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

April 21

Italian Pope

Why there haven't been any other Pope rather than Italian Pope since 16 century until Pope John Paul II? What made Italians so powerful in Christianity?Pendragon5 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the obvious answer is that of proximity: Rome / the Holy See is in Italy (or rather on the Italian peninsula as the state of Italy was not united until Garibaldi in 1871, but that is neither here nor there) and was the capital of the old catholicized Roman Empire. You have to remember that it took a long time to get to the other countries back then and moreover in the 16th century the Protestant Reformation was going on which undoubtedly made the (mostly Italian) cardinals wary of any non-Italians as possible heretics. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

To expand a bit: the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and for most of history, he was also the secular leader of the Papal States which occupied most of what is now central Italy. The fact that the Pope was almost always Italian did upset other parts of Western Christendom, which is why the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism occured. Once that matter was settled, the Pope went back to being Italian, for the most part. --Jayron32 03:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at our List of Popes, you also notice that from the beginning of the 15th century to the end of the 19th, only one Pope is recognised as a saint, and only two are beatified. Compare that to earlier centuries (although the 10th is also without canonised Popes), and with the 20th century. That gives some idea of the quality of person chosen for the Papacy in those years, and how they were generally viewed by the Church. There's a whole load of Catholic saints from the period who are especially remembered for their teaching to laypeople and lower ranking religious on how to handle scandalous behaviour in those above them: e.g. St Francis de Sales. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a movement to canonize Pope Pius IX, and any objections to this are really not on the basis of any perceived faults of personal piety or morality, but are much more based on his actions towards the Jews, his apparent hatred of democracy and pluralism, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Canonise Pius IX? No, No!  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a typo. What they really need to do is cannonize. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you missed why Jack's comment was funny. If you search our article on Pope Pius IX for the phrase "Pio no no", you will understand. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Common names of far-right

What are common names of far-right parties in Europe regardless of their nationality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.245 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Far-right politics should get you started on your research. --Jayron32 03:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The words "National", "Nationalist" and "Patriot" are common in the names of far-right parties. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The word "Freedom" also seems to be popular in the names of European right-wing parties. LANTZY^TALK 18:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

National Front is an especially common name, although not every group that has used it is/was far-right; but a lot of them are/were. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Flickr vs Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons is a free media hosting site, Flickr is non-free (well to get good features you have to upgrade to pro account). Commons has improved features like categorization of photos to easily find them, and other editors will assist you in improving your contribution. But still Flickr is more popular than Commons. Why? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Because many people want to 1) upload personal photos without worrying about whether they'll be "realistically useful for an educational purpose", or 2) without releasing their control over future re-uses (which is required by all Common licenses). AnonMoos (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Flickr is an image hosting service while Wikimedia Commons is supposed to host files that have some potential for use on one of the Wikimedia projects. So while File:Gold Range Hotel.jpg can be on both Commons and Flickr other images such as this would really have no place at Commons. As AnonMoos points out the license requirements can be different. All the images that I uploaded to Commons have the same licence as at Flickr but the other images at Flickr, like the second example, have an "All Rights Reserved" license. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, photos on Wikimedia can be deleted if other users decide they're not of any value. If you upload photos to Flickr they won't be deleted till you say so (although they may be hidden if you have too many for a free account). --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Economic Inequality

I've heard that rich people are rich and deserve to be rich because they are hard-working and poor people are poor and deserve to be poor because they are lazy.

But then how come this? Rich people are always few. Poor people are always many. Few people were nobles. Most people were peasants. Few people are capitalists. Most people are workers. Few people live in developed countries. Most people live in developing countries. But what about this? How come this? How do you explain this?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is not clear exactly what your question is. But people who make a lot of money generally have a higher intelligence quotient, more knowledge, and obviously a willingness to make money. Some people voluntarily choose to live a poor life, but they are handful in number, quite intelligent, philosophically aware, and ideologically motivated. The avergae guy selling a newspaper in the street or working as a blue-collar worker in a factory has low intelligence quotient, restricted worldview, very limited knowledge, and lack of ambition. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

What a weird generalising answer, almost as nonsensical as the first sentence in the OP. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are intelligent and hard-working people who voluntarily or involuntarily work as blue-collar worker. There are a few really intelligent people (far more intelligent than the average newspaper editor) who work as a blue-collar worker, such as Eric Hoffer, but they are handful in number. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also circumstances can make a really intelligent, hard-working and ambitious person poor. Say, a person who is suffering from a personality disorder (such as social anxiety or schizophrenia) will find it difficult to get employment and will suffer from poverty. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence in OP's statement is an arbitrary and incorrect conclusion. The correct statement will be, "Not all poor people are lazy, but all lazy people are poor". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. You can e.g. have a wealthy and lazy heir or lottery winner.Sjö (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, in India, there are a few beggars who make a lot of money, more than an average college lecturer or grocery store owner. See this video (language not in English) where a beggar got an account in India's largest bank. A beggar in Mumbai earns INR 2000-2500 per day, making their monthly income INR 60000-80000, which is far more than the salary of a senior reader of a college. See "Rich Beggars In India-Mumbai". All they have to do is to look very poor in need of help, sure they need intelligence to do so. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Old boys network and Social Class are more relevant here than any attempt to identify poverty as a function of individual personality. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Scruples or lack of also play a big part in who cannot afford to buy a yacht or has to make do with an air mattress.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In Cuba, there's a bizarre situation where doctors, paid by the government, are poor, while waiters, who get tips from rich tourists, are often rich in comparison. So, does this mean the doctors have low IQs and/or are lazy ? StuRat (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha. good example how government intervention destroys talent and knowledge. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 22:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. Could you please clarify? →Στc. 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If the Cuban government did not restrict private practice for doctors, they could have earned a lot more. If Cuba had a market economy, purchasing power of the people would have been much higher, enabling them to pay highers fees to doctors. But due to government restriction, the people are poor, and doctors earn a lot less. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A doctor in Cuba earns $15/month, and a prostitute in Cuba earns $100/night. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 22:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So if you have an anal fetish, save money and go to a proctologist, instead. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume the prostitutes' clients are overwhelmingly waiters. Gives a new meaning to the phrase "service with a smile"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, the doctors don't need prostitutes, since they're already getting screwed on a daily basis. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's another tried and tested way of surrendering to an anal fetish. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rich people are rich, by and large, because they were either born rich, or born with access to the avenues to get rich (i.e. access to the correct schools where they could become involved in the correct social networks to enable them access to very high-paying jobs). There are enough anecdotes of real people who were born abjectly poor and became rich to confuse people and make them think it is possible for them to do the same. Hard work has nothing to do with it. They guys spreading asphault in the hot sun for 10 hours a day work hard, but they will never get rich doing that activity. It also doesn't mean that rich people don't work hard either: a stock broker may put in as many hours, and work just as hard as the pavement spreader, for his six figure salary. But there is no correlation, positive or negative, between hard work and socioeconomic class: it is largely a function of your environment (again, with enough exceptions to give you false hope). That also doesn't mean that people in any socioeconomic class cannot be happy, satisfied, or well-balanced in their life, since those things are largely unrelated to money either. --Jayron32 23:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked with both pay-remuneration studies, and the study of satisfaction amongst the IR/HR/Organisational Studies areas; the idea of a "sufficient" living was quite popular, justified both by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and by factory pay structure studies in industrial sociology. This of course is an expansion on both Taylor's insight into pay motivation versus exertion, and the general idea you note that many satisfactions are external to the circulation of material commodities. I expect that similar concrete insights from workers is what leads to the class consciousness of "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work," being a grounding, but not sufficient condition for human happiness. What this means is that after a certain amount of material satisfactions in a particular society, current research indicates that further satisfactions aren't related to wealth or income's capacity for consumption of goods and services. (Though wealth or income could be elements of serving "higher needs," for example, if they're used as a "score" in self-expression). I haven't seen similar analyses of bourgeois class consciousness in relation to earnt income, but these studies hold true for 90%+ of most industrial populations on a class basis alone. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Laissez Faire

One important part of capitalism is laissez faire. Laissez faire is the lack of control or intervention by the government of the economy.

But why laissez faire? I mean, wouldn't the government help the economy and help it develop by its control or intervention of it?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends on your worldview. If you are a Marxist, you will say government helps the capital owners and oppresses the workers, if you are a Keynesian, you will say government intervention is necessary to fix defects of the market, if you are a libertarian, you will say government disrupts the market. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You will notice in the Laissez-faire article that "A laissez-faire state and completely free market has never existed, though the degree of government regulation varies considerably". So obviously most people do think that government intervention in the economy to some degree is a necessity. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

But it is observed countries which are more free market oriented have higher standard of living (Hong Kong, New Zealand). On the contrary, countries with dictatorship of the proletariat, such as North Korea, are absolute hell for the working class. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

See Poverty#Economic_freedoms. Government intervention generally helps the established big businesses and harms small business owners. The more free the economy, the more people are business owners. The more restricted the market, few people are business owners and most are workers or unemployed. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My concrete experience of New Zealand is a combination of deep and utter fear, insecurity and self-loathing. This is applied like a plaster atop a lathe of precarious employment and poverty. And yes North Korea is worse; but North Korea claims to be a Juche state, and not to have implemented a "dictatorship of the proletariat," which, in Marx, is visible as a kind of executive parliament of workers themselves. New Zealand's standard of living is unacceptable, and has collapsed since the Boys from Chicago raped New Zealand society as an experiment. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Bakunin, another critique of capitalism, said that for the Marxists, "anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved." --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with North Korea is not that they do not adhere to laissez faire economic principles. The problem is that it is a crushing, Stalinist, invasive dictatorial state that systematically and quite literally enslaves its own people. They are not a good example to use for any economic theory; they are waaay out there on the exceptional spectrum and the causes and results of their woes are far more complicated than their economic model. They are not the alternative to laissez faire policies, just as Somalian anarchy is not the alternative to regulation. More useful comparisons would be made between the standards of living of culturally similar economies, e.g. the Scandinavian countries (which have high regulation but also high standard of living), other European states (which are a mix), the United States (which is a mix), and so on. There is a lot of evidence that lack of regulation can easily lead to practices that undermine the benefits of capitalism (such as monopoly, tragedies of the commons, irresponsible externalities, etc.). There is also a lot of evidence that the organs of regulation are easily captured by industry or special interests and can be used in ways that are also undermining (many monopolies are government supported in various ways, for example). There's no simple, one answer to this, unless you believe in economic fairy tales. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to have 100% laissez faire without also having anarchy. For example, a military causes major market distortions, by purchasing from some companies (presumable those who bribe the most Congressmen) and not from others. You would need to eliminate all purchases and have an all-volunteer army where each person brings their own clothing, food, weapons, tents, etc. This would create a rather weak military, but perhaps one strong enough for a small island that nobody else wants. You'd also need volunteer firemen and police. Education could be at alternating people's homes, using different people each day as the teachers. There could be no public building of roads, airports, ports, etc., as, again, that would tend to favor some and not others. I hate to think what network of roads would result from everybody building their own little chunk. I picture lots of dirt roads and few highways. So, you might end up with something looking like an Amish community. Lack of government regulations would mean anyone could sell water with white dye as milk. I imagine everyone would need to test everything before they buy it, then (and maybe make the seller taste it, in case it contained something toxic). StuRat (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The article's definition says it means "an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies." There are still such environments on a small scale. Garage sales come to mind. However, if you're running a business, you have to comply with with the public has decided are proper rules and regulations (which can change over time, obviously). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Token objection to equating legislators with "the public". —Tamfang (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As in "representative democracy". As "the consent of the governed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What's your point? ¶ One theory holds that legislation is left to representatives precisely because specialists can do it better than the general public. Another holds that politicians, no matter how exquisitely fair and honest their elections may be, are a distinct interest group. Either way, the representatives are not the represented, and it's foolish or dishonest to pretend they are. ¶ And in direct democracy, a plurality of the public is not the whole public. ¶ Publius mostly didn't try to peddle such obfuscation, and "he" was pro bigger government! —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As regards the OP's second question, "wouldn't the government help the economy...?" that is demonstrably true. Spending, including government spending, fuels the economy. I'm not going to argue that that approach doesn't have potential dangers - such as the outrageous size of the national debt. But it does work, for awhile at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

But, of course, any money the gov spends must come from somewhere, such as taxes, and detractors would argue that this means that much less money is now available for the private sector to spend. I do agree, however, that gov borrowing and spending can stimulate the economy, and taxing and paying down the debt can cool down an overheated economy, but, unfortunately, they never seem to get around to that last part. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Mandel argues quite cogently in the introduction to Volume II of the Penguin Edition of Capital that state spending on waste, luxury goods, or war items (perceived as an equivalent set of "departments" of production, in a multi-department model) can alleviate the tendency to over production for extended periods of time. Mandel's argument is that state expenditure emerges primarily as access to surplus labour in terms of taxes placed on proletarian consumption. In Mandel's schema, this forced capitalisation to produce certain goods can stave off both crisis and declining rates of profit, by rationally aligning capitalist expenditure on production with goals of longer term stability. So one issue regarding the extent of laissez faire versus regulated capitalist production—if your aim is near-optimum maintenance of capitalism itself—is the extent to which private capital is currently in crisis, or unable to effectively circulate capital. A similar view emerges in Keynsianism, though it aims to ameliorate the business cycle, rather than resolve contradictions in a crisis. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hair colour eye colour germanic people

What are main hair colours and eyes colours of Germanic people: English, Scottish German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Icelandic peoples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.61 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to resurrect obsolete "race science"? There are the standard half-true stereotyped clichés (such as Celtic=red-haired and Scandinavian=blond); if you want to go beyond them, then you can try to find rigorous quantitative studies (because I don't think anything else would be very useful)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you assume the OP was trying to do that?! The question is just asking about common eye and hair colors. You do realize that, despite migration, different people around the world do, on average, look different? Why on earth would you leap to "race science" from that question? Shadowjams (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no real useful or valid answer in between the well-known half-true stereotyped clichés and rigorous data-driven comprehensive quantitative studies, but the way that the question was phrased seemed to imply that the questioner thought there was... AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You're projecting a lot into this. Are you claiming the graphics bellow are made up; or the peer reviewed studies in our article on human skin color? Are you actually asserting that 1) the idea people from northern latitudes have fairer complexions on average is incorrect, and 2) that acknowledging that fact is a hair's breadth away from genocide? Maybe you read a different question than me. Comparing a question about what's the predominate hair and eye color in a country to a disgusting ideology (and others below to genocide, apparently) is downright offensive to the OP, but also a crazy projection. Maybe he could have worded it more eloquently, but your attack against the OP is absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- the questioner did not ask about skin color, and the conversation was not about skin color until you chose to irrelevantly intrude the subject. "Race science" (which is really not the same as Nazism, by the way) often consisted of armchair yahoos making a very few (completely statistically inadequate) measurements of "dolichocephaly" and "brachycephaly", combining this with vague subjectivistic impressions of hair and eye color, and correlating this with selectively chosen snippets of history to arrive at broad sweeping categorical conclusions about national and/or racial differences. ("Race science" was often associated with pre-WW2 studies of "national character", for some reason not mentioned in our National character article, though the two were not the same.) Concerning the subjects which the original questioner actually asked about (as opposed to things which 174.89.40.61 DIDN'T ask about), I really don't think that there's any useful medium or valid intermediate stage between the standard half-true stereotyped clichés and rigorous data-driven comprehensive quantitative studies, and I said so. For reasons best known to yourself, you have chosen to attack me to a significantly greater degree than I could be said to have attacked the original questioner... AnonMoos (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This reference desk has a storied history of people answering the question, or topic they want to hear, and not the one that's asked. The fact that you wanted to talk about "race science" but then say I'm off topic when I link to skin and hair color (as though they have zero link to pigmentation) speaks volumes. You implied the OP wanted to talk about "race science" because they asked about geographical differences in hair and eye pigmentation. I cannot fathom how that is not "irrelevantly intrud[ing] [on] the subject." Shadowjams (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I always found it odd that the Nazi's stated that blue eyes, blond hair, and tall stature were the ideal "Aryan" features, since those are more Nordic features than Germanic. Germans, being smack dab in the center of Europe, have a wide range of features. Hitler, for example, wasn't any of those "ideals". StuRat (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In terms of actual facts, the Nazis held the Aryans to be more or less identical with the idealized "Nordic race". But neither Hitler nor the pseudo-anthropologists he took this characterization from thought the Germans were a 100% Nordic people (most Germans were part of the "Alpine race" under this form of European racialism). You might think this was a disadvantage to adopting such a theory, but it works perfectly for the Nazi agenda: it sets up a situation in which you need to constantly be sifting through people's pasts, constantly working to increase purity, and so on, which was the basis of many of the Nazis' social policies (and inhumanities). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We've managed to break Godwin's law in less than 3 responses. New record? Shadowjams (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I sort of doubt that, but this thread would hardly count anyway, as it's virtually crying out for a nazi/Hitler reference. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

All discussions of Germans or hair color automatically lead to facism? Grow up. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? That wasn't what I said. And speaking of fuzzy thinking and misquoting things, you're actually talking about this thread confirming Godwin's law, not breaking it. To break it would be to have an extremely long thread that had zero reference to Hitler or the Nazis. What we have here is the polar opposite of that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you got me on a technicality there. Shadowjams (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, the same sort of "technicality" as Barack Obama is technically the President of the USA.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As they said, the ideal Nazi was blond as Hitler, tall as Goebbels, and slim as Göring! (and presumably as straight as Röhm). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh. The German (Berlin) anti-nazi folk wit could be quite spot on. Another one was the description of the Volkssturm, saved for posterity courtesy of Victor Klemperer: "The Volkssturm: Silver in their hair, gold in their teeth and lead in their limbs.". --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Blond and ginger, blue and green.

• 
  Hair colour distribution
• 
  Eye colour distribution

These might be useful (click on the images for the legend - note that confusingly the colours don't correspond to the most common eye colours but to the number of people with light hair/eyes), but even within countries, there's quite a bit of variation in hair colour (for instance, see the map at the bottom of this page, showing the distribution of red hair across Great Britain). Smurrayinchester 21:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I've never noticed that folk in the north of England were blonder than in the south; however across the sea in the Netherlands, there seem to me to be a striking number of blond-haired people. But what do I know? Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting if those two maps weren't the most obvious bollocks on the Internet. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question: The eye and hair colors run the gamut. Hair: Black, brown, blond, red. Eyes: Brown, green, hazel, blue. Putting any finer discussion on it panders to the profiling. 68.32.251.73 (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So, the English and Scots have red, black, blonde and brown hair and blue, green, brown and hazel eyes but to the rest of the Germanic people they only have blonde and brown hair and brown, blue and green and hazel eyes. Okay, I get it. 174.89.40.61|174.89.40.61 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.179 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Great Wall of China in Korea

Did the Qin Dynasty or Han Dynasty have the Great Wall extend into their territories in North Korea? This map seems to show that they did but I can't find anything on wikipedia that mentions anything about it or if any ruins still stand.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

John 4:38

Can you explain further the meaning of this in the King James Bible: I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours. Is there other verses with similar meaning to look at? Is this idea ONLY in the New Testament?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's some commentary on it, which might or might not help.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The labour spoken of is the work done by God to prepare a person for conversion, the reaping is the act conversion done by disciples such as the 12. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a position held by any theologians or Christian thinkers I can think of. It certainly doesn't match any of the commentary that Bugs has cited. Most of the commentary notes that Jesus was probably refering to the all of the prophets that came before him. He's reminding the disciples to be humble in their work as Christians, and that they are but one in a long line of God's workers. --Jayron32 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I also tried to give a message of humility, those prophets did God's work did they not? Jesus reminded them that it is not entirely their achievement, that they fullfill only a part of a bigger plan. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Jayron32 hits the mark for these verses. The verse is clear that 'other men' laboured, while it is the 'you' that reap. Two different 'men' with two different roles are clearly delineated. Plasmic is correct to say that God prepares a person for conversion. However, God achieves that work through speaking through the mouths of his messengers as they articulate the message of God. It is wrong to say, though, that 'the reaping is the act conversion (sic) done by disciples', because disciples cannot 'act' to convert anybody -- that act is the work of Holy Spirit alone as he acts on the person's heart. What the disciples do, by way of the act of reaping, is preach a message of repentance and faith to hearts prepared by the 'law, prophets and writings'. They are the harvest, those who respond and believe by God's grace. Benyoch ^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} 06:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

Random thought -- I wonder if any Roman Catholic theologians have tried to apply this to the concept of the Treasury of Merit. Beyond that I have no input, other than to suggest you check out a better translation than the KJV. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Holy Spirit can, but does not work alone, but through the disciples, which is what I meant; they are medium for the reaping of the Holy Spirit. The master of the field provides the sowers with the means to sow - a fertile plot of land, seeds, etc., without which the sowers could do nothing; likewise, the master provides for the reapers - a blade such as a sickle to reap with, or as the Bible calls it - a sharp two edged sword, without which the reapers cannot reap. All that remains after the harvest, is to collect the grain, and separate the wheat from the chaff. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the commentary from St. Augustine of Hippo

“Say ye not, that there are yet four months, and then comes harvest?” He was aglow for the work, and was arranging to send forth laborers. You count four months to the harvest; I show you another harvest, white and ready. Behold, I say unto you, “Lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are already white for the harvest.” Therefore He is going to send forth the reapers. “For in this is the saying true, that one reaps, another sows: that both he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together. I have sent you to reap that on which you have not labored: others have labored, and you are entered into their labor.” What then? He sent reapers; sent He not the sowers? Whither the reapers? Where others labored already. For where labor had already been bestowed, surely there had been sowing; and what had been sown had now become ripe, and required the sickle and the threshing. Whither, then, were the reapers to be sent? Where the prophets had already preached before; for they were the sowers. For had they not been the sowers, whence had this come to the woman, “I know that Messias will come”? That woman was now ripened fruit, and the harvest fields were white, and sought the sickle. “I sent you,” then. Whither? “To reap what you have not sown: others sowed, and you are entered into their labors.” Who labored? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Read their labors; in all their labors there is a prophecy of Christ, and for that reason they were sowers. Moses, and all the other patriarchs, and all the prophets, how much they suffered in that cold season when they sowed! Therefore was the harvest now ready in Judea. Justly was the grain there said to be as it were ripe, when so many thousands of men brought the price of their goods, and, laying them at the apostles' feet, having eased their shoulders of this worldly baggage, began to follow the Lord Christ. Verily the harvest was ripe. What was made of it? Of that harvest a few grains were thrown out, and sowed the whole world; and another harvest is rising which is to be reaped in the end of the world. Of that harvest it is said, “They that sow in tears shall reap with joy.” But to that harvest not apostles, but angels, shall be sent forth. “The reapers,” says He, “are the angels.” Matthew 13:39 That harvest, then, is growing among tares, and is awaiting to be purged in the end of the world. But that harvest to which the disciples were sent first, where the prophets labored, was already ripe. But yet, brethren, observe what was said: “may rejoice together, both he that sows and he that reaps.” They had dissimilar labors in time, but the rejoicing they shall enjoy alike equally; they shall receive for their wages together eternal life.

[2] 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this is exactly what I was trying to say, but this Augustine does it much better. There is more to be said on this topic, but I think that this is sufficient to answer the original question. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

April 22

Proposed titles for Prince Harry

Is it likely that Prince Harry will be granted a Royal Ducal title upon marrying? Traditionally, the title of Duke of York is given to the younger brother of the monarch, but since the Duke of Cambridge is neither the monarch nor the Prince of Wales, and since Prince Andrew currently holds that title, what other Royal Ducal titles are available, or likely? Has this been discussed by the royals or in the British press? Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester are also currently occupied, but Duke of Clarence is available. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance at some of the Dukedoms listed in Category:Dukedoms of England suggests there are quite several that are extinct and could be revived, or that an entirely new one could be created (as they all were at some time). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.219 (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom is a much smaller list. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that one of the few remaining actual powers the monarch has is the granting of honors and titles, per Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom; for most people granted such honors and titles the PM or government makes the request first, and the Monarch assents and grants it, but I'm pretty sure she still has the power to create any Ducal title she wants and can grant it to her son as she sees fit. She could revive a suspended or extinct title, or create a new one out of whole cloth if she chose. --Jayron32 02:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Barring situations in which a title was in dispute, has there ever been a situation in which the same English duchy had multiple dukes? I'm envisioning a situation in which a duke already exists and the monarch creates a second one without de-duke-ing the first one. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. They're waiting for Prince Philip to kick off before Edward gets the Dukedom of Edinburgh. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not. Having 2 people entitled to be known as Duke of Wherever would create vast problems. Peerage titles are always distinct. If necessary, a person made a life peer or whatever and wants to keep his current name in the title, would have to disambiguate it (in much the same spirit as we employ for our WP articles) if such a title already exists. For example, a Michael Jarvis who is made a life peer and wants to be known as Baron Jarvis with the territorial designation "of Jarrow", and a Baron Jarvis already exists, may have to settle for Baron Jarvis of Stonehenge, of Jarrow, or something like that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Oz, perhaps, but only if Jack would surrender the title. :) Benyoch ^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} 11:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

Never. After my sad demise it passes to my elder son, who's currently in Guatemala, with no immediate plans to come home, so we could have a Latin Oz dynasty. Ay, caramba. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So I figured, but there's plenty of precedent for multiple (nominally) coëval monarchs in Europe, and if I remember rightly this was the case with William and Mary; I figured that if it could be done on a national level, it might be doable on a subnational level. Nyttend (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the system should be updated, to reflect the actual influence of such individuals, which has little to do with geography, and instead relates to cultural significance: Name him the Duke of Tabloid Page-Filling on a Day When Nothing Much Happens. AndyTheGrump (talk)

WIll be made duke of a place that exists but currently has no duke. In Scotland most likely since both the queen and prime minister know they need to put in an effort to hold onto Scotland. Ergo, Glasgow. Cue pomp and ceremony in Glasgow. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not so long as there is an Earl of Glasgow. The list mentioned above mentions Ross, which I believe is available; as well as St Andrews and Strathearn, which are not (earldoms of those names being attached to the dukedoms of Kent and Cambridge respectively). —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In Scotland it was once usual, when a woman with a peerage married someone of lower rank, to give the husband the same title for life (i.e. not heritably); thus two Dukedoms of Glenwhatsit would technically coexist, one of which would vanish on the death of the husband. — The earldom of Devon was believed extinct from 1556 to 1831, and unrelated earldoms of Devon were created in 1603 (extinct 1606) and 1618; the latter survives but is called Devonshire for clarity. — There may be cases, though I can't summon one to mind, where two peerages with the same style were held originally by the same person but, being created separately, had different provisions for inheritance, and so eventually became separated. —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discussions about Prince Harry's likely future title, but in discussions about Prince Edward's and Prince William's, the two most speculated titles were Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge. Since William got Cambridge, that suggests Harry will get Sussex (Edward got the Earldom of Wessex and is expected to get the Dukedom of Edinburgh after his father's death). We can only speculate at this point, though - it's up to the Queen and should could choose anything she likes. --Tango (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And who would want to be Duke of Essex, given all the Essex Girl jokes? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I said "Sussex" not "Essex". Duke of Essex is a red link, so I guess there has never been a Duke of Essex. The royal family are keen on tradition, so I doubt the Queen would create a title that had never been held before. --Tango (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How about Earl of Oxford? Or if this is seen as confusing because of the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, just make it the Duke of Oxford? [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Asquith (and before him Harley) got a compound title because it was not, and still is not, certain that there is no living heir of the Vere earls of Oxford – though odds are long against his turning up and being able to prove his claim. Either Asquith or Vere would be enough to make "Duke of Oxford" a non-starter. —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely if ole Willy can survive being the Duke of Cambridge while there exists a Earl of Arran and Cambridge then ole Harry can survive being the Duke of Oxford while there exists a Earl of Oxford and Asquith. The only rel difference seems to be the former is a Scottish peerage but if her majesty is really so worried about the Scottish as claimed above then surely she would recognise that treating them differently as a bit of a problem. The possibility of a earl of Oxford may be a different matter more difficult to resolve Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the royal family has invented new ducal titles before, and sooner or later (if current trends continue) will need to invent a new one again. But there won't be a royal Duke of Essex so long as there exists a non-royal Earl of Essex. —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Industrial Democracy

One form of business has its employees collectively owning its shares and democratically electing its leaders. Why aren't most businesses this way? How many percent of businesses are this way? How many percent of businesses in Australia are this way?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Most businesses are not organised as worker owned cooperatives because of capitalism, in particular the accumulation of capital in the hands of existing owners in an expanded form (see Volume 1 of Capital). In Australia ~=0% of businesses are organised as worker owned cooperatives. The few previous agricultural cooperatives, which were more "petits-bourgeois" cooperatives than worker cooperatives have been thoroughly corporatised. "The Store" has tended to go out of business. For research into the very few Australian businesses that operate as worker owned cooperatives see research by Nikola Balnave and Greg Patmore. Internationally you may be interested in reading about the Mondragon Corporation. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, the ~ doesn't work well with a zero; hard to have less than 0% of businesses doing anything :-) Nyttend (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

See Participatory economics and Workers' self-management. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A business needs capital to start up (and sometimes to expand). The business is owned by whoever provided that capital (or whoever the previous owner sold their shares to). It isn't normally practical for the workers to provide start up capital, so something unusual has to happen to create a worked-owned business. The biggest such business in the UK is the John Lewis Partnership and that became such because John Spedan Lewis (the son of the founder, who inherited the business on his father's death) decided to simply give a large share of the business to the employees. There aren't many business owners that would choose to do that. --Tango (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

One potential problem with worker-owned companies is that they will put the needs of their workers ahead of their customers, lose customers, and go bankrupt. One fix for this risk is if the customers and employees are the same, as in a food coop (however, if the coop becomes too large, it tends to develop anti-democratic tendencies, like expecting members to give blind proxy votes). Balancing this is potentially that workers may feel enfranchised, since they own a piece of the company, and work harder to make it profitable. You might also avoid overpaid executives making foolish decisions and moving on to wreck the next company before their bad decisions become apparent. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Green Parties

Do green parties support or oppose the following things:

1. government ownership of businesses

2. welfare

3. progressive income tax

4. compulsory membership of trade unions

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Greens parties are not organised in a strictly bound hierarchy in relation to policy initiatives. For examples of policies supported by a Green international, see this charter. For Australian Greens policy, the answers are: yes, but depending on market capabilities to meet perceived social needs in practice; yes, generally more so than other parties in parliament; yes, but to a limited extent. Australian Greens policy is available relatively clearly on their website. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Green parties support welfare and progressive income tax. See US Green Party platform. The US Green Party position is that "Federal and state taxes must be strongly progressive." [4] --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Green parties tend to be liberal, and the first two items are generally considered to be liberal concepts, while the third is supported by both liberals and moderates. So, there is a strong correlation, yes. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wah? Government ownership of businesses is a liberal concept? Can I assume you are using some version of 'liberal' unknown outside your borders? 86.140.54.3 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any Liberals inside these borders who believe in government ownership of businesses. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In Australia the Liberals hate, despise and fear The Greens. And can this troll, Bowei Huang 2, please try going to the real sources (party websites in this case) to find real answers? HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

According to that article: "In Australia, the term Liberalism refers to centre-right economic liberalism, rather than centre-left social liberalism as in other English-speaking countries." So, the Aussies appear to be the ones using the term to mean something different. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Australians are using the word correctly, in its more general sense. --Trovatore (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Socially liberal doesn't mean socialist, and nationalising businesses is typically socialist (although it can be fascist too). No doubt some Green parties are socialist, but those won't be the liberal ones. And always be careful of descriptions on Wikipedia that claim a word is used one way in one country, and another way in all other English-speaking countries. My experience has been that one article will say this, while another article about the word will list more countries to show the divisions, and yet another will claim the usage which the first article claimed was used in "all other English-speaking countries" is only the American or British English equivalent. It seems to be quite common for editors just to assume their own usage is used by the majority, and that the 'foreign' usage is just used by whichever group they most associate with foreign-sounding English. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Will no-one rid us of this turbulent troll? (Should we at least consider returning to WP:ANI?) AlexTiefling (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with such questions. They can have surprising results. :-) Looie496 (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A narrow definition of "green" would be neutral as to each of Huang's four issues: none of them has any necessary relation to environmentalism. In practice, I would expect most Green Parties to be strongly in favor of 2 and 3, and divided as to 1 and 4. —Tamfang (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

TechWeek archives?

Where would the archives of TechWeek be located? TechWeek is a defunct magazine that ran from 1998 to 2000. The company controlling it was Metro States Media. I do not know if the company folded after the magazine stopped publication - it was publishing one other magazine WhisperToMe (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Abu Qatada

There is a lot of talk regarding Abu Qatada and the efforts of our government to remove form him from the UK. Can anyone tell me who let him into the UK in the first palce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.172.247 (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

He arrived in the UK in September 1993 and was granted political asylum in June 1994, when Michael Howard was Home Secretary, so he's to blame. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the Home Secretary have the power to decide immigration policy ? Or is there a law saying asylum must be granted to anyone, like Abu Qatada, in danger of being killed (even if they are in danger of being killed because they are a terrorist supporter) ? StuRat (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue with Abu Qatada is not so much his asylum status, but his Article 3 rights (prohibition of torture) under the ECHR. That being said, the relevant instrument regarding asylum is the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the UK is a signatory. Article 33(1) absolutely prohibits the _deportation_ (refoulement) of an asylum-seeker if their life is at risk on the grounds of "race, religion, nationality, [or] membership of a particular social or political opinion" - however, the Convention doesn't create an absolute right to _admission_ on these grounds, so the answer to your question is "No". Tevildo (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Veteran Memorial Days

The 'cousin' countries of Australia and New Zealand celebrate our past veterans and present service personnel on the 25th April each year. It's called ANZAC DAY, from (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). I am curious to know whether any other non-Commonwealth countries together share a common veteran's day. Benyoch 12:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

Remembrance Day is November 11 throughout the Commonwealth. Does that count? Deor (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, and I should have mentioned it.

So let's say I am looking for non=commonwealth countries (I'll edit the Q to reflect this). Thanks Deor. Benyoch (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Remembrance Sunday in the UK is always on the second Sunday in November (AIUI, it was moved shortly after WWII to avoid disruption to industrial production). It is sometimes called "Poppy Day" because of the paper Remembrance poppies that are worn in the preceding weeks as a mark of respect. In the last decade or so, Armistice Day on 11 November has begun to be observed as well, although the official events (eg at the The Cenotaph, Whitehall in London), are all still on the Sunday. Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Nov. 11th is Veterans Day in the US. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

November 11 is celebrated in France too. The ceremony I saw was basically the same as any Remembrance Day ceremony I have seen in Canada, remembering veternas in general, not just World War I. They also celebrate the end of World War II on May 8, which is a public holiday, unlike November 11. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The French flower of remembrance is the cornflower.[5] Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Anzac Day is NOT a celebration. It's a remembrance and commemoration. I would like to think that nobody celebrates war. HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe only in a loose sense of the term "celebrate".[6] That holiday, as well as Memorial Day and Veterans Day, are supposed to be about honoring those who died for us in combat. Hence they are "remembrance" days, not really "celebration" days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the U.S. has two different purposes for Veteran's Day and Memorial Day. Memorial Day (last monday in May) is to commemorate the war dead, while Veterans' Day (November 11, or nearest Monday to that) is to commemorate living war Veterans. Most people don't recognize the difference, indeed they tend to lump those two with the 4th of July as "Flag waving parade days" and don't give it much thought beyond "I get a day off of work". --Jayron32 22:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, I agree that the celebration of war is a nonesense. However, in the vein of what I clearly said (not what you thought/implied I said), I take the opportunity, as do many others, to celebrate our past veterans and present service personnel who serve/d and even gave their lives for our country; my father and great-uncle respectively at least. Celebration has multiple meanings and is not limited to any narrow definition that excludes remembrances and commemorations, e.g. a wake, where the life of the deceased is celebrated and honoured through remembrance and commemoration in a variety of forms, such as a party or light meal. It can be true to say that we can celebrate a life by remembering the person and being thankful for their existence, and do so without condoning the unfortunate context (of war) in which they lived, and even died. Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Elsewhere, Adam Bishop says. 'November 11 is celebrated in France too' which goes to the heart of my question. On reading Remembrance Day I notice Belgium also on 11 Nov. Thanks Adam, and thanks to others for your contributions. Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It may not be morally right to celebrate war, but it seems fair to celebrate the end of a war, as November 11 was originally intended to do (i.e. Armistice Day in WWI). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that 11th November can be a celebration. It certainly would have been in 1918. And yes, one can celebrate the life of someone. But my response was to the OP's description of Anzac Day as a celebration. It's not. It certainly wasn't a victory. HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Some may not see ANZAC DAY as a celebration while others might--each to his own--so we cant just cant push a subjective view on an objective matter. Yet, by all means dont take my description as authoriative and I have not meant it to be so. Yet, it is worth noting the views of three authorities on this matter, over a period of 60 years.

First, the Honourable Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia, spoke of ANZAC ceremonies as a something to 'celebrate'. He said, 'But as we approach the century of the Gallipoli landings just five years from now, perhaps it is also time for a further national conversation as to how we commemorate and celebrate ANZAC in 2015.' (ANZAC Day 2010 Commemorative address delivered at the National ANZAC Day ceremony by the Honourable Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia). [7].

Furthermore, the iconic institution of the Australian War Memorial (AWM), which I reasonably presume is a leading authority on the matter of Anzac Day, has captioned one of its photos of 1948 thus: 'Part of the crowd watching the parade by members of BCOF to celebrate Anzac Day.' . [8]

Last, the idea of celebrating ANZAC DAY is recorded in AWM52, being 'The formation and unit diaries of the Australian Military forces, 1939-1945'. Under item 4. Ceremonial Parades, part (b), the official position of Col H.M. Foster, Comd Brit Com Sub Area TOKYO states, 'On 25 Apr 1948 C-in-C BCOF Lt-Gen H.C.H. Robertson, CBE, DSO, ... accompanied by Brig L. Potter, DSO, Comd 2 NZEF ... a reception to celebrate ANZAC DAY was later held at the C-in-C's residence where the Heads of all Allied services and missions were entertained.' [9]

I dont think I need to say anymore except that it's important to understand a broad range of people have a broad range views over different time periods, and that the term celebrate has a broad range of meaning and use. Let's not get hung up on semantics--it can be very unproductive--let's stick with the sources, which is good practice at any time.

Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hungary and Poland share the Hungarian-Polish Friendship Day on 23 March. I couldn't find, either in Wikipedia or in any other online sources, why this particular date was chosen, but I suspect it's got something to do with the Polish support of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Victory in Europe Day is commemorated on May 8 in many European countries, and in a slightly different version on May 9 in many of the ex-USSR countries. In the latter, at least, it has always been considered as the year's main event to honor the war veterans. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Arabic into Somali names

Is there a website that shows an Arabic name being converted into Somali name or way? like in Arabic it is Abdul but in Somali they say Abdi; Abdul Ghani is Abdi Qani and Aisha is Caisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.12 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on article Somali alphabet, several correspondences seem likely: C=ع X=ح Q=غ etc. It could depend on the pronunciations of the particular Arabic dialect from which the word was borrowed into Somali... AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Struictly Original Research, but a few years back, there were three boys from the same Somali family in my London Scout Troop - they were cousins I think. One was called Abdirahman, one was Abdirashid and one was Abdul. Both boys with the "Abdi" pre-fix names (which they said means "messemger of") liked to be called "Abdi" - so we had Abdi, Abdi and Abdul, which was a little confusing. If there were Somali language versions of their names, they didn't use them. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is Rasul that means messenger. Abd means slave, and abdul means "slave of the..." For example Abdul Rahman.--99.179.20.157 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why you wouldn't broadcast that fact! (See Abd (Arabic) which I think you meant to link to) Alansplodge (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that the second part of Arabic names starting in Abd (Abd al-malik, Abd al-rahman etc) is one of the 99 names of God. So they all are equivalent to "Slave of God", or more conventionally "He who serves God". --Xuxl (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Largest Muslim population in Europe

Which Euro nation has the second largest Muslim population after France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.12 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You can have a look at List of countries by Muslim population. The answer depends on what you mean by a 'Euro nation' (I presume you aren't counting Turkey), and whether you are talking about the absolute population, or the proportion of the total population. If we are going by the total population, Germany comes after France, though Russia is far higher. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

However, Russia suffers from the same situation as Turkey in that it straddles two continents, moreso because most Muslims in Russia are likely in Central Asia. I suspect that if we just take the European parts of Russia and Turkey into consideration along with the rest of Europe, that Turkey would still have the most Muslims who were living in Europe. East Thrace (basically Turkey-in-Europe) has a population of about 10 million. Depending on how you classify the Alawite/Alevi, Turkey is considered to be as much as 96-97% Muslim, which would give is roughly 9.6 million Muslims in European Turkey. Looking through various "Demographics of..." articles for major European countries, the majority muslim countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania are significantly smaller than that in Population and the biggest population countries (UK, France, Germany, Italy) have less than half of that many Muslims. France and Germany have the most, with 4-5 million Muslims each. However, there is a distinct possibility that European Russia may still have more than any of these, given that European Russia is still more populous by 20,000,000 than the next most populous European nation. I still think most Muslims in Russia live in Asian Russia, however. --Jayron32 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find a solid source for this, but browsing around various sources it looks like the Muslim population of European Russia is likely higher than Asian Russia. Our List of countries by Muslim population says the total Muslim population in Russia is about 16 million (although online sources vary from below 10 million to over 20 million). A number of sources, like [10], say this population "is concentrated into two main areas": The North Caucasus (about 4.5 million) and the Volga-Urals region (whose Muslim population I'm not as clear on, but it seems to be at least several million). Apparently the Moscow area has about 1,500,000, and St. Petersburg region about 250,000. All of these areas are in European Russia. Assuming the Volga-Ural region has as many as the North Caucasus this already adds up in total to over 10 million. In short, although I'm far from certain, it seems likely that European Russia has about half of Russia's total Muslim population, if not a good deal more. Pfly (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, on the Volga-Ural region, it sounds like there are lots of Muslims in Bashkortostan and Tatarstan. Our Islam in Tatarstan article says there are about 2 million Muslims in Tartarstan alone. Pfly (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Asian Russia doesn't have any sizable Muslim ethnic groups. It borders on Central Asian countries that are predominantly Muslim, but very few migrants from those countries have settled in Asian Russia, which is relatively depressed economically. Instead, migrants from Central Asia have tended to settle in more prosperous European Russia. European Russia is probably home to a large majority of Russian Muslims, and it likely has a larger Muslim population than European Turkey. Marco polo (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So just to sum up, taking the data from List of countries by Muslim population together with Jayron32's and Pfly's estimates above, we get the following list of European / European Union / Eurozone countries (depending on what you mean by a "Euro country") by Muslim population (only above 1 million Muslims):

Country	Muslim population	Rank within Europe	Rank within the EU	Rank within the Eurozone
Russia (European part only)	10,000,000	1	—	—
Turkey (European part only)	9,600,000	2	—	—
France*	4,704,000	3	1	1
Germany	4,119,000	4	2	2
United Kingdom	2,869,000	5	3	—
Albania	2,601,000	6	—	—
Kosovo**	2,104,000	7	—	—
Italy	1,583,000	8	4	3
Bosnia-Herzegovina	1,564,000	9	—	—
Spain*	1,021,000	10	5	4
Bulgaria	1,002,000	11	6	—

*) Non-European parts of France and Spain have probably negligible Muslim populations

**) Kosovo's independence is not universally recognized. It uses the euro as a legal tender, but is not a member of the Eurozone.

— Kpalion^(talk) 00:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It was better if the questioner asked about Muslim population in European Union. I am interested who is after Bulgaria.

April 23

"ST"

[11]

What is the meaning of "ST" in "Heavy Duty Mechanic - Scrap (ST)"?Curb Chain (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Tudge? She is the person assigned to handle the applications, according to the announcement. Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, what about [12],[13],[14]?Curb Chain (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

???? All of them have her as the assigned contact so.... Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. I'm just feeling that posting a job with the initials are just not usual practice so I feel that it must mean something else?Curb Chain (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why you believe that. Have you looked at many job listings? I haven't really, but I have noticed before it's hardly uncommon for a job listing to have some sort of ref in the description to make internal routing & recognition easier (I presume) which sometimes includes the contact persons initials. In this case it appears the initial alone are considered enough by the advertisers (who aren't always the company itself, in fact I would say the practice is more common when the advertisers aren't the company itself but a recruiting company or similar which is hardly surprising). Within about 5 seconds of visiting the page of the site you're using I found a similar example [15] (archive [16]) albeit with the addition of a number and there are several with that same ref [17] (archive [18]). I'm sure I could look at any number of job listing sites and see something similar since as I've said, from my limited experience, it's very common. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure enough another 5 seconds later, same recruitement company as the one I linked, but different contact person [19] (archive [20]). I can't remember BTW if the ST cases was a recruitement company or the company looking for the position and the links no longer work (although a search for her name suggests she works for the same recruitement company as the other two) but either way, I see no reason to think Looie496's suggestion is wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to show this isn't unique to Canada or that particular recruitement agency, about 15 seconds after looking at Malaysian job sites [21] (which admitedly came after a ~3 minute look at NZ sites), I have [22] (archived [23]) and another 45 seconds later [24] (archive: [25]) Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Greatest country in the world"

Is there any historical or psychological reason why Americans frequently call the US the "greatest country in the world?" I frequently hear this phrase in American media, especially in Fox News Channel. Besides, I don't remember Canadian, British or even Chinese media call themselves the "greatest country in the world", so why the US? Is there a historical reason as to why Americans frequently do it while other countries don't do it as often? Was the trend common during the Vietnam War or the Cold War? (Except for a few nationalists, in most countries they would say that they love their country, but not necessarily call it the greatest). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right that Canadians don't call Canada the "greatest country in the world". What they call it, and I quote, is "the best country in the world". The implication that "best" is in the sense of "morally best" is not remotely subtle. --Trovatore (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The concept has a name, it's called American exceptionalism (that is, the idea that American's call their country the best in the world, not that it actually is.). --Jayron32 03:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Try to keep up. It's Canadians that call Canada the "best" country. Americans call America the "greatest" country. --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's only true insofar as bestness is correlated to one's inability to recognize synonyms. --Jayron32 04:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's different. The "greatest" country is the one that, take your pick, accomplishes the most, is the most powerful, perhaps does the most good, is the most generally awesome. The "best" country is the one that most does the right thing, whether or not anyone notices. I think that's pretty much how the terms are intended in the two countries, and the word choice is not an accident. --Trovatore (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see, so Canadians are best at redefining commonly understood words to meet their particular needs in making a silly point. That's definitely something to hang national pride on. --Jayron32 04:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I heard "best country in the world" while I lived in Canada, but it was certainly more than once. I don't ever recall hearing anyone call it the "greatest country in the world". It was clear to me that they meant morally best, and I think that is the commonly understood sense of the phrase. --Trovatore (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, because no one ever uses the words greatest and best interchangably, and if I called Babe Ruth the best baseball player ever, the preponderance of English speakers would think I mean he was the morally best baseball player. --Jayron32 04:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Come on, it's not the same thing and you know it. You're just being argumentative at this point.

By the way, while I found the phrase (and the Canadian moralism behind it) irritating, Canadian moralism does have its points. See for example Roméo Dallaire. --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one who first called me out because I didn't use your idiosyncratic definition of the word best. I raised no issue until you started demanding that my statement was somehow wrong. I was trying to show you that it wasn't. It is perfectly acceptable to use best and greatest as synonyms of each other, and now that it is inconvenient for you to do so, you're backpedalling. Which is it? Was I wrong to use best as a synonym of greatest or not? --Jayron32 04:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You were responding to me, by the indentation. I had clearly made the point that Canadians said "best", and that it was not an accident. You ignored that, which might have been fine, except that you were responding to me, and ignoring the main point of a short post. --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that there is also a clearly moral component to American exceptionalism as well, being best morally does not preclude one from being best in other ways (perceived or actual). Americans don't merely think of themselves as the most advanced, Americans also think their country has a monopoly on freedom and liberty, and that it is truly uniquely positioned (as in the only country in the whole world), in a moral sense, to spread that freedom and liberty throughout the world. If you'd read American exceptionalism, such an idea would have become apparent quickly. In other words, American exceptionalism is about Americans' opinion that America and only America has the moral right to spread its ideals throughout the world, and that the very concepts of goodness and freedom and liberty come from America as a gift to the world. That's American exceptionalism, and given what that was, it clearly relates to your post on Canadian moral superiority. --Jayron32 05:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Americans may also think the US is the best country, but that's different from thinking it's the greatest country. A subtle difference but relevant in context. --Trovatore (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Everybody can claim to be the "greatest" at something. Usually it's self-aggrandizing. And there's no circumstance in which everyone will agree with you. And so nationalism of this kind is a little distasteful. But why are you so convinced the U.S. is the worst in this respect? Do you mean that in absolute terms? Relative terms? Shadowjams (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not really sure what makes you think that I think that the US is "the worst in this respect". Just that I said Canadians don't claim to be "the greatest"? That's one country, and anyway the claim to be "the best" is at least equally irritating. --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To me, when I hear Canada being described as the "best country in the world", the main implied meaning is "to live in", not some moral superiority. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, could be. But that's not how I interpreted, who was it, Paul Martin maybe? when he said it. Didn't seem to fit the context, not that I remember exactly what the context was. Anyway, what about the comment on your user page, about being Canadian so people must like you? --Trovatore (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No moral superiority implied. It's just pretty well accepted that Canadians are generally well liked. Maybe because we're not too pushy/arrogant/visible on the world scene. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It probably has to do with the US being the most recent nation to dominate the world. I imagine you would have found a similar sentiment in Britain, when it was at it's peak. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Stu is quite astute. The article Pax Britannica covers a similar mentality towards the peak of the British Empire, whereby Britain saw itself as the undisputed superior power, and that the very weight of its Empire established worldwide peace and goodwill in its wake. The notion is demonstratably false, as LOTS of horrific wars occured during the time period (e.g. Revolutions of 1848, Franco-Prussian war, Opium Wars, Crimean War, Boer Wars etc. etc.) many of which involved Britain directly. However, like American exceptionalism, it still stems from the view that hegemony carries a moral component, that somehow becoming a major power occurs because one is morally right, and that moralism + hegemony grants the country truly unique moral rights and responsibilities with regard to its dominant position, especially the right to spread its values around the world. --Jayron32 05:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly I could not agree more with Stu in this instance. How about the other side of that coin? That other countries criticize the other major power. Sometimes fair, sometimes unfair. And by the way, if Canada calls itself the best, the U.S. certainly isn't the only country to make bold claims. At least the U.S. has some reasons (canada does too... this is a snipe at north korea... not your country, and if you're from north korea.... find yourself an embassy). Shadowjams (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As Giacomo Casanova wrote, "It is a belief shared by all nations, each thinking itself the best. And they are all right." Deor (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Greatest" doesn't necessarily mean moral superiority; it's often used to denote power, as in "Rome was the world's greatest empire for hundreds of years". In that sense, the US is objectively the greatest country in the world in terms of economic/military power, industrial/scientific prowess, cultural dominance, and almost every other criteria. Similarly, some Canadians could mean "best country to live in" when they say "best", and they'd probably be right. 12% of the Canadian population lives in Toronto, Vancouver, or Calgary, and all 3 are in the top 5 of the world's most livable cities. --140.180.1.1 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I lived in Toronto for a year. Beautiful city, but livability? Give me Los Angeles any day. --Trovatore (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The trope about Canada being the best country in the world dates back to the mid-1990s and the first few editions of the United Nations' Human Development Index which placed Canada in the top spot (bunched up with Scandinavian and other European countries; never mind that the HDI is not designed to compare countries at the top of the chart and that differences in ranking among the top 20 or so are essentially meaningless.). The Chrétien government jumped on this for propaganda purposes at a time of tension with separatists in Quebec and started trumpeting the "best country on the world" line all over the place. In future editions of the rankings, Canada fell back a few places, and the trumpeting by the federal government ceased, but the idea had been established in the mind of many Canadians that somehow, the world had validated us as the "best". And so it continues to this day. --Xuxl (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't known that. That does put a different spin on it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

People in many countries call their country the best/greatest etc. In India, there is a song, Saare Jahan Se Achcha meaning "Better than the entire world". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, the really greatest countries is the world are Hong Kong (in terms of economy) and Netherlands (in terms of civil liberties). --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(Bear with me, my mind and Google-fu are letting me down somewhat) The BBC recently broadcast a three-part documentary series on why we English believe we are the greatest nation in the world. I can't, however, find it on the BBC website to give you a link. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the British Empire once introduced modernization throughout the entire world. Even modern Americans are also descendants of the British. So we can say much of the world is contribution of the British. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The historical and psychological reasons for the claim by some Americans to have "the greatest country in the world", as others have said, involve conflating dominance with moral superiority. There is the feeling that dominance is the result of moral superiority. It is also a very useful sentiment for ruling classes to exploit to justify acts of aggression and brutality abroad. They can say, "Because we are the greatest country in the world, they should be grateful that we are liberating/protecting/aiding them." That kind of statement rallies US public opinion behind foreign interventions, which are presented not as the prerogative but as the moral responsibility of the world's greatest nation. In short, the claim is part of an ideology of imperialism. This kind of claim is not generally made by Americans on the left because they understand its connection to imperialism, which they oppose. However, it is often made by the right (for which Fox News is a voice), because the right backs an imperialist agenda. The claim was made a little less stridently or often in the wake of Vietnam, when many Americans doubted American "greatness", but the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was partly about reviving the "greatness" claim. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat OT but I definitely wouldn't assume best country in the world has an morally best implications. I can't speak for Canadians thoug. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say that claiming to be "the greatest nation" was a particularly un-British piece of boastfulness, when I found that our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had said exactly that in his 2007 resignation speech: "This country is a blessed nation. The British are special, the world knows it, in our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on Earth."[26] He was a master of blowing-one's-own-trumpet.

As to the use of the phrase in US culture, there are many pages of Google Books results from the first three decades of the 20th century, when America was certainly an economic powerhouse, but in terms of international relations was isolationist and inward looking (except for 1917-18) and was a military minnow in comparison to Britain and France. The earliest American use of the phrase that I could find was The Yale literary magazine, Volumes 12-13 (1847) p.275; "But the truth is, we are the greatest nation on earth, and we feel it. Whether we, who are now on the stage of action, deserve much credit for it, or not, the fact is so." Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised you don't remember the "this sceptred isle" speech - Richard II, Shakespeare ! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, point taken; but old Bill Shakespeare goes to a bit more effort than just crowing "We're the greatest!". Also, the speech finishes on a self-critical note; "England, bound in with the triumphant sea / Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege / Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, / With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: / That England, that was wont to conquer others, / Hath made a shameful conquest of itself." How very prescient. For the full text, see Prophecy of the dying John of Gaunt Alansplodge (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

They must have the best food there, and it must be getting better and better there, see here:

"Americans are not just getting fatter, they are ballooning to extremely obese proportions at an alarming rate." Count Iblis (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead out of copyright in Canada?

If I understand correctly, her work Anthem is in the public domain since it was published under a pseudonym and more than fifty years ago; I have heard the same thing about 1984 by George Orwell (Eric Blair). Is the same true of The Fountainhead? --✶♏✶ 06:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Was The Fountainhead published under a pseudonym? The word "pseudonym" does not appear in our article on it (but then neither does it appear in our article on Anthem). --Trovatore (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, are you saying "Ayn Rand" itself is a pseudonym? Canada is a common law country, which should mean that your name is what you call yourself and are known as. Didn't she use that as her actual name? --Trovatore (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Who exactly told you Anthem was out of copyright? According to List of countries' copyright length, in Canada anonymous works have a 50 year period, but anonymous is not the same as pseudonymous. Also note that we cannot provide legal advice, but only idle speculation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

George S. Messersmith and William Phillips

Hello learned ones ! Recently, while writing for the WP french article on George S. Messersmith , I read somewhere (maybe on a doc with an URL beginning with http://www.fleetwoodpa.org/messersmith_george/ , but it appears that my very small computing skills do not allow me to go back to that ref....) that "Messersmith wrote in 1933 to William Phillips that USA should try to side with USSR, so as to check nazi Germany". Who might be this William Phillips ? Disambiguation in WP en displays a reasonable choice between a scientist, a diplomat, an editor...

Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers, and feel free to enter into the french article, I found some interesting facts on WP de (and the poster "en travaux" is there only to repel the crows who might be attracted by that freshly sown-in plot...) Arapaima (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article William Phillips (diplomat) states that "he was Under Secretary of State again from 1933 to 1936" (i.e., the most important man in the United States Department of State after the United States Secretary of State). It's almost certainly him. --Xuxl (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A page at the fleetwoodpa site that you (Arapaima) referred to does link to the texts of two letters that Messersmith wrote to Phillips (the one identified by Xuxl above) in 1933, but neither mentions the Soviet Union. I'm so far unable to find evidence of a letter expressing the pro-Soviet sentiment you refer to, but a thorough search of the Messersmith Papers at the University of Delaware may turn up something. There are a number of messages to Phillips there. Deor (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to both. Deor, you're right : hint at USSR is not in the letter to Phillips, but further down the doc. visible on fleetwoodpa.org Arapaima (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Unimpeachable source - yea or nay?

Is there such a thing as an 'unimpeachable source', in terms of the source being 'beyond doubt', or, 'beyond reproach'? ... I ask because I claimed in an academmic paper I wrote a few years ago that my Father's war diaries were an unimpeachable. Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are involved in a debate about what counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia, please take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, no debate in Wiki, Cola'. Question arises from an academic paper I wrote. I will adjust Q to reflect this. Thanks. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake! --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Reproach" suggests a rather strong negative judgement on the source, so I would think that many sources would be unimpeachable if it is sufficient that they are beyond reproach. Denniston is certainly beyond reproach as a source for the Greek particles. Are any sources beyond doubt? I suppose it depends on what you mean, but I'm sure some authors have written works with nothing but tautologies, which would certainly be as far beyond doubt as possible. Even if no one has done this, it certainly would not be hard to do so. Take the following as a complete work: (∀x)x=x. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Atethnekos, your idea of 'beyond doubt' offers another dimension, but I think it refers mainly to the content rather than the author - yet I am not so sure either way. Thanks for your thoughts. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I did mean to refer to the content; sorry, I used that metonymy of using the author's name to refer to the content the author wrote. E.g., "I was reading Shakespeare" but not actually, just his works. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Urggh. My understanding of the current state of text analysis in historiography is that many historians agree that texts, or sources, are inherently unreliable in such a variety of ways that no source is "unimpeachable." In particularly the "literary turn" has emphasised that language itself is untrustworthy, in ways in which people who have never engaged in hermeneutic type analyses find convincing. On top of this is the standard misreporting, bias, and faulty memory. Even if your Father wrote his war diaries daily, and in the act, the limitation of his perspective means that the diaries themselves will not provide adequate context regarding the object of analysis (even if that object is the interior state of your Father's mind). Most historians try to get around this problem by triangulating the object of inquiry using multiple sources, source types, and reading techniques. "Unimpeachable" in this context sounds hyperbolic, almost to the point of irony. Your father's war diaries could certainly be "trustworthy" in that they didn't say what didn't happen, did say what happened within the limits of their decision about what would be important (ie: not omitting shameful acts, but still not necessarily diarising the colour of his underwear on a daily basis), and from the vantage held, said what was perceived to be happening at the time at which things were happening (and not with 20 years of hindsight and self-justification).

For example, I used a translated, published, diary of an anti-communist Hungarian student, who died on October 23, to indicate that the MEFESZ and DISZ student meetings immediately prior to the October 23 protest march were not aimed at toppling Communist Party rule in Hungary, nor interested in confronting the Party. Now despite the translation and publication problem—both of which are surmountable by pointing to the intensity of scrutiny displayed by pro-Soviet authors into anti-Soviet publications—this diary is very trustworthy. It was written on the day of the events, and the author died before the subsequent events coloured his recollections of the meeting. The author's politics were so rabidly anti-Party that you'd expect them to pounce on any sign of anti-Party activity to praise it. So it is a trustworthy source to claim that the Hungarian students were not plotting revolution; this can be triangulated against post-Revolutionary reports by MEFESZ and DISZ survivors' recollections which are tainted, to make a reasonably strong claim that Hungarian students weren't plotting revolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Or to put it more briefly, your father's war diaries are an unimpeachable source for what your father wanted future readers to know, but they are not necessarily an unimpeachable source for reality as it actually occurred. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Urggh, urggh! :) I am good for trying to figure out what the author meant and intended, and making a solid, yet fallible effort to do so. The decision by the diarist to include what was important excludes a lot, I would presume. In relation to your last sentence, what do we say about the diaries if my father 'wanted future readers to know' ... 'the reality as it actually occured'. If he wanted to convey some other 'reality' then he becomes a novelist, and the work is impeached as an unreliable source as to what actually happened. The reader/historian today must surely impose their assessment and that may include an unfair impeachment. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The deal is, you're not going to get a better answer than this: The human mind does not experience reality, nor can it express reality. Your mind filters the reality you experience in many ways, and even at the most basic level, and it approximates that reality. Even if we look at something very basic, like having you report on the color of an object. I can ask you a simple question, like "what color is this object" and you can say "yellow". However, what is yellow? Is it something which reflects light of a specific single wavelength of light at 580 nanometers ? Yes, that's one possibility. But you will also experience as yellow many other things, such as a grid of tiny green and red dots (that's how your television set produces yellow for you), or a mixture of a number of different wavelengths of light, etc. That is, you can be made to experience the color yellow in contexts where no actual light of that wavelength exists. So are your senses able to detect reality correctly? How do you distinguish between pure yellow color, and a composite of non-yellow colors your brain thinks is yellow? If you take this concept, and layer on top of it all of the various aspects of emotion and pyschology and the like, there is no perfect human representation of reality. There are only acceptable approximations. To put it simply, there is no way that any human report of an event is perfectly complete and accurate. There are only human reports of an event which are inaccurate, but acceptably so, and depending on the context, that definition varies. Is your father's diary an acceptable source for his experiences in the War? Quite possibly. Are they an acceptable source for what other people experienced in the war? Maybe less so... --Jayron32 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

'The deal is, you're not going to get a better answer than this:...' rather diminishes the contribution of all other wiki commentators here - but thanks for your considered and detailed thoughts, anyway. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Jayron is almost always (and sometimes annoyingly) right about most any matter you'd care to bring up. Specifically, the best you can hope for in his diary is that he wrote honestly about what he saw and experienced. If so, then his sincerity would be unimpeachable. That doesn't mean his facts are. Or aren't. But in any case, I bet they would make for some fascinating reading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A personal diary is like any other eyewitness account: it can't be taken as gospel about facts. The best you can say is that it reflects what the writer wanted to write. Now, if other personal journals independently make similar observations, then you start to have some reliability, or at least consensus. One of the recent TV programs about Titanic pointed out that eyewitnesses gave conflicting testimony as to whether the ship cracked in two before, or while, it sank. Some were absolutely certain that it did, and others were absolutely certain that it didn't. Both couldn't be right. Yet their own personal "truth" was "right" to them. The "real" truth was that it did. However, that doesn't prove that anyone lied about it. They may just not have been in position to notice it - especially, as Cameron's team calculated that the angle of tilt was rather less dramatic than the stereotype (and his film) would indicate. Eyewitness accounts are both useful and suspect at the same time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Some useful thougts, Bugs, although I have a different perspective on the reliability of 'eyewitness accounts' and the (alleged) 'facts' they convey. I would think that, unless a writer is entirely deceitful on a matter, that what they wanted to write actually reflects the facts of the matter -- from their perspective. Differences of opinion on the same event can be as much about different perspectives (e.g. titanic) as about the problem with conveying meaning and the interpretation of that meaning? And, yes, 'both useful and suspect' as you say -- quite a tension to rsolve. Thanks for your thoughts. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not even an unimpeachable source on your father's own life and experiences, as people have a natural instinct to justify themselves or gloss over their shortcomings. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And exactly which parts of the diary has my Father justified himself or glossed over his shortcomings? If all people exhibit such failings, then that fact does not affect a diary's contents as far as they were intended to be read. Strangely, the contents are reliably unreliable, I suppose. But that's all another story. Thanks for your thoughts. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of what Will Rogers said in the intro to his autobiography, which went something like, "An autobiography is where you talk about all the things you wish you had done, and leave out the things you wish you hadn't done." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Patron "saints" of England?

In the Edward the Confessor article, it says that he was replaced as "one of the patron saints of England" by St George by Edward III. Who were the other patron saints of England that are referred to here? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The other one was Edmund the Martyr. Our article also says he was replaced by Edward III (although it doesn't mention Edward the Confessor). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

French legislative election, June 2012

Can anyone find a poll predicting the results of the French legislative elections in June. I read French and tried searching Google News with the terms "elections legislatives sondages" but couldn't find any actual polls. I am wondering whether Hollande, after his likely presidential victory, is likely to face a "cohabitation" or whether he will be able to pursue Socialist policies unfettered. (I am following French politics closely because I think they are pivotal for the euro zone at this point and consequently for the global political economy.) Thanks for any leads. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's an article here that attempts to predict the outcome of the legislative elections. It looks like they are basing their predictions on pretty scant information, but they seem to think that the same party is likely to win both the presidential and legislative elections (I took the liberty of linking your question to the relevant article). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The results of the second round of the presidential elections are likely to have a large impact on the legislative elections, as a newly-elected President has historically had a significant coattail effect on the subsequent legislative elections. As a result, polls conducted until then are not particularly useful. --Xuxl (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that this suggests that French voters aim to avoid cohabitation (presidency and parliament controlled by different parties). The opposite seems to be true here in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As a student of politics I should point out that I disagree. The fundamental issue at stake is that voters overwhelming vote for the same kind of people in multiple elections with little time difference between them – simply because their preferences do not change. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. The same is basically just as true in the US as France - the slight difference being, I would suggest, that parties in the US are more ideologically varied than in France, giving more room for a single individual to agree with a Republican Presidential candidate than the Democrat, but his Democratic House nominee more than his Republican (think Southern Democrats here, for example).

To answer the OP, I'm afraid I could find legislative prediction either, only party ratings. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of the last 20 US Congresses, 14 had at least one house controlled by a different party than the president at the time, and 9, or almost half, had both houses controlled by a different party. In several cases, a president started with a Congress controlled by his own party, but control shifted in one or more houses during the president's term of office. In recent US history, the party of the president has been likely to lose control of Congress during that president's term. That to me shows a US preference (whether it is really the preference of US citizens or that of money in politics) for divided government.

No, Americans want everyone in the government to be of the party they identify with. The deal is that the only people who vote in midterm elections are people who don't like the President, so we end up with a lot more divided government than otherwise. But that isn't because individual voters want their President and Congress to be controlled by different parties. Far from it. Its because it is because a President tends to bring in people of his own party during the years when they are elected (see coattail effect), whereas in midterm elections the only people who show up to the polls are the people who are pissed. The lone exception I can think of is the Reagan Democrats who basically represented the mass-exodus of labor from the Democratic Party; they still identified with their local Democratic candidates but supported the conservative social polices of the Republicans. A generation later, those Reagan Democrats have all, by-and-large, become Republicans as well. In more recent years, party politics has become more divisive and dogmatic. Now, more than in the past, Americans are more likely to vote "straight ticket" and select only people from their own identified party. --Jayron32 20:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there's something to both points. Midterm elections have always favored the opposition, but there probably are a fair number of voters who are afraid of what both major parties would do if they had control of both the legislature and the executive. --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

When we had monolothic governments, they led us into seemingly never-ending wars, in Vietnam and Afghanistan respectively. Whether the public is sufficiently wary of that situation, is hard to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. There have been polls! Just barely in the plural. http://www.sondages-en-france.fr/sondages/Elections/L%C3%A9gislatives%202012 gives the result of one in the Paris 2nd, and one from 6 months ago in the Charente-Maritimes first. Neither of which exactly threw up surprises for those single constituencies. Generally though, yeah, the surveys seem rather more focused on the Presidential --Saalstin (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rivals in Europe politics

Who are the main rivals of Labour Party in Norway? Who are the main rivals of Swedish Social Democrats? Who are the main rivals of Social Democrats in Denmark? Who are the main rivals of Labour Party in Netherlands? Who are the main rivals of Social Democrats in Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.179 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar only with Germany. The traditional rivals of the German Social Democrats (SDP SPD) are the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU). Over the past decade or so, though, a new rivalry among parties on the left (SDP, Alliance '90/The Greens, and Die Linke) has made the old binary opposition no longer accurate. Marco polo (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The party is called SPD. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a lot of articles like Politics of the Netherlands which you can check. In the Netherlands, the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy is the biggest right-wing party, though there are others with significant votes (Christian Democratic Appeal, People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Try Politics of Norway. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Wrongfilter for pointing out my embarrassing typo, which I've corrected above. Marco polo (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And Politics of Denmark and Politics of Sweden. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Some law questions

1)what is the degrees of murders ? What's the difference between manslaughter and homicide?

2)what would happen if a paroled person would not return to jail after the period ends?Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 19:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article on murder should help with your first question (quick summary: "it's complicated"). As for the second, generally, that's the expected outcome — when you're paroled, you are not expected back in prison unless you violate the terms of your parole or commit another offense. --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP is confusing parole (which is basically a looser version of house arrest) and work release, which is sometimes also called "furlough" in the U.S. In work release, a person lives at prison, but is allowed out to work in the community. In parole, a person can both live and work in the community, but has certain restrictions (must check in with a parole officer, can't travel outside of the state, etc.) In cases of both parole and furlough, the expectation is that the person abides by their restrictions, failure to do so would result in more restrictive punishment, but as long as a person follows the rules, it is expected that, at the end of their sentence, they be given full rights and privileges back again. --Jayron32 20:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that, with some types of offence, the end of the formal sentence does not mean the end of the effective penalty. For example, sex offenders are typically required to go on to a register and are permanently barred from working with certain groups of people. Also, any ex-prisoner is going to find gaining employment more of a challenge than might otherwise be the case, because many employers are wary of hiring ex-cons. Yes, they can choose not to reveal their history straight up, but many employers require a police records check as part of standard short-listed applicant processing. Others just ask the applicants; if they admit it, they risk not being employed; if they deny it, and their criminal record is later discovered, they risk being sacked. Walking out of prison is not the end of the sentence by any means. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference between murder charges and manslaughter is whether the accused is of the same race, nationality, ethnic group, language, and class as the prosecutor. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And what about gender and sexual orientation?88.9.107.123 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sexual orientation, yes, but they might very well go easier on suspects of the opposite gender, if the prosecutor is straight and hopes to be "thanked" in a rather personal way. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Stu, is that a soapbox in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question to me. If you can't browse your way over to our murder and homicide articles, you should get an F. And Stu... come on man. As an IP told you earlier this month, you don't have to respond to every single thread. Shadowjams (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I am not a school student anymore.I'm just asking the question for my general knowledge.I want to summary in short, as i am finding difficulties to interpret information from the article.By the way, what is dispute with User:StuRat?Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There are varying degrees of the "severity" of homicide, usually a function of the circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The answers to these questions will depend on the country you're talking about. In the UK, for example, there are no "degrees" of murder. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So, in the UK, if someone jumps out from the sidewalk and you accidentally hit him, are you send to the slammer for the same length of time as if you did it on purpose? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

They don't have degrees of murder, but they do have manslaughter. I suspect they also have torts corresponding to wrongful death when there is no crime, and probably also notion of homicide that is a pure accident (no negligence) and therefore not even a tort, but that's just speculation on my part; I'm certainly no expert on UK homicide law. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For BB's scenario, the USA has Vehicular manslaughter and the UK has Causing death by dangerous driving. Dbfirs 13:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, but in our excellent Murder in English law article, it makes clear that our definition of murder includes intent. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In practice the judge decides the degree of the offence in murder cases; for instance, the pre-meditated murder of a long time abuser is likely to attract a more lenient sentence than sadistic killing of a weaker person. Killing without intent, but with the reasonable expectation that the act would cause significant harm is manslaughter. Running someone over when you're drunk or driving very badly is causing death by dangerous driving. Killing someone by an unforeseeable accident is just an accident. Alansplodge (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the UK, there is a temporary licence, occasionally called temporary parole, where the individual is expected to return to prison. If they don't, it is apparently a specific offence of failure to return; police will attempt to capture them, and they may have time added to their sentence, eligibility for future parole removed, etc. There's some information here. Warofdreams talk 09:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Repsol

Why does Repsol have an OTC price and a non-OTC price? See here: [[27]] and here [[28]]. And why are both prices not the same? Can't you buy in one market and sell in the other? 88.9.107.123 (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism

Is anarchism left-wing or right-wing?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither. Anarchism is a school of thought which is neither inherently left or right-wing and consists of a number of variants which may be either or neither of these. Robert Nozick for example is a 'Minarchist' who believes (I'm simplifying here massively) that all that matters is private property rights and so no state should exist beyond a police force to enforce such rights. This is usually considered very right-wing. By contrast Anarcho-Communism is (as the name implies) very left-wing. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchist_schools_of_thought . 130.88.172.34 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A minarchist is a libertarian who is not an anarchist, so why drag him in? ¶ While it's true that the positions of some libertarians (including some anarchists) can be summarized as "all that matters is private property rights", that phrasing is misleading unless it's specified that our conception of property rights does not end with landlords; it includes, for example, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, and a right not to be poisoned by pollution (your property begins with your body). —Tamfang (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that Left and Right have any consistent meaning over the centuries, they seem to me to represent emphasis on equality (in varying senses!) and stability respectively. You may note that individual autonomy is not strongly correlated with either of those. Communism is seen as aligned with the Left, and vice versa; but I think this is largely historical accident, because Communism's big successes have been against very traditional (thus Right) regimes.

Some of my friends describe themselves as "Right anarchists" (or "anarcho-capitalists") in contrast with the "Left anarchists" who, given a choice between abolishing the State and abolishing private property, would preserve the State. I am coming around to the view that this is a tactical and substantive error. Though "anarcho-capitalists" may be put off by some of the language used by Kevin Carson (who describes himself as "left-libertarian" and "free-market anti-capitalist"), I doubt that they would find much ground to disagree with his thesis that the State, far from protecting us against big business, is its chief enabler and friend. Carson and Roderick Long use the word capitalism as Marx coined it, to mean the system of State protections and subsidies that discourage competition and thereby keep wages lower than they would otherwise be (because in a freer market the worker could more readily threaten to go start a new business).

It has been said that "free people are not equal, and equal people are not free"; but I reckon that free people are more equal than governed people. Therefore, anarchism is of the Left. —Tamfang (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The various forms of "social anarchism" have much in common with radical left-wing perspectives (anarcho-communism with communism, anarcho-syndicalism with syndicalism, etc). Individualist anarchism, with which Tamfang, above, appears to identify, can have something in common with certain right-wing viewpoints, such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism, although its core social outlook is very different from most of the right. Warofdreams talk 09:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Does individualism or Objectivism aim to preserve a rigid social class system? Does either aim to concentrate authority, like fascism (and any Communist Party ever in power)? Does "right-wing" mean anything, anymore, other than not-Welfare-statist? —Tamfang (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it mean even that? I have the impression that Marine Le Pen's party is very welfare-statist, and we are reliably informed by the mainstream media that she's on the "far right". --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that. Our articles have decent summaries - left-wing means desiring to bring about greater equality, right-wing means supporting or accepting inequality. In various countries, at different times, many other ideas have become associated with the left- or right-wing, but those are the key ones. Warofdreams talk 08:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really buy that. That's Norberto Bobbio's formulation, and I don't agree with Bobbio on much. How egalitarian was Mao or Lenin or Stalin, or is Hugo Chavez? --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That broad principle did fundamentally inform all of their ideologies, even though they may have been inconsistent, counter-productive, self-important and/or enjoyed personal privilege. Where they did things entirely at odds with egalitarian aims, those acts aren't conventionally described as left-wing, although they are sometimes justified by left-wingers as necessary or expedient. Warofdreams talk 09:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This sounds to me like left-wing apologetics rather than a neutral analysis of the various philosophies. --Trovatore (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

First time I've seen apologetics which included a long list of criticisms and not a single word of praise! Warofdreams talk 09:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues is not left-wing vs right-wing. The left-right spectrum is outdated. The issue is individualism vs collectivism. The first holds the individual is the supreme being in the universe and their own ruler. So there may be difference between Bill Gates and the hawker in the street in terms of capital accumulation, but they are their own kings. No external agency can interfere in their business. On the contrary, collectivism does not recognize the individual, instead it views the individual as part of an imagery larger super-entity (such as society, nation, religion etc). Thus all forms of collectivism, fascism, communism, welfare statism, dehumanizes the individual. Collectivism denies the existence of the individual in favor of a collective. It holds the individual is incapable in governing themselves, so an external ruler is necessary to protect and discipline them. This goes against what Benjamin Tucker said, "if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"We are an anarcho-syndicalist commune..." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Feminism and Sexism

Is feminism left-wing or right-wing? Is sexism left-wing or right-wing? Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is trolling yin or yang? --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"I unsheathed my Bowei knife..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in an answer, feminist movements and ideologies is a start. Feminism has more often been associated with the left-wing, although there certainly has been a right-wing feminism. Overt sexism is principally associated with the right-wing, but there have been important critiques of sexism within left-wing groups and cultures. Warofdreams talk 09:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see a revolution in which the women do not have to do all the cooking and cleaning up after men.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

List of conservative feminisms might be of interest, although the links are more useful than the article itself. Warofdreams talk 09:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a poorly written list. Individualist feminism is in no way conservative. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

April 24

Treasury Department Award to a Writer?

I'm working on expanding the article on the children's writer Aileen Fisher. Her obit in the NY Times and the LA Times both say that she received an award from the US Treasury Department. I have researched every way I can think of for days and cannot find any other reference to this award. Can you find what it was, and when and perhaps why it was given? Thank you very much. Here's a link to the LA Times article, stating "a Silver Medal from the U.S. Treasury Department;" [29] Tlqk56 (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This AP story says she won "the 1940 silver medal for distinguished service to the education section of the Treasury Department". --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. For some reason the link doesn't work for me, but I can use the information. I appreciate it. Tlqk56 (talk)

It said:

"Aileen Fisher, an award-winning children's poetry and book author, has died. She was 96.

She died Dec. 2 of natural causes, the Boulder Daily Camera reported.

Fisher wrote children's poetry, plays, nature fiction and biographical novels, publishing more than 100 books since the 1930s.

Her first book, ``The Coffee Pot Face, was the 1932 choice of the Junior Literary Guild.

Among her awards was the 1940 silver medal for distinguished service to the education section of the Treasury Department, the 1968 Honor Book on the Hans Christian Anderson award list, and the 1976 National Council of Teachers of English award for excellence in poetry for children."

StuRat (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

April 25

Secretary-General of the United Nations

What is his daily schedule? What is it that he usually does each day as a part of his job? —Bzweebl— ^talk 04:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

His schedule for the current day only is shown here (it doesn't look like there is a way to view past or future schedules). Much of his time is spent travelling, see here. You can click the links on that page to see a detailed rundown of what he did on each trip. --Viennese Waltz 07:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool! —Bzweebl— ^talk 02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Did a mischievous golfer destroyed the Benin Air Force?

I just found much source on the internet and some books, but I would like to see if there are some more specific sources about this event.--58.251.146.129 (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's made up. See our article on Benin Armed Forces for current resources. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Japanese prime ministers

What are the reasons why Japanese prime ministers get unpopular so quickly? Since Junichiro Koizumi, there has not been one Japanese prime minister who lasted more than one-and-a-half years in office. Shinzo Abe and Yasuo Fukuda followed, then resigned for different reasons. Then came Taro Aso, Japan's only Catholic Prime Minister, whose long-time ruling party the LDP was defeated by Yukio Hatoyama's DPJ, but he too resigned after just eight months because he said he broke some promises involving a American military base. He was replaced by Naoto Kan who oversaw Japan's rebuilding after the 2011 earthquake, but eventually he became unpopular and resigned. The current prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, seems to be quite unpopular will probably be on his way out soon. But anyway, why have they become so unpopular lately? I can think of many governments that had financial problems but didn't burn through many leaders in such a short amount of time, but why Japan? Of course, there was the removal from office of Italian, Spanish and Greek Prime Ministers recently, but their Prime Ministers don't seem to be unpopular (yet), and those events have only occurred within the last year or so, this has been going on in Japan for six years. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Does Politics of Japan help answer your question? --Jayron32 12:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been controversies over the privatisation of Japan Post (which is a massively controversial issue), over nuclear power following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, over the war in Afghanistan[30]; the Japanese economy hasn't been in a good condition for 20 years, with an end to the job-to-life culture and layoffs at even the most established companies, plus deflation, the recent recession (Japanese economy#Current economic issues) and a sense that Japan is no longer a world leader with the rise of China and India. But a lot of it is down to circumstances and the lack of charismatic leaders with popular appeal - a long sequence of grey men in grey suits with no particular idea of how to sort Japan's problems. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Beyond the other answers, you're hardly the first person to notice this, so a quick search for 'japan prime minister short' (or something similar) will find plenty of discussions, e.g. [31] [32] [33] [34] and indirectly [35] Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of theft

I have a question regarding a potential situation that came to mind. I'm not seeking legal advice, I'm simply curious.

If I ordered something online, say an iPod classic 30GB, but they sent me a 60GB model by accident, is it legally theft if I keep it if they don't ask for it back? If the situation was slightly different, and they DID ask for it back, would it be theft if I refused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.154.192 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

When an error is made, it is generally expected that the error be corrected. There are many examples of this, say a person receiving $10,000 on a check that should have only been paid $100 (say, if the bank misreads $100.00 as $10000), and in those cases, the person is legally obligated to return the money. You can do find lots of examples from google where that has been the case, i found two examples in about 10 seconds: [36] and [37] That doesn't mean that a person wouldn't "get away" with keeping the more expensive product, but the company in question would be within its legal rights to ask for, and receive, it back. Not getting caught is not the same thing as not breaking the law. --Jayron32 14:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This does get into an interesting moral or ethical area. It's kind of the flip side of "let the buyer beware". Moral absolutists (maybe "Abe Lincolnists") would probably say there's no moral difference between "stealing" a penny vs. "stealing" 10,000 dollars. However, practicality intervenes. If you're supposed to get 25 cents in change at your local McDonald's and they give you 35 cents instead, and you discover it when you get home, driving back to the store to give them 10 cents is a waste of gasoline, and you're liable to get incredulous looks. But if they gave you a 10 dollar bill instead of a 1, the clerk will probably be grateful, as they may well be docked for any shortage in the till. If the bank gives you 100 dollars and 10 cents, the cost of them doing the adjustment might exceed that 10 cents. However, if they give you 10,000 dollars instead of 100 dollars, and you tell them about it, you'll probably be a hero, get your mug on the nightly news, and maybe even get a reward for your honesty, such as a free toaster. In all cases, though, if someone asks for it back, you should return it without hesitation. In the OP's case, it's kind of borderline. Since they basically "gave" it to you, you could keep your mouth shut until or if they notice it. However, someone might get fired over a mistake like that. So the optimal course of action probably would be to contact them and ask them what they want you to do. Given the cost of shipping (which they should have to bear), they might just tell you to keep it. Communication is good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My dad pointed out a mistake his bank had made in his favour (I'm not sure how large) and got a box of their branded pens as a thank-you gift - whenever you picked up a pen in his house for the next few years, it always had that bank's logo on it! Probably quite good advertising for the bank... --Tango (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is, if they ask for it back you will have to return it. If they don't ask for it back, then really it's up to your conscience! It's possible you could get into trouble for not reporting it, but I've never heard of something like that happening unless you failed to give it back when asked. --Tango (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question rather than talk about the moral issue, in most jurisdictions theft must be an act of commission, rather than omission, so they likely could not have you charged with theft and arrested. However, they could sue in civil court, and recover the item, or the value of the item, in that manner. As a practicality, this would only be done with valuable items. If you paid by credit card, however, they might very well just charge you for the more expensive item, without your permission to do so. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't answer the original question. That would be legal advice. Broba (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Even forgetting that, no one answer is actually possible, because the laws vary from place to place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A practical concern, if you will: if you purchased this from Apple, you're going to have to connect to them somehow with your new toy (to register it, to activate iTunes, etc., they're much more "into" your stuff than many other tech firms). At that point, they're going to "know" what you've got and they could easily compare what you've got with what you paid for. Whether they'd bother doing that is an open question. Matt Deres (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(the following is not legal advice - its advice to myself) If this happened to me, to keep a clear conscience, I would simply email them and advise them of the discrepency, ask if they want to correct it, offer my terms of making good (at no cost to me). I would also limit them to 10 working days to reply; after which time, if they havent I will advise them I will assume they do not want the thing back, and then get on with my life. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point I'm reminded of this one: A guy sends a note to the IRS, saying, "I under-reported my income, and I can't sleep at night. Enclosed find check for $500, and if I still can't sleep, I'll send you the balance." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada South Asian Chinese election politics vs USA African Americans and hispanics

Ever since the 2012 US Presidential election is coming up, television networks like AlJazeera have been talking about how African-Americans and Hispanics have bigger role in US politics because people have claim especially political analysts that these two largest non-white groups tend to vote Democrats more than vote Republicans because of their immigration and crime policy. Even there books dealing with Hispanics and African Americans having a voice in the election. So, I want to about how South Asians and Chinese. So far, I know that they are the largest non-white groups in Canada(South Asians first and Chinese second in population). How come these two groups are never mentioned in the media when it comes to Canadian general election and never get that tag that they vote Liberal or NDP more than they vote for Conservative? Is there any books about these two groups having voice in Canadian general elections? Is there a website where it shows tables, graphs and figures about South Asians and Chinese and their views on different issues like Quebec, immigration, economy and social issues during the Canadian general elections 2011? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.98 (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suppose it's not that it isn't interesting, but the relative proportion is smaller than hispanics in the US, so they aren't as as able to 'swing' an election even if there was a noticeable voting bloc. Mingmingla (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly what you're looking for, but Jacques Parizeau blamed the outcome of the 1995 Quebec referendum on "the ethnic vote". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, isn't the Canadian immigration policy more favorable to immigrants ? If so, they would have less reason to vote for or against a party, based on that. Other issues would seem more important, like the economy. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Most Hispanics look pretty white to me. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how they look to you; in North America they are often treated as another race (or at least ethnic group). It doesn't matter whether or not there is even such a thing as race, it just is. Mingmingla (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, recent immigrant groups in Canada voted largely for the Liberal party. This was because the Liberal party was in power during the second half of the 1960s and 1970s under Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Elliott Trudeau when immigration policy changed to allow more non-European immigrants. Studies show (sorry, I don't have time to look them up) that these groups were grateful to that government and party for allowing them to become citizens. Similarly, they were largely opposed to Quebec separatism, out of a sense of loyalty to the federal government which issued immigration visas (hence Jacques Parizeau's infamous remarks, mentioned above). This seems to have changed in recent years; the Conservatives did not significantly change immigration policies when they were in power under Brian Mulroney in the 1980s, and the current Stephen Harper party and government has courted them openly, with some success. All parties now have members representing all major communities in Canada. It is the same in Quebec, where both camps in the sovereignty debates have supporters coming from various immigrant communities. There is thus no clear "Chinese" or "Indian" or "Arabic" or whatever vote in Canada anymore, and political scientists look to other factors to explain current electoral behaviour. --Xuxl (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the longest book written that is NOT a novel?

Hello, I was trying to look for the longest books written (in English or not) that were not novels, but all I can find are lists for the longest novels ever written. So I was wondering if anyone can think of the longest written works that are not novels. Sorry if you think this is the wrong desk to ask this, I was thinking I could also ask this in the Language or even the Entertainment desks, but I concluded the type of books I would like to find were more akin to the humanities. Thanks in advance. --Kreachure (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica? Or maybe there's a bigger encyclopaedia somewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana is several times longer than the Britannica. Kreachure (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) By "book", do you exclude official reports such as the one into the 9/11 attacks or the report of the Warren Commission into JFK's assassination? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Great suggestions, and good question. I guess they would count, as long as each is considered a distinct, clearly delimited, single written work of its own (especially so that an unambiguous word count may be possible). Kreachure (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Unabridged dictionaries are quite large. RudolfRed (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Our Mahabharata page says it is "the longest Sanskrit epic", at about 1.8 million words. But I'd bet there are longer "distinct, clearly delimited, single written works". Pfly (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, but the Mahabharata is dwarfed by some encyclopedias. Some large ones are listed at Wikipedia:Size comparisons#Comparison of encyclopedias. Siku Quanshu is listed at 800 million Chinese characters; the Yongle Encyclopedia at 370 million characters. Pfly (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You're right, it turns out reference works like encyclopedias are some of the longest types of works out there. Now that we know this, I would like to know of works outside of reference works, like the Mahabharata. If anything because, unlike the Mahabharata, an encyclopedia is not something that is intended to be read from beginning to end as a whole. :) Kreachure (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Giacomo Casanova's autobiography is a single, although unfinished, work, and in its full form runs to twelve generous volumes. There are a number of examples of outsider art literature which are extremely long, too. But I'm sure even longer examples can be found... AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The History of the Second World War published by HMSO appears (by my count) to run to over 90 volumes. However, our article says; "The volumes were written to be read individually, rather than as a whole series." Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia.

Anonymous music critics

I'm researching Henry Cope (H. C.) Colles, who was the chief music critic of The Times from 1911 to his death in 1943, and also edited the 3rd and 4th editions of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, among many other activities. My primary source is the article on Colles in the 5th edition of Grove, written by his successor Eric Blom. Blom writes about Colles's time at The Times:

• ... and although his work was necessarily anonymous, readers learnt not only to recognise it, but also to admire it for its admirable qualities of comprehensive taste, sure and fair judgment, and, above all, perhaps, for an unfailing tact and humanity that tempered even his severest strictures.

The "necessarily anonymous" bit intrigues me. Why was it necessary to remain anonymous? I'm sure modern-day music critics, and journalists of all kinds, all have their bylines, and this is far from being a recent thing. I see that "An exception is the British weekly The Economist, which publishes nearly all material anonymously". Was this also the case at The Times? When did it change?

Also, how would the casual reader recognise the pen of Colles, unless they had already been exposed to his other (nonymous) writings. Maybe the readers of The Times in those days were all exceedingly erudite and moved in the most educated of circles, musicologically speaking, I don't know, but it all sounds a bit closed-shop high-brow to me. (Mind you, that's from back in the day when The Times was still a broadsheet. With tabloids - and Rupert Murdoch - one never really knows, does one. :)

Can anyone enlighten me about this? Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Times reviewers' work was anonymous into the 1970s. This obit of a fellow who became editor of the TLS in 1974, for instance, says that "as editor, Mr. Gross broke with longstanding tradition and began attaching bylines to reviews, which had been anonymous." Deor (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Blom's words say no more than that readers recognized Colles's work (presumably in distinction to the work of other authors of Times music reviews), not that they knew the name of the man responsible for that work. Deor (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But Blom seems to be going beyond mere recognition, and into admiration. How would readers express their admiration for, or even just refer to, that particularly admired writer whose name they didn't know? How would this sentence end: Oh, I'm looking forward to the review of last night's concert, and I really hope it's written by [....]. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

April 26

Winning the Presidency with only a quarter of the popular vote!

Is it true that it's possible to obtain a majority in the Electoral College with only about a quarter of the popular vote, by winning in the states where your vote counts the absolute most? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking about the Electoral_College_(United_States), then yes I think that could happen, depending on voter turnout. If you had low turnout in high-count states like California and Texas and won 50.1% of the popular vote there, and high turnout in smaller count states like North Dakota and only won a small percent of popular vote, then you could end up with a small percentage of the total popular vote and win the electoral college. You would need to do the math on all the state voter numbers, but it seems possible if unlikely. RudolfRed (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of theoretical scenarios which are much more extreme. Members of the Electoral College (United States) are not bound by law to vote for a specific candidate so you can get 100% in the Electoral College with 0% in the popular vote. There could be unpledged electors who never pledged to vote for a specific candidate. There could be pledged electors who become faithless electors. If all electors are pledged and follow it faithfully then one candidate could theoretically win large states where only one voter actually votes, while another candidate gets 100% in other states where everybody votes. There could be many candidates splitting the votes so all candidates get a small percentage of the popular vote. The population of states could change dramatically from the latest census used to determine the number of electors for each state. Some states could change the way they appoint electors so it's not based on a popular vote in the state. And so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, electors for some states are bound to specific vote and the vote will be voided if the elector votes for someone else. The article says Michigan does this, and implies there are others but doesn't name them. RudolfRed (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you win 50%+1 votes in the correct states to give you 50%+1 electoral college votes, and 0% of the vote in every other state, you win the presidency. As a practical matter, that will never happen, but there have been cases where someone has lost the popular vote, and still won the presidency in the electoral college. Stictly speaking, to get the 270 votes you need, you'd only need to win the states of California (55), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), Illinois (20), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14) = exactly 270 votes. That means winning just 11 states (out of 50) is needed to win the Presidency. These 11 states represent a population of about 177 million, or 56.5% of the country's population. Since smaller states have a larger representation in the Electoral College, if you won the 40 smallest states, you would have a population of about 45% of the country represented for those same 270 Electoral votes, assuming you won the bare minimum of those 40 states, and literally zero votes in the other 11 (we're assuming DC counts as a state for presidential election purposes here), you would have less than 25% of the popular vote. As noted, this is impossible, from a practical point of view. However, people have won the electoral college when losing the popular vote, I can think of a few off the top of my head: the United States presidential election, 1876 was awarded to Rutherford B. Hayes by the courts, Samuel Tilden won the national popular vote, but there were several states whose results were too close to call; a special judicial commission awarded those electoral college votes to Hayes, giving him the absolte bare minimum to win the electoral college. In the United States presidential election, 2000, Al Gore had a plurality (but not an absolute majority) of the popular vote, while George W. Bush came in second in the popular vote. As in 1876, the results of a closely contested state (Florida) was disputed and eventual ended up getting decided by the Supreme Court, who awarded the state to Bush. In general, however, the electoral college tends to be a lot more lopsided than the popular vote; in most elections the margin of victory in the electoral college is much greater than the popular vote, because of the "winner take all" nature of most states (except Maine and Nebraska) in the electoral college. For example, in the United States presidential election, 1960, Kennedy defeated Nixon by the tiniest margin in the popular vote (just over 100,000 votes, or 0.2%) but won the electoral college vote handily (by a 74 vote margin). Likewise, in the famous "Reagan Landslide" election of United States presidential election, 1984, Reagan won 58% of the popular vote, but won an astounding 525/538 (97.5%) of the electoral college. --Jayron32 03:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What happens if Obama quits the election ?

Who would the Democrats field in his place, or would there be no Democratic candidate ? Has this type of thing happened before ? StuRat (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If he quits before the convention, the delegates will have to vote for someone else. See LBJ#1968_presidential_election RudolfRed (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A more interesting situation (though incredibly unlikely) is a presidential candidate dropping out (or dying or otherwise being incapacitated) after winning the popular election but before being inaugurated. I wonder whether the incumbent vice president would be sworn in on January 20, or if legal acrobats may arrange for the winning VP candidate to inaugurated. I don't think this has happened before, so it would certainly pose an interesting problem for those who would have to sort it out. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are different procedures for what happens depending on when he quits. If he quits before the Democratic National Convention, the convention will just nominate someone else. (strictly speaking, the convention isn't bound by the primaries, and prior to the 20th century, many states didn't have primaries; the nominees were picked in "smoke filled rooms" at the convention itself). If he were to quit after the convention, but before the general election, then it would likely fall to his running mate, who would then select another running mate. I'm not sure anyone has quit that late in the process, but there have been some Presidents who made a late decision not to run for re-election (famously LBJ in 1968, who withdrew from the election in March, 1968). There was also the curious case of Daniel Webster in 1852, who died so close to the election that he remained on the official ballot in several states, and as a corpse managed to get something like 7000 votes. --Jayron32 03:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If something happened between the time of the public election and the meeting of the Electoral College, presumably the Electors would go with someone else. If something happened after the Electoral College and before inauguration day, the Supreme Court might need to step in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tangentally related, see United States presidential election, 1872 and Horace Greeley. Greeley died at the exact wrong time, after the general election but before the meeting of the electoral college. As a result, his electors had no guidance in how to vote, so they voted for an array of candidates from Greeley's party. It was moot anyways, as Grant won in a landslide. But had the election gone the other way, it would have created quite a mess. --Jayron32 04:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

People I've talked to about that scenario seem to feel that, were it to happen today, nothing very interesting would happen. The electors would duly vote for the candidate to whom they're pledged, notwithstanding that person's metabolically challenged status. He would be duly elected, found immediately unable to discharge the duties of his office, and the newly minted veep would take over. But who really knows. Depends on how 538 electors, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court respond to the unexpected. --Trovatore (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)