your site many times but all I have found is Widukind. Please help meLynae8475 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Witikind" and "Widukind" are different ways of spelling the same name (along with various other ways, like "Wittekind". Which one are you looking for? Widukind, the enemy of Charlemagne? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mexican secession

As the US integrated parts of Mexican territory, what happened to the population living there? Did they have to go to Mexican? Did they become American citizens? Did the US try to move as much population as possible into the new territories? Quest09 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

See Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which explains in several places what happened to the Mexicans living in the territories. It appears they were granted American citizenship, and were nominally guaranteed property rights, but their property rights were later compromised. The number of actual "Mexican nationals" quoted by the article so affected is listed at about 3000 people, which seems quite low; it likely doesn't include Native Americans living in the area. Most of the territory was lightly populated; I think the only sizable settlement in the area was San Francisco whose population was under 1000 at annexation and whose population was very multinational, even then. --Jayron32 17:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, another near-miss on spelling. What you mean is the Mexican Cession. You're talking about a relatively sparse population dotted across a vast territory, which was already a mix of races, ethnicities, and nationalities, so the answers to your questions are not easily summed up in a few words. But I'll start the ball rolling by saying, No they did not have to go to what was left of Mexico, Yes they became American citizens when the territory was transferred, and there was no particular rush by the U.S. Government to "move as much population as possible into the new territories," not in the way you seem to be thinking. Americans - if you mean by that non-Hispanic whites - had already been trickling into Mexican territories for decades. Indeed, Spain, and later Mexico, deliberately encouraged such Americans to come colonize Texas long before the Mexican War. See Mexican Texas. Textorus (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There were certainly more than 3,000 people of Mexican origin in the Mexican Cession when it passed to the United States. Most of these were in what is now New Mexico, where their descendants to this day make up nearly half of that state's population. In 1850, when the first census was taken in New Mexico Territory, its population was 61,547 per the U.S. Census, a large majority of which was Mexican in origin. This area included the present-day states of both Arizona and New Mexico. In the present-day area of New Mexico alone, according to a source cited in History of New Mexico, the Spanish population in 1842 had been almost 50,000. California was not as heavily populated under Mexican rule, and, as others have said, part of its population was already of Anglo origin before 1848. Still, according to this source, the Spanish or Mexican population of California in the 1840s was almost 12,000. So, there were certainly at least 60,000 Mexican nationals in the Mexican Cession when it passed to the United States. I will edit our article accordingly. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gives a scholarly source for a figure of 80,000 Mexicans. Also, as far as their citizenship, Article VIII of the treaty says that Mexicans in the ceded territory have a year to move back to Mexico, or if they remain, "shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States." Textorus (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So the article was internally inconsistent before my edit. Note, however, that the figure of 80,000 includes Texas, which is not normally considered part of the Mexican Cession. Marco polo (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. The Mexican Texas article quotes a scholarly source for 30,000 Americans and only 7,800 Mexicans in the province of Texas in 1834. The Republic of Texas article infobox gives an unsourced figure of 70,000 total population for the Republic, no year specified. I don't have the inclination to dig further, but the Handbook of Texas might have more figures if anyone's itching to do the math. Textorus (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not so hard to get from 7,800 Mexicans in Texas in 1834 to maybe 15,000 Mexicans in 1850 (80,000 in Texas and the Mexican Cession minus about 65,000 in the Mexican Cession proper) given birth rates at that time. Marco polo (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Textorus (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Textorus, there was a bit of a rush to move people into the territories owing to the desire of both the North and the South to pile as many people sympathetic to their side of the "slavery question" to encourage said territory to become a Free or Slave state when statehood would come about. It was a HUGELY contentious issue, and there was several years of jockeying during the 1840s-1850s on how to deal with it. See Wilmot Proviso and Compromise of 1850 for some background. --Jayron32 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the slavery question was indeed hugely contentious - to put it mildly. In Bleeding Kansas, lots of pro-slavery settlers from Missouri flocked to establish "squatter sovereignty," all in hopes of preserving the free/slave balance in the U.S. Senate. So you're quite right that in some places there may have been a move on by individuals and groups to settle new territories - but it was tied in with the never-ending slavery issue, which was self-limiting: I know that in Texas, for example, the cotton-producing lands where slavery was economically practical ended just east of San Antonio. Further west, it's too arid for those kinds of crops, so no rush of Southerners, at least, to populate the empty, wide-open Southwest just for the hell of it. And the OP's question implied that the federal government might have tried to stimulate settlement of the Mexican Cession as a deliberate policy, but I've never heard of any such policy. I think instead that the feds had their hands full trying to avert the looming sectional rift in the country, and assumed that the natural westward movement of the population would take care of populating the Southwest in due time. Them's my thoughts on it, anyway, without digging any further into sources. Textorus (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystic Fiction Writers

If you know some notable English-speaking authors in the mystic fiction genre, I'll be thankful to have your suggestions. --Omidinist (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "mystic fiction"? Do you mean Magic realism? --Jayron32 16:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A little Googling reveals that "mystic fiction" is an obscure term that was invented in early 2010, and apparently means a type of romance novel that is set in a fantasy world. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mysticism, theosophy, in fiction is what I mean. It may include magic realism. --Omidinist (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd think of some of Robert Anton Wilson's writing as mystic fiction, as it apparently borrows heavily from Freemasonry. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Identify a movie?

Hello. Can you help me identify a movie? I saw it at the IFC theatre in lower Manhattan maybe 3 christmases ago. I believe it was set outside of Prague, and had at its center a police man who was assigned to collect evidence of small time drug dealing by a few students. He didn't really want to do the job, and complained that probably the drug laws would change anyway soon. It ended with the police chief giving him an argument from a dictionary where he looked up "police" and "duty" and things like that. Do you know the title? 134.74.82.71 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like Police, Adjective. See the New York Times review. Deor (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Advantage of being a woman artist

From a list of reasons:

"Working without the pressure of success" "Having the opportunity to choose between a career and motherhood"

And what does this reason mean:

"Getting your picture in the art magazines wearing a gorilla suit."? Quest09 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I think we'd have to see the picture to explain that one fully. Where did you find this list, in The Onion?Textorus (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no picture. Just a list of reasons. It's not from a known source, I got this from a girlfriend's private newsletter. Quest09 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Solved. It's from the Guerrilla Girls, as I just discovered. They are known for wearing gorilla masks. Quest09 (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Population of Texas and Mexico during the Texas Revolution

What was the population of Texas and what was the population of Mexico during the Texas Revolution? --Belchman (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)