Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 12

RMS Titanic and American Civil War veterans question

I've seen that there were several Titanic's passengers who were in a way or another, involved in the American Civil War. Can anybody tell me if they were all Confederates or Unionists? Thank you. For instance, Isidor Straus was Confederate. And how old did they have to be to lie within the range of born before or during the Civil War? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Titanic sank in 1912, which is 47 years after the end of the US Civil War (1861-1865). If you figure they had to be, say, 15-65 to fight in it, that means they would have to be 62-112 on the Titanic. People born before the Civil War would be approximately 51 or older, and those born during the Civil War would be approximately 47-51 (I say approximately because those events didn't all occur on the same day of the year, but they were all in April or May, so it's close enough for our purposes). StuRat (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand it now. Thank you StuRat. Isidor Straus was 14 by 1859, so he fought in the Civil War for the Confederates. Francis Davis Milletwas also involved in the American Civil War by helping his father and taking part himself in the war. I was surprised to find so many US Civil Warveterans on board the Titanic. I didn't know there were so many on board. Thank you again. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It would have been quite unlikely if there weren't both Union and Confederate veterans, due to the large number of Americans in that age group on board. May I mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean I shouldn't have been surprised to find American Civil War veterans on board? hahaha. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider the case of John Clem, the "Drummer Boy of Chickamauga" who was promoted to Sergeant in 1863 at the age of 12. He would have been 60 when the Titanic sank. "Over 100,000 boys younger than 15 enlisted in the Union Army, there were even 300 boys younger than 13."[1] Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

big face rock

I want to know the name of a location (a city) that has many big rocks with the face shapes. I think it is somewhere in America continent but not sure. Thanks!Pendragon5 (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean man-made faces like Mount Rushmore or natural formations that some claim look like faces like the (now deceased) Old Man of the Mountains? --Jayron3212:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rushmore is the most famous/visited but there are many in America and the world, you may want to check this out (all world locations)Category:Mountain monuments and memorials. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that of all the memorials on that list only the Crazy Horse Memorial features a huge carved face like Mount Rushmore. The rest are either full statues or various kinds of structures. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's on the American continent? The moai of Eastern Island would fit your description. 2001:18E8:2:1020:749C:5B76:1D8E:3D22 (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Moai, that's it! That's what I'm looking for. Thanks everyone for suggestions!Pendragon5 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are the carved statues. The location you asked for is Easter Island (not Eastern Island). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Saddhiyama actually found that category by going to Stone Mountain so that's also on the list. Marketdiamond(talk) 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

History:The recall of Colonel Amherst and smallpox

Hi, I'm wondering whether the reason Amherst was removed from command was because the Brits found out about his plan for killing Native Americans using smallpox.--I'd like to think that at least some of the higher ups had scruples, and "fired" Amherst for that reason.Thanks198.189.194.129 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it was considered here, but even if one has no concern about the genocide of Native Americans, spreading smallpox among them may very well lead to the disease jumping from them to people they did care about. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article on Amherst says that he was recalled because his policies provoked the war that the smallpox gambit was intended to stop. If part of the criticism levied against him was his attempt at genocide, the honors that he subsequently received very shortly after his return to England and continued to receive thereafter would suggest that the objection certainly wasn't very strong. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure whether it's really known that Amherst in fact distributed smallpox-tainted blankets -- in several letters he said it would be a good thing to do, but didn't say that he had done it. AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Soldiers in Amherst's army did try the smallpox-blanket tactic at Fort Pitt, probably without success, but the surviving documents indicate that they thought of it and tried it before Amherst even mentioned it. This is such a striking coincidence that it might mean the idea had been bandied about before then. I've never seen any evidence that Amherst's superiors learned about the idea. Some would have no doubt been horrified, though in the next war, the American colonists were sure the Bristish were deliberately trying to infect them, and in 1777, a British officer once again suggesting doing just that. See http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.cfm. —Kevin Myers 01:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Myers is correct for the location, and just for clarity that is Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania) since naming things after Prime Minister (and State Secretary) Pitt was actually quite popular in Pre-Revolutionary North America and quite a number of forts and towns were named Pitt or derivations.

• June 24, 1763: Fort Pitt: Captain Simeon Ecuyer gifts the Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief from the small pox ward "out of regard to them" after the tribe pledges to renew their friendship. While the exact meaning of his phrase is unclear, a later invoice appears to establish the purpose was transmittal of small pox, the world's first use of bio weapons.
• July 13, 1763: Col. Bouquet writes back to Amherst: "I will try to inoculate the bastards with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself."
• July 16, 1763: Amherst replys to Bouquet: "You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race."
• Not my words and also remember that the Siege of Fort Pitt was at its height with nothing less than the American continent at stake. Marketdiamond (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"remember that the Siege of Fort Pitt was at its height with nothing less than the American continent at stake" What do you mean? Do you mean that the Siege of Fort Pitt was a battle the Native Americans had to win? Best wishes, Rich Peterson216.86.177.36 (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not the first use - I think I remember reading the Mongols catapulted bubonic plague corpses before the great European outbreak. (The article says that also but doesn't give a source) Wnt (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

EU Nobel Peace Prize

What did the EU do that they got the Nobel Peace Prize this year? --Jethro B18:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it came into being after World War 2 and there hasn't been a war in Europe since.Here's the award citation. Why this year in particular? Maybe the Nobel committee wanted to try and remind us Europeans what we have achieved before we tear ourselves apart ;) --TammyMoet (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been a war on the North American continent since WWII either - are Canada, America, and Mexico entitled to the Nobel Peace Prize as well?? The EU deals with other regions as well and gets involved in some conflicts, but a lot of these conflicts have not been solved and still remain. I don't have anything against the EU, I'm just trying to understand why they got the Nobel Peace Prize, as it's not so clear to me. --Jethro B 18:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a better way of looking at it would be that Europe has been in a state of intermittent war between nation-states more or less continually for the past fifteen hundred years (or more). It's not simply that the EU hasn't had a war among its member states for sixty years, but that they haven't even come close - this system has apparently managed to break a cycle that lasted for most of recorded history, which is quite a feat. The North American context isn't quite the same...

It's also worth noting that "peace" isn't simply, in the Nobel context, a matter of not having wars. The award talks about the EU promoting "peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights" - it's remarkable the effect that the carrot of EU membership has had on some states in ensuring theCopenhagen criteria are adhered to. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And there was in fact a major genocide in Europe about two decades ago... --Jethro B18:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in the EU, however. Even today, from the successor states of Yugoslavia, only Slovenia has joined the EU, and Slovenia had peacefullyseceded.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct, Stephan. Slovenia'a secession was not "peaceful", see Ten-Day War. Only the Serbes could not afford to do to much to them, as they had to deal with the Croatian right away after the Slovenian secession (and Serbia has a border with Croatia, which made it more urgent).--Lgriot (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. I did check before I wrote that, but apparently not carefully enough. I've struck it. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz(talk) 19:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, the Kosovo War is only an example of why the prize was wrongly awarded to the European Union. Iowafromiowa(talk) 19:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's all a matter of the politicization of the Nobel committee. Look at the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I am not sure what further references we can provide here, other than debate and opinion. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've noticed that the way to get a Nobel Peace Prize seems to be to kill lots of people, then kill fewer people. Thus, since the death toll relative to WW1 and WW2 has been considerably reduced, they are as worthy of the prize as Arafat was for reducing the number of civilians he had murdered, in his later years. Then there was the case of Obama getting one for "not starting the US invasion of Iraq". StuRat(talk) 19:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize."[2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the Nobel Peace Prize page, "Unlike the scientific and literary Nobel Prizes, usually issued in retrospect often two or three decades after the awarded achievement, the Peace Prize has been awarded for more recent or immediate achievements, or with the intention of encouraging future achievements." Of course right after that is . Livewireo (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why not award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to chemists who've never done anything noteworthy, to encourage them to do so ? :-)StuRat (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call 67 years of peace between the members a "recent or immediate" achievement. And in any case, I am French living in Britain, and I assure you that I very thankful to the EU that in all the 40 years of my life I never had to travel to a frontline for the defense of the homeland against an invading army, unlike my grandfather. --Lgriot (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

67 years of peace happened very recently. 66 years of peace was a little less recent, but apparently that wasn't enough! --Tango(talk) 19:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The European Union is not 67 years old, so you cannot prize them for that. Furthermore: the EU is not the only European pan-national institution, the NATO seems more responsible for the peace in Europe, both among NATO members and between West/Central Europe and Eastern Block.OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And not forgetting the Council of Europe (of which the UK was a founder member in 1949). The EU has even stolen their flag!Alansplodge (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is about as liberal as you can get, so aren't about to buy into the idea that a strong defense ensures peace. For them, unilateral disarmament is more likely to be awarded with a prize. StuRat (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, so if I don't get any replies here I may post a new question. What interests me is why the Nobel committee has awarded the Peace Prize to organizations 20 times when Nobel's will expressly stated that it should be given to "the person [my italics] who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." --Viennese Waltz 08:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

His will also said that awards may not be made posthumously. No ifs or buts. But there have been half a dozen posthumous awards, the latest as recently as 2011. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not doubting your word, Jack, but I can't see where in the will it says that.--Viennese Waltz 11:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems I assumed too much. I read about these rules in "Posthumous nominations" and assumed they came from Nobel himself. That sort of makes me wonder what sorts of other conditions (or, indeed, freedoms) the Nobel Committee can impose. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

American Civil War veterans' families benefits

I'm quite interested in the American Civil War because my grandfather served in the Union Army (yes, I'm old and my father was already old when he had me born) and I would like to know if there are further benefits for veterans' families now and if my grandfather can be taken to the Arlington Cemetery. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

My grandfather (1845 – 1940). My father (1895 – 1955). Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I found this [3] at the Department of Veteran Affairs. There is a pdf you may want to read on survivor's benefits. The social security administration pays out benefits to surviving family, but it has a list of who qualifies, and grandchildren are not eligible. There is a contact link at the bottom of the page if you wish to contact the VA, I would definitely suggest trying that.Livewireo (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me, I will read that. Iowafromiowa (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Living children of both Union and Confederate soldiers

This is my third question regarding the American Civil War, hope you understand since my grandfather fought for the Union Army. But I've come to know that there are living CHILDREN and WIDOWS of Civil War veterans. I would like to know how many children and widows of veterans from both sides are still alive today. Thank you indeed. Iowafromiowa (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The last widow of a Civil War veteran died in either 2004 or 2008, depending on how you count it. this story and Alberta Martin for the 2004 death, andthis story and Maudie Hopkins for the 2008 death. For living Children of civil war veterans here is the list for the Union, last updated yesterday. I can't find a similarly comprehensive list for confederate veterans, butgoogle search turns up several stories of living children of Confederate veterans. --Jayron32 23:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Peerage: pregnant widow of a childless peer

Has it ever happened that a British peer died childless leaving a pregnant widow or leaving a daughter and a pregnant widow? Did the title descend to the next-in-line (the daughter or a brother of the peer) and then revert to the posthumous child (son)? Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It happened to Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond, who died several months before the birth of his son the future Henry VII of England. I'm not exactly sure what happened to Richmond in the meantime, but it doesn't seem to have passed to anyone else. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good example, as Edmund Tudor was a prisoner at the time of his death, and his peerage was forfeit. But our article on posthumous children lists several British peers. I believe (although I haven't a reference to hand) that peerages are kept pending the birth of any child en ventre sa mere; the succession would be backdated to the death of the previous holder if the child was female (if thus ineligible to inherit), or conferred immediately on the child (if eligible). AlexTiefling (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the posthumously born peers listed there inherited the title from their father. I assumed that succession is automatic and that the next-in-line would succeed, with the title devolving upon the posthumous child if born alive and eligible to succeed. So, the 4th Marquess of London dies leaving the Marchioness pregnant and his brother becomes the 5th Marquess; however, the widowed marchioness gives birth to a son who immediately becomes the 6th Marquess. Similarly, the 8th Baron Windsor dies leaving a daughter (or two) and a pregnant widow; the daughter becomes the 9th Baroness (or the title goes into abeyancy if she's got a sister), but a brother is born and becomes the 10th (or, in case of abeyancy, the 9th) Baron. The only basis for this assumption is the arrangement made for Victoria's accession to the throne (Victoria would succeed William IV even if Adelaide was left pregnant, but the posthumous child would ascend upon birth as if Victoria had died, as the throne can never be vacant).Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

An actual example occurs in the succession of the Petre Barony. The 7th Baron, Robert Petre, died in 1713, leaving a pregnant widow (Catherine, née Walmsley), who gave birth to the 8th Baron three months later. TheComplete Peerage says of such sons that they "succeeded to the peerage at their birth". The 7th Baron inspired Pope's Rape of the Lock- Nunh-huh 03:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a very good example! However, upon the 7th Baron's death, there was nobody in line to succeed to the barony; had the child been female, the title would've become extinct. Therefore, the only option in that case was to wait for the child to be born, as there was nobody to hold the title in meantime. Surtsicna (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Here's a somewhat more apposite example.

When Edward Ward, the 8th Baron Dudley and 3th Baron Ward died of smallpox in March 1704 he left a pregnant wife (née Diana Howard) and no other progeny. He was succeeded by his posthumous son Edward Ward at his birth in June 1704. The 9th/4th Baron died unmarried and childless, and was succeeded by his uncle, the brother of the 8th/3rd Baron.

So we can see that when the 8th/3rd Baron died, he had—in addition to his unborn son—a brother who would have inherited his titles on his death, had Diana not been pregnant.

The Dudley barony was a barony created by writ in 1440 in the English Peerage. The Ward barony was a barony created by letters patent in 1644 in the English Peerage with a remainder to heirs male. So the titles were separated on the death of William Ward, the 10th Baron Dudley/5th Baron Ward, as only the Dudley barony could pass through a female line. The Ward title passed to John Ward of Willingsworth Hall, heir male of the body of Humble, the first Lord Ward, while the Dudley title devolved to the heir general, Ferdinando Dudley Lea of Halesowen Grange. - Nunh-huh 19:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, this all suggests that during the period between the death of an otherwise childless peer leaving a pregnant widow and the birth of that possible heir, the title is considered at least conceptually to be dormant, that is, one for which the rightful holder, if any, is unknown, with the dormancy being sorted out once the child is born, rather than the solution you outline (provisional accession to the title, being rescinded if needed). However, I can't say I've ever actually seen the word dormancy applied in this exact situation, but it seems to capture the basic concept. Similarly this would apply for an heir to a barony by writ with only daughters and a bun in the oven: dormant until birth, then devolving to the son (if male) or entering abeyancy between the daughters (if female, or stillborn). - Nunh-huh05:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not England, I know, but the case of John I of France bears some interest for this question. --Jayron32 23:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • As does the much more recent case of Alphonse XIII of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And the appropriately named Ladislaus the Posthumous, who succeeded to some, but not all, of his father's titles. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Queen Victoria's youngest son Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany died in 1884, leaving a pregnant wife and daughter. The son succeeded to the title at birth. (Coincidentally, I just read that article a few minutes ago.)--NellieBlyMobile (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

When Queen Victoria succeeded in 1837, allegiance was sworn to her subject to the rights of any posthumous child born to Queen Adelaide, widow of William IV. This was not done in 1952; either they considered it undignified or the Queen Mum was beyond the age of childbearing (age 51).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Denmark in Second Schleswig War

Did all of Europe seriously abandoned Denmark to fight out the Second Schleswig War by themselves against Prussia and Austria? In the background section of the article it states the reason why the other nations of Europe didn't help and Sweden promised to help but never came with reinforcement, but did no nation in Europe protest the seizure of 40% of Denmark's territories and the enlargement of the Prussia threat in Europe after the war. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem, I believe, isn't that the rest of Europe merrily allowed Prussia to seize what had been unambiguous Danish National Land since time immemorial. You're looking at the situation through the modern understanding of the nation state and of sovereignty, two concepts that really didn't reach maturity until well into the 20th century. One thing to remember here is the complexity of the Schleswig-Holstein Question, which came to a head in that series of wars in the 19th century, but which had really existed for hundreds of years. The lands of Schelswig and Holstein had a sui generis sort of status for much of history, being simultaneously lands that were part of the Holy Roman Empire with imperial immediacy, and the hereditary homeland of the Danish kings since Christian I. The issue was simply which was more important: the relationship of the lands to the King of Denmark (as hereditary Danish lands) or to the German Confederation (as the successor state to the Holy Roman Empire). The same sort of confusing status had existed in the United Kingdom until the ascension of Queen Victoria allowed theKingdom of Hanover to split off under Ernest Augustus I. The Schleswig-Holstein question stubbornly refused to resolve itself with a convenient succession crisis, and so as the various nation-states of Europe began to coalesce into their "natural" and "legal" limits in the 19th century, the Schleswig-Holstein question flared up into war. The rest of Europe didn't see the issue as one of Prussia violating Danish sovereignty, they saw it as a convoluted clusterfuck of a mess that they didn't want to get involved in. And I quote "Only three people...have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it." --Jayron32 20:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand Schleswig-Holstein Question, but the rest of Europe saw the First Schleswig War as Prussia's violation of Danish sovereignty and the status quo of the region in 1848, during the beginning of the whole nationalism spirit of the Revolutions of 1848. In the first war, Britain was openly against Prussia's invasion and was going to send her Navy to assist Denmark but the Danish refused at the time, Austria, France and Russia were all against Prussia in the first war and spoke out against the war, although no one actually send any forces to assist since Denmark could deal with it at the time. The reasons why these countries didn't support Denmark militarily in the second war like they tried to in the first war is explained, but what prevented them from protesting Prussia's takeover, and the fact that no nation came the aid of Denmark is really awkward since so many European wars involved the intervention of multiple nations. It doesn't make sense that no opposition to Prussia's takeover was ever made by the other nations after the war especially since no new independent Schleswig-Hostein state was ever created and Prussia just gain more territory when the purpose of the first war and the second war was to liberate the people of the region from Danish oppression. Also saying Prussia was somehow supporting nationalism and the whole idea that later became known as the self-determination, that Germans should rule Germans, is a bit ironic since a large amount of Prussia's population was Polish. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Danish government did actually hope that France or Great Britain would eventually intervene in favour of their cause as they had done in 1850. However it does not excuse the actions of the Danish government in this conflict in any way, since this hope was completely spurious. They actually acted on largely unfounded and unrealistic premises, and played right into Bismarcks hand. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first Schelswig war, I'm pretty sure that the intervention of other European powers was not necessarily to defend Danish sovereignty, but rather to preserve the Balance of power in Europe; that and NOT issues of sovereignty of nation-states, was the main engine of diplomacy and international relations in Europe throughout the 19th century. Indeed, on the issue of Sovereignty, the majority of residents of the areas seemed to favor unity with Germany rather than Denmark, as they were ethnic Germans. The issue is confounded by the Revolutions of 1848, not explained by it. That complicates, rather than simplifies, any understanding of the causes of that war. --Jayron32 23:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Was Britain even pro-German in 1864? The article Second Schleswig War said Queen Victoria was because Prince Albert died, but wasn't Queen Victoria: A. a figurehead with no actual power over the foreign and military affair of the country, and B. didn't she withdraw from politics and court completely after Prince Albert's death and didn't come out of her mourning until the Golden Jubilee. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Britain was pro-Danish in this, but couldn't agree to act on the issue; see Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston#Denmark. Palmerston is sometimes blamed for provoking the war; "In actuality, Palmerston’s attitude during the Second Schleswig War in 1864 considerably helped the German decisive victory in that war, by letting the Danes get the wrong impression that Britain would fight on their side and thus emboldening them to embark on a war they had no chance of winning alone."[4] Alansplodge(talk) 21:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What was Christian IX's view on his daughter Alexandra's position in this, was their any strain in the two's relationship? Was there some hostility between the Danish Royal Family and the British Royal Family for not coming to Denmark's aid in 1864?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The U.K. couldn't save Hannover (which had been under the UK monarch from 1714-1837) in the Austro-Prussian war, so why should it have been expected to save Schleswig? (And Holstein was inhabited by Germans.) AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A brief reading of our article on Lord Palmerston and the link posted above, suggests that Palmerston thought that the appearance of a huge British fleet off the coast of Jutland might make the Prussians have second thoughts. I suspect that (rather like the Americans in Kosovo), he was anxious to avoid getting involved in a land war, especially in the light of British failings in the Crimea, and thought that a show of strategic power projection by the RN would do the trick. When push-came-to-shove, he couldn't get Cabinet approval to send the fleet and so nothing was done. An alliance with France, who had a far larger army, might have done the trick; but at the time, Palmerston's government was furiously building dozens of massive forts around the British coast ("Palmerston's Follies"), because he expected Napoleon III to invade. Alansplodge (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In 1871 Queen Victoria allowed her fourth daughter, Princess Louise, to marry a subject, John Campbell, Marquess of Lorne, heir of the 8th Duke of Argyl. But her eldest son "Bertie", the future King Edward VII, opposed this breach of tradition, the first approval by the Sovereign of a non-princely marriage in England's Royal Family since Henry VIII's series of commoner queens. In defending her decision the Queen wrote to Bertie in 1869, explaining how dynastic interests had evolved, citing as an example the conflict in the 1850s and '60s created by the fact that his spouse was the daughter of King Christian IX of Denmark, while that of Bertie's sister, the Princess Royal Victoria, was Frederick of Prussia, heir to Bismarck's German Empire: "Times have much changed; great foreign alliances are looked on as causes of trouble and anxiety, and are no good. What could be more painful than the position in which our family were placed during the wars with Denmark, and between Prussia and Austria? Every family feeling was rent asunder, and we were powerless." FactStraight (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When we think about history, we tend to blur things that happened just a few years apart from each other. Or maybe it would be more apt to say that we often form clusters of events in our minds when those events were very distinct when they happened. That is – I think – at work here with the OP and some of the follow-up questions.

First of all, in 1849 and 1864 the political situation was very different. In 1849 there was a very serious chance that Germany might unite. This of course would have upset the balance of powers. The First Schleswig War was fought by Prussia on behalf of the provisionary government for all of Germany. If I recall correctly the national assembly in Frankfurt had asked the Prussian king to help Schleswig-Holstein. The great powers at the time didn't only disapprove of a united Germany, they especially disapproved of this united Germany throwing its weight around and getting larger still. That's why they intervened on the Danish side. Just as they intervened in the Punctation of Olmütz in order to stop the Prussian king to unite Germany in 1850. Worries about Danish sovereignity didn't really come into it at all.

In 1864, nobody could foresee that the Second Schleswig War would be the starting point for a successfull attempt at German unification. In fact, German unification seemed very far off. (Just for comparison: If anyone had suggested in 1985 that German reunification would happen within five years he would have been called a lunatic.)

By then it had become obvious that in the new Europe of nationalistic sentiments a place like Schleswig-Holstein would always be a hotbed for rebellion as long as it was under Danish rule. So severing it from Denmark didn't sound all that bad especially since neither Prussia nor Austria were supposed to get the benefits of ruling over Schleswig-Holstein directly. You could say that in 1848 the great powers wanted to preserve the status quo. In 1864 they had come to understand that the status quo in Schleswig-Holstein had become untenable. As I said, matters of sovereignty didn't really play a role.

And that is an important consideration as well: In 1864 Austria and Prussia acted in unison. That's two great powers to overcome for anyone who wanted to oppose them. In 1848 it had been Prussia alone with all the other great powers opposed.

There was no „Prussian Threat“ in 1864. In fact, Prussia had been one of the more peaceful states in Europe for 150 years and hadn't been a threat to anyone in the past 70 years or so. The reunited Germany, by the way, would not become a threat to anyone within Europe for another 50 years. Only shortly before WWI did Germany start being more aggressive towards its neighbours.

Our view of the 19th century is always clouded by the thought that it ended all with WWI. So, had Germany not become so powerful, WWI would not have happened. Had Germany not have been united, WWI would not have happened. Had Prussia not taken Schleswig-Holstein in 1864, Germany would probably not have been united and its position would definitely not have been as strong. Had Prussia not have been allowed to take Schleswig-Holstein, WWI might not have happend. This sounds reasonable now, but nobody in the 1860ies would ever have seen it that way. People back then didn't like the idea of German unification much – people outside Germany, that is. On the other hand they had come to understand the force of nationalism and that sometimes it was impossible to stop it. --Zoppp (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is only true by conflating Germany and Prussia in the 19th century. When one looks at Bismarck's Prussia, it is clear that Germany the perceived threat of German aggrandizement was directed not at "Germany" (which for a while was thought likely to unite under Austria), but at "Prussia" which expanded its borders at the expense of other sovereigns and/or ethnicities throughout the 19th century; part of the Kingdom of Saxony, Brunswick, Hannover, Nassau, Schleswig-Holstein, Alsace-Lorraine, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, and finally the Crown of the German Empire. FactStraight (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a good place to remember what Disraeli said: "Only three people . . . have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business — the Prince Consort, who is dead — a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it." Textorus (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Conflation of totalitarianism with collectivism.

If I have a midlife crisis, then it will be around philosophy. Until I had Anthem in tenth grade, I never saw the individualism-collectivism scale as having a correlation with freed-totalitarianism. Objectivism has done an effective job at making me doubt things. Yet, I cannot help but think that ¬(◻(collectivism⇔totalitarianism)), ¬(◻(individualism⇔freedom)) and that ¬(◻(collectivism⇔freedom)) or ¬(◻(individualism⇔totalitarianism)). I am not sure what sort of question I should ask. Can a totalitarian society not be collectivist? --Melab±1 ☎22:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think of collectivism as being related to socialism and communism, with individualism being related to capitalism. You can get totalitarianism at either end of the spectrum, from Stalin to the French kings before the French Revolution. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What in the world did the French kings have to do with individualism? Or capitalism, for that matter? --Trovatore (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See bourgeoisie. That they allowed such a class to exist shows they allowed a certain degree of individualism and capitalism.StuRat (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Allowed to exist" does not show that there's any relation between that and their, what shall we say, "partial totalitarianism"? It was a check on their power, not an aspect of it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Louis XIV was an "absolute" king in the sense that there was no lawful or pragmatic resistance to his authority -- like Stalin -- but whereas in Soviet Russia property explicitly belonged to "the people" and the state had the authority and power to appropriate it from individuals in the name of the the people, ostensibly to promote their interests as a group against the aggrandizement of individuals and "expropriating" classes. Whereas French society was organized on the principle that individuals held most property rights (by inheritance) and the state's function was to adjudicate conflicts in their rights, promoting the interests of citizens mainly by expanding the state's borders and trade at the expense of other nations, rather than of individuals in French society. Thus both Stalin and Louis XIV held vast power, but under near-opposite philosophies of government -- one acknowledging the fundamental right of individuals to their own property and the other denying any such right. It's a reasonable contrast. FactStraight (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was younger and smarter, I was wholly convinced of the near perfectness of Ayn Rand's philosophy on the world and its stress on individuality over collectivism. I was an earnest disciple, and bought in to every word she said. As I have gotten older and stupider, I have come to see more nuance in the world, and have adopted a more pragmatic view on humans with regard to the issue of collectivization vs. individuality. I think Rand's conflation of the difference between power relationships with free association is a key flaw in her philosophy. The issue is not whether people are dealt with as groups or as individuals, it is whether or not any aspect of their behavior is controlled by coersion or free choice. The great paradox of Rand's philosophy is that it denies the possibility that free-thinking individuals would, of their own choice and volition, establish collectivities for their own interests, and that these collectivities can be benign, or from the other direction that an individual, acting in their own rational self interest, could oppress others. Experience in the breadth of history clearly shows that both happen all the time, so the key issue shouldn't be whether people exist as self-interested individuals or in collectives (which are not mutually exclusive states) but rather on the level of control people have over the course of their own lives, and on how they relate to the power structures in their lives. In simpler terms: Rand's conflation of totalitarianism with collectivism breaks down in the face of actual historical examples. The world does not exist on a strictly two-dimensional axis, with all things evil on one pole and all things good on the other. --Jayron32 23:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was a Randian from high school through freshman year in college, but there's a reason so many people describe her philosophy as "sophomoric". Conservative David Brooks famously wrote in 1997, "Many people remember their youthful passion for Ayn Rand the way they remember teen-age make-out parties. It seemed daring at the time, but now the memory of it just makes you feel queasy." The best way to understand why so many young Rand enthusiasts eventually dismiss her logical edifice as impractical and antithetical to human nature is to read either of the biographies written about her by her two greatest ex-disciples, Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, who differ greatly in emphasis but whose analyses come to the same essential conclusion: Rand insisted that her philosophy/politics/psychology was seamless (either you recognize the inevitable logic in all of it, or none of it holds up) and not only pragmatic, but the only way humankind will, should or can live harmoniously and that individuals can be happy. The problem is that when her intimates describe her life, it is clear that she lived her philosophy only by being megalomaniacal in her relations with others and being in denial to/about herself. Bottom line, neither she nor anyone in the cult she originated has documentably lived in accordance with her principle of 100% logical action, and the two acolytes she said did so now admit they lived fake, unhappy and abusive lives for years in the effort to convince Rand and themselves that Objectivism was a viable personal discipline. Yet Rand's greatest scorn was levelled at Christian altruism -- on the grounds that it is an unlivable philosophy contrary to human nature, its adherents doomed to live guilt-ridden lives in failure to live in accordance with its inhumanly demanding standard. FactStraight (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

For me, what I always wondered about is why collectivism doesn't seem to scale up. We can have small groups who share everything equally, and everything works well. But, when nations try to do that, we end up with Stalin or Mao in charge. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that, on the small scale, if somebody tries to take over and run things for his own benefit, everyone can just leave and form a new group without that leader. Not so on a national scale. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't find it now, but look into something called the "rule of 150". I heard someone talk on it once, and it made a lot of sense. 150 is about the maximum number of people that can exist in a collective before everyone can't fully "keep track of" everyone else. In small enough groups, everyone knows everyone else well enough that we can interact as equals, and we can all take active ownership in the group because we all know exactly how each individual group member relates to each other group member and the group as a whole. So that's why small groups work. In larger groups, more than about 150 people, it becomes impossible for the human mind to make enough rational connections to keep the group all together in our heads, so the small group dynamic breaks down, and it becomes a VERY different entity; people stop interacting with each other and the group in the same way, and that's why big groups don't work like small groups. --Jayron32 01:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here it is: Dunbar's number. --Jayron32 01:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. But it seems to me that collectivism can work on somewhat larger scales than that. My limit of "when people are free to leave if they want to" could be highly variable in terms of size. Even a tiny cult might threaten people who attempt to leave, while an entire nation could allow dissatisfied people to leave (and many do), but the particular difficulties of finding a new nation willing to accept you, selling all your possessions, moving thousands of miles, trying to find new employment, and leaving friends and family behind, all make it unlikely that everybody in a seriously mismanaged nation will just pick-up and leave. Too bad, it would make for an effective way to get rid of dictators (there would be little point in remaining a dictator, with no subjects to tax and abuse). StuRat (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hm, ditto interesting. I wonder if there's even been a place where the policy was "If you want to leave, not only are you welcome to do so, but the state will happily pay for all your expenses, because we don't want anyone here who doesn't want to be here, and it's in the national interest to ensure that those who want to leave do so as quickly and painlessly as possible". Probably not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't forget that the greatest punishment in Athenian democracy was not death, but exile: Citizens were welcome to leave the polis, but they were so confident that they lives in "the best of all possible worlds" that it was inconceivable that anyone would want to. As for collectivist experiments that were voluntarily initiated and lived, the kibbutz bears close scrutiny. It didn't fail because its adherents found it unworkable, but because their children found it undesirable -- in the face of all the goodies that could be accumulated and individually possessed on the outside. In other words, it was not so much the lofty desire for freedom from mutual responsibility for each other's welfare that youths rejected, as the mundane desire for stuff that seduced them away. Hmm. Maybe Rand knew whereof she spake after all... FactStraight (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't working collectively to acquire stuff be the most effective method ? Say the goal is to have luxury cars. An individual might be able to afford one, but the collective could buy many, and allow each member to take turns with whichever one they fancied that day. Just because you live on a collective doesn't mean you must have Spartan values. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're grappling with the theoretical concept of totalitarianism you could do worse than to read Hannah Arendt on totalitarianism.Fifelfoo (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

October 13

Does the Queen own Canada?

In a recent issue of Fortune magazine, there is an article on a man who owns the most amount of land in the United States. In that article there is this sentence: "The largest landowner in the world is Queen Elizabeth II, because technically she owns places like Australia and Canada". Is this true? Does the Queen own entire countries? (The article is in the October 8 issue, volume 166, No 6. It doesn't seem to be online yet) RudolfRed (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in any real way. If she tried to sell it, for example, that wouldn't happen. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Land tenure is a relevent article here for the OP to read. --Jayron32 01:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Fee simple: "In English common law, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land." Not sure how this relates to states of the Crown other than England directly, or even how it relates even practically to England. --Jayron32 01:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Tenure Abolition Act 1660 discontinued various forms of tenure and after the Law of Property Act 1925, almost all vestiges of this system had been removed. Although there are a few extant property rights relating to the Crown that have been imputed to the doctrine of tenure, e.g.the reversion of land to the state when no owner can be identified, the connection is vague and there are usually other sources to explain them. The main practical impact of tenure has been the development of the doctrine of estates (such as fee simple), a natural consequence of the tenure feudal system in which tenants owned an interest in the land as opposed to owning the land itself which all belonged to the Crown. Ankh.Morpork 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A much smaller sub-set of all the land in England is the Crown Estate. It "belongs to" the monarch but is not "the private property of the monarch and cannot be sold by him/her". If she doesn't even own the Crown Estate, there's no way she owns all land in England, let alone elsewhere.

The queen does indeed have personal property that she can sell or bequeath to whomsoever she likes, just like any other person. Such as Balmoral Castle. This has been personally owned by members of the Royal Family since being purchased by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. I guess the general expectation is that she would keep it in the Family and will it to her heir, Prince Charles, but I don’t think she’s under any legal restriction.

She may also own personal property in Australia, Canada and other places, but as for owning the entire nations, forget it. In some abstruse arcane legal sense the Crown may own all the land, but the Queen is not the Crown. She is the embodiment of the Crown. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone.

Resolved

RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments despite the "resolved" tag: There's more at Crown land, which begins by baldly stating "Crown land is an area belonging to the monarch", but goes on to say it is entailed and cannot be alienated from the monarchy. This makes is sound like the Queen does "technically" own vast amounts of land, but not in the fee simple sense of "own". As for Canada there is Crown land#Canada. This section likewise says that "the Canadian monarch owns all Crown Land in the country", but not in the normal sense of "owns". Since 89% of Canada is Crown Land you could say that the Queen owns 8,886,356 km² of land in Canada alone, if you're willing to stretch the normal sense of the word "own". Still, the statements in the Crown land article are pretty clear in saying that the monarch—the Queen—"owns" all the Crown Land; that the Crown Land "belongs" to "the monarch". The OP's quote reads "The largest landowner in the world is Queen Elizabeth II, because technically she owns places like Australia and Canada". One may say "yes but not really", but then the quote does say "technically", which implies "not really but yes". No? Pfly (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Imho, the opening sentence of Crown land is inaccurate in equating the Crown with the monarch. From The Crown:

• "The Crown is a corporation sole that in the Commonwealth realms and any provincial or state sub-divisions thereof represents the legal embodiment of governance, whether executive, legislative, or judicial. It evolved first in the United Kingdom as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch, a concept which then spread via British colonisation and is now rooted in the legal lexicon of the other 15 independent realms." (my highlighting).

This supports what I said above: Crown land is owned by the Crown, not by the Queen. -- Jack of Oz^[Talk] 05:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the Crown land page ought to be copyedited and improved.... Pfly (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be my strong suggestion. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The US equivalent of Canada's Crown land is Federal lands - which is not the personal property of Barack Obama, but the land is under the control of various departments and agencies which are ultimately the responsibility of the president. Roger (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Queen and other Royals also own several properties in the United States and have a few "ventures" here as well.Marketdiamond (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See, for example, [5] which reads:

'"Crown" means Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province; (« Couronne »)

"Crown lands" includes land, whether within or without the province, vested in the Crown, and includes "provincial lands" wherever that expression is used in an Act of the Legislature; (« terres domaniales »)'

I would say the distinction to be made is that she does not own it as personal property but she does own it in the sense of it being hers while under the constraints of the constitution and other legislation. In a similar fashion she is the head of state, i.e, she is the head of state as proscribed by the relevant legislation, i.e, de jure but not de facto. So she does not own the land at all in the sense that John Malone or Ted Turnerown their land. First of all, they are not even in the same jurisdictions, so they are not entitled according to the same legislation or policies, but they are not even entitled according to analogous legislation or rights. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There must be some standard for ownership that applies to entailed land, which is clearer. For example, if the Queen decides that she doesn't like cigarette smoking, what lands can she ban people from doing it on as a condition of their visit, rent, or conduct as a customer? Wnt(talk) 19:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Balmoral Castle, for one. Assuming the law permits private land owners to ban smoking on their land - and I'm not sure that it does - she could ban smoking there, because she owns it personally. WHAAOE, but I don't know whether we have a list of all land and other property personally owned by the Queen. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk]21:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

She could, but I doubt she'd be so crass as to make it By Order of Her Majesty The Queen. Word would trickle down backstairs and it would be done administratively at some level. If I recall correctly, Balmoral was one of the things that had to be purchased from the former Edward VIII, Sandringham as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The Duke of Windsor had never shown much interest in them as king, and was apparently happy to sell them to his brother George VI. But he could have held on to them and bequeathed them to the Duchess of Windsor, who could have bequeathed them on her death to her French nurse, housekeeper and gardener. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

People on the image

As seen on the picture, there's several soldiers/men-at-arms etc wearing these curious coat-of-arms i havn't found anywhere(!)

1)Are the persons all (or atleast some) known by name, where they came from, like "duchy of Burgundy" etc or is it jus an image of a completely or partly fictional ppl/coat of arms?

2) If they are known, any idea where those black/white & black/yellow "rampart lion" coat of arms and the Red/white fleur-de-lis coat of arms are from?

Im guessing the White/Black coat of arm is from somewhere in Duchy of Brabant or Duchy of Jülich, but that's just a guessimate.

allsow, why isn't this feference-desk page archived more often? It's huge and laggs allot :(

--Byzantios (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at the Battle of Worringen article? The infobox lists the belligerents and shows the coat of arms for each of them. (Regarding archiving, the system is broken at the moment, but people are working on it.) Looie496 (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

left: ?, mid: Duke John of Brabant, right: knights of Duke John of Brabant (Zangemeister 1892, p.2)

(thru ec) See for a suggestion of where the red/silver and gold/black lions rampants might come from (John I, Duke of Brabant) - Nunh-huh 03:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, what's with that border on the 2nd illustration ? It looks like it was colored by a kindergartner having trouble staying inside the lines. Is this another case of an incompetent art restorer ? StuRat (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to recognize all the arms in such a scene; the armigers are likely to include dukes and obscure knights.—Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The participants and their coats of arms are identified in Werner Schäfke (ed.): "Der Name der Freiheit 1288-1988", Cologne 1988. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You might also be interested in my new article de:Brabantsche Yeesten which calls the images realistic and links to the complete manuscript online and in the fact that in John I, Duke of Brabant the image shown is not that of Duke John but of the mythical king Gambrinus, inventor of beer brewing. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Duchy of Cornwall and changes to the British succession law

What will happen to the Duchy of Cornwall if male-preferance primogeniture is replaced with absolute primogeniture? Per Edward III's royal charter of 1421, which created the duchy, it can only pass to the Sovereign's eldest son. What if the succession law is changed? What if William has a daughter first and then a son? The daughter cannot possibly be Duchess of Cornwall, as the title is not conferred to the heir apparent, but strictly to the eldest son. Would the royal family then consist of "HM The King, HM The Queen, HRH The Princess of Wales and HRH The Duke of Cornwall"? If so, what would happen when that Princess of Wales ascends the throne and has a son of her own while her brother is still alive? This is intriguing because the duchy is not merely a title, but also a significant source of the heir apparent's income. Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That's only because the monarch's eldest son, if a son exists, and the heir apparent have always been one and the same person. The whole point of the proposed change is to no longer have that automatic linkage. There's no reason why the eldest son couldn't still become the Duke of Cornwall, regardless of whether he's also the heir apparent. Is there? Or, the Queen could issue new Letters Patent in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall. There'll need to be a very large amount of paperwork to put this conceptually very simple change into effect, because it's these sorts of ramifications that will be the really tricky bits. That's why they're taking their time to consider all these issues in great detail before rushing in.

I think you're assuming a lot when you refer to the eldest-born daughter as the Princess of Wales. True, the title Prince of Wales is only bestowed on the heir apparent, that is, someone who cannot be displaced in the line of succession by any later births; and after the proposed changes go through, an eldest-born daughter will be the heiress apparent, not merely heiress presumptive. But the title has only ever been given to males, and their wives are called Princess of Wales. There have been no announcements about how this aspect of the set-up will be organised in future.

On your last point: The Queen was never Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall, but she seems to be getting on ok finacially. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, we already have the answer. From our Duchy of Cornwall article, If the monarch has no son, the estates of the duchy are held by the crown, and there is no duke and Since the passing into law of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall will pass to the heir to the throne, regardless of whether that heir is the Duke of Cornwall. In the event that the heir is a minor, 10% of the revenues will pass to the heir, with the balance passing to the Crown. To me, this seems to cover the eventualities you're asking about. If Wills has a daughter whilst the Queen is still on the throne, on William's accession the daughter will NOT become Duchess (or, indeed, Duke) of Cornwall, but she WILL get the benefit of the estate. The duchy itself will be vested in the Crown. Once a further male heir apparent to the throne is available, he will get both the title and the money. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

JackofoZ, the eldest son and the heir apparent have not always been the same person. King George III was Prince of Wales prior to his accession but never Duke of Cornwall because he was heir apparent to his grandfather, King George II, his father Frederick having predeceased George II. There is a reason why the eldest son couldn't still become Duke of Cornwall if his older sister is heiress apparent - if she were to succeed to the throne during his lifetime, as would be expected, her son would have to become Duke of Cornwall according to the charter, but two people cannot possibly hold the same title at the same time and enjoy the duchy's revenues. Furthermore, I am not sure letters patent could amend the charter; is it possible? I also believe that you underestimate the importance of the Duchy of Cornwall, ignoring both its financial ([6],[7]) and political significance. For example, the Duke of Cornwall has a right to veto government bills (as Charles himself has done 12 times). Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, "it's these sorts of ramifications that will be the really tricky bits".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Evidently. It's just that I don't see how exactly they'll sort this out. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"New Zealand will chair a working group to consider the best way of accomplishing this reform in all the countries concerned. In the United Kingdom, the government is examining what legislation needs to be amended."

That last sentence encompasses this issue and, I'm sure, many others. We could speculate all day about what they might do to resolve the issue; but what they actually decide to do is all that matters, and nobody knows that yet. We may be pleasantly surprised by their creativity. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Cucumber Mike, that's an interesting observation. However, the charter does not say that the duchy is held by the "eldest son who is also heir apparent". It only says that it's held by the eldest son. Some evidence suggests that James Francis Edward Stuart remained Duke of Cornwall after ceasing to be heir apparent; his half-sister Anne was heiress apparent between 1694 (death of her sister Mary II) and 1702 (death of her brother-in-law William III), the same year James finally lost the duchy having been attainted. That's according to our article Duke of Cornwall and some sources I came cross after a quick search (e.g. [8]).Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you're saying that if the heir apparent was a girl with a younger brother, the brother would be Duke? Yes, I can see how that would work. Note, though, that it would be the heir apparent who would be getting the money, as per the Succession Act referred to above. I would strongly suspect that, were this actually to come about, some piece of legislation would be drawn up sharpish to remove the anomaly. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I too can see how that would work until that girl ascends the throne. On her accession, her own eldest son (if any) would have to become Duke of Cornwall though her brother, already Duke of Cornwall, is still alive. Two persons cannot hold the same title and enjoy all its privileges. What occured to me is that the brother would cease being Duke of Cornwall, now being brother of the Sovereign rather than eldest son, but there's an unofficial rule that says that individuals cannot lose their title due to something that isn't their own fault (i.e. they can normally lose the title only if they get attainted). That's why heirs presumptive are not created Princes of Wales; that's why the eldest daughter of the Sovereign is not created Princess Royal if her aunt already holds the title (e.g. Princess Anne and Mary, Countess of Harewood), etc. Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No-one's mentioned WP:WHAAOE: 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. Ghmyrtle(talk) 12:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to mention this issue. Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite possibly because no-one but a Wikipedia editor would have thought of it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If only people would listen to us! Perhaps WP:OR should be amended... Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a very simple question to answer. What will happen is whatever it says will happen in whatever new law changes the order of succession (and any associated letters patent which may be issued at the same time to tidy up the details). The reference desk's repeated requisitions for a new crystal ball have all been refused, however, so we have no way to know what that will be. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete information

This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

Tells us nothing about currency. When did this actually occur?... between xx/xx/xx and xx/xx/xx or from xx/xx/xx or ???

You cannot combine this type of information and expect it to have meaning. What you have done is similar to telling me how many Bronze, Silver and Gold Olympic Medals have been won by a particular country without the years or span of years in which they were won.

How about completing the information ?

Regards,

Connolly — Preceding unsigned comment added by78.121.151.38 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for improving an article, you can raise it on the article's talk page. Or you can be bold and start working on it. RudolfRed (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, as you may already know we are all, like you -- unpaid volunteers -- and although the article is much more interactive and descriptive than other unnamed online encyclopedias because of the uniqueness of allowing all to edit it also empowers us all, including you and me to encyclopedically improve wikiarticles! If you have information you feel is important but are not comfortable with how to format it into a Wikipedia article you can always seek assistance at the Village Pump for technical help, or WP:HELPDESK, happy editing! Marketdiamond (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

October 14

Electoral College - United States

In the a article Electoral college it says, "The United States is the only current example of an indirectly elected executive president, with an electoral college comprising electors representing the 50 states and the federal district". My question is how is this true? I look at systems in Pakistan and India for example and it seems to be the same to me. People vote for electors and then those electors choose the president. The only difference I see is that the electors in the American, ONLY vote for the president and then their job is done. In India and Pakistan you have the two houses and others choosing the president, in addition to other various duties. But it still is indirect, isn't it? An average citizen in Pakistan doesn't choose who the president will be. He chooses people who will choose on his behalf.75.166.140.82 (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought: In the US, some members of the Electoral College can vote as they please (although, for various reasons, unfaithful electors are rare). Is this also the case in those other nations ? StuRat (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

An unfaithful elector, however, has never impacted the results of an election. --Jethro B04:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

But, theoretically, they could. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if that would technically be true, India and Pakistan's presidents are only figureheads. Obama is both head of state and head of government. So it's possible that the US is the only example, or one of the few examples, of a country with a Presidential system with an indirectly elected president. And even then, the results of the popular vote are usually the same as the electoral college vote, with a handful of notable exceptions.Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, even the "only example of an indirectly elected executive president" part is flawed, since I think the presidents ofSuriname and Burundi are indirectly elected as well (elected by parliament), and at least in Burundi they are a presidential system. Indonesia's president was also elected by parliament until about 10 years ago when they switched to direct elections. In my country, the Philippines, the President has always been directly elected from the start. South Africa also has a system where the President is elected by parliament and is technically a prime minister but is both head of state and head of government. The same system is used in Botswana and the Marshall Islands. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, the electoral college system where people vote for electors who elect the Presidentis unique to the United States; the closest equivalent would probably be Hong Kong's Election Committee, and even then I'm not sure if it is a true parallel to the Electoral College. But it's true that almost all countries with a presidential system directly elect their president.Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, America may be the only presidential system that uses an electoral college to elect its president. But America is not the only system that uses an electoral college to elect its president. Correct? So now we are just haggling over what the president does in various systems. But this process of electing a president is not unique to the USA. The articles Electoral_College_(Pakistan) and Electoral_College_(India) say clearly that the president of Pakistan/India is chosen by an electoral college. Am I the only who is confused here? In addition, even if you forget the president and consider the prime ministers, Pakistani prime minister is still elected by the Pakistani National Assembly which is popularly elected so we have an electoral college. In India, the president is not just a figure head (in Pakistan the president is) and the prime minister is appointed by the president which is like two levels of electorals.

So in India, people elect the parliament, The parliament elects the president. The president appoints the prime minister. The president is elected by a college. The prime minister is elected through two colleges.

In Pakistan, people elect the parliament (and the provincial assemblies). Both houses of the parliament and the provincial assemblies elect the president. The prime minister is chosen by the national assembly (the lower house of the parliament). Both the president and the prime minister are elected by a college. The colleges are not the same but a college is used nonetheless. True? 75.166.140.82(talk) 06:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement in the article is unsourced, so just amend it so it says "an example" instead of "the only example". In France, the Senate is elected by people serving as local councillors, etc., but I don't know if they are referred to as an electoral college in English.Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Note the key word "executive". The US president is both head of government and head of state. In most of the other examples mentioned, the president is only head of state, with no executive power. thx1138 (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I know this is often said, but personally I question how applicable the terms head of state and head of government really are, to the American system.

The notion of "head of state" doesn't seem to mean much, when you really get down to it, beyond the silly preoccupations of diplomats with their own protocol. As that sort of protocol doesn't interest me much (I frankly think the whole thing could be just dispensed with), that's all I want to say about that.

As for "head of government", the US president is very different from at least a Westminster-style HOG, because he has no legislative role, at least not officially (with the exception of the veto, which Westminster HOGs don't have and as a rule don't need). He is the head of the executive branch, not the head of the government as a whole. I don't think the notion of "head of government" really plays very nice with American-styleseparation of powers. --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Wild Lands Project Corridor system

I have been reading up on the wild lands project and I have some questions about some of their planning. From what I have been able to find out, they want to implement a corridor system in the U.S. that would restrict certain areas of land from certain types of human development, but I haven't been able to find any documents put out by the Wild Lands Project on exactly what kinds of human development would be restricted in the corridors they recommend implementing. Can anyone give me any links to documents explaining what they plan on restricting? Jjhodgson (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular proposal, but the general idea of wildlife corridors is to allow animals to move between wilderness areas, so they can migrate, find food, find mates, etc. Therefore, anything which blocks such movement is a problem. In some cases the animals can be accommodated by making special provisions for them. So, for example, if a highway separates two wilderness areas, an occasional tunnel underneath can be constructed to allow them to cross under it safely. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about Wildlife Trust of India#Wild Lands Project? Alansplodge (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Or Wildlands Project? They have some rather grand ideas about "corridors" they call "wildways", [9]. If them, then browse their website. I think they are a small organization and not about to do anything particularly large scale. Pfly (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"If them" ? StuRat (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"If [you, the OP, wants to know more about] them..." Ok, maybe not the most elegant English... Pfly (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No apology needed, you've finally found a way to write without using all those pesky words. :-) StuRat (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

srsly Pfly (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Hate crime" laws and crimes against women

My question is regarding Hate crime laws.

A significant number (though far from all) violent crimes against women are motivated by a hatred of the female half of humanity. An example which springs to mind in my part of the world is Peter Dupas. The sentencing judge, in one of the murder cases, referred to a " a perverted and sadistic hatred of women" as a key motive in his crimes, which included some gruesome stabbings, murders and rapes. I am sure he is far from unique, by a long stretch.

I am not suggesting that every rapist is a hate-criminal. But my question is, in dealing with those such as Dupas who verifiably are, is there any jurisdiction which, in practice, routinely uses hate-crime laws in charging such individuals? And if not, why not?203.45.95.236 (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Polarization in US politics

What reasons have been suggested for the US political polarization and the lack of a significant middle ground which confounds a normal distribution model? Ankh.Morpork 10:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's often suggested that closed primary elections cause more extreme candidates to appear on the ballot. See[10] for example. The idea: closed primary voters tend to be the most passionate about their party, i.e. extremists. They will support the most extreme primary candidate, so the only candidates to make it through the primaries will be extreme ones. Staecker (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

While it may well be the case that closed primaries promote political partisanship, I am curious whether this is not just the result of the idiosyncrasies of a particular political mechanism but also a manifestation of wider social divergences that have effectuated this schism. Ankh.Morpork 18:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't necessarily need lots of extremists voting in primaries to get that effect. A first-past-the-post system tends to result in a race to the middle. With a closed primary, "the middle" is the middle of that party, rather than middle of the nation, which results in the actual presidential election being a right vs left thing rather than the centre-right vs centre-left election you would get in a standard first-past-the-post system. (Voters in primaries do take electability into account to some extent, which means you do end up with someone closer to the centre than most of the party, but they are still a long way form the centre.) --Tango (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever model or explanation is used, it will have to account for the fact that the Democratic party remains pretty much what it's been for the last 40 years, while the Republican party has become more rigid and ideologically extreme (the "Rockefeller Republicans" used to be a significant wing of the party, but after this November's elections, Susan Collins will be just about the only remaining "Rockefeller Republican" officeholder). From Jim de Mint's "Waterloo strategy" of not cooperating with any measures for economic recovery etc. if they might redound to the political benefit of Obama (for some reason not mentioned on the Jim de Mint article) to the fanatical and dogged determination to retain tax policies which greatly favor the ultra-wealthy (seen in the debt ceiling crisis and "fiscal cliff"), all Republican economic measures seem to be guided by extremist Ayn Rand / Grover Norquist ideologies, and a concern for the well-being of the ultra-wealthy far above all others... AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Halite crystals

Here are a few grains of salt to go along with AnonMoos's left wing view of an objective description of American politics.

Consider that Romney, who socialized medicine in Massachusetts, was the most "moderate" of the candidates to chart in the Republican primary, and is despised by a large portion of the Republican base as a tool of the moderate establishment. Note that Romney wants to cut taxes across the board, and limit deductions, which allow the rich to avoid taxes, at $17,000. As for who's moved where, compare "New Democrat" Bill Clinton, who balanced the budget and ended welfare as a lifetime entitlement, with Barack "Where'd that $6,000,000,000,000.00 go?" Obama, who's repealed the 1994 welfare reform, seized General Motors, and socialized 1/6th of the economy. But yeah, blame it all on a 30-years dead Russian Jew if you need a handy boogity man. P.S. Atlas Shrugged Part II is in theaters if you need a good scare. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed that AnonMoos' post was a satire of leftist rhetoric, meant to illustrate the issue by example, i.e. that Republicans who object to an ever-expanding welfare state are "extremists". When Democrats insist that not raising taxes is "extremist", they've forsaken the middle ground. Romney tosses red meat to his right, but he's more-or-less a moderate like Bill Clinton ended up being. If the Democrats take another beating like they did in 2010, they may find it necessary to move back to the center. 24.209.99.109 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In the current circumstances, with the ultra-wealthy paying a smaller fraction of US taxes than in many decades, while middle-class take-home pay is stagnant and student-loan debts pile up, placing rigid inflexible dogmatic adherence to Grover Norquist pledges as your highest priority above all other priorities (such as avoiding drastic and draconian cuts to all federal govt. non-military spending, or preventing a further U.S. govt credit rating downgrade) is far out of the traditional mainstream, and appears to be motivated by a fanatical devotion to extremist Ayn Rand ideology and/or a concern only for the well-being of ultra-wealthy combined with a callous indifference to the well-being of everybody else. Romney has (or had) some moderate instincts, but to get ahead in today's GOP, he's had to present himself as being more ultra than the ultras (and he doubled down on that by choosing Ayn-Randite Paul Ryan for his VP), so it would be foolish to vote for Romney based on trust in his "moderation". And I notice you didn't try to dispute my point about the Democratic party being not too different from what it was about 40 years ago -- while the GOP has radically changed since then... AnonMoos (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally agree, but not on the last. Both parties have galloped way to the right since 1972: Nixon vs. McGovern (probably a little left of today's Jill Stein), Nixon sometimes, but not always, a little to her right, except on foreign intervention, where far to the right. Today's Dems are far to the right of the 1972 Republicans. What's the world come to, when you, AnonMoos, are the left & I have to cover your flank? :-) Have others ever seen a real leftie?John Z (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously many details and surrounding circumstances have changed over the course of 40 or so years, and certain slogans (such as "full employment") which didn't have much of a chance of being implemented have been abandoned. However, I think it's basically true that the Democratic party occupies somewhat the same overall position on the political spectrum that it has done for the last 40 years or so, while the ideological center-of-gravity of the Republican party has shifted radically during that same time. If the Democratic party has remained pretty much where it was (or even drifted slightly rightwards), while the Republican party has undergone a radical transformation, then it would appear to me that almost all the "polarization" has been on one side, and it's pointless and obfuscatory to pretend that there's been a mutual or "balanced" polarization. (Note that I don't include under "polarization" a party seeking to consolidate its power through legislative committee assignments, gerrymandering, etc. --this is tactical maneuvering, not ideology.) AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the biggest shift might have been with the Dems. They've both moved far to the right. Both 2012 party positions would have been thought mentally & morally deranged in 1972. Because they are. For full-throated unabashed lunacy, yes, you have to go to the Repubs, but the Dems are the same under a thin veneer, and can be more effective enemies of the 99% because of this. "Full employment" was not a slogan, but something which was consciously abandoned. It is the easiest thing in the world to achieve full employment. No nation which has ever tried has failed. The postwar era was the most prosperous in history because just about every state in the world decided to have full employment. And then nearly every one abandoned it. Nixon was way to the left of either Obama or Romney, a hawkish Jill Stein. He proposed a real national healthcare system, a guaranteed government job for everyone, even a negative income tax. He started the EPA. In important ways, the Repubs moved to the left of the Dems in actuality, if not rhetoric. To attack Reagan, the Dems became deficit terrorists inventing risible, imaginary problems with deficit spending. So with a shift understood only by a few economists & Chomsky at the time in the intelligentsia, but understood by ordinary voters, reversing the pattern since FDR or a bit before, the Republicans became the big spenders, with low unemployment and a good economy. Even though Republican spending was on the worst, most corrupt, welfare-for-the-rich things, and they raised taxes on the 99%, it could be better than high-tax austerity under the Dems. I mean, I wish you were right AnonMoos, I really do.John Z (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why/how does the US system force the wide spectrum of political factions to coalesce into only two parties?

Looking at the US from the outside, it seems like the Republicans could "sensibly" be split into at least three or four distinct parties ranging from "hard right" to "centrist-tory" and the Democrats could similarly split ino a spectrum ranging from "lib-dem" to "classic socialists". In many respects there are wider differences inside the two parties than between them. Roger (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Two-party_system#Causes might help a bit. Ankh.Morpork 18:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! WHAAOE wins again! Roger (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not that an ideological spectrum cannot exist — it does exist. It's that (as the article linked to discusses) we have a winner-take-all system in the United States. In individual races, there is no prize for coming in second place: the first place person gets everything. In the Presidential elections, each state (with one exception) basically gets to cast its votes for one person, in the end. The result of this is a system that has much less flexibility when it comes to minority parties than, say, European parliamentary systems, where a party that can must 33% of the vote is considered to be truly impressive, because they're get a third of the seats all to themselves. Third parties (much less fourth or fifth parties) serve only to split the vote from whatever of the other two parties they might have otherwise been inclined to support. (I'm not casting that as a moral argument — sometimes there's a good reason to want to split the vote of your own party.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, in 1987, which required each media outlet to supply "equal time for opposing viewpoints" is a probably a prime cause of polarization. Under that policy, people were exposed to all viewpoints. Now, conservatives only watch conservative media outlets and liberals only watch liberal media outlets, so each has their own worldview reinforced and magnified, not moderated as before. StuRat(talk) 18:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The polarization began well before the late 1980s. The idea that people were truly exposed to all viewpoints prior to the late 1980s is completely silly. (And while I respect, I guess, the attempt to make it look like this is something that affects "both sides," it should be noted that study after study has shown that it is the conservatives who are at the moment most limited in the media they consume, and that most non-conservatives are comparatively broad in what sorts of things they watch and read. There is no liberal equivalent to Fox News in terms of market share and complete polarization.)

A better historical approach, in my view, would look at the broader evolution of partisan politics over the 20th century. The period of most harmony between the political parties was the early 1960s. A lot of stuff happened since then, though, which led to more or less the politics we have today. A very lively account of this is Rick Perlstein's Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. --Mr.98(talk) 21:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

California has changed its closed primary system and we still see examples of extremist candidates. The state legislative district one district east of where I live has two extremist right wing Republicans running against each other, because the Democratic and moderate Republican candidates were eliminated in the primary. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

They don't have the Republican winner of the primary run against the Democratic winner ? StuRat (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If they are truly open primaries and voting in one doesn't stop you voting in the other, then there isn't actually a Republican primary and a Democratic one. What would be the difference between the two? --Tango (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Presumably you still have to be a registered Republican to run in the Republican primary and vice-versa. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there is nothing stopping a Democrat registering as a Republican. It might stop someone running in both primaries, but it wouldn't control which primary they run in. --Tango (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as European, your politics don't look particularly polarised to me. You seem to have a left of right party and a centrish right party. It's the way British politics looks to be heading, too. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the personal politics of the average Republican voter vs. the personal politics of the average Democratic voter, overall national polarization could be considered mild; but when it comes to Congress in the last few years, the way that the tea-party-leaning group among Republican legislators blocks almost all cooperation and compromise, and their willingness to force stunt maneuvers which are demonstrably not in the U.S. national interest (such as last year's debt ceiling credit rating downgrade, or the upcoming "fiscal cliff") is quite apparent...AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There's been a change from characterizing the other party from the "opponent" to the "enemy", and any collaboration with the enemy would be seen as treason. I wonder if room hasn't opened up for a Moderate Party to form in the center. StuRat (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Gracious. Presumably, if one formed, their logo would be a shoehorn. --Dweller (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, being midway between the red and blue, they would presumably choose purple as their color. The animal mascot is bit trickier, though, as it would need to be as fat as an elephant and as stupid as a jackass. How about a hippo ? They also have big mouths, are aggressive, like to spray manure around liberally and are never found far from a place where they can drink, so that's spot on. StuRat (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

World Trade Center target long before 9/11

I just stumbled upon this CNN article in which it's stated that Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, envisioned hijacking a plane and crashing it into a building in New York. My question is, since when did it become a target? And were there ways to avoid an attack? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

1) The WTC was evidently a target since before the World Trade Center bombing of 1993.

2) Eric Harris' delusional adolescent ravings make no reference to the WTC. CNN's reporters ought to learn to distinguish 'detailed plans' from 'extravagant fantasies'. Harris' proven ability to commit a firearms massacre is no guide as to his ability to 'hijack a load of bombs', etc.

3) It's easy to be wise after the fact. Presumably some of the anti-terrorist measures now in place might have been effective in preventing the attacks. However, introducing those measures would doubtless have causes the terrorists to choose a different strategy. The risk of an Al-Qaeda-backed hijacking was clearly known in the 1990s, as I recall an 'Alex' cartoon strip in the Daily Telegraph referring to 'this Bin Liner chappie' in such a context from well before 2001. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There were a spate of prognosticators after the '93 attack saying that the next time they would use planes. There was also a lot of talk in August of 2001 that there was chatter about a big attack coming. I have searched for this on occasion, but it's very hard given 9/11 results drown out the desired hits. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as ways to avoid an attack, simply banning people from bringing weapons on board in the form of box-cutters went a long way. Whoever decided to allow those was a moron and should have been fired for incompetence. There are security checks which put quite a burden on the passengers, like pat downs, but how many people will be seriously inconvenienced by not being able to carry box-cutter knives with them ? StuRat (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeprevious thread about the boxcutter issue. It's not even certain that the weapons (if any), were boxcutters (Stanley knives for UK readers).Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... [11]. Etcetera. They're likely if they can spot a hand grenade lying in a suitcase. A box cutter is so simple, I can't imagine how they could stop it. I mean, how do they tell if a Zippo lighter has a square of razor blade hidden in it? How do they stop someone from mounting that on some kind of plastic handle they carried along? Wnt (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Razor blades should show up well on X-ray machines. Also, a bare razor blade wouldn't be a very effective weapon, you really need the rest of the tool to go with it. And, lighters shouldn't be allowed on a plane, either. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I should note that that older thread included an incorrect assertion that the knives couldn't really kill anyone. Apparently Daniel M. Lewin, the first casualty of the September 11th attacks, was killed with one of the knives by having his throat stabbed or slashed - not sure how many others died this way. This was despite Lewin having some military training as described in American Airlines Flight 11. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Autism & Mercury - Government Conspiracy for Population Control?

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Autism Epidemic keeps progressing unchecked. It was 1 / 166, 1 / 150, and now 1 / 88 kids who are born have autism. China gets to be overt with their population control policy. Their citizens do not have as much power to fight back against it; they are often repressed and brutalized. However, way too many Americans would be up in arms about anything similar. Therefore, what if a different way to control population growth happens behind our backs, out of sight of the media? It could be that they leave pollutants in the food (and sometimes water?) supplies on purpose, so that pregnant mothers who take them cause their babies to be born with defects that make them "socially ineligible" to marry and have kids of their own someday. Do you see the EPA mandatingmercury removal from the catches of fish? And so, with enough children having such defects, the government can discreetly breathe a sigh of relief and not worry about population overgrowth. And possibly, because I post this conspiracy theory here, I could get taken away by trenchcoated men. So, A. How do we know that there is no governmental conspiracy to control population growth by infecting kids with autism-inducing pollutants before they're born? (Please do not answer if you are a governmental agent who is capable of participating in said conspiracy.) B. IF there has been no secret population-control conspiracy all this time, why has there no effort been shown to remove all mercury from all food? As well as all other toxins from food causing birth defects that lead to social ineligibility to reproduce later in life? C. Society fought long and HARD against HIV, and we're (slowly) winning that battle; why can't we fight as hard in a battle against Autism by at least isolating catalysts thereof and fighting / removing them? D. Children of Men depicted a sterile society "due to pollution" and unknown factors. If pollutants cause Autism, why didn't we see many Autistic ("socially sterile") citizens all over the film? --70.179.167.78 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) The OP has asked a related question here. -Karenjc 19:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC) A) You seem to think that the proper way to handle conspiracy theories is to believe them all, unless they can be disproven. This will lead you to believe an infinite number of conspiracy theories. The only reasonable approach is to require proof that a conspiracy exists, before you believe it. This particular conspiracy theory is one of the silliest I've ever heard. Overpopulation is a problem in the third world, not in the developed world, where people have chosen to have fewer children. If there's any conspiracy regarding population, it's the opposite, to ignore the issue of global overpopulation, due to resistance to birth control and abortion. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC) B) Those "toxins" just aren't the serious issue you think they are. The number of people who die from those is minuscule. Far more serious issues with food are overconsumption of calories, sugar, salt, animal fats, saturated fats, trans fats, and bad cholesterol. StuRat (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) C) If you want a conspiracy theory, the more likely reason for more cases of autism being reported is because the medical establishment can make money off those cases. So, while in former generations a kid might have been viewed as "just shy", the same kid is now given an "autism spectrum disorder" label and medicated. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC) A) Because there are far better ways of reducing the population than having a small number of people born with a slightly reduced chance of reproducing that also have a high chance of not being productive members of society and being a drain on resources (those ones that are productive members of society will tend to be the ones that do successfully reproduce). If the government wanted to reduce population growth, they would be better off doing things that reduce fertility (and fertility numbers have been dropping over the last few decades, so you can have a field day with that one!). B) The evidence that these toxins are particulary harmful is pretty thin. In fact, there isn't even good evidence that autism has been on the increase (diagnoses of autism have, but that isn't the same thing). C) The causes of AIDS are well known - it is a virus (HIV) that is transmitted sexually. That makes it fairly easy to fight. The causes of autism are not at all well known. D) Because whoever wrote that film didn't think of it? Or perhaps because you are wrong that autists tend to be "socially sterile"?--Tango (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC) OP, the Government are too preoccupied with implementing their MMR vaccine stratagem to bother with mercury. Ankh.Morpork 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC) The major flaw in an autism population-control theory is that autism doesn't cause population control. Autistic people still reproduce. They are not "socially ineligible" except on the furthest end of the spectrum. Similarly, the socioeconomic groups hardest hit by the alleged autism epidemic are those far above the poverty line — those which reproduce relatively less frequently anyway and are not the target of any kind of population control efforts (the government does target populations for reduced family size, but this is usually the poor). In any case, it is not in the US government's interest to reduce the population rate overall — it gets nothing out of that. None of the logic on this works out: the government is not desperate about reducing the domestic population; autism doesn't affect the classes of people who you'd expect it to if the government was trying to do that (in other words, it doesn't affect the classes of people who are traditionally targeted for population control measures); and autism doesn't affect the fecundity rates at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC) There is no autism epidemic. Its existence is a pernicious lie. Detection rates are improving because awareness is better; the diagnostic criteria have changed over the years, too - and they're changing again next year with the release of DSM-V. But people on the autistic spectrum are not 'socially ineligible to marry', or anything of the sort. I should know; I'm engaged to one. This is the second crazy 'autism epidemic' question we've had lately. The only thing I've seen an epidemic of is (in the US) prescribing ADHD drugs (which, funnily enough, are a hair's-breadth in chemical terms from being crystal meth) to kids with ASD, or without any neurological difference at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Congratulations, great news, mazel tov! μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Thank you! AlexTiefling (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC) I admit that, even if I don't agree completely with your logic, you have some valid points. Autism is on the way up and another amazing thing: a teacher who is a friend of mine, told me that governmental agents ask regularly about children who tend to be autistic, and offer early educational packages about several technologies. It's amazing but true, maybe they are not trying to provoke autism to reduce population, but to cause autism to obtain more technology minded children. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC) OsmanRF34, you piqued my curiosity, what do you mean by "early educational packages". Thanks for the clarity! Marketdiamond(talk) 08:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC) "...some valid points". Which ones precisely? An unsupported assumption that the increase in autism diagnoses equals an rise in incidence of the condition. An unsupported assumption about rhe causes of autism. Some speculative "what if"s and "it could be"s about an unsupported conspiracy theory. And in response, a FOAFtale and conspiracy theory mark 2, and not a reference in sight. This is the Reference Desk. It "does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." - Karenjc 12:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC) The general question - how do we know there isn't a government conspiracy to sicken us? - is a serious question, very much worth asking. Especially when it comes to other governments who might have a grudge against us... Biological warfare is serious business, and there have been credible-sounding accusations of for example the use of thallium, parathion, cholera, ricin, anthrax spores and God knows what else during the civil war in Rhodesia.[12] A lot of these allegations remain difficult to be sure about to this day, despite all the evidence that's come up. The prospect that some other country could be spreading obesity-causing adenoviruses or asthma-inducing toxins or whatever it is that causes autism is far from impossible. I certainly hope that there are real government agencies that make a point of watching for such things. But that shouldn't stop us from asking the question ourselves -how can we know? Wnt (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC) The fact that we don't know what causes the vast majority of cases of autism would tend to suggest that no-one is spreading it on purpose.AlexTiefling (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC) I don't think that is altogether persuasive on its own. Remember, an unethical regime wouldn't be hobbled by the same ethical considerations as researchers - instead of studying correlations or trying to develop an animal model, they can simply inject 50 pregnant women with "vitamin supplements" and see if a suspected cause is real or not. Or they might work through things the other way, exposing women to various agents to see what happens; a result might be autism or any other disease at random. So we can't be entirely sure that they aren't able to attack us with something we don't know is dangerous, which would make it a lot harder to surveil for. That said, I do think it is very, very, unlikely. A simple attack would be expected to affect people more in one part of a country, in a potentially recognizable pattern, depending on where a contaminated product was sold. And cases should spike in a narrow window of time when the agent is deployed. Yes, I can picture other scenarios, like if someone has long term control over the plant where cocaine-free coca extract is prepared for Coca-cola, so that they could gradually introduce agents over time that would be distributed to a large part of the world; but such a scenario still leaves them hanging out in the wind, afraid one curious person is going to spot the contaminating compound and wonder why it's there and what effect it has on people. Nonetheless, I'm really speculating here, and I know there must be some serious work being published by experts somewhere on actually looking for such threats. I just want to encourage people to think of how we can find such sources. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC) How do we "know" with 100% epistemic certainty that the inhabitants of the planet Tralfamadore aren't sprinkling pixie-dust on our breakfast cereal every morning? How do you "know" that you're not the only one who exists? -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Well, I doubt Homeland Security is looking for pixie dust ... but poisons, on the other hand ... Wnt (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Arlen Specter's middle name

Hi. I've posted my inquiry at Talk:Arlen Specter#Middle name. Any help from the reference desk wizards would be appreciated. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Native Pennsylvanian here and just barely old enough to remember the day prior to Specter talking his Senate seat, for the life of me and I actually did use some nifty Pennsylvania data mines I know of online I have never known him as anything more then Arlen J. Specter, and alas all my data resources failed me, though I did not dig through Philadelphia archives or Google news prior to the 1980's. Stumper, and deceptively so.Marketdiamond (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Brazil HDI

How does Brazil have a high HDI with stuff like this happening all the time? That's the kind of stuff you'd expect in a war zone, not a developed country. --128.42.221.109 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a developing country. Consider that also the US has problem zones and a violence problem. A country can improve on average, even if that doesn't include all its citizens. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

How does a developing country have a high HDI? --168.7.232.11 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There are four stages of HDI: low, medium, high and very high. Brazil has high., which is not a big deal, since it is the 87th country in the world. Mexico is the 57th and Cuba the 51th. Calling it high doesn't mean much, and won't mean that there is not lots of poverty there, it's just that others are even worse off. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody explain what HDI is, or link to an article? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Human Development Index --168.7.229.36 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Bernhard Caesar Einstein

What do they mean by "He was the last known biological grandchild of renowned physicist Albert Einstein."? Is it mean that he is the last grandson of Albert Einstein that died?184.97.253.165 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I would phrase it "Of the biological grandchildren we know of, he was the grandchild of Albert Einstein who died last." StuRat (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. "He was the last surviving known biological grandchild of renowned physicist Albert Einstein (relatively speaking)." Back tobureaucratese school for you, Stu. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hah. Almost the exact same wording is used in"The legacy of Albert Einstein lives on with Dr. Thomas Martin Einstein", although it's not exactly what you'd call a reliable source (a blog). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like old Al only had two four biological grandchildren. Aside from Bernhard, Klaus and two others all died young. The "known" part comes about because we don't know what happened to his daughter Lieserl Einstein. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Albert was quite the ladies' man, and slept with numerous women in addition to his first and second wives. His"string of mistresses" might well have resulted in one or more pregnancies, in the era before the pill. It was not at all a rare or occasional thing. He screwed one mistresstwice a week for close to a year, and this was tolerated by his second wife. He might have had biological grandchildren from his mistresses, although I have seen no reliable accounts of same. It would be interesting to see if any likely relatives turned up if his known descendants or other relatives got their DNA analyzed by the genealogical DNA services which now offer DNA analysis of a spit sample for a few hundred dollars and then list all relatives from immediate family to 5th cousins among others who've had the test done.Edison (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

October 15

Characters who can't stand being loved

I recall a professor mentioning a Shakespeare character who couldn't stand being loved, but I can't recall which. Also, can anyone think of any other characters who had similar issues? Thanks. 129.3.150.196 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was King Lear, who got a bit narked off with his youngest daughter Cordelia because she wouldn't express her love for him in the same fulsome terms as his other two daughters. Not sure if that's the kind of thing you had in mind. --Viennese Waltz 09:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This is from the opening of Richard III (Shakespeare):

And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,

To entertain these fair well-spoken days,

I am determined to prove a villain

And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

The Moor in Titus Andronicus expresses something similar I believe. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't Beatrice and Benedict have something similar going on before they hook up? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Effects of listening to the same thing over and over

I've been listening to this video for about the past 5 minutes, and I'm starting to feel a bit dizzy...

Are there any documented cases or research regarding listening to annoying sounds over and over again or annoying statements over and over again, and how it would affect one's psyche?

Thanks. --Jethro B 01:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Binaural beats (as well as Monaural beats, if the proper frequencies can be isolated and made audible through a single channel) can introduce altered states of consciousness via brainwave entrainment under the right conditions, though in most cases I believe it would take longer than five minutes to take effect. You would also probably need to be otherwise unengaged (not surfing the internet, not reading or concentrating on anything in particular with much intensity, etc.), so I'm not sure that explain this case. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion reminded me of this but it seems that was more visual, then I remembered both the "Suicide causing Song" and the Long Range Acoustic Device, just a comment on how little the average person is aware of these effects.Marketdiamond (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember at the Detroit Auto Show one of the displays had a jingle that repeated continuously. By the end of the show, the employees who worked there looked like the walking dead. StuRat (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That may just be average Detroiters--or those exposed to Detroit for an extended period. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna say that spending all day talking about cars would turn anyone into a zombie. Except petrol heads, of course. To each his own. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, boring old econobox cars, perhaps. But supercars are always fun. Then there's the pretty models. And, even if they aren't your cup of tea, there's lots of extras, like a dancing fountain display, the new version of WII to try out, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A paper by Warren notes that "Verbal satiation" was described by psychologist Titchener in 1915, wherein prolonged repetition of any common word causes it to lose meaning. It has been a common area of research since the 1960's, See also a recent self-help book which says that when you hear a word like "milk" you associate it with liquid food, but if you say it aloud rapidly for 20 seconds, it becomes a meaningless auditory sensation. The book suggests that one might lessen the hurtful impact of some demeaning term used against the person. Also there is distortion and spontaneous changes when the same thing is heard repeatedly, such as "say" becoming "ace" or "ticktock, ticktock" becoming "toctic. " In Warren's study, repetition of a word for 3 minutes caused the perception to shift to words which were nothing like the actual word. Other books I've read (no handy link) have noted this same loss of linkage between auditory input or vocal output and lexical meaning, like the fatiguing of a neural pathway. I recall the era when carmakers put in a chip which endlessly repeated "The door is ajar" as long as the car sat with the door open, and how it started to fatigue the mind after a number of reps. There have been cases of a bad door switch which caused this phrase to be repeated continuously while the car was being driven. Such repetition seemed like a good candidate for a brainwashing method. (The only recourse was to reply, "No, the door is a door. A jar is where the jam is found.") Car manufacturers seem to have switched to chimes to nag drivers. (Added:) We have an article on this called Semantic satiation, but it is a bit lame. Edison (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember that, but it probably explains why there's a large lighted sign saying "YOUR DOOR IS AJAR" in the Major Tom (Coming Home) music video... AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The abiding memory of my one and only visit to one of the Disney empire's theme parks, was the endless repetition of a song called "It's a Small World", which nearly drove me bonkers. Why they do that, I have no idea. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

James Kerasiotes

Could you please tell me why the name James F. Carlin does not appear in your report. Mr. Carlin facilitated the original appointment to the Mass Turnpike, via members of his previous administration as Secrectary of Transportation? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.25.121 (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You should put this on Talk:Massachusetts Turnpike or add it to the Massachusetts Turnpike article yourself, preferably with a source. BTW, who is James Kerasiotes ? Is that you ? StuRat (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

James Kerasiotes is undoubtedly James Kerasiotes. Looie496 (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, then my comments apply to that article and talk page, as well. StuRat (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese economy

When will China's economy surpass America's? --168.7.237.77 (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It may not happen. They will run into some rather serious walls, like a demographics bomb due to the One Child Policy, rioting farmers who had their land stolen, environmental problems, and, ironically, they could have a communist revolution from those who resent the wealth being so unevenly and unfairly distributed to those who know influential Party members. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Then what country will be the first to beat the US? India? Brazil? --168.7.234.107 (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Could be China, India, Brazil, or perhaps the EU will be considered a single nation at one point. StuRat (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Until it actually happens, it is certainly true that it may not happen (the entire country may be wiped off the map by an asteroid tomorrow). It would take something pretty big to prevent it, though. The demographic bomb you speak of won't act fast enough - we're talking 5-10 years, not a generation. Environmental problems aren't going to do much on that timescale either. Some kind of revolution that decimates the economy is certainly a possibility, but there aren't really any signs of that happening in the near future. In short, we can be pretty sure China's economy will overtake America's - the difference in population is so much that it has been essentially inevitable for a long time. The only question is when and, once you've agreed on a metric, there isn't even much of a question there. One or two percentage points difference in either the US or Chinese growth is only going to change the estimate by a couple of years or so. --Tango (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This chart from The Economist estimates that the Chinese Gross Domestic Product will surpass that of the United States (as measured at market-exchange rates) in 2018, if that's what you mean. There are, of course, lots of other measures of "an economy" – several of which are detailed there. Gabbe (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As for other countries than China surpassing the US, looking at "List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal)", it seems that there are estimates saying that the second country to surpass the US in this sense will be India. According to estimates, India might have a greater GDP than the US sometime in the 2030s. But projections so far ahead should be taken with a grain of salt. Gabbe (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

IMF's projections puts it at 2017.A8875 (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Think some say that China has already surpassed the USA. Using purchasing power parity, and depending on how you measure rural production and living standards, iirc. There's close to zero doubt that it will surpass by increasingly many measures. The Economist lists some already achieved, and should be just about all, pretty soon.John Z (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on nominal GDP (which is the one that I and Goldman Sachs use), about 2027. Source: http://theloadstar.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Goldman-Sachs-Global-Economics-Paper-208.pdf Futurist110 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Characters at the top of this here picture

וחוח, or something?

The picture at right is an illustration of the 21st article of the Augsburg Confession, which relates to belief in the doctrine of sainthood. As you can see, there appear to be four designs at the top of the picture, amidst the clouds. As far as I can tell, the characters are an attempt to reconstruct the Tetragrammaton by someone unversed in the Hebrew alphabet. Since I can't tell quite how that relates to the doctrine in question, though, and since that first letter looks nothing like any yod I've ever seen, I feel compelled to doubt my first instinct. Does anyone have a better idea? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Educated guess here emphasis on "guess", it appears like some kind of hebrew or derivation, very similar to the Chai (symbol) just repeated. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So instead of one yod that doesn't look like a yod, you see two yods (yodim?) that don't look like yod? It says pipi in Greek (πιπι). —Tamfang (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In Hellenistic or Roman Empire times, when some Greek-speakers without knowledge of Hebrew sometimes tried to make use of Jewish names for mystical or occult purposes, YHWH written right-to-left in the Hebrew alphabet was occasionally misunderstood as PIPI written left-to-right in the Greek alphabet. However, I really don't think this would apply to Renaissance pious illustrations, and the artist would not have drawn the characters with wavy outlines if he had intended to show the Greek alphabet... AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:YHWH.png

William Gesenius's Hebrew punctuation (i.e., Yahweh)

I think your first instinct was right. Specifically, it looks like they substituted in Greek lowercase letters, pi and tau. I can't explain the split vertical bar, though. StuRat (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with Evan's suggestion it's an attempt at the Tetragrammaton by someone unlearned. I've seen similar on Judaica items from the Far-East, where people simply draw what they see, not knowing the difference between significant and insignificant elements. I'd guess the split bar of the vav is due to uneven printing in the source material used. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Go to commons:Category:Tetragrammaton in Christian art and its subcategories, and you can see plenty of similar renderings... AnonMoos (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In my view, the artist clearly knew the difference. The yod and the vav are drawn differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

However the yod seems to be drawn more like a zayin than a yod... AnonMoos (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And the Heys are Chets. The artist didn't have a clue. --Dweller (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Some context might be in our article on Christian Kabbalah, the mystical interpretation of Hebrew characters in a Christian context, which came to prominence during the Renaissance. Not listed in the article is our man John Dee, who believed that encoded in the Hebrew alphabet was the sacred language of the angels; which once mastered, would reveal all the mysteries of the universe. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing much hard data here - because Yodh links to all sorts of very different scripts, is there a chance this is just some other script not mentioned by Wikipedia? Wnt (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The only ones known to Europeans ca. 1650 would have been Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and certain quasi-occult derivatives of Hebrew, such as Transitus Fluvii, Celestial Alphabet, Enochian alphabet, and possibly the Theban alphabet. I really don't know why a Christian artist producing a solemn exposition of the highest truths of religion would have used any of them except Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

There are several tetragrammata in the Hollar collection allegedly all from the same artist, Protestant, Catholic and neuter, German, Latin and English? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pro-choice activism

Hi, I don't want to debate political or ethical questions. Does anyone know a good printed manual/guide to pro-choice-activism? Thank you for your help. --Desir usrn (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood might be a good place to start, at least in the US: http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org. I didn't see a manual there, but they might be able to direct you to where you can get one. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Or NARAL Pro-Choice America. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

International Joint Commission

How does one get on the International Joint Commission? Are the Americans appointed just like people are appointed to independent U.S. government agencies? I don't even have a clue on how the Canadians get appointed. If you have a reference, could you expand the article? 2001:18E8:2:1020:749C:5B76:1D8E:3D22 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The single reference given in the article indicates that the Canadian commissioners are appointed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the American commissioners are appointed by the President. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Information about World War II massacre

I visited the Imperial War Museum the other day and saw description within their holocaust exhibition of a massacre that occurred against Jews in one of the Baltic states, I think Lithuania. It was accompanied by a photo of a man 'proudly' holding a club with a large number of bodies strewn around him, and a crowd watching. The caption said something like 'Massacre perpetrated by the Clubber of Vilnius and assistants, ...' (although I'm not sure if the city was Vilnius). The photo, caption, and use of a grisly moniker made it seem like one man was largely responsible for the killings. I was wondering if anyone could give me the name of this event / person, or knows the photo. Thanks. --82.13.141.22 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"In Kaunas, Lithuania’s second city, Jews who had just been released from prison were clubbed to death by a local ‘patriot’ known as the ‘Death Dealer’, who after he had killed them, climbed on the bodies and played the Lithuanian national anthem on an accordion." WW2History.com - 22nd June 1941 - Einsatzgruppen killing squads start. There may have been other, similar events though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this the picture in question? If so, there is more detail of the event at HITLER'S FOREIGN EXECUTIONERS: EUROPE'S DIRTY SECRET which occurred at the Lietukis garage on 25 June 1941. Further detail at Einsatzgruppen A: The Massacres in Kovno - Reports and Eyewitness Accounts ("Kovno" was the English language name for Kaunas at that time). Perhaps brief details of this event might be added to our article , which rather blandly mentions that Jews were "attacked". Alansplodge (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is what the display was referring to and I'm sure that's the right photo. I was beginning to think I'd got a major detail wrong as no amount of googling was finding it. Thanks very much. --82.13.141.22 (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a bit tricky - searching for "Clubber of Vilnius" brought up lots of details about night clubs in the town - it seems to be a major venue for British stag parties. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Most library-dense cities

I have a personal theory that Washington, D.C. has more libraries per capita of any city in the world. Besides the Library of Congress (plus the NAL and NLM, if we're talking metro area), most federal departments and agencies have their own libraries, there's a large public library system, and many public and private universities and K-12 schools with libraries. Add in private companies, especially law firms, who maintain their own libraries and you can see where I got my theory. But similar situations could certainly exist in other national capitals. Any hard data out there? (I generally phrase this as "libraries per capita," but I'd also be interested in library counts per area). --BDD (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If you count law firms, do you count private libraries? I have a about 1000 books at home - does that make my flat a library? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's more a question of workforce. I should clarify and say professionally staffed libraries. --BDD (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that, a priori, distinguishes Washington D.C. from any other major city of the US in terms of the number of libraries lies in the presence of the federal government. Most other major cities also have many government departments, many law firms, many universities and many schools. Counted that way, the extra few national libraries is probably not so significant.

If you are looking for largest numbers of libraries per capita by city, my guess would be large, library-dense college / university towns. Oxford, for example, with a population of 150,000 or so, has 40 libraries in the Bodleian system, 38 colleges with at least one library each, 10 or so municipal libraries, plus two dozens or so other schools and higher education institutions, which would have at least one library each. That's more than 100 libraries without counting private or corporate libraries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Yes, DC has a few federal libraries — but only a few, assuming you are counting only those that the public has access to. It has some universities and public libraries, but it is not an especially large city in terms of population or geographic size (only ~68 square miles). I would wonder if someplace like Los Angeles, California, which contains many more people and a much larger geographic area (~467 square miles), wouldn't have a larger count just on the basis of public libraries alone (but not probably per capita), much less additional small colleges and universities. If one is talking about number of unique volumes, DC probably does handily along with a few other university towns (e.g. Cambridge, Mass.), but in terms of a raw number of libraries, I'm unsure. Just a raw count of public libraries within their city borders, DC has 26, LA has has 46. LA has maybe 11 universities within its city borders, DC has 24, though I don't know how open to the public most of those are (they are weird little graduate institutions for the most part). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not just interested in libraries that the public has access to, though. So when I say federal libraries, I don't just mean the LC, NLM, and NAL. The EPA has a library, the Department of Education does, the FTC does—I imagine most federal departments, agencies, and commissions do. Oxford and Cambridge (UK) must be up there, though, with all their colleges. How about London? --BDD (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If we are excluding private libraries (law firms, large homes, etc), I think I can give a relatively precise estimate for Oxford. This brochure lists 55 university libraries (which includes two of the colelge libraries (All Souls and Nuffield), 11 other libraries (which includes municipal and most of the other non-OU higher educational institutions). To this we can add 36 college libraries (i.e. excluding the two already counted), which makes for 102. As to primary and secondary schools, we don't have a list of schools in Oxford itself, but there is a List of schools in Oxfordshire. Looking only at those schools which are labelled as being in Oxford (or as "Oxford [x] School"), there are 15 schools here. So the total is 117. This is a conservative estimate, as (1) the Bodleian brochure first cited counts libraries by location rather than institution, so all of the social science libraries are counted as one, and (2) we have only included those primary and secondary schools which are labelled as being in Oxford in some way. Based on 150,000 people, that makes for 1 library per 1282 people.

Having gotten that result, I think I can immediately beat myself. The City of London, the historical centre of London, has a population of only 7,000. Yet it has 5 municipal libraries, 6 primary and secondary schools, and 7 higher educational institutions. That makes for at least 18 "public" libraries. That's 1 library per 390 people or so. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, there should be a small city somewhere with just 1 library and the highest number of libraries/inhabitants. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

historic total US employment statistics

I can readily find out what the unemployment rate is. However, I don't care. I'd like to know haw many Americans were actually working in a given year, and how many working 5 years later. I can't find these statistics. Why not?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.144.228 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has the very thing you are looking for. Here you can search for employment numbers by year, or look at total average hours worked or any other number of statistics. Its quite comprehensive. Livewireo (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I am familiar with the BLS website, but it is a nightmare to navigate and find what I'm looking for. This helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.144.228 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Some interesting information can be extracted from the IRS statistics. E.g., in 2009 tax year, 116 million individual tax returns showed some wage/salary income (out of the total of 149 mln returns filed for that year). Unfortunately, this cannot be directly mapped to the number of individuals who received forms W-2, because some of these 116 mln tax returns are joint tax returns with both spouses receiving wage income. Still, these stats may be interesting for things such as year-on-year changes, or the distribution of wage income by income level. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the BLS data are also available from the St. Louis Fed’s FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) website. However, you will need to be careful which data series is used. For example, monthly data from January 1939 to September 2012 are available in easy spreadsheet format for Total Nonfarm not seasonally adjusted (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PAYNSA); and Total Private seasonally adjusted (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USPRIV). DOR (HK) (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

meditating

I have been trying to get into meditating for the past few months but I don't think I am handling it well. I've looked online, but I am not sure which is a good site or not. Anybody have any tips or websites I could go to to help with it. Any help would be appreciated 152.27.56.87 (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This, [13], is a good, short introduction to Zen style meditation; a great deal more in depth in the book Finding the Still Point. Another good book, I think, is The posture of meditation, which focuses on posture and not any particular tradition—that is, it's applicable to basically any tradition. Better than books and websites would be finding a group of people who meditate together from whom who can get personal instruction and feedback. Pfly (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many different kinds of meditation, but they are all easier if you can go along to a class for personal tuition. But if you can't get to a class I recommend this website.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Aorund where I live there isn't that much I can see where I could go so thanks.````152.27.56.60 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Eligibility for voting on the Scottish independence referendum

Among others eligible to vote on the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 are:

• British citizens resident in Scotland

and

• members of the House of Lords resident in Scotland

Are members of the House of Lords not British citizens? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

House of Lords#Qualifications says: "Furthermore, only citizens of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth citizens, and citizens of Ireland may sit in the House of Lords. The nationality restrictions were previously more stringent: under the Act of Settlement 1701, and prior to the British Nationality Act 1948, only natural-born subjects were qualified." PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a redundant item in that list, but presumably refers to the fact that members of the Lords do not have a vote in elections of members of the House of Commons. Therefore the referendum legislation will presumably make it clear they do qualify - just for certainty. Sussexonian (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a redundant item. Commonwealth citizens and citizens of Ireland are not per se British citizens. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe Sussexonian was referred to the list cited by the OP, not the one quoted by PrimeHunter. The indentations and the meaning both point that way. "Members of the House of Lords" is redundant in a list that already has "British citizens" (with identical restrictive phrases), but is a useful clarification because of the ineligibility of Lords members to vote in Commons elections, as Sussexonian correctly observes. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that I expect the number of Lords resident in Scotland will decide the vote, but if there was a "yes" vote would Scotland automatically be a Commonwealth country? In other words would voting "yes" be voting themselves out of a job? -- Q Chris (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait. My apologies, PalaceGuard008 - I now see the group whose inclusion is in question. I have no idea whether there are any Members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland but citizens of countries other than the UK. If there are any, I suspect the group to be very small indeed. I have no idea whether the proposed criteria are intended to include or exclude them. As the dissolution of the Union would not occur immediately upon a 'yes' vote, but take place over a period of time following, the questions of Commonwealth membership and of the eligibility of Scottish citizens to be Anglo-Welsh peers would be decided during the negotiations. There are still peerages extant from the Peerage of Scotland (pre-1707); however, none of them intrinsically grant the right to sit in the House of Lords these days. As it is the stated intention of the SNP that the present monarch should remain head of state, and Scotland remain a monarchy, would a Scottish Peerage be re-established? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

October 16

William J. Clinton

I need help finding out the names of, and how many boards of directors Bill Clinton serves on.

The wiki article on him does not have this information, and neither does GOOGLE!

This is not homework. RJSEAB (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

They may know at the William J. Clinton Center. Here is their "contact us" page. I would try there first. --Jayron32 02:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Out-of-state employment discrimination laws in the US

The biggest thing keeping me from coming out openly is that I work for a company in a small conservative town, and the state and local anti-discrimination laws don't offer protection for discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, my company is owned by a company in a state with better anti-discrimination laws. My paycheck comes from the parent company, but come tax time the income counts as from my state. I'm trying to figure out if the state law of the parent company offers me protection. I know you can't provide legal advice, but I'm looking for resources or groups that can help me figure out the answer. I contacted the Human Rights Campaign earlier today, because they are very active in campaigning for LGBT anti-discrimination laws. Does anyone else know of any organizations I could contact that would be able to help answer my questions? 108.194.140.240 (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What state is the parent company located in? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You might start with the company itself: What is its official policy on this subject, if any? If they are openly/officially anti-discriminatory, maybe their legal departmen could offer some advice. If not, you'll probably want to keep it to yourself within the company, and seek counsel elsewhere. This is a shot in the dark, but it occurs to me that Planned Parenthood is a pretty open-minded organization. You might call them and ask they can direct you to any good organizations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The parent company is in Wisconsin, and the company I work for is in Michigan. My company has nothing about sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination policy, and I don't know where to find the parent company's policies. 108.194.140.240 (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not being anything resembling a lawyer, I may be totally wrong on this, but I can't imagine a scenario in which the laws of Wisconsin would hold any sway in Michigan, or vice versa. That's "state sovereignty". Now, if Michigan's discrimination violates a federal law, that could be a different story. Back to your company: As you're an employee, maybe you could approach H.R. and ask to see or to have a copy of the policy manual... to see what it says about various kinds of discrimination that they don't allow. If they ask why you want it, don't give away the game, but make up something vague and noncontroversial, until you've had a chance to read the part you're interested in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My experience (having been fired for being queer, and having been refused as a candidate for coming out to the hiring agent) is that your employer will find whatever excuse they want or need to fire (or not hire) you on whatever grounds. Non-discrimination laws largely apply for wrongful termination. Are you trying to get yourself fired? If not, why do you need to come out to your employer as such? You can tell your co-workers whatever you like. Your employer won't ask you diddly, unless they are looking to get sued. Not that I am offering you legal advice, just personal opinion based on unfortunate experience. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting to be good friends with my immediate coworkers, and would like to be able to be open about it with them. There have already been a few times where I almost said something that would give it away and caught myself. The problem is that I have no idea what they think of homosexuality, and if one will mention the "problem" to anyone else. Word gets around fast. The company is also pretty large and the town is small enough that I have met friends outside of work that end up having a connection back to the company. One friend turned out to the daughter of one of the higher-ups. 108.194.140.240 (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I need to mention this question asks way too specific a factual question, and probably should not be answered because that would be legal advice. Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an answer to the question here, but for help finding groups that can answer the question. I know they exist, and I would prefer to not have to go to a lawyer with the question if there is a group that has experts on the subject that exists to help people in situations like mine. 108.194.140.240 (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a list of such organizations on this page. Here is a similar list. Equality Michigan is a referral service for anyone with questions such as yours. Taknaran (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've thought about it for a bit, I'm thinking of contacting the parent company to see their anti-discrimination policy. Odds are it mentions sexual orientation because it is in the state law. If it does, I'll see if I can get them to work on making sure that all of their companies adopt a similar policy. 108.194.140.240 (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's part of state law, then wouldn't it apply to the company whether or not the company has it as part of its own equality/anti-discrimination policies? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Company A is in a state with sexual orientation listed in the anti-discrimination laws. I work for Company B, which is in a state without protection, but company B is owned by company A and I get my paycheck from company A. Company A's anti-discrimination policy likely mirrors the state law. I am going to see if they can make sure company B (and other companies they own) can update their anti-discrimination policies to be at least as comprehensive as their own. 108.194.140.240 (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Just make sure you carry your bugle with you.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Marbles and Jews

What in detail is the connection between Judaism and marble playing? This early WP essay asserts one [14] and there is a symbolic link between the the Jewish orphan of S01E03 of the new Upstairs, Downstairs (remake) and her mother in the previous episode. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Err well I doubt one exists, Atlas Shrugged was a novel and at that time, marble playing was fairly common so it could be why it was included. Today, it's generally less common, so I don't know how relevant it would be. I don't know if there's any connection though, there certainly isn't a religious one... --Jethro B 04:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The author of the essay, Adam Reed, is (or was) a well educated Hungarian Jew, the name is a pseudonym he adopted when he emigrated to the US to work for Bell Labs. He seems to believe there is at least a cultural a connection:

"Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian D'Anconia sat on the floor, playing marbles." Playing a child's game on the floor is a celebration of the Maccabee revolt. The Maccabees were guerillas, and chose carefully the few battles they fought. They hid for years in caves and wadis, and fought boredom with games played on the ground. The reader who knows the origin of this custom now also knows that Francisco must be, in some sense, the soldier of a rebellion, fighting from cover behind enemy lines.

and the U/D episodes seem to back him up. Atlas Shrugged itself is irrelevant here, so far as I am aware, except that Rand herself was a Russian Jew. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe marbles is seen as being similar to the game played with a Dreidel. Bus stop (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(Unrelated question: How do I get rid of the "SAM COHEN IS A JEW!" at the top of the article I Have a Little Dreidel?) Bus stop (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(Done μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

How did you do it? Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

At the top of the vandalized article was a {{link}} to another article, which traced to another embedded article, to another embedded article, eventually to Template:JewishMusic which had the offending text. I deleted that text from the multi-embedded article. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The dreidel/marbles connection is actually part of Reed's essay, which was an early contribution to WP. But I am hoping for some independent confirmation of it. (I am loath to reproduce his entire essay, although he did give me permission to do so. People should read the link I provided in the first line and second sentence of this thread.) μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The essay answers the question:

In Jewish custom, one commemorates one's ancestors by re-enacting their practice. Francisco's Converso ancestors could not keep Jewish objects, such as spinning tops with Hebrew letters, since such objects would have immediately marked them as secret Jews. They played, instead, with marbles unstrung from a rosary. If a curious neighbor or servant wandered in, all he would see would be an accidentally broken rosary, and children helping to pick beads off the floor. Francisco is hiding his true self, and things are not what they seem.

The author is suggesting that some conversos / crypto-Jews (sometimes referred to as marranos, which is a perjorative term and should be avoided) adopted playing marbles as a seemingly innocent way of referencing the custom of playing dreidel on Chanukah, as mentioned by other editors, above. I don't know how common such a thing might have been among conversos, but pretty much any converso behaviour is rare today among Jews - (OR time) anecdotal evidence I've heard down the years suggests that some crypto behaviours, such as women lighting candles in a cupboard on a Friday persists, but among people who do not consider themselves Jewish. More information can be found in the links I've given. I've not seen the TV episode you mention, but from the scant information in the question, I'd guess it's simply a case of a kid who happens to be Jewish playing marbles, a fairly popular game in Victorian Britain for Jewish and non-Jewish kids, alike. See Marble_(toy)#History. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Marbles was still a very common children's game in London in the 1960s. It's normally a game for at least two players, but children are very good at working around problems like this; I recall as a child playing chess by myself a few times. Every child I knew had marbles in their toy box and boys would often carry them around in the pockets of their school shorts. Unusual ones would be the subject of playground swaps. You could buy a bag of a dozen glass ones (each with a coloured twist inside) for a shilling (5p) in Woolworths. I think that I'd have been rather surprised to be told that playing marbles was enacting a Jewish ritual. Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Iran and homosexuality

I have a question regarding homosexuality and Iran, is a person liable to the death sentence just for being gay or for having gay sex? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

See LGBT_rights_in_Iran#Capital_punishment. 'Being gay' is not forbidden in any country. Performing homosexual acts may be punishable by death however, as seems to be the case in Iran. - Lindert (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality in the Old World before the spread of Judaism and Christianity

It's a well-known fact that homosexuality was widespread in the Roman Empire. In fact, it is believed that some Roman emperors were gay. However, ever since Christianity spread, homosexuality has been a sensitive topic at least in the Western world. However, before the spread of Judaism and Christianity, just how widespread was homosexuality in the Old World (Europe, Asia and Africa), and what were the views of the different societies and religions at the time on it? And before the Abrahamic religions were founded, were there any major societies in the Old World or religions that frowned upon homosexuality? And what were the contemporary non-Abrahamic religion societies that frowned upon homosexuality in the Old World? I'm sure there's a Wikipedia article about these topics but I'm not so sure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual attraction or practice. As a bisexual person, I experience the attraction (and may engage in the practice) without possessing the orientation. Conversely, someone who is celibate but gay may possess the orientation and identification, but rarely experience the attraction and never engage in the practice.

Beyond that, it's crucial to note that the modern understanding of sexual orientation was devised by researchers and campaigners in the 19th century (Kertbeny, Ulrichs, Kraft-Ebbing &c). The classical world had no conception of orientation as we understand it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You should probably be cautious in assuming that people in ancient times who at least sometimes participated in male-male sex had a real "gay" self-identity in the modern sense. Most male-male relationships in Greco-Roman civilization fell into a specific middle-aged man and teenage boy pattern, which was not considered incompatible with heterosexual relationships. When St. Paul wanted to refer abstractly to those who did male homosexual sex (without getting involved with the specifics of the middle-aged man vs. teenage boy roles), he seemingly had to coin a new word on the spot ("arsenokoites"). Anyway, one reason why homosexuality was particularly disliked in the Old Testament seems to have been that a form of male prostitution was part of the ritual associated with a pagan polytheistic deity. Probably many ancient cultures were like many cultures described by anthropologists, which have certain rituals or roles (such as "third genders") which can involve homosexual sex, without really having a clear idea of gay identity as we would think of it today...AnonMoos (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen them, we have articles on history of homosexuality (with regional sections) history of human sexuality, and LGBT history. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

U.S military commander who - erroneously - believed that Israel couldn't withstand the Arabs alone prior to the upset that became the Six-Day War

Any ideas? It was around the time of the Baghdad Pact. Eisenikov (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of them? Needs more detail to disambiguate. —Tamfang (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure what you're referring to exactly. In 1967, the CIA believed that Israel would be able to defeat the surrounding Arab countries if attacked, saying that Israel could "defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts . . . or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth." Source = CIA

I haven't looked at the source enough, but I'm almost confident that the CIA also estimated that if Israel launched a preemptive strike against the buildup of Egyptian military force in the Sinai Peninsula after Egypt forced the peacekeeping force to leave, it would take them less days to win, while Israel would still be able to win had they not done this, but it would've taken more days (although a few days for a country with a small population can lead to significant civilian losses...)

Hope this helps! --Jethro B 23:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Found it, thanks for the extra information, though! My question was somewhat misguided. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFUSpolicy.html#11 Eisenikov (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Foreign language interpretation

Why is it on news reports when foreign language is contemporaneously interpreted with a voice-over, the interpretor always concludes slightly before the foreign speaker finishes speaking? Case in point. Ankh.Morpork 18:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If this happens, it is one indication that the translation is not happening in real-time but was dubbed over the footage. Voice-over translation explains a bit of the process as used for news broadcasts and this academic article discusses how sometimes translations are tailored to suit the show’s thesis or agenda. Taknaran (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Another reason could also be that a person, when answering a question spontaneously, uses a lot of fillers, such as 'umms' and 'ehhs', repeats what he has just said, or stops himself mid-sentence, to rephrase his point into a cogent sentence. The translator (assuming that the translation and dubbing was done between the interview and the boradcast) doesn't have to do this, but merely read the the translation. V85 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I once heard an anecdote told me by an EU translator in a bar in Brussels: he was waiting to take over from someone translating from German into English, and he heard him start a sentence, then pause, then a longer pause, then an anguished cry "The verb! Just say the frigging verb man!" (German is notorious for having the verb at the end of the sentence) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lovely story, Tammy, and one that's had many incarnations. I once heard Peter Ustinov telling it about an episode in the General Assembly of the UN, where the interpreter's long silence while waiting for the German Ambassador to say the verb caused various delegates to turn around to see if the interpreter needed medical help. He was indeed frustrated to the point of his brain exploding and his blood boiling, but was otherwise OK. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

TammyMoet -- Mark Twain was already joking about that in the 19th-century... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And A.C.Doyle: “Do you note the peculiar construction of the sentence – ‘This account of you we have from all quarters received.’ A Frenchman or Russian could not have written that. It is the German who is so uncourteous to his verbs.” (A Scandal in Bohemia) —Tamfang (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

How to get the details on the Romney-Ryan tax plan?

close pointy non-question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I tried this site: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/ but it doesn't work :( . Count Iblis (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Fake question. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (even when it's a good one). — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC) WP:Spoilsport (check later when I've written this up). Count Iblis (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC) No need to wait, ironically I did it three years ago: {{The Spoilsport Award}}. Who would have thought... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC) If you follow the link it amounts to a practical joke. This should probably just be deleted. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC) It's possible that he really is looking for those details, and didn't understand that the site he went to is a joke. In that case, let me point out that the Romney tax plan has a huge question mark in it, where he said, in his first debate with Obama, that he would eliminate $5 trillion in "loopholes used by the wealthy" to balance the budget. However, there don't actually seem to be $5 trillion in such loopholes. StuRat (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

List of most corrupt Congressmen

A political ad for a local US Congressional seat claims that the incumbent is on "the list of the most corrupt Congressmen". Is there such a list? Where can I find it? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Googling this term mostly leads to an annual list by the "watchdog group" "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington". It seems the latest edition was released about a month ago. 86.166.186.159 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, this is an unfair attack on our immaculate Congress. In fact, as Will Rogers once said, "We have the best Congress money can buy!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Define "corrupt". In addition to the CREW reference (see the list here), we have Category:American politicians convicted of crimes, which deals with both recent and historical crime in and outside of congress. Unlike the CREW list, ours only includes convicted politicians, rather than those merely suspected of criminal activity. The most amusing find for me in that list is that we have an entire subcategory, Category:Governors of Illinois convicted of crimes. I mean, wow. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No matter how "corrupt" is defined, and how any such list is compiled, it won't include those who haven't been caught yet. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of such things, I would love to see List of future Nobel-prize-winning discoveries, and of course List of start-up companies that will one day be worth billions of dollars. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they would be useful, so long as they were accurate and complete. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Techno-religion

Is there a name for such cults with fringe ideas like how cryonics/cold fusion/AI/or space travel will save humanity? This kind of cults seem to be a separate category for me, with a technology as the meaning of life, in the same way that Abrahamic religions have God.OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Transhumanism (and the associated technological singularity), while formally not a religion, has been described as the "rapture of the nerds". Technopaganism is a religion, but is less utopian and more spiritual. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a transhumanist who's probably part of the "cults" the OP is referring to, so sorry in advance for my bias.

First, are you looking specifically for fringe ideas? The last time I checked, neither AI nor space travel is a fringe idea; they are both reality. Cold fusion is fringe, but I doubt many of the nerds who identify as transhumanists would believe in it. It also isn't a fringe idea to believe that AI will save humanity, because in many ways, it already has. The modern world simply isn't possible without computers controlling every aspect of our lives, because humans simply aren't smart, fast, accurate, or patient enough to design a 22 nm processor with 1.4 billion 3D transistors, or align mechanical components to nanometer accuracy, or mass produce and mass inspect products at a rate of 100 per second, or simulate exactly how the 1 million components of a complicated system will behave under stress. As for space travel, you don't need to be a genius to realize that exponential economic growth is not possible on a finite planet. The only alternatives are to have the world economy stall and shrink--which is contrary to human nature and human ambition--or to expand to the 10^21 other solar systems in the visible universe.

Anyhow, in my experience, transhumanists are not "cultists" in the sense of being an organized group, having a leader, or having a common ideology. They don't believe that technology is the meaning of life or that it will save mankind in the same way that Christians seem to believe about Christ. Transhumanism is best described as "extreme optimism about and admiration of technology", not anything spiritual or religious. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Raëlism. Roger (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

When did the English monarchy lose their power?

When did the King/Queen of England become a mere figurehead? ScienceApe (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Power was lost throughout the 17th century. It wasn't, as has been suggested, on the restoration of Charles II. His brother, James II tried to emulate his father (and Louis XVI of France) and become an absolute monarch. he didn't succeed and lost his throne. William of Orange was offered the throne in his stead and Parliament began to take control. After the death of the last of the Stuarts, Queen Anne, the throne was handed to the Elector of Hanover who became George I and Parliament passed the Act of Settlement defining how the crown would descend from then. Throughout the 18th century, parliament as we now know it, with a Prime Minister and his Cabinet gradually became the norm and accepted. George III tried to influence his ministers, but by the time of his illness and the need for the Regency, followed by the reign of George IV parliament was completely in control and the monarch no more than a figurehead. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Quibble: the Hanoverian succession (1714) was a consequence of the Act of Settlement 1701. —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The transformation in England towards the modern constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom was gradual. You could say that the development of "Parliament" paralleled the growth of constraints on the monarch's pwoer. The Magna Carta is often pointed to as a symbol of the king's acceptance of such constraints. Chopping off the king's head may also have been an important event. Our article constitutional monarchy cites the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as establishing the modern constitutional monarchy, but of course the monarch's powers continued to shrink after that. It is still hard to say whether the Queen is a mere figurehead even today - our Constitution of the United Kingdom article points out that the Queen last made an active choice (on advice from her Privy Councillors) as to the identity of the Prime Minister in 1974, though the last veto of a ministerial appointment was in 1892, the last dismissal and appointment of an appointment against convention was in 1834, and the last actual withholding of royal assent to legislation was 1708, though it remained a possibility even in 1914. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The role of the Hanoverian Kings of Great Britain cannot be underestimated in the expansion of the power of Parliament at the expense of the Monarchy. George I of Great Britain spoke very little English, knew very little of the laws of Great Britain or the role of the Monarch within the British system and spent a significant portion (about 1/5th according to our article) in Germany in his role as Elector of Hanover. As a result, much of the administration of the Kingdom which had been managed from the King and his Court devolved to Robert Walpole who is widely regarded as the first Prime Minister of the Great Britain. George II of Great Britain continued his father's policy of non-intervention in British domestic policy, also splitting his time between Britain and Hanover. George III of the United Kingdom attempted to re-establish Royal Prerogative in the U.K., but had frequent struggles with his Prime Ministers and with his own Son, heir, and sometimes Regent (see British Regency). George IV of the United Kingdom took little active role in day-to-day politics when he finally ascended, spending most of his time fat and wasted in Windsor Castle; though he did periodically intervene where he had a strong opinion. By contrast William IV of the United Kingdom worked closely with his ministers early in his career, though he is noted as the last Monarch to appoint a Prime Minister in opposition to the will of Parliament. From Queen Victoria onwards, the British Monarch undoubtedly took a back seat to Parliament in terms of power in the UK. --Jayron32 03:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's important to note that actually the monarch hasn't lost their power. In most cases, the powers that have been available to the crown for centuries are still available, but are not used. Interestingly, this is one of the arguments used by monarchists in favour of keeping the royal family - that it's better to have a royal family with powers they don't use than a dictator with powers they do use.

As for the date when all this happened, since there hasn't been a formal law passed (like there was in Sweden, for instance) it's difficult to put an exact timeframe on it. But how about two possibilities: (1) 14th December 1861, when Prince Albert died and Queen Victoria retired almost completely from public and political life. Before then she had been (relatively) interested and engaged in politics. Her withdrawal set a precedent that future politicians would want to preserve. (2) 16th November 1936, the day on which Edward VIII told Stanley Baldwin, the Prime Minister of the day, of his intention to marry Wallis Simpson. Baldwin's refusal to accept Edward's decision precipitated the abdication crisis and showed that the government had the power to refuse a monarch's right to rule. Powers, once removed, are not easily regained. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, only in the sense that a) Parliament could feasibly declare Britain an absolute Monarchy again tomorrow and relinquish all control over the day-to-day operation of the nation back to the Monarch at any time and b) That if the Monarch actually started to exert the little bit of power that it still had, what Parliament would likely do is abolish it. If you acknowledge a) as a realistic proposition and b) as an unlikely one then you may be correct. Having a "power" one can never actually practically "use" is not a power. Parliament established it's authority to do whatever the heck it wants with regards to the Monarch several times, most recently during the Glorious Revolution, when it was established that the Monarch rules/reigns at the pleasure of Parliament, and not the other way around. Before that, the last king that tried to assert their power lost his head over the matter. I'd say that also settled it. --Jayron32 11:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the value of the Reserve Powers is that they can be used in an emergency, if for any reason Parliament and the Government are unable to operate. Perhaps the only valid example of this happening was the role of the Spanish monarch in the 23-F coup. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Spain =/= U.K. --Jayron32 13:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is a constitutional monarchy. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bats and gorillas are both mammals, but they don't exactly work in the same way, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 17:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, also guinea pigs and humans. However, should we in the UK ever be subjected to a military coup (unlikely I know, but consider the Harold Wilson conspiracy theories), then there might be some similarity. Alansplodge (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Been there, done that. --Jayron32 23:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have always assumed that the Monarchy retains a sort of legitimacy that, were, say, a hostile EU to "appoint' a replacement for the PM, and the Queen to go on the radio and call for open resistance, her word would be heeded much more so than if the Chief Justice of the US were to say the President was to be arrested on sight. Am I mistaken? μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, inosofar as you are a thousand steps removed from likely events, why not? Since we're writing fiction here at this point, you can decide exactly how it would play out. --Jayron32 23:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any idea what "... a hostile EU to "appoint' a replacement for the PM ..." means. But I'm afraid to ask for clarification. I will say that each nation of the European Union is sovereign and conducts its own internal affairs according to its own laws. The EU purporting to appoint a British PM seems to make as much sense as a clockwork banana crowning itself pope. But that's just me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I though there had been a current of thought recently that the new Italian and Greek technocratic premiers were in effect forced on their respective countries by threats to withhold loans needed by the two countries, and/or act (or fail to act) so that their borrowing rates became greater than bearable. All in all, from the perspective of an embattled Greek or Italian, one might perceive a hostile EU appointing. Russia Today (bless; it never disappoints) says 'EU like an abusive relationship, eurocrats pulled off autocratic coup'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Gujarat

I found this article from something that was linked by a discussion over at WP:ANI. It leaves me very confused — why would Germany and the UK even consider engaging in foreign relations with Modi's government? Why wouldn't they just go through New Delhi for all of their foreign relations? Note that I've never heard of Modi before; perhaps there's a very big issue that I didn't notice in his article and that I couldn't find through a Google search. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is basically about business relationships, not diplomatic relationships. Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing to note is that India is a federal state (sadly Federalism in India is pretty lacking), and as such the States and territories of India enjoy a limited sort of sovereignty (though the article notes that the Federalism is similar to Canada, in that not-enumerated are reserved for the National government, and unlike the U.S., where not-enumerated powers are reserved for the States). I am unsure of how this extends to the relations between individual Indian states with foreign powers, but the above news article makes it seem as though some sorts of limited relations do exist between individual states and foreign governments, though as Looie notes, this may be primarily commercial in nature. --Jayron32 04:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are sizeable Gujerati populations in Britain's major cities, and it would make sense to have some sort of dedicated office set up in Gujarat to cater for them. In particular, Gujaratis seem to be indomitable entrepreneurs, and one would have thought that a country wishing to encourage business would wish to have excellent community relations with this community. See here. I don't know if the Modi in the original question is Lalit Modi, but he is a very influential person indeed in the world of cricket, and that makes him important to England at least. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Also of note, and probably related is the UK Trade & Investment Office, which would likely work with the Government of Gujarat. for all of the reasons you note. --Jayron32 18:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the person in question is Narendra Modi. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And the Modi is Narendra Modi, the chief minister of the State of Gujarat (equivalent of U.S. Governor or Canadian Premier). --Jayron32 18:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

October 17

Out of state discrimination laws in the US (part 2)

Looking at the previous thread on the subject, I want to ask a couple more general question. There are many companies that are incorporated in one state but have employees physically located in another. Have there been any cases in which a person (successfully or otherwise) sued their employer for violations of labor or other laws in the state of incorporation, rather than the state the employee is physically located in? Is there a general legal principle on how such cases are decided? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To a certain extent there might be jurisdiction shopping involved. What will really matter is the specific act. If something happened in your home state that was a local issue, the local law will apply. It would only be if there were some sort of higher level corporate malfeasance, say (in my imagination as a layman) a policy decision from the home office not to address a manager transferred from another office with a known problem, that there might be a case under that state's jurisdiction. Your lawyer would have to argue that before a judge to keep him from dismissing it as having no standing (law) in that court. It will really depend on the specifics and, since it will be a civil case, whom you are suing for what. The defendants are also likely to argue to the presiding judge that the case should be handled locally, assuming allowing it to proceed elsewhere isn't to their advantage. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The US Constitution makes the federal courts available to people who are suing residents of other states, and obviously all state courts are open to their residents who wish to sue others who are present in those courts' jurisdictions. I don't expect that a court in the company's home state would listen to a suit regarding actions in another state, but the availability of both federal and state courts (and the consequent jurisdiction shopping that Medeis mentions) is the general legal principle. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Federal jurisdiction (United States), Federal courts can take cases under state laws if the parties are residents of different states and the question involves damages meeting a certain threshold, currently $75,000 according to federal law. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I forgot about there being a minimum amount in question; you can't take your out-of-state company to federal court just because it negligently caused you to lose $5 somehow. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

A Federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction will apply the substantive laws of the state in which the court sits. That in turn means they'll look to the state's choice of law provisions to see which state's laws apply. I think most state courts will also entertain suits from a non resident against a resident business, with some possible caveats. It varies quite a bit, but that's not uncommon at all. Shadowjams (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

People who look extremely similar

Which people look extremely similar? And please limit it to famous/notable people in the same field (politics, et cetera).

I know of William McKinley and Mark Hanna and of Elizabeth Warren and Michele Alliot-Marie. Futurist110 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are some ideas at Look-alike. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do a Google search for the phrase "Separated at birth" and you'll get a shit load of websites dedicated to this subject. Two that I can think of that oddly look alike from American football is Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday and former New York Giants center Shaun O'Hara. That the two snapped footballs to the Manning Brothers for several years has been brought up, given their similar appearance. See Jeff Saturday and Shaun O'Hara. This google search turns up a few notable sports journalists who have noted the striking similarity in appearance, including Adam Schefter and the Bleacher Report. --Jayron32 03:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

They say that the Mwanza Flat Headed Agama and Spiderman were separated at birth. Sources = [15] --Jethro B 03:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Geena Davis and Tanya Memme come to mind. (For more than one reason.) Mark Twain and Kurt Vonnegut. Karl Malden and Richard Herd. There was a short book series a few decades back with lookalikes, some of them whimsical, for example Mick Jagger and Don Knotts' character "Mr. Limpit". One of my early efforts here was to try to create a page called "Separated at Birth", but it was shot down as original research. I bet it could be done now, with strict sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In the news here in the UK: Gary McKinnon and Benedict Cumberbatch - several celebrities have been joking about the resemblance on Twitter in the past 24 hours. (Obviously they are in different lines of work, but Cumberbatch is famous for portraying social misfit and investigative genius Sherlock Holmes, and recently also portrayed maverick statistical expert Christopher Tietjens in Parade's End.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I hear Benedict Cumberbatch looks an aweful lot like Bandersnatch Cummerbund. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Kofi Annan tells a good story about how he was on holiday once in an isolated location, where he thought he would be away from the public eye. But an autograph hunter came up to him and said "I really admire your work, Mr Freeman." Not wanting to spoil the guy's day, Annan signed the autograph "Morgan Freeman". --Viennese Waltz 10:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Another one. At a White House reception in honour of Duke Ellington's 70th birthday on 29 April 1969, Richard Nixon mistook Cab Calloway for Ellington and warmly congratulated him on his 'birthday'. Not sure what Cab said in return. Maybe he sang "Minnie the Moocher" in Mood Indigo. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tina Fey did a near perfect impersonation of Sarah Palin (you might say one is in entertainment and the other in politics, but those fields seems to overlap considerably, at least in this case). StuRat (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Jeremy London and Jason London are two actors who look eerily alike. And for the longest time I thought Jonathan Togo from CSI Miami and Eric Szmanda from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation were the same person. Angr (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It gets eerier: Jeremy and Jason were born on exactly the same day, and not only that, in exactly the same place. Incredible! Another feather in the cap for numerology and astrology. (Cough) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Totally Looks Like has a lot of these, though they're not all celebrities (or even humans) there. Another pair of actors I thought were the same person for a long time were Neil Patrick Harris and Christopher Masterson. Angr (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The girl from CSI (er, not the main one) looks a lot like Kelly Clarkson. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I had never heard of Kelly Clarkson, but having now seen a picture of her, I wonder if by "the girl from CSI (er, not the main one)" you mean Anna Belknap from CSI: NY. Angr (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Me and Brad Pitt, common mistake. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Paul Ryan a member of The Atlas Society?

Paul Ryan has made at least one speech at The Atlas Society where he spoke about his love for her philosophy. Is he a member of the society? Is he a former member? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely, not that Ryan would be intellectually sympathetic to the society, but that he could have been a member without it being made public. Being an Objectivist does not play well with the American voting public: liberals dislike the reverse communism, and conservatives dislike the atheism. Ryan is smart enough a politician to avoid formal ties with such a group, and the election is close enough that President Obama or his allies would have made this known if it were the case. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

this talks about that speech, but doesn't answer your question. I am amused to note that Ryan called Rand's works "required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff", which I would call a well-deserved punishment. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, just googling paul ryan ayn rand will give you a few very useful pieces (I like the top 3) on the relationship between Ryan and Rand's philosophy. While his admiration for that philosophy has been consistent, so have been his attempts to distance himself from it in certain ways. So again, I think it's very unlikely he's a member of the society. By the way, at least one of those results describes the society as a think tank, so its membership may be more professional researchers rather than anyone who adheres to Objectivism. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's all rather obvious, isn't it? Rand Paul, Ayn Rand, Anne Rice, Ian Rankin, Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, RuPaul, Pope John Paul II ? It doesn't take rocket science to figure out what's going on here. Wake up and vote before it's too late, people! μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram for "My ultimate Ayn Rand porn." Coincidence?209.131.76.183 (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan is the vampire love child of Pope John Paul II and RuPaul?

Yes, well, here's the proof. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Global companies

Why is it that large global companies such as CocaCola have significantly different product ranges worldwide and they don't share their products? For example, Coca Cola USA has products CocaCola UK don't produce and they don't share it with them. Clover345 (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Coca cola products are often directed at American consumers' unique eating habits. Ankh.Morpork 11:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The primary consideration when deciding what products to sell where is what products you think people want to buy where. Tastes vary from country to country (based largely on what people are used to, I think). --Tango (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

But with CocaCola products, surely this is not really a significant point of consideration as most of their products are sweet fizzy drinks? Clover345 (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If Americans don't particularly want to buy the kinds of sweet fizzy drinks that Italians like, what would it benefit Coca Cola to sell the same sorts of drinks in both places? --Jayron32 11:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Some products are specifically targeted at a particular market such as its tea and coffee products. In Japan, Coca Cola have focused on the tea market and their Marocha Green Tea is a highly popular product. Another example of regional focus would be Kvass sold primarily in Russia. Also, the branding of the products varies according to the regional differences. While fruit juices in the US and Europe are sold under the Minute Maid and Disney juices brand names, similar products are sold as Qoo in Asia, Kapo in Latin America and Bibo in Africa. Also, Coca Cola have also purchased companies that operate on a national scale. e.g Kola Inglesa dominates the Peruvian market because that is where it was originally produced. Ankh.Morpork 11:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen Disney branded fruit juices in Europe. Astronaut (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the products were eventually discontinued. I was citing it as Winnie The Pooh Roo Juice was an obvious example of targeted branding.Ankh.Morpork 13:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Even Coca Cola itself is made differently in different countries. I live in the UK and enjoy Diet Coke, but the variety they sell in Europe is far too sacharriny for my tastebuds. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To answer the general Q, let's list reasons to sell the same product under the same brand worldwide:

A) Less expensive to only design, produce, and market a single product. How much this is a factor will vary by product. For something with minimal development costs, like soft drinks, it's not much of a factor. For something with huge development costs, like commercial aircraft, having a significantly different model for sale in each nation would be impractical.

B) Provides more flexibility. If demand is higher than production in one nation, it's then easy to bring in product from other nations with overcapacity.

Now let's list reasons to have different products:

1) They may have acquired local companies, which already have a customer base for their product. Continuing to sell that product may also generate less resentment, than, say, if you fire everyone and then try to sell your own imported product there, instead. The local government may also have laws to prevent this type of thing.

2) As mentioned previously, different tastes exist in different places. In addition, there may be cultural or religious taboos, like not eating pork in certain places.

3) There can also be differences in infrastructure. A different type of car is appropriate for a place where gasoline/petrol is cheap, distances are long, and highways are straight and level, than a place with high fuel prices, and narrow, twisting, hilly roads.

4) Local laws may require a different product. For example, labeling requirements and safety regulations may vary. It is sometimes possible to make a single product for the most stringent requirements, but not always, as laws may be incompatible, or such a product may be too expensive to compete in nations lacking the strict laws.

5) Language differences also require different labeling, product names, etc. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Is longevity hereditary?

I ask this because my grandfather (1845 – 1940) lived up to 95 while my father (1895 – 1955) died at 60. Is longevity hereditary? Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, before you answer the question, you'd need a sample size greater than one! This google search turns up some promising leads for study. --Jayron32 11:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The first serious-looking article that I found says; "While most studies confirm the prior belief on the existence of an intergenerational correlation in mortality, they do not have the required data to quantify the relationship in a statistically reliable way, let alone study how this relationship changes with the father’s age at death." The Hebrew University of Jerusalem LONGEVITY ACROSS GENERATIONS . Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason of death is also relevant. If one died in an accident you can stop thinking about genetics. Groupask (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Statistically, over a large sample maybe not. Risk aversion, impulsiveness, etc. could all have a hereditary component. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You also need to live long enough to get hit by the car. Changing the probability of dying by one cause changes the probabilities of dying by every other cause because it changes the amount of time you are exposed to that risk. --Tango (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is definitely a hereditary component to longevity - plenty of studies have shown that. However, there are so many other factors and also so much randomness that it's pretty meaningless to try and apply it to individuals. On average, people with long-lived parents will live longer, but you need a very large number of people before the other factors start to average out. --Tango (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

But one thing that's definitely applicable to individuals is parenthood (or lack thereof). If your parents didn't have any children, then neither will you. You can bet your (haunted) house on it.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure Jack? I got banned from a "freethinking" website where the moderator claimed that according to natural selection every individual must be happy according to evolution. I told him that according to evolution, the only thing one's ancestors must have been is parents. I was called a collectivist because of that argument. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Freethinking indeed: the moderator clearly did not feel bound by such things as conventional meanings of words. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know what "according to natural selection every individual must be happy according to evolution" means. But I'm afraid to ask for clarification. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What age did your grandmother reach? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Web-site answering questions

Which web-sites out there do answer questions? I'm not searching for a user to user site, but more of a traditional kind like in the past, with "Dear reader, ..." . I want something with high standards in writing. Groupask (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why ask here ;) ? But seriously, what type of questions do you have in mind? That might help us direct somewhere suitable to your needs. Mingmingla (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you want something like Dear Abby. The reality is, there are far more people with questions than those willing to give researched, high quality, well written answers, for free. So, if you want answers for free, you'll have to post at a site like this, and take your chances on the responses you get. Yes, many may have poor grammar and spelling, or be off-topic, or jokes, but, with any luck, there will be good answers mixed in, too. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but also with serious questions. I don't necessarily want my questions answered, just interesting questions about science, history, humanities. The straight dope is an option. Groupask (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that you'd find, with a site like that, that most questions remain unanswered. However, you can read through answers to other question. HowStuffWorks is a good one. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would definitely recommend The Straight Dope and the Straight Dope Message Boards http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/. SDMB has been around much longer than Wikipedia (I was active there in the 1990s) and though it has been a few years since I was active, IIRC it has a culture of being fairly well researched and thoughtful. Other sites like "Yahoo Answers" and "Wiki Answers" are a total crapshoot. --Jayron32 19:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Google answers used to be really good, because the askers would pay so the answerers tried to come up with the best answer - thorough and exactly what was asked for. It got closed down but if you are simply looking to read interesting questions and answers the archive is still readable. http://answers.google.com/answers/ --184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Try physics forums. manya (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Stackexchange. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

For questions on Internet rumors, there's Snopes.com. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Married young in Victorian England?

I'm doing a little research into my great-grandparents. They are both listed in the census taken on 2 April 1911, with their ages and children (one of whom is my late grandmother). The funny thing is, when I try to find their date of marriage the obvious record suggests a marriage when my great-grandmother was only 15 years old. Would such a thing have been possible in 1890's England (maybe if she was pregnant)? Of course, maybe I have the wrong marriage record or maybe there are errors in the way in which their names are recorded, or in the 1911 census data, but I am intrigued by the possibility of marriage at such a young age in Victorian society or possible reactions of parents to an impending child being born out of wedlock. Astronaut (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Is her birthdate known from records other than the census? My experience is more with the US than the UK or Commonwealth census, but census takers often carelessly put down an age that was a few years off, or the person reporting their age would sometimes make themselves younger for vanity, or older to avoid revealing that they had a child at an extremely young age, or the censustaker got their info from a neighbor who was guessing about details. I've seen cases where a woman married very young, but the first known child came years later, and have speculated that she might have married due to a young pregnancy but the first baby was a miscarriage or stillbirth. Many records were just sloppy. Edison (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 had raised the age of consent to 16 - so it would have been illegal to marry a 15-year-old in the 1890s.

However, I have recently been doing quite a lot of research on these censuses, and I'm familiar with their quirks. Unlike prior censuses, to which Edison's remarks about the enumerators would apply, the 1911 census was filled in by householders wherever possible. This reflects the vastly increased levels of literacy that had been achieved by that date. Consequently, if the census sheet is signed by the head of the household (rather than just with an X), the ages given may be taken as the ages that that person believed the members of the household truly were.

The census was taken on 2 April 1911. So make sure, in your calculations, that you allow for your great-grandmother's birthday to be as early as 3 April. Conversely, allow for the marriage to be as late as possible in the quarter it's reported for. (Obviously, if you order the certificate from the GRO (£9.25), you'll get the exact date, as well as her alleged age at the time.) If her name is sufficiently distinctive, you may be able to get hold of her birth certificate, or a baptism record, which will give you a precise indication of when she was born. The marriage certificate will also mention her father's name and occupation, which is a great help in finding births, baptisms, and censuses taken during the subject's childhood.

If you want, I could try researching your question directly, if we are able to arrange a way of passing personal information. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Currently, people in England and Scotland need to be at least 16 to marry with parental consent, 18 without. I could not find any information on England (though edit-conflicting Alex, above, did), but apparently in Scotland, men age 14 and girls age 12 could marry without parental consent until 1929. And young couples used to flee to Gretna Green to take advantage of these lax laws. So marrying at 15 does not seem to be implausible for the UK. See Marriage in Scotland. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article about the 1885 Act strongly implies (see 'Repeal') that it applied to the entire United Kingdom, not just to England and Wales (as Hardwicke's Act of 1753 had done). In any case, the principal reason for elopement to Gretna Green was to escape the Hardwicke Act's requirement for parental consent for under-21s. I don't believe that the contracting of marriages which would be illegal in England and Wales on account of the bride's age was a major motivator for the Gretna Green Dash; nor do I think that such would have been legal by the 1890s. The 'any witness' form of marriage allowed in Scotland would not have circumvented the law on the age of consent. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Our article Marriage_in_Scotland#Border_marriages says However in Scotland it was possible for boys to get married at 14 years and girls at 12 years without parental consent [...] In 1856 Scottish law was changed to require 21 days' residence for marriage, and since 1929 both parties have had to be at least 16 years old (though there is still no parental consent needed). Looking over the 1885 Act, it talks about "unlawfully and carnally know"ing girls under the age of 14 and 17. As far as I can tell, this does not affect lawful marriages. The age of consent is not necessarily the same (or lower) than the age of marriage. Indeed, apparently one of the points brought against the 1885 act was a possible conflict with lower legal ages for marriage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's somewhat ironic that Google presents me with a dating ad sporting an Asian women that looks borderline legal under the 1885 act on the page that has the text: [16]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Depending on what were you searching for, Google spots your intentions, and show ads that you would like to see. I won't ask what it is. 83.60.246.149 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are several references on the net to the 1763 Marriage Act in England, in which " minimum age of marriage was fixed at 16. Prior to this date, the church accepted the marriage of girls aged 12 or more and boys aged 14 or more. In addition, a dispensation on licence could be obtained from a bishop which allowed marriage at a younger age."[17] Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

How did Google get bigger than Stanford (moneywise) when Stanford owned the Page Rank patent?

The Page Rank algorithm was assigned to Stanford. Before Page and Google et al were big and had money and an army of lawyers, how did they get Stanford to give them such a favorable exclusive rights license that would allow them to reach financial escape velocity when, at that early moment, with the patent assigned to them, Stanford had all the cards? Benevolence? Where can I read (if it's available) how the license deal was negotiated? Peter Michner (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Rank is only a very small part of Google, and search engines used to come and go every few months. Nobody could foresee the success of Google, and a more restrictive license may well have stopped Google cold, leaving Stanford with no money at all. Moreover, Page and Brin, as the actual inventors, were in a much better position than anybody else to evaluate (and utilize) the patent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also important to remember that Google's search engine function is something of a loss leader; its main job is to get your eyes on its ads. Search alone doesn't make any money for Google; that the search directs viewers to target ads does make money. Google has also branched out considerably into many tech fields entirely unrelated to search engines at all. It is a multi-service company with its fingers in many pies. The search engine gave it the initial leg up, but where Google has flourish where others have failed is largely Google's ability to grow outside of the search engine market. Google's story is basically one of leverage, using its search engine technology to build itself into a business based on actual money making ventures (i.e. all the non-search stuff they do). --Jayron32 17:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. With hindsight, PageRank is clearly a winning idea and Google's founders have turned out to be the kind of people who can transition successfully from academia to a profitable business. Technology-heavy universities like Stanford, MIT, and Cambridge are always spawning startups like Google, with staff and students and IP that came from the university. So they have an office of IP licencing, who frankly guess how much to charge, or what proportion of the stock of a new company they can ask for. I defy anyone to sit in an office all day and read scientific papers and patents and really have a confident idea of how much that invention is, or could reasonably be, worth, and so how much to charge for it. For a startup, usually all they can ask for is stock (because the company has no cash), and owning stock means they don't end up looking super-stupid in the off-chance a company soars (that they only made $336M is because they didn't hold on to the stock for longer). 99%+ of technology startups crater, and the very few people who seem to have a knack at distinguishing which won't are almost always living on a yacht somewhere. Remember also that angel investors and VCs are very thorough about finding details of what they're buying into and how it could possibly be encumbered - they'd run a mile from a Google which only had say a 3 year licence on patents on its core technology. Stanford, being experienced at this kind of thing, knows they can't write terms that would drive off such investors, as they'd just strangle the startup at birth and kill their own chance seeing returns from it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Perverted Justice (moved from Science Refdesk)

[moved from [18]] - Wnt (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I was reading the wikipedia perverted justice article and Im confused as to how they convicted these people if the decoy was actually over 18? It even says in the article

"The father of a man arrested in a July 2006 sting by Perverted-Justice has appeared before a Georgia Superior Court judge to seek an arrest warrant for Von Erck, alleging that Von Erck solicited the commission of a felony from the man.[77][78] The judge found that probable cause existed to believe Von Erck impersonated a girl and solicited the man with the intent for him to commit a felony, but declined to issue the warrant because when the act occurred, there was no actual girl and thus no crime occurred.[77] The act of soliciting a felony is itself a felony.[78] Attorney Gary Gerrard filed an appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals, alleging that under Georgia law, solicitation is a felony whether or not a crime occurred.[79] That appeal was ultimately rejected.[80]"

Something dosent add up.--Wrk678 (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The law is often explicitly written so that such stings can result in convictions. It sounds like that wasn't the case in Georgia, but it may well be the case in other states. There may be a specific offence of attempting to sollicit that says it is the age the offender thinks the person is rather than their actual age. Or it may just be a matter of how attempted offences are defined in that jurisdiction. --Tango (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The legal term is Entrapment, and "sting" operations get very dicey when it comes to entrapment. --Jayron32 17:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out, however, that Entrapment explicitly applies to law enforcement officers (in the United States). And in fact, the third sentence of our article on entrapment reads "However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime," which is usually how law enforcement skirts around these issue with Perveted Justice. Come on sinebot, where were you.Livewireo (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is dicey, which is to say that it isn't always clear cut. First of all, courts have generally recognized that unsworn citizens, when working at the explicit aid of law enforcement, are considered to have been "deputized" and are effectively law enforcement themselves. That is, law enforcement departments can't summarily get around restrictions placed on their operation by outsourcing questionable activities to non-law enforcement personnel. If someone is performing an investigation in cooperation with, or at the behest of, law enforcement, they are held to the same standards as the sworn officers. Secondly, entrapment is fuzzy around the edges, and this is one of those edges. There is no bright line between "gives someone the idea to commit a crime" and "provides a favorable opportunity to commit the crime". --Jayron32 19:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the guy who was trying to get Von Erck arrested in the quoted section above was convicted, so how is that possible if a judge says "there was no actual girl and thus no crime occurred." ?--Wrk678 (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Female head of state and head of government

Was the period when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK and Elizabeth II was Queen the first time in history that a country in which the head of state and the head of government were two different people had women in both those roles? Has it happened since? Please note I'm not asking about the situation where the head of state and head of government are the same person, only the situation where they are two different people. Angr (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth is the monarch of several of the members of the Commonwealth of Nations, some of whom who have had female heads of government during her reign (Indira Ghandi, for example). Does that count? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but not for that example, since India was a republic with a president while Indira Gandhi was PM. (To be precise, India had a series of male presidents and acting presidents during Indira Gandhi's PM-ship.) But her article led me to Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who was PM of Ceylon while Elizabeth was its monarch, and who was also the world's first female head of government, so there can't have been another occurrence before her. So now only the second part of my question remains: has it happened again since Thatcher/Elizabeth? Iceland has had a female president and a female PM, but not at the same time. Angr (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion further up this page about a related topic ("Four top dogs..."). The short answer to your last question is "yes". Finland had a female president and PM simultaneously not long ago, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Queen Elizabeth has never been the Head of State of India. That role has been taken by the President of India since 1950. See List of Presidents of India. None were women during Indira Gandhi's administration. As far as answering the question, the OP could cross reference List of elected or appointed female heads of government with List of elected or appointed female heads of state and known Female hereditary monarchs, which are fairly easy to keep track of. The answer is that the pairing that predates Thatcher & Elizabeth II was in 1960, with Sirimavo Bandaranaike as Prime Minister of Ceylon and Elizabeth II who was Queen of Ceylon at the time. --Jayron32 21:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I see Finland had the situation twice. So we have Elizabeth/Bandaranaike in Ceylon (as was), Elizabeth/Thatcher in the UK, and Halonen/Jäätteenmäki and later Halonen/Kiviniemi in Finland. Any others? Angr (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just found Margrethe II/Thorning-Schmidt in Denmark, which is in effect right now. Angr (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

As is Elizabeth II and two of her realms: Jamaica (Portia Simpson-Miller) and Australia (Julia Gillard) currently. --Jayron32 21:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec x 2) It has certainly happened since.

• Chandrika Kumaratunga became Prime Minister of Sri Lanka in August 1994. In November she was elected President, and she appointed her mother Sirimavo Bandaranaike as Prime Minister. This was Bandaranaike’s third time as PM; she had become the world’s first female head of government in 1960 (when Sri Lanka was Ceylon and still a Commonwealth Realm), following the assassination of her Prime Minister husband. A real family affair.
• a number of Commonwealth countries have had female governors-general and female prime ministers, although not all at the same time. As discussed here recently (see "The 4 top dogs are ladies"), in 2005-06 New Zealand had females simultaneously as Queen, Governor-General, Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament; and since very recently Australia has had the same. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And someone redlinked by the rather female-sounding (and delightfully multicultural) name of Lucinda da Costa Gomez-Matheeuws was apparently very briefly PM of the Netherlands Antilles while the monarch was Juliana. Angr (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Elizabeth/Kim Campbell would qualify, as well. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• So it seems it's not that uncommon anymore. But were the two occasions in Finland the only time both women were elected to their positions, rather than the head of state being a monarch or (if you want to consider governors-general heads of state) being appointed? Angr (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No, see above. The third term of Sirimavo Bandaranaike as Prime Minister of Sri Lanka was during the presidency of her daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga. --Jayron32 01:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Margrethe II of Denmark was "sort of elected" as future head of state in the Danish constitutional and electoral age referendum, 1953 where female monarchs became possible. She was 13 at the time but a lot more popular than her uncle Knud, Hereditary Prince of Denmark who was heir presumptive. Without the constitutional change, Knud and his son (who was also 13 in 1953) would have become successive kings since 1972. The unpopularity of both of them was a significant cause for holding the referendum and getting it passed. Margrethe II has been a popular head of state since 1972. Helle Thorning-Schmidt became prime minister in 2011. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland

If the eldest child of Prince William and Duchess Kate is a girl, will the Scottish titles of the heir apparent be held in abeyance until such a time as there is a male heir apparent to the throne, perhaps a generation later? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, those titles are those of the Duke of Cambridge's father, so they're not going to be bestowed on anyone else for a bit. Secondly, the situation changes depending on whether a new Act of Succession is passed. As CHOGM recently approved such a move in principle, it's highly likely. This is therefore the assumption under which I'm answering this question. (If there's no new Act of Succession by the time the Duke of Cambridge is King, the short answer to your question is "yes".)

As with the very similar recent question about the Duchy of Cornwall, the answer has to be: the Act of Parliament and Letters Patent enabling the change to the law of succession will spell this out, because the government and the Crown employ people who know this stuff much better than we do. I am, however, reminded that the Electress Sophia petitioned Queen Anne to be created Princess of Wales in her own right, and was refused. No matter how strong the presumption, the heir presumptive does not get the titles of the heir apparent. However, I think it highly likely that the succession to all the royal titles will be strictly equalised in the event of any new Act of Succession. The dissolution of the Union might occur before that, though, in which case the Scottish titles, dignities and privileges of the monarch and their heirs will be up for negotiation anyway. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It'll be a LONG time before that becomes an issue, and indeed, 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms has not passed yet, so no, they would not. As of right now, if the eldest child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge is a girl, she'll just be an (untitled) princess, and when and if William becomes king, she'll just be the heir presumptive, presuming no changes to the law and no sons are born to William. When and if William becomes King, if at that time his eldest daughter is heir apparent, because of the proposed changes actually passing, according to Duke_of_Rothesay#Legal_basis, the title just won't exist during that time period. It is simply conferred automatically on the eldest son of the reigning monarch. If there is no son, the title has no holder. Presumably, the lesser included titles follow the same rules. --Jayron32 22:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, William can reasonably expect to become monarch about 30 years from now. His as yet unborn eldest child, in about 65 years. That's a long time for gossip mags to be twitteringly and gushingly grooming them for greatness (while relatively ignoring the actual heir, Charles, Prince of Wales), -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Although if he lives as long as his grandmother, it'll be nearly 40 years before William acceeds. Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"He" being Charles and "his grandmother" being Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Just clarifying. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - it made sense to me anyway ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sense, yes. Just that it could easily have been read as entirely about William, the grandmother being a reference to the current Queen, who's 86 and going strong. Until you do the maths, and realise that doesn't work, so the first part must have been about Charles and his grandmother, not William and his. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not one of my most lucid posts; thanks for disentangling it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"When and if William becomes King, if at that time his eldest daughter is heir apparent, because of the proposed changes actually passing, according to Duke_of_Rothesay#Legal_basis, the title just won't exist during that time period. It is simply conferred automatically on the eldest son of the reigning monarch. If there is no son, the title has no holder." However, having a daughter first does not prevent a person from having a son afterwards. William's heir apparent could be his daughter, but he could also have a son. I don't think the title passes to "the eldest son who is also heir apparent". It's much more likely that it passes simply to the eldest son. Therefore, the title could be conferred automatically on the eldest son who is not the heir apparent, which leads to a number of issues. Surtsicna (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Or Parliament could just change the rules to suit. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Out of general curiosity, what's taking so long to pass the changes as proposed by the CHOGM. I realize we're talking about a dozen or so countries, but you'd think they want to make the change before William has a kid. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What's the rush? Her Maj is still alive and kicking. William's pater is still next in line, and he's a bloke. And after him, there's another bloke waiting before we need worry about any girlies coming to the throne. --Dweller (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, there's the argument that it wouldn't be proper if the succession law changes changed somebody's actual status. Changing the potential order of yet unborn children is one thing, but to make an actual living person (e.g. Prince Carl Philip of Sweden) lose his position in line to his elder sister isn't cool. To avoid things like that, Norway had to add an extra rule about people being born between 1971 and 1990 (see Line of succession to the Norwegian throne.) So, there isn't much rush, but it would be easier for everybody if things were done decently soon, in case the duchess first bears a daugher and then a son. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

October 18

Purpose of books on table in House of Reps

In the Australian House of Reps there's a bunch of books on the centre table.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/may-abbott-continue-says-gillard-20121016-27pm7.html

Do those books serve an actual purpose or are they there to make the place look more authoritative? Surely the clerks would have those records on a laptop?

101.169.85.83 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

[19] - the best I can find - suggest that in the UK they're Hansard and books of parliamentary rules, such as, presumably, Erskine May. There is a cite, but to a defunct PDF location. I think we can take it that they're mainly decorative. Oz mirrors the UK, and as it turns out, visa versa ... the UK dispatch boxes came from down-under. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tagishsimon. 101.169.85.83 (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the answer from the horse's mouth. As a long time observer of our Parliament in practice, I can't remember seeing anyone actually consulting those books. That's not to say they don't, though. Sometimes it is still easier and quicker to consult a familiar book than hunt through various computer links and breadcrumbs to get what you want. For example, if I wanted to check out some clause in the Constitution, I'd go straight to the book in my personal library rather than to any online copy thereof. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Red republicans?

Do US Americans find it strange that red is the official color of republicans? 83.52.248.109 (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not an answer, but see Red states and blue states for a (sort of) explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that it's the "official color of Republicans" but rather the media-imposed shorthand for Republicans since 2000 (before 2000, the only real association between Republicans and red was the preferred color of Nancy Reagan's dresses). The thing is, that Red and Blue are the only two active colors available in the patriotic American palette of red, white, and blue, and if Red were assigned to the Democratic party, then this would give rise to all kinds of snickering and innuendo, so it has to be the other way around (even if this is opposite to UK political color symbolism). AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

But the republicans would have a vested interest in being identified with blue - to make the democrats look more communist/socialist/threatening. It's like saying that Obama is Muslim/Arab/threatening. 83.52.248.109 (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And that's probably part of why the journalists ultimately settled on Republicans=Red, Democrats=Blue. If the Republicans wanted to reserve blue as their own particular color, then they should have done so before 2000 (but they didn't). AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's just coincidence. The various networks assigned arbitrary colors to the parties prior to each election and used the colors to make electoral college predictions and on election night for the results. Democrats had been assigned red in the past, and republicans blue, entirely snickerfree. I remember a green versus yellow scheme during the Reagan era. There is certainly nothing "official" going on--as if this were a decision by the BBC--and parties were not offered a choice--the decisions were made arbitrarily in news rooms. In 2000 there was a coincidental confluence of colors. This was noticed by the media and a convenient meme arose. See Fixation (population genetics). μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

As I remember, in the 1992 and 1996 elections (the last two for which I was living in the States and actually watching the news coverage), which color was used for which candidate on the maps on the Election Night TV news coverage varied from network to network. I remember being very startled one Election Night when I changed channels from ABC to NBC and suddenly it looked like the other candidate was winning! Then I realized that NBC's use of red and blue were reversed from ABC's use of them. Angr (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Medeis -- the Democrats could be assigned red in some ephemeral television graphic without much problem, but if there's going to be a long-term stable metaphorical assignment of Red vs. Blue, then assigning red to Democrats would bring in all sorts of unfortunate connotations, while assigning blue to Democrats causes much fewer problems (and Nancy Reagan can have her favorite dress color)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think Americans associate red with communism much, anymore. Maybe older Americans, who lived through the various red scares. --Trovatore (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been very actively used over the last 20 years of U.S. politics, but I think that it's more prominent and ready to be reactivated (particularly among politically-involved types), when a suitable opportunity arises, than you may realize... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

As a politically active free-marketeer since the 1980 US election--before I was old enough to legally vote--I can assure you, AnonMoos, that fewer than 95% of Americans my age have any actual awareness of any association of red with the left. I say this as someone who (1) has worn red symbolically as striking union member, and (2) who has no cognitive dissonance in seeing it as "representing" the GOp since the 2000 election. Were people as historically aware as one might wish them to be, perhaps it would be otherwise. But they aren't, so it isn't. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing how 1980 is about the time that the "Reds" film was released, to great critical acclaim and reasonable box office. The red=communist connection is in the past, but it's in the living past, not the remote dead past, so that someone like Rush Limbaugh could get a great amount of mileage out of riffing on such a theme -- and a journalist might think twice about doing something that would provide the likes of Rush Limbaugh a source of cheap insults... AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't prove it didn't happen. But I like Medeis's "coincidence" explanation better, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. --Trovatore (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm presuming people here read the article linked above as the first reply? It suggests albeit without a source that in 2000 initially there was less unification but this changed because of the long period of uncertainty meaning there was continual coverage and so the media began to conform on one colouring pattern. This doesn't rule out there being a greater confluence in 2000 then in previous years which may have aided the process but does suggest if 2000 had had a clear cut and undisputed on election day the confluence may not have taken hold. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Trovatore -- I'm sure that chance played a role in various transitory and ephemeral color schemes for TV graphics, but if at some point it had seemed like a possibility that a lasting Blue=Republicans / Red=Democrats scheme could be established, then probably someone would have asked "Do we really want to label Democrats as ‘Reds’"? -- while if it seemed possible that a lasting Blue=Democrats / Red=Republicans scheme would be established, then there would be no similar question to be asked... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're speculating. It's not clear to me that anyone would have thought that important enough to bring up. --Trovatore (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As an Australian, I'm perfectly happy to solve the problem by loaning the American parties our national colours of green and gold. (Although green might be unacceptable to those who hate environmentalists.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, other parties have already taken those colors. The Libertarian Party uses yellow (close to gold) as the primary color in its logo, and the Green Party obviously uses green.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I clearly remember Professor Sibley wearing red ties the way others wave flags. He wasn't a Communist, but according to this wore red to "to remind himself and others of his solidarity with the working class and the socialist movement." Zoonoses (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Died the year The Berlin Wall fell. Poetic justice? Heartbreak? ...Could it be...Satan? μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Neckties in presidential debate

Following from the question above, the first thing I noticed in the debate was that Obama was wearing a red necktie and Romney a blue one -- the reverse from the first debate. That surely wasn't a coincidence. Has anybody seen any discussion of why they decided to do that? Looie496 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

One place it isn't is the Romney-Obama Debate MoU, in which they seemingly nail down every single other possible question. I'm envisioning their staff members meeting in a neutral hallway and flipping a coin, but there's no reason it couldn't have been done by an earlier informal phone call either. A simple Google.com search for obama romney necktie color yields plenty of pages making the same observation and an excellent unrelated first result, but none I've clicked on so far actually has any reasons why they would have done so. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This Slate article discusses the question, and says that it is simply coincidence -- but I don't believe it. Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It would have been hilarious if Romney had come out in white tie. Then at least 47% of the voters would have been seeing red, and the Republicans would have been blue. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Relegion ,

In which roman catholic semenarys would roman catholic priests have been trained for work in plymouth between the years 1850 to 1900 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.170.17 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Plymouth or some other place called Plymouth? If you meant the city in Devonshire, then a quick look through Wikipedia shows that Catholic priests in the south of England would have trained at St. Edmund's College, Ware until 1869, when a new seminary was founded at St Thomas's in Hammersmith in London. Thereafter, each diocese began to establish their own colleges; a scheme to have a central seminary at Oscott College in Birmingham seems to been abandoned in the early 1900s.[20]. St. John's Seminary (Wonersh) opened in 1891, serving the Archdiocese of Southwark. The Diocese of Plymouth falls within the Ecclesiastical province of Southwark, so maybe there's a connection there, perrhaps someone with a better understanding of the RC hierarchy in England could comment. Alansplodge Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Launceston, Cornwall, so Plymouth, Devonshire, does seem most likely. Angr (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

By that time, there was a fair amount of mobility for clergy in the UK, for both Roman Catholics and Anglicans. So you might very well expect to find a priest working in Plymouth who had been trained in France, Italy, or elsewhere. If you're interested in a specific priest, or the priest(s) at a specific institution, you'd be well advised to find the relevant Catholic Directory for the time. Had you been interested in Anglican priests, you'd find things nicely centralised in Crockford's Clerical Directory, of which larger reference libraries in UK will have an archive (Crockford has a mini-bio of the career of each incumbent Anglican priest and official). Things RC don't seem to be quite as well ordered - there certainly was a publication for Scotland, Catholic Directory for the Clergy and Laity in Scotland, but I can't find an equivalent that would cover Plymouth. It might be worth a trip (or maybe a phone call) to the County Reference Library in Truro to see if they have the appropriate Directory. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What happened in these 3 years of king Yeongjo reign?

• 1729년: 기유처분
• 1740년: 경신처분
• 1741년: 신유대훈

I couldn't understand it, and I didn't find any information in Yeongjo article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayom (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

unidentified London building/castle

Hi, does anyone familiar with London know what building this is part of? I took the picture a couple of years ago, and I was (judging by shots taken before and after) either near Tower of London or the Globe Theatre. Obviously Tower of London would seem like a good option, but I haven't been able to find on the web a portion of it that looks like this. Julia\^talk 21:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the Curfew Tower of Windsor Castle. Mikenorton (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, okay, interesting. Apparently I did quite a lot of travelling that day that I don't remember! Thank you so much! Julia\^talk 22:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

October 19

-pour Iranian christians

I notice that Iranians who are Christians have surnames that end with -pour like Christine Amanpour. Is that always that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.99 (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by your question. First, "Christian" is not an ethnicity, so I'm not sure that a specific surname would be connected to a faith like that. Second, I see no evidence at Christiane Amanpour that she or anyone in her family were Christians. So, unless you have more examples than that, I'm not sure that your question is based on any correct assumptions. Christianity in Iran indicates that many Christians in Iran are of Armenian decent, so one may find a large number of Armenian surnames among Iranian Christians. But I don't know if Amanpour is an Armenian surname; many Armenian surnames I can think of end in -ian. (Ross Bagdasarian, Kim Kardashian, Avedis Zildjian, etc.) --Jayron32 03:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If her family were Muslim, or Jewish, they would hardly have been likely to name her Christiane, I think. I suppose they could be non-religious, but it seems a good bet that they were at least "culturally Christian". --Trovatore (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but her father's name was Mohammad, so there is that. --Jayron32 04:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point. --Trovatore (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if -pour meant "city", like the similar-sounding Indic language suffix... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

According to this paper, "pour", or other similar spellings, is Persian for "son of", and is widely used in Iranian names, not specifically for Christians. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm: It is not at all the case that Iranian Christians have surnames that end with -pour (meaning "the son of"), and I'm not sure if Christiane Amanpour is Christian at all, though she is the daughter of a British mother. Arbitrary naming is not uncommon among Iranians. Omidinist (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article says Amanpour attended a Catholic girl's school. Her father's name was Mohammed, her mother'sd Patricia. NNDB says she's Roman Catholic. μηδείς (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

She very well may be, but if so it has nothing to do with her surname "Amanpour". They are unrelated. --Jayron32 12:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. So far the evidence suggests she got the name Amanpour from the Muslim side of her family, even if she herself grew up RC. Not that attending Catholic school is good evidence; a Hindu friend of mine attended a Catholic school in India. Angr (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware that I attributed her father's family name to her religion. Did I? I was simply reporting information that seemed to contradict unsupported implications above it. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you didn't. I assume her father's first name is an indicator of his religion, as it seems unlikely for anyone but a Muslim to be named Mohammed. And as Trovatore points out, it's unlikely for anyone but a Christian to be named Christine. (Or at least, in both cases, the child of a nominal Muslim or Christian at the time the baby's name is given.) Angr (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jew languages

So far, I know that Ashkenazi Jews speak German, Polish, Russian and Yiddish. What other languages do they speak? --70.53.231.99 (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

They spoke most of the languages of central Europe and eastern Europe west of the Pale of Settlement, but in most areas Yiddish was their internal community language. Of course, all this is historical now that relatively few of them live in central or eastern Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They probably speak hundreds of different languages. Many Ashkenazi Jews migrated all over the world in the diaspora preceding, during, and after the Holocaust, and many probably migrated well before that. I'd imagine you can find Ashkenazi Jewish people speaking literally every European language. --Jayron32 03:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

English and Hebrew are also two main languages that in the present day they speak (about 100 years ago, Yiddish wouldl've been more predominant). Of course, it depends the country they live in, which can be anywhere on the entire world. So we can't really restrict the languages someone can speak, in fact, someone can learn any language if they want to. --Jethro B 04:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Rusyn language. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE - it'd also depend the level of observance of the Jew in question. A Reform, Conservative (Conservative Judaism doesn't mean traditional or reactionary, it's a bit past reform on the spectrum), or modern-Orthodox Jew (traditional, religious Jew who incorporates the surroundings and the present-day era) are not as likely to speak Yiddish as an ultra-Orthodox Jew, where Yiddish is frequently spoken as the norm. --Jethro B 05:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Dont mizrahi's speak yiddish too? cant be all Russian? Or ami talking out of my bum?Lihaas (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because they wouldn't have been exposed to it, and Yiddish was largely suppressed in Israel (even for Holocaust survivors) from around the founding of the state and subsequent large influx of North African immigrants. Same for Sephardim, whose international tongue is mainly Ladino (also called Spaniolit). One of the hardships, often fatal, of the Thessalonika Jews deported to the Auschwitz concentration camp is that they couldn't understand what the German and Slavic camp staff were saying and had no language in common with the vast majority of their fellow inmates. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I asked that question because I read the languages of Israel article and it said that Spanish is an Ashkenazi language due to immigration of Jews from Latin America. Also, it forgot Portuguese language being spoken in Israel because of Jews from Portugal (Sephardi) and Brazil (ashkenazi).--70.31.22.91 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

Man Booker Prize

This prize is award to the best original full-length novel. I wonder what it means to be "original full-length novel"? Somehow I feel like the words "original full-length" are unnecessary. It could just be the prize for the "best novel" unless "original full-length" means something else. Thanks!184.97.240.247 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

At the least it means no translations and no novellas or novelettes. Looie496 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, "original" means that it can't be an adaptation from another work (for example, novelizations of films), and "full length" means that it can't be a novella. --Jayron32 04:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Novella has a word count between 17,500 and 40,000. So how many pages is equivalent to that? Plus I don't understand how Happy Potter book doesn't win this award, it is the most popular book around the world. Why?184.97.240.247 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how many words there are to the page, and since books are published in many formats (hardcover, trade paperback, pocket paperback, e-books now), page has no standardized meaning, but word count should be fairly consistent. And the prize isn't awarded for popularity, it is awarded for quality, basically the same thing as the Academy Award for film. --Jayron32 05:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying Harry Potter is not a quality novel? What makes Harry Potter so success is its quality. It didn't just success for no reason.184.97.240.247 (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's to say the Harry Potter books haven't been considered? Lots of books get considered, but very few get onto the shortlist, and only one of those wins. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said that they weren't "quality" (for any arbitrary definition of quality), I was refuting your claim that they should have won solely because they were popular. It was not a criticism of Harry Potter novels (which I enjoyed thoroughly), but rather a refutation that popularity has anything to do with the Man Booker prize. --Jayron32 12:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Harry Potter books are, rightly or wrongly, normally considered children's books, and the Booker Prize is for adult fiction. Also, many would not consider them examples of what might be described as literary fiction, which is the raison d'etre of the Booker. --Viennese Waltz 12:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, if you take a look at the previous winners of the Man Booker prize you can see that Harry Potter is really not in the style of the others. These awards are chosen by judges who have some idea of what a Man Booker winner is like. Harry Potter, for all of its charms, is simply not that. If it was, it would never have appealed to children or even most adults. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The website lists the terms and conditions. The most important rule may be 3 i): "The decision of the Literary Director as to whether a book is eligible shall be binding and no correspondence shall be entered into." Zoonoses (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the Harry Potter omission is because those books aren't classed as fiction for adults, but as fiction aimed at teenagers. J K Rowling herself is currently publicising her first book written specifically for adults, which presumably will be eligible for entry for the Booker prize next year.--TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Then I think the award should says "This is an award to the best original full-length adult fiction novel". It's funny how it wasn't an original goal of the prize but somehow it has only chosen "adult fiction novel". I think Harry Potter deserves to win than many of those books that won.184.97.240.247 (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, think again! Children's books are explicitly permitted, but there's a condition:

• Rule 3(g): Children's books will only be accepted on the condition that they have also been published by an adult imprint within the specified dates.

My assumption here is that children's books have, by definition, limited appeal, and the convenors want to recognise books that have broad appeal. Hence, as long as a children's book has been accepted by a publisher who is not marketing the work as particularly for children, it should be fine. I don't know that the Harry Potter books met this stipulation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The longlisting of The Amber Spyglass demonstrated that children's/young adult fiction can indeed be eligible for the Booker (it also won Whitbread Book of the Year in 2001, the first time the award went to a non-adult novel). The OP is fully entitled to admire the Harry Potter novels, but unless they have also read the actual Booker winners it's not clear how they can judge the former more deserving of the prize than the latter. - Karenjc 16:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

looking for the dumbest methodology ever ... well, sort of

Hi, as part of my research, I may do some qualitative research, but I have looked at some of the "official" paradigms out there, and they strike me as something of a joke (to wit, grounded theory). The problem is that they seem to all involve a huge amount of overhead from nailing down different categories and so forth, which, from what I have seen, does as much to stifle thought as to clarify it. I'm wondering if anyone knows of something really vague and general, which can be interpreted however you want, so as not to force me to waste time following some predefined scheme for how my thoughts are going to go. The closest I can find is thematic analysis, which seems so ill-defined even its practitioners don't know what it is (see http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11735/2/thematic_analysis_revised...). Does anyone have any other suggestions? Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it. In the meantime, if you are doing qualitative research, I expect that you'll need to have some kinds of interviews or conversations. If you recruit your participants as you go along, with no kind of sampling frame, that's called "snowballing". Are you doing participant observation - that's a method not a paradigm. Sounds like you're doing social anthropology rather than sociology or any other kind of social research. There's participatory action research, but that would give you even less control of the process and require pre-planning. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite that in-depth, just evaluating some educational software I'm producing, and it may involve qualitative assessment as well as quantitative. The quantitative bit will be the main bit, but it isn't likely that there will be unequivocally positive results. I strongly suspect the value of such things depends on the person using them, so I'm expecting in advance that results will be somewhat mixed. Hence the need for a fairly blank slate. Also, since the qualitative research is likely to be just a side component, for framing the quantitative research, I'm trying to escape from any massively involved, formulaic approaches. Participatory action research scares the living heck out of me, if you are wondering. IBE (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you're the the person doing the evaluation. The good news is that you're using mixed-methods research, which is very good practice. You can operate some kind of triangulation between your quantitative and qualitative findings. You can do it either way round: the qualitative element is your homework to help you make sense of the quantitative findings, or the quantitative element is your homework to help you make sense of the qualitative findings. Participatory action research is full-on, but you don't have to adopt the whole thing. Letting some research users comment on the process might help both you and them. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. Looie496 (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it? I think he's just doing a small evaluation and wants to keep it simple. A questionnaire backed up by some interviews. Nothing wrong with that so long as he doesn't extrapolate too far. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he's just having a go at my last comment. This may be relatively mild for Looie. IBE (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the dumbest methodology ever is the Strong programme, which basically involves writing the history of science from the point of view that there is no truth or objective reality, so that all changes in accepted scientific explanations (e.g. phlogiston vs. heat, luminiferous ether vs. no ether etc. etc.) must be regarded as purely due to fads or social influences. However, it doesn't appear to have much to do with your question... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The world exists independently of our knowledge of it. Therefore there are research questions about the knowledge-gathering process that are independent of the truth of the knowledge acquired. Little to do with the OP's question. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that some of the Strong Programmatists tend to believe that everything is a social construct, and that it's possible to write an adequate history of science without paying attention at all to whether some theories might be closer descriptions to physical reality (assuming physical reality even exists) than other theories are. Or at least that's the impression of themselves that the Programmatists tend to create among actual scientists... AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do give that impression, deliberately I reckon. Nevertheless, sociologists may point out that it is possible to do soc of religion without reference to the truthfulness of the religions studied. You can even say a lot about soc of education without commenting on whether the curriculum is based on correct science. Soc of the film industry without taking an interest in the quality of the movies. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

has an amateur ever won the nobel prize?

by our account, Paul Gauguin was a stock broker until his late thirties, when he started painting after hanging out by painters. I wonder if anyone started in the sciences as an amateur (e.g. in their late twenties, in their thirties, fifties, sixties, whatever) and went on to win a nobel prize?

I am interested primarily in Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gentleman scientist is probably the best starting point. It mentions Peter D. Mitchell as a modern-day independant scientist that has won a Nobel prize. --Tango (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Marconi might fit your definition. 86.166.191.232 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gore vs. Bush: A Political Fable by Jeff Greenfield Summary

Can someone please give me a good summary of all of the major events in this book? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason that I'm asking is because I couldn't find a good summary of all the major events in this book anywhere online. Futurist110 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not just read the book? Blueboar (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried finding this book at my local library and couldn't, but I want to get a grasp of what's in the book before I read all of the details. Futurist110 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about World War II

Why did so many civilians on the Nazi side commit suicide as the war approached to an end? Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious - are there statistics to show that this is true? I can think of several possible explanations, but I'm loath to speculate without data. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I can't remember now, but there were cases of entire towns committing suicide. Found it, mass suicide in Demmin Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda had done a good job of telling everyone how barbarous the invading Soviets were going to be, with good cause. The war on the Eastern Front was one of total war, where wholesale atrocities against civilians by both sides were commonplace. See Soviet war crimes#World War II and Rape during the occupation of Germany#Soviet army and Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950). Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Legends of Red Army atrocities would have been my first guess. The people of Pomerania might have heard first-hand accounts of the fall of East Prussia to the Red Army, too. (I watched a German documentary about this a couple of years ago. The Nazi leadership in the area mostly got on the last plane out, leaving the civilians to face the Soviets alone.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't cite specific sources, but another possible explanation is that after years of being told that it's the superhumans' destiny to rule and dominate, and the subhumans' to serve or be exterminated, it became obvious to many Germans in 1945 that if they were losing the war, then it was them who turned out to be the inferior race after all. Imagine that you think in these categories and you come to reach such a conclusion about yourself; there isn't much incentive to keep on living, is there? — Kpalion^(talk) 14:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe among senior Nazis, but for ordinary folk, I think unbearable fear of the immediate future would have been a more important factor. My understanding is that these mass suicides were a feature of the Eastern Front; those in the west expected rather more humane treatment from the Western Allies. Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just found Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the suicides were heavily weighted towards high Nazi officials and their families. As for civilians, I don't know why they didn't head West in the hope of making it to parts of Germany to be occupied by the West. Of course, there's a good chance they could be killed along the way, but that seems a lot better than certain death, to me (keep the cyanide capsule handy, in case things get bad on the way west). StuRat (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot did, but look at this article talking about the Soviet conquest of Berlin, which says; "Estimates of rape victims from the city's two main hospitals ranged from 95,000 to 130,000. One doctor deduced that out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result, mostly from suicide." Alansplodge (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Titanic question

I've read that many passengers later said that the Captain may have committed suicide, or other officers may have. What's the most accurate report on that?, who is most likely to have committed suicide? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

According to his article, Smith was reported by a couple of witnesses as jumping into the water as his ship finally sank, but that could hardly be called suicide. It also goes on to say that most likely he simply remained at his post til the end. I find it implausible that he (or any other officer) would go to the trouble of finding some means to end his life when the cold would do it for him soon enough. This Daniel Allen Butler article (despite being titled "Captain Smith committed suicide") says that his fate is a "mystery", but that he likely didn't commit suicide. Encyclopedia Titanica reports only rumors that one of the officers shot himself, either First Officer William McMaster Murdoch (his article says a witness saw his dead body with what appeared to be a head injury, leading to speculation of a gunshot wound), Smith or others.[21] Clarityfiend (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We could not say that anyone who died as a direct result of the ship's sinking committed suicide. Men who had the chance to get away in a boat but opted to allow a woman or child take their place - that is not suicide. Officers who went down with the ship rather than abandoning it - that is not suicide. People who jumped overboard and died in the fall - that is not suicide, unless we somehow knew they intended to kill themselves by jumping, rather than save themselves by jumping. If someone slashed their wrists or shot themselves rather than facing the icy waters - that would be suicide, but we have no evidence of the captain doing any such thing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We have an article; Captain goes down with the ship. My grandfather, who earned his Master's ticket before the Titanic sank, used to say that the tradition was because even if not to blame, the captain would be unemployable thereafter. There seem to be only three examples quoted in our article though, and one of those is the captain of the Titanic. Alansplodge (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As our article says, the principle is more about being the last to leave than actually going down with the ship. In the case of the Titanic, it wasn't possible for everyone to leave, so the principle mandated that the captain be one of those that stayed on board. In most cases (especially with modern laws about carrying enough lifeboats), everyone does leave, with the captain simply being the last. In all three examples given in our article, there were other people on board as well when the ships sank. Would a captain by employable if they lost their ship but managed to save all the people on board? (Or, at least, those not killed in whatever happened to the ship to make it sink.) There is a common naval practice of putting the captain on court-martial whenever a ship is lost, but if they were acquitted of any wrongdoing would they still be unable to work as a captain again? --Tango (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The merchant service is rather different to the armed forces. I think his point was that an employer wouldn't want someone associated with a sinking whether at fault or not. There were always more masters than ships, so they could afford to be choosy. However, he died 30 years ago, so you'll have to take what he said at face value. I can assure you that those were his words, but can't provide further detail. It may have been a myth among merchant officers or maybe not. Alansplodge (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Could we say that there's a persecution of homosexuals in the Middle East?

Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think that's an unhelpful generalisation. The specific problems faced by LGBT people in Middle-Eastern countries vary widely. It might be worth looking at things like the Turkish army's ban/exemption for gay men (it's not enough to fancy men - they want to see a picture of you having sex; but as there's national service, getting out of the military may be seen as desirable) or Iran's position on transgender issues (they're getting very good at gender transitions, because the religious leadership regard it as a cure for sinful same-sex attraction). The Middle East is a huge area, and very varied. There's absolutely no unifying position.

And I don't mean to bait, but here in the UK we have a fairly comprehensive set of nationwide anti-discrimination laws, civil partnerships, and moves towards equal marriage on the way. Could I argue that because the US has utterly failed to do any of these things at the federal level, and has actively interfered with some of them, there's anti-LGBT persecution in the USA? The threads further back about being able to come out at work show that this has a more than incidental impact on the lives of LGBT people. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is misleading and unnecessarily "politically correct". There's a unifying position in that, at a minimum, homosexuality is generally illegal in Muslim countries. (Homosexuality#Middle East) Wongot (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So is Turkey not a Muslim country, by that yardstick? And did you choose to ignore my response below? Mr.98's answer is exemplary; your 'more specific' response is actually less specific than his. "Politically correct" as a criticism is useless; it's just a 'boo-word', telling me nothing more than that you don't like what I've said. Say what you really think, rather than parroting a cliché. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkey is really not a Muslim country. I mean, demographically, of course, it is. But in terms of the apparatus of state, it is not. In fact there's a strain of official anti-clericalism that, in many Western countries, would be considered to infringe on the religious liberty of Muslims. --Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware of that. There are some interesting parallels with France, for example. But Wongot seems to be accusing me of 'political correctness' precisely because I don't want to give a blanket answer that assumes the Middle East consists entirely of autocratic constitutionally-Muslim states. I know things are tough for LGBT people across much of the region. But I still think a more nuanced answer is better than a generalising one. Mr.98's response strikes the balance better than my own, I think. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think one could say, as a generalization, that most countries in the Middle East persecute homosexuals. (We have a large article that outlines all of this.) There are several notable exceptions, though. Israel is the most tolerant by far, though even they do not allow homosexuals to be married in the country (though they do recognize foreign same-sex marriages). The other relatively tolerant countries are Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and the Palestinian West Bank — though "relatively tolerant" just means that it isn't illegal, not that it is protected or given equal rights. In all other countries in the region, homosexual activity is illegal and comes with fairly terrible consequences. I would call that unambiguous persecution. I agree with AlexTiefling that there certainly is a spectrum of tolerance, but this is clearly on the side of "persecution," and I don't think it's an unhelpful generalization to say that all countries in the region except five persecute homosexuals, and that even among those five, at least four of them are probably pretty socially intolerant of homosexuality even if they don't have laws outlawing it explicitly. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, see Homosexuality#Middle East and the articles linked to in that article section. Wongot (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the article I linked to goes into far more detail. That particular article has only one paragraph on modern practices, apparently doesn't consider Israel as part of the Middle East, and gives only one specific example (Iran) which is more about what someone said than what the practices were. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree! I wasn't attempting to claim otherwise - only to sound a necessary note of caution. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where is Israel located? μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to this map it's located at the center of the world. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If X is a place in the Middle East and there's a persecution of homosexuals in X, then we can say that there's a persecution of homosexuals in the Middle East. —Tamfang (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And wise and enlightened opinions, too! Not to mention hot babes in string tangas, and amazing Prosciutto di Parma. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for everybody else, but I can say that. I can also say hurnfidqpodxys. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So, given that there's persecution of homosexuals in the universe, Tamfang, can we say there's universal persecution of homosexuals? μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"in the universe" is not equivalent to "universal". There is capital punishment in the United States, but not "universally" in the United States, but only in some states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for playing. —Tamfang (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

Can you bring a boxcutter aboard now? I don't travel much. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in your carry-on luggage; they will be (ideally) spotted on the X-ray machines or metal detectors and you won't be allowed to bring them through security. You can check them in your on-board luggage, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

FDR

Can you publish pictures of FDR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.169.163 (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by FDR? - Lindert (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "can you publish"? If you are looking for photos of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, visit that article, or just go to an image search engine like images.google.com and search for FDR. Wongot (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Our cache of FDR images is here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You might also be interested in Wikipedia:Image use policy. Taknaran (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Golden Dawn (Greece), nationalism and Germany

Being Greek and nationalistic, how can a party use German Nazi symbols? Greece was obviously a victim of Nazi Germany, or do some Greeks dispute that? Can someone explain this contradictory association of nationalists using foreign symbols? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's important to note that a lot of the symbolism used were not intrinsically German. There's a wilful antiquarianism about a lot of fascist thought, especially at the more mystical end. The Nazis appropriated Indian symbols for their own use - symbols which have existing close parallels in classical Greek and Roman art. If you go to the Roman-German Museum in Cologne, you'll see in the basement there the Hakenkreuzmosaik, or Swastika-Mosaic. This is a genuine Roman artifact, and emblematic of how widespread a symbol it was in the Classical world. Similarly, there are Greek key variants in which there are two lines, not one, and each time they cross, they form a swastika (or its mirror-image).

Being proponents of an ancient and distinctive Indo-European nation, the Golden Dawn are drawing on similar ideas to those invoked by the Nazis through the work of the Ahnenerbe and the sentimental antiquarianism surrounding locations like the Externsteine. (Persian/Iranian nationalism has had a similar theme from time to time, too - bear in mind that 'Iran' and 'Aryan' have related etymology.) Recent history has little to do with it. In 1940, when northern France, including Paris and Reims, were under German occupation, the collaborationist government of southern France, based in Vichy, put up adverts telling the populace "You are not betrayed! You are not abandoned!". The obvious falsity of the claim was secondary to the unifying tone it brought.

Besides all which, aside from being Greek instead of German, the Golden Dawn are very much neo-Nazis. Indeed, they're arguably the most popular and successful genuinely neo-Nazi political party in Europe since 1945. They're a lot more Nazi in theme than (say) the British National Party, who are much more like the Portugese Corporatists. Fascism and its related ideologies come in many forms, but both the beliefs and the tactics of the Golden Dawn very closely resemble those of the NSDAP. So it makes sense that their iconography is so reminiscent as well.

It is, of course, ironic that Greek protesters against Angela Merkel's recent visit trotted out the WW2-era Nazi flag to mock her - deliberately recalling Germany's occupation of Greece - when something recognisably like Nazism is growing so much closer to home. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Jobbik in Hungary also neo-Nazi and more successful than the Golden Dawn? Futurist110 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly comparable, at the least. You're right; Golden Dawn's success is not unique - they just happen to be in the news more at present. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OsmanRF34 -- I've wondered about that too: Fringe parties in countries which were victims of Nazi invasions using flags with an obvious Nazi-influenced structure (i.e. black emblem on white area on an overall red field). The most conspicuous example is the National Bolshevik Party... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Such fringe parties want principally to shock, don't expect to find a well-developed and non-contradictory ideology behind them. That's also why there were cases of Neonazis Jews (with German symbolism) in Israel. Gorgeop (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Greece or Greek politics, but I was under the impression that Greek far-right nationalists use German Nazi symbols to represent Greek racial and ethnic supremacy, rather than "Aryan"/Anglo-Saxon racial and ethnic supremacy. This is similar to how some whites in the Southern United States use the Confederate flag right now to represent their culture rather than racism and slavery. Futurist110 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Think you mean "Aryan"/Nordic racial supremacy. Anyway, when people in or from the U.S. south wave confederate flags, they're recalling something based on their own region or ancestry (regardless of the dubious politics involved, or the fact that most of them display the confederate naval jack instead of the actual confederate battle flag). However, when Greeks wave a Nazi-structured black-on-white-on-red flag, they seem to be making a positive allusion to outside hostile conquerors of Greece... AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nordic and Anglo-Saxon are almost the same thing, so the terminology doesn't matter too much. That said, I'm not an expert on Greece, but it would appear to be that Greek neo-Nazis could simply be using the Nazi flag to praise Nazi ethnic/racial policies (except replacing Nordics with Greeks at the top of the hierarchy), rather than praising the Nazi occupation of Greece (with the exception of the Holocaust in Greece, which they might definitely be praising). Futurist110 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

They're not really "almost the same thing". Anglo-Saxon supremacy means exalting Englishness in various senses, while Nordicism means a cult of blue-eyed blondness and/or appropriating elements from the Norse sagas (or at least the Wagner opera version of Norse sagas) or from runes (or at least the Guido von List version of runes), etc. If Golden Dawn had a blue and white flag, then it would not raise much of an eyebrow, but when they adopt a black-on-white-on-red flag it gives rise to suspicions that they're exalting the Nazi conquerors and oppressors of Greece... AnonMoos (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Meandros flag

I'm not sure what 'symbols' you are referring to. If it is the Meandros flag (pictured right), although it bears some resemblance to the German swastika (not least in the choice of colour scheme), that's not what it is. It's a Greek symbol. V85 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, any resemblance is purely coincidental ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your swastika: This is your swastika on qualudes:

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

2... 4... 3: -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Carl Sagan's Comet suggests an astronomical origin for the swastika. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do older women choose short haircuts?

Why - in the US, anyway - do almost all older women choose short haircuts? Wongot (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mothers seem to prefer them. They are certainly easier to maintain, and probably it doesn't matter to look good when you are old. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) Please remove your ageist remark, as an older woman I find it offensive. Thank you. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not ageism. Appearance matters less when you are getting older. Even if you compare a teenager with a young adult, you'll discover that the latter cares less about other non-image related aspects about himself and about his partners. You can construe my comments, assuming good faith, from a positive point of view. Although you can also interpret it with an unintended meaning that nothing matters anymore when you are old. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

One day, young man, hopefully you will be old yourself. Then you can come back to me and tell me that I'm wrong to find your remarks offensive. Until then I will reiterate that your remarks are offensive to me. Not only that, but you are wrong. It is much more important to keep up appearances once you reach a certain age. Oh and you can also tell me how getting your hair cut every other month (at greater expense for women than men) is easier to maintain than just not having a hair cut at all. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If he keeps putting down women, old age might not be in the picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

---

I think there's a natural effect among both men and women that once they've attracted a long-term mate (or have given up the search), they can relax a little from previous strenuous efforts to be attractive (e.g. a man not going to the gym so many times a week, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn! Just spent a lot of money on a very nice (shortish) haircut. Apparently I didn't need to. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To the OP: (1) Personal preference: [22] [23]

(2) Cultural expectation: [24] [25]

(3) Physical difficulty caring for long hair: [26] [27]

And surely for many more reasons, as there are individuals. Taknaran (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you've hit the main reasons in your post. I do want to point out a current counterexample to this trend and about its ability to change older women's hairstyles--Hillary Clinton now has very long hair, and she will turn 65 this year. Futurist110 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why it's so, but it's long been the tradition for older women to at least wear their hair up even if the hair itself is long. Up until the 1960s or 1970s at least, it would have been quite unusual for a woman (in the U.S. at least) over 40 to wear her hair down flowing over her shoulders and back. Even if she had it long enough that it could, she would wear it up somehow, e.g. in a bun. Angr (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Kim Novak

Well, I am in my fifth decade, and I still wear my hair long. I am curious, Tammy, how you decide which hair not to have cut. :) μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone in her sixth decade, let me enlighten you that once you get past the menopause there is no need to have pubic hair cut or shaved, not is there any real reason to pluck eyebrows. Underarm hair still needs some topiary though. As an aside, I had my hair so long I could sit on it until I turned 40, then my new man said he preferred it short, that I looked better. Someone sent me a photo I had taken with very long hair: I have to say he was so right! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if [28] is relevant (sebum decreases somewhat with age). Wnt (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Long hair is a lot of work to maintain, and is done so by young women, mainly to attract men. Since older women are often either married or not looking for a man, that makes it extra work for no benefit. I like to refer to older women with white hair all pushed up on top as "Q-tips". :-) StuRat (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Miss Novak in 1962

I am not sure where you get the idea that maintaining long hair is harder than having it cut and styled regularly. My sister and I both wear ours long. My mother looks like Kim Novak, however, so she keeps hers short, never below the collar. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Also in my fifth decade (and nearly out of it). Occasionally wonder whether or not to cut my long hair, but it has never suited me short and I can't be bothered with the hassle of maintaining a short precision cut like my teenage daughter's, which requires far more maintenance than mine. If it gets to the point where I feel like mutton dressed as lamb I'll probably take it to shoulder-length, but while I can continue to carry it off, it stays. - Karenjc 21:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I just called my mom and asked. She says she wears it "short" by which she means something like Novak in the '62 picture. Half of the time I spend talking to her is about her hair, her last haircut, her last die job, and who's cutting her hair now since she severed ties with the last stylist.

My late youngest sister wore hers long until she joined the crew team in college, when she cut it medium (bobbed below the ear) but kept a Chinaman's queue. I cut my or have my own ends cut maybe twice a year--I did so myself just last week. But I haven't gone to a shop since the 80's. BTW, I think Hillary Clinton looks sooo much better that she's let her hair grow out. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing to see Medeis exchanging information about her hair after all her complaints about the decay of the RD. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to hat whatever thread you like Osman. Given this one hasn't been hatted, pardon me for telling you to bug off. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a young man and had long hair (well below my shoulders) while at Uni and now have very short hair. I can confirm that long hair is generally less work. I got it cut at most every few months (and that was just while I was growing out my fringe - once it had all got to the same length, I could go more than 6 months without getting it cut). In the morning, I would just put a brush through it and then tie it in a ponytail and it was done. Now, I have to put wax in it to get it to what I want, which makes washing it much more work. I have to get it cut at least once a month or it starts to look unkempt. The only thing that is easier about it is drying it after washing it - I can now just towel it dry in about a minute, or leave it to dry on its own and it's fine. I used to have to be very careful to avoid it going frizzy. So, unless you just have a number two all over that you can do yourself in a couple of minutes and not leave enough hair to need any maintenance, then I don't think short hair is more convenient than long hair. --Tango (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd also point out that, with hormonal changes, one's hair grows thinner as one ages. This applies to women as well as men. Wearing short hair tends to maximise the look of the hair in these circumstances. You only have to look at some of the old rock stars to see how awful thinning long hair can look. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, see Combover. Differences between male pattern baldness and female hair loss may account for styling choices among older women who find a short, full cut, permed or blow-dried for volume, makes the most of their crowning glory if it has been affected by the ageing process. - Karenjc 12:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

One very cogent point that hasn't been made is that as one gets older, one's face tends to sag (unless the old plastic surgeon gets stuck in!). Long hair can visually "drag down" the face, so many older ladies choose shorter hair as that makes the face look more lifted. It's an optical illusion, but it's how human perception works. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do lawyers now advertise, when in previous times they did not?

Forty years ago or so in the US, it was verboten for lawyers to advertise. They just did not do it. Now, I seem to see lawyer advertisements, from the Yellow Pages to the television. Why the change? Wongot (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On a practical level, I suspect because their professional association deicded to allow them to when previously it had forbidden it. (That, at least, is my remembrance of the UK situation.) As to why they took that decision, we could only speculate. Demand, presumably. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please supply references in your answers, this is a reference desk. Wongot (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See Legal advertising in the United States. Basically in 1977 the Supreme Court threw out a state law banning legal advertising; state bars can now regulate advertising but not prohibit it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect and thank you. Wongot (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In many states before that time, the only advertisements that law firms were allowed to run were "tombstone" advertisements -- basically the unadorned name and location of the firm in an enclosing rectangle, where it was not even allowed to mention that it was a law firm which was being advertised. Sometimes when I see the ambulance-chasing adds on early-morning TV, I feel a little nostalgic for those days... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's something that the article Legal advertising in the United States only hints at, but I remember as being assumed by economists at the time to be an important, maybe the most important, consideration on the part of the state bar associations in their opposition to advertising (sorry I don't have any citations on this): advertising allows lawyers to advertise prices that undercut the prices of other lawyers, and so those other lawyers end up not being able to charge as much as they otherwise would. Same with doctors, as I recall. Of course they tried to disguise this implicit price-fixing as "professional ethics". Duoduoduo (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I rarely see an advertisement for a lawyer mention prices. The closest I've seen are those which say they work on a contingency basis (only pay them if you win your lawsuit) and perhaps some fixed price work ("A no-fault divorce, with no children or property settlement, for only $200"). StuRat (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We have an article Tombstone (advertising), but it's not much... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't that lawyers did not advertise in the past, more that the ads were limited in their content. Even Abraham Lincoln advertised.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 18:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Christ Church, Bergen

Are the remains of the Kings of Norway still under the site of the ruins of Christ Church, Bergen or were they buried above ground and destroyed when the church was demolished? Actually how are European monarch normally buried? Do the tomb effigies in European Churches that look like stone sarcophagus contain the bodies of dead kings and queens? Doesn't Christians have something about burying the dead in the ground? -The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes they do, sometimes not. The monuments in St Denis Basilica don't contain any bones because all the bones were dug up and reburied in a mass grave during the French Revolution (same with the ones in Fontevraud Abbey for example. But the bones certainly used to be there. On the other hand there are actual burials in Westminster Abbey. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This might also interest you. It is a blog covering the recent exhumation of the (purported) remains of Magnus Ladulås in Riddarholmskyrkan. The blog itself might not be very interesting unless you speak Swedish, but there are some pictures at least! By the way, there are lots of Christians whose remains are not "buried" under ground, see the "Incorruptibility" for some examples. Gabbe (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Award-winning crime novelist David Housewright

I've been told a page concerning the Edgar Award-winning mystery writer David Housewright was submitted Sept. 13, 2012. It is not up. Is this the result of a backlog of pages waiting to be reviewed, or had the page been rejected for some reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Housewright (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be at David Housewright. As I right in assuming that you are the 'Award-winning mystery writer' himself? If not, you should familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia:Username policy - it is not permitted to impersonate others. If you are David Housewright, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Autobiography - and also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy - we need better sources than your own webpage for many of the statements made. It might be worth looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And if you are David Housewright, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia before changing a single comma of the article David Housewright. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Econ. Nobels

Is there any place (preferable free) to get thedissertations of the nobel laureates>?Lihaas (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I imagine you're unlikely to find them all in one place, if that's what you mean. —Tamfang (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What dissertations do you mean? Their doctoral dissertations? You'll find them in the university library the doctorate was awarded by. Or do you mean the papers that they were awarded the Nobel prize for? You can find back issues of major journals in any good university library - the details of what papers they wrote were probably given in the formal announcement of the prize. --Tango (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I expect he means the address the winners give at the prize ceremonies. And I don't mean 378 Springfield Drive, Charmville, New Hamphsire. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also the Nobel lecture, which I believe is separate from the acceptance speech. He could mean that. Since those are both spoken, rather than written, I wouldn't call them a dissertation. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Videos & pdfs for recent econ Nobel lectures are here. You can find the acceptance speeches (all, I think) and other material and Nobel lecture pdfs (for some) from following the links for each winner from here.John Z (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Some voices

Hi I see that some voices in wikipedia (Matteo Goffriller) are reporting information ( before unedited) drawn from my book witoit reporting reference. Just an example All the historical data on Matteo Goffriller are drawn from my book titled Violin and Lute Makers of Venice 1640 -1760 by Stefano Pio (it is me) edited by Venice research, venice, Italy 2004. It would be appreciated if you mention the source Thank you Stefano Pio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.60.179 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, our editors should indeed cite their sources... but, how do you know that the information in the article came from your book and not one of the other cited sources? Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - it may be worth mentioning this on the talkpage for this article (Talk:Matteo Goffriller). I'm not sure whether its frowned on or not but technically you can edit the article yourself to include the references (I know there's something about using your own work/Wikipedia liking third party references but I can't find the page right now). ny156uk (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no good or evil, except in your eyes or mind

I'm having some difficulties in wrapping my mind around such way of thinking. What about the more extreme cases of psychopaths, rapists or murderers? Is evil just in my eyes or mind? I'd be OK if it were more restricted to harmless cases. Gorgeop (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That's moral relativism. "Absolute belief in moral relativism is absolutely rare". Nearly everyone finds some behaviors to be universally evil. Although, in the case of animals, moral relativism is far more common. That is, we think that our cat torturing a mouse before killing it is fine, because "that's just what cats do". StuRat (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what StuRat wrote but also want to point about that people's morality can change over time. Also, I don't consider some things (like polygamy and incest) to be morally unjustifiable, in contrast to most people. Futurist110 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely evil what StuRat does with apostrophes. "Cat's"? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. StuRat (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Or chaos theory, you just cannot calculate what act produces what outcome. (In this interpretation, it is also a moral relativism). OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

After a long period of time, perhaps, but, in the short run, you can be reasonably certain that pushing somebody off a cliff won't do them much good. StuRat (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Chaos Theory does not provide moral guidance. It especially doesn't mean that we can abandon belief in causality. Sensitive dependence on initial conditions is important, but it doesn't allow us to ignore the obvious. The legal doctrine of the chain of causation is much more relevant here - did the actions being tried lead in a foreseeable way to the consequences in question? Or did some other thing intervene to have a more significant effect on the outcome?

In any case, morality existing 'only in the mind' doesn't mean it's not absolute or commonly-held (although it might). The fear of painful death is practically universal, for example. It's a tricky (and probably intractable) question to determine if there is some kind of moral constant.

My own belief is that there is, but that it exists at some very basic level, and different self-consistent but divergent moral codes and practices can be built on that foundation. The value on which I base my own moral code is "Are other people, in general, worth saving?" - to which I answer yes, and then derive a bunch of other stuff. But one might argue that my existing experience as a liberal Christian has predisposed me to find those answers and consequences appealing and acceptable, and to believe they're logical. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a moral relativist, and I have to say that moral questions are only interesting when there are extreme disagreements. If I think you should hold the door for me and you disagree, we might get mad at each other for a while, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. If I think the greatest glory is to sack a wealthy city, kill all the men in front of their families, and rape the women before enslaving them, and you happen to live in that city, that's a problem.

Let me try to explain moral relativism, or at least the meta-ethical Humean, sentimentalist philosophy I subscribe to. No, rape and murder are not objectively evil. Insofar as a rapist or murderer intrinsically desires to rape or murder, such an intrinsic desire cannot be rationally criticized, because it is not based on reason. In the same way, you cannot say whether my desire to eat an apple is rational or irrational; if I simply desire an apple for the sake of having an apple, that desire has no basis in reason. The only way in which reason can affect morality is if I desire something instrumentally based on false beliefs about the world. For example, if I kill someone in order to relieve thirst, that would be irrational--killing does not relieve my thirst. If I think women should be oppressed or slavery is justified because the Word of God says so, that is irrational--there is no evidence that God exists, even less evidence that any extant text is the Word of God, and no reason why the Word of God must always be moral even if it does exist (see Euthyphro dilemma).

Moral relativism does not necessarily say that all intrinsic desires must be tolerated. In the case of rapists, it is true that rapists' desires cannot be rationally criticized insofar as they are not based on reason. However, they're not the only people who have desires; non-rapists intrinsically desire to not be raped. Since rape does far more harm to the victim than good to its perpetrator, and this is even for true for murder, it is fully rational for society to put rapists and murderers into prison.

Finally, to respond to StuRat above: moral relativists like me and Hume do not find any behaviors to be evil, let alone universally evil, because there is no such thing as evil. To paraphrase Hume, "Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." --140.180.242.9 (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So, morality through social contract? I prefer that you don't try to murder me, in exchange I do not try to murder you? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Game theory is not morality. What 140.180 is saying is that he believes that you can still have social constructs that impose a de facto morality, if you are looking for certain types of aims and value certain types of individual states (e.g. if you respect individuals' and groups' desires for certain basic outcomes, which historically is a big "if" amongst human societies). You can say, "it's better to live in a society where life and property are protected, because otherwise the societies tend to fall apart in really awful ways and I don't want to live in that sort of society." You can value things even with moral relativism and you can act on those values. You just can't claim that your values are objectively better than someone else's in a philosophical sense, though that doesn't mean you can't think they are better for other reasons. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I can think of three sources of morality. Most fundamental is the concept of atman, which I would purposefully misdescribe as, conscious beings are implementations of some fundamental quality of consciousness, and as it is this universal quality which causes consciousness, it is this universal quality which experiences it. Wrongdoer and victim do not remember living one another's lives, nonetheless it is the "same person" that experiences both. In this conception, morality exists solely in the minds of the people involved, but they are the same mind. The second source reflects Christian notions which I'll misdescribe as the revision of the universe in a series of drafts of increasing perfection; as those moments not dedicated to goodness are expunged, personalities are preserved only by doing good - this postulates an exterior judgment, a divine purpose to the evolution of the universe. The final layer would emanate from such elements of Daoism as De, in which morality can be seen in a more practical context as how the world works, which I suppose is more like a law of nature. It seems possible to me that all could be valid. Wnt (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's much more mundane than all those philosophical points. The source of moral values is the understanding that a lack of moral values runs a serious risk of causing the social group (family, tribe, nation, etc.) to disintegrate. Underlying that conclusion is the assumption that it's important keep the social group from disintegrating. "Safety in numbers", and all that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Moral relativism is a self-refuting idea. The moral relativist cannot claim that it is actually evil to pass moral judgments. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a strawman Medeis. Moral relativists do not claim to hold absolute knowledge that morality is relative; moreover, when did anyone say that passing moral judgments is "evil"? Moral relativism is only self-refuting if you assume that relativists take their philosophy to be absolutely true, but it is perfectly possible for a relativist to accept that moral relativism is relative, i.e., it is possible that for some people there is an absolute moral truth (presumably for yourself, for instance). 24.92.74.238 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your point seems to be that moral relativists are free to be inconsistant and to contradict themselves. That was my point as well. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

GDP Question

Which GDP is more useful--nominal GDP or PPP GDP? I always used nominal GDP since that is what Goldman Sachs used when making their economic projections, but I'm not sure which one is better to use. Futurist110 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Better for what? People use different measures to assess a country. Nominal GDP might be useful if you want to export something to a country. If you care about how well the populations is economically doing, you better pick PPP GDP. Add to that Gini coefficient, age expectation, and maybe some happiness index. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Better at making economic comparisons between various countries, including by the side of their economies. Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Size of their economies? Then nominal GDP. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If Futurist110 means size, not necessarily. Indeed, probably not, if you are doing "real" comparisons. PPP would do better, the nominal is affected by manipulable or varying exchange rates. See our Purchasing_power_parity#Need_for_adjustments_to_GDP. E.g. If one uses nominal terms in one measuring unit, US dollars, then as Australian dollars vs US ones have doubled in value in the last decade or so, nominal overstates the "real" growth of the Australian economy, while it understates the growth of China, say. For doing financial comparisons, useful to investors, nominal makes more sense, which is probably why the Vampire squid uses it. And of course it is one less fudge factor applied to the data.John Z (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd want currency exchange rates to be factored in to the comparison. Futurist110 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends what you want to compare. If you are interested in the country's influence in international trade, then you almost certainly want nominal. If you are interested in the standard of living of the inhabitants, then you almost certainly want PPP. For some things, it is a little less obvious. For all comparisons, you need to be aware of the limitations of the metric you are using. Both nominal GDP and PPP GDP have plenty of limitations. --Tango (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither nominal nor PPP GDP will tell you anything about how well the population is doing economically. For market size measures it would be better to look at nominal GDP per capita at average market exchange rates. (For the sake of this discussion, I’m ignoring private consumption, disposable incomes or other non-GDP measures.) If you’re selling expensive watches, for example, a smaller economy with fewer people (e.g., Japan) might be a better bet than a larger economy with a lot of people (say, China).

Comparisons between economies also needs some clarification. What is the purpose of the comparison? If you’re trying to show that India (for example) is not as bad off as its nominal GDP per capita of Rs71,900 in 2011 might suggest, then use PPP, which was $3,652. The problems are (1) India’s GDP is generated and originally tabulated in Indian Rupees, and so a common measure such as the US dollar needs to be used; and that PPP looks like a straight-forward dollar figure, but in fact is an artificial construct that has little bearing on how large a market for imports might actually be.

In fact, PPP is totally inappropriate as a means of understanding total economic size. It is a measure of the different local currency prices of a specific urban consumer basket of goods – no trade or investment, if you please! – and not merely an alternative exchange rate. Further, if you’re interest is in international trade, or economies with a large trade component (say, Singapore), PPP is useless as it requires distorting the value of internationally traded goods and services with a purely domestic, consumer-specific modification. As such, PPP is misused more often than it is used correctly, particularly by the CIA and Wikipedia! DOR (HK) (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

October 20

Japanese crime fiction writers works into English

How many writers have had their works translated into English like Keigo Higashino?--70.31.16.144 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

Do you want a number, or a list of some (or all) of their names? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. I was hoping you would do it for me.--70.31.17.229 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

Do what? Provide you with a bare number? Or provide you with a list of names? I doubt we could do either, accurately. We could probably come up with some names, but it wouldn't be a comprehensive list. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Translate them? —Tamfang (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to browse Category:Japanese crime fiction writers. Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Biased ads?

I just saw an ads on youtube and that ads is on this website. This is pure propaganda and perhaps anti-Americans. It looked like a movie at first glance but it is plainly just an ads about bad future for America. I'm wondering if this kind of ads is acceptable within America's laws.184.97.240.247 (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course that is allowed. What's so shocking about a website or a Youtube film propagating a (political) message? I don't think you have really grasped the concept of 'freedom of expression'. - Lindert (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is allowed. However, it also is a very very stupid and quite racist movie, so people should use the same right to free expression to point that out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What's racist about it? --Tango (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Presenting "the Chinese" in a 19th century Yellow Peril manner, including schadenfroh collective laughter at the end? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Laughing at Americans is hardly a stereotypical Chinese trait... the whole world does that... ;) --Tango (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the whole world would laugh at Americans. It would more like the whole world admire Americans on how Americans are the leading motivation in technology and science. 184.97.240.247 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention stand-up comedy! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it really counts as propaganda, it's just a political ad. And it isn't anti-American, it is just against the current government. You can be opposed to a government without being opposed to the country - that's a fundamental principle of democracy. (The UK describes the main opposition party as "Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition" to emphasise the fact that they are opposing the government but are loyal to the Queen and country.) --Tango (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying this ads is supposed to be an ads that anti-Obama and pro-Romney? Then whoever did this ads did a bad job. I think this ads isn't just anti-Obama but also anti-Americans overall and an insult to Americans. It clearly depicts the future of all Americans being enslaved (that's the same thing as working for them just to pay of the debt) by China.184.97.240.247 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As a patriotic American myself, I don't see it as anti-American. It's a cautionary reminder that we've become too dependent on other countries, and this is just one example extrapolated to an extreme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as "racist". Now, if they had the guy talking with a fake Charlie Chan type accent, that could be racist. It's just an anti-Obama ad that plays on fears - as do some of the pro-Obama ads. The general theme of all these ads is: "If you don't vote for our guy, America will collapse." The irony is that the creators of this ad seem to have forgotten that it's Romney's buddies in the business community that outsourced so many jobs to China, helping fuel China's economy and helping to allow China to acquire so many American bonds. There's now a term for that kind of forgetfullness: "Romnesia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And Nixon started it all by recognizing China. If Americans can't recognize America on the map, why should they recognize China ? :-) StuRat (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Mike Royko wrote a funny piece in 1972 as if he were a time traveler visiting Nixon in 1950 and telling him in vague terms what the future would hold. And of course Nixon was shocked beyond belief that the (unnamed) sitting President would actually be buddying up to Red China. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@Bugs: How do you remember a Mike Royko column from 1972 and do you have a link?  :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I remember something I saw once in 1972 and haven't seen since? It's a curse, what can I say? I just now googled the subject, and here it is. See if you can get to it.[29] If not, then google something like [mike royko nixon china 1972] as I did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Their biggest problem is that they don't realise China doesn't actually own that much US debt. Most US public debt is owned by Americans. Less than 10% by China. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's another conveniently-left-out fact. "Romnesia" is reaching epidemic proportions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

An even bigger problem, I think, is the failure to realize that this hurts China more than it does us. China relies on being able to sell things to the US -- having huge amounts of our currency is just a nuisance to them. It's true that they could do us some damage, but if they did, they would be devastating their own economy at the same time. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! China should afraid about this than so do Americans. I can't believe the laws actually allow some stupid, wrong-fact, insult ads like this.184.97.240.247 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Whenever it is illegal to be wrong about something, that means the government has a monopoly on truth. A very dangerous thing. - Lindert (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup... in a democracy, you have the right to be wrong... and Freedom of Speech means you have the right to clearly demonstrate to everyone else just how wrong you are. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I can sorta see what the OP's concern is. In most developed countries there are laws against misleading and deceptive advertising. But they apply only to businesses. A political machine, although it seeks to manage not just other businesses but an entire state or nation, is the furthest thing from a properly run business one can possibly imagine. They're above such tawdry concerns; they're all about principles and rights and truth. (Cough) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

However, in the UK, TV advertising by political parties is banned - they get free Party political broadcasts instead. This has broad public support."UK advertising rules save us from the climate lobbying mess in the US" However, in old-fashioned print, there's a bit of a free-for-all. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of soapboaxing in this thread, not that I'm surprised. To directly answer the OP: the ad criticizes the Obama administration. It came out years ago, far before the current presidential race. The right to criticize the government is the most sacred principle of democracy; without it, informed voting is impossible. In the US, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, and it's unconstitutional for either the government or the states to enact laws prohibiting it (see hate speech#United States). Of course, even if hate speech were illegal, that's not what the ad is. Anyone who thinks the Chinese wouldn't be glad to see the world's hyperpower collapse knows nothing about realpolitik. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's it in a nutshell. There's a lot of slack cut for advertising in general, and political advertising is practically anarchy. I've seen more bad lies this past year than in my golf game. But it's part of the blessing of free speech. Once we stop seeing those kinds of ads, we'll know we're screwed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Succesful troll is succesful. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a total load of crap this thread is with outright politicking and not a single encyclopedic question or answer! This is yet another good bit of evidence for the ANI that will eventually shut down the ref desk. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

On what basis? The OP asked a reasonable question and he got answers. Executive summary of the answers: "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey hold your mouth dude. There is no reason to talk crap. I don't know where you live but at where I live Politic is part of encyclopedia. And I don't care if one day someone shuts this ref down. None of any of us business. It is open now, that all it matters.184.97.240.247 (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is US a founding member of the League of Nations?

This map on WP[30] shows United States as a founding member of the League of Nations. And yet the US senate never ratified the admission treaty. The map has been there for 5 years now and has gone through dozens of revisions under various editors, so I assume the majority voice, and hence the map, is correct and I'm the one having a serious misunderstanding somewhere. A8875 (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm colour-blind, but the map you refer to shows the US in the "never members" category. The big country in North America is Canada ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I see too, and not being able to distinguish grey from blue would be an usual form of colour-blindness, so I doubt we both have it! I think the OP is getting a little confused geographically. --Tango (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That map needs serious work. How Occupied France can be considered a "founding state" that stayed (!) to the end, while Vichy France is portrayed as a "founding member" (!) that left is beyond my mortal mind's comprehension. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a messy situation. The Vichy government withdrew from the League on April 18th, 1941. At that time, it was recognised as the legitimate government of France by many states, including the US and Canada. In 1944, the Provisional Government of the French Republic took over and was widely recognised at least by the Allies. It retroactively declared most of the acts of the Vichy government invalid. So in 1942, France was not a member. But in 1945, it had been a member all along. Time travel will have been going to have made grammar more complicated - even if it's only political. Maybe the best way to represent this on the map by having a separate colour for France. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Last inmate executed by hanging in the U.S.?

Can anybody help me? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See Capital punishment in the United States#Methods. There is a table showing the date, name and location of the last executions by various methods, including hanging. --Tango (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. --Tango (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Provide Wife's Means of Subsistence

Are there European countries in which, according to marriage laws, a husband is obliged to provide his wife's means of subsistence, even though the wife has an income of her own? Is it in common law, in statute law, or in canon law? Any comment would be appreciated.--Omidinist (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See Abandonment#Abandonment_of_family. That one paragraph seems to be all we have on the subject, though... If anyone can find some good sources, we should expand it. --Tango (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Moon

Hi! I was wondering what the regulations on owing the Moon are. Is it ,like Antarctica, devoted to research and that no country is allowed to own any land on it? Thanks, B. Jakob T. (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Regulating the kind of thing you're on about was the subject of the Moon Treaty. But that's not been ratified, so isn't much real use. The Outer Space Treaty should apply, which is a start. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Moon Treaty has indeed been ratified, and by 13 nations that are REALLY BIG when it comes to lunar exploration - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, and Uruguay. I bet you're just aching to know who was the first Lebanese lunonaut.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That is all well and good for the legal status... but culturally the moon is American... after all, it has an abandoned car in the front yard! :>) Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"If you've had an abandoned car in your yard for 40 years, you might be a redneck." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As others have said, the legal situation is very vague at the moment. That is because it hasn't been in anyone's interests to get it sorted out. Once people start putting permanent bases on the moon, and particularly once they start mining its resources, then ownership of land and mineral rights will become and issue and will probably get sorted out. At the moment, it is purely academic. There is so much moon to go around that it probably won't be particularly controversial, although things like peaks of eternal light may be rare enough and valuable enough for people to want to argue over. --Tango (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Supposing gold was discovered on the moon, it would be an interesting fantasy to try and go get it before anyone else does. But until such time as it would take less money to get there and back than the value of whatever has been mined, it's impractical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

American Christians and Bible Study

Why do American Christians often attend Bible Study sessions on Wednesdays? What's up with Wednesdays? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not difficult to find counter-examples; Monday Night Bible Study, Tuesday Bible Studies (TBS), Thursday Men’s Bible Studies, Friday Night Bible Study and Saturday Night Bible Study. Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, in a lot of places where I've lived in the US lots of people go to their churches on specifically Wednesday, and there are many more cars in the church lot on Wednesday evening then any other evening. So the question is a good one -- why specifically Wednesdays? Duoduoduo (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Because Wednesday evening is halfway between two Sunday mornings, perhaps. Pais (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Wednesday sermons are a tradition that dates back to at least the time of the Reformation. This book mentions the practice in 16th century Germany and the Netherlands. I don't think there is a definite answer to the why-question though, other than it being roughly in the middle of the week (note that Thursdays are just as nearly in-between Sundays as Wednesdays). - Lindert (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the crew of the Mary Celeste?

I read the article but couldn't sort out what really happened to them. What a mystery. Is it true there was hot tea served? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The article says "Popular stories of untouched breakfasts with still-warm cups of tea on the cabin table are untrue..." and has a list of theories. -- BenRG (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

TOEFL test

There is a question regarding this test which I couldn't find. An answer from someone who has taken this test before on computer-version is very appreciated, otherwise point out to me the answer with confirmed source. On the "speaking section", according to my Princeton Review TOEFL book. I have to read a passage then listen to an audio then answer some questions about it. So first of all, do I suppose to read out loud when I read the passage or just in my head? I know that when I'm answering the questions I must say them out loud because it is speaking section. And am I doing this with a supervisor? If not then how the heck the computer can grade my level of speaking? I don't understand how the speaking section going to be like.184.97.240.247 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For the second part of your question, this might be helpful. It explains: Your recorded responses are sent to the ETS Scoring Network, where three to six certified human raters score them holistically on a scale of 0 to 4. The average score on the six tasks is converted to a scaled score of 0 to 30. So the computer doesn't grade your answers; people do.

For the first part of the question, I couldn't find a definitive answer. The instructions just say you have a short time to "read" a passage, then listen to an audio clip on the same subject, then answer a question that requires you to synthesize the information from both. It doesn't state explicitly that the "reading" has to be out loud, but I have found several sites that say you should take notes while you are reading, eg here (see questions 3 & 4). It would be quite difficult to take notes while concentrating on reading something aloud, all in only 45 seconds. A Google search suggests you are not the only person asking this question, and there are contradictory answers out there. However, I cannot find any site that says you are marked on your reading of the passage, or any criteria for marking. On the other hand, I can find many that say you are marked on the response you provide to the questions, and here are the marking criteria for this. Therefore my instinct is that in this part of the test you are not being assessed on your ability to read out loud in addition to your ability to discuss material you have read and heard, and reading aloud is not required, which is why the wording does not specify it. But I cannot give you an absolute reference to confirm this, and if anyone else can provide one it would be good. - Karenjc 11:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm very appreciated your effort on searching this up. Your reasons are very good so by using logic I can almost certain that I don't need to read out loud. It wouldn't make any sense if I have to take note in read out loud in 45 seconds. Either way I will be ready on the test day.184.97.240.247 (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best of luck with the test. - Karenjc 16:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the TOEFL twice before; you are NOT supposed to read the text aloud. You will have to read it normally, and you will only "speak up" when you answer the questions afterwards. Your voice will not be recorded when you read the text.

In order to get comfortable before your test date, I suggest you download the sample test from the ETS website. This will help clear any doubts you have and make you more familiar with the test's structure. _{Hisham1987 (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)}

Bermuda Triangle

Currently to this date, I wonder how often airplanes or boats going through this triangle area?184.97.240.247 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it named "Bermuda Triangle", I especially concerned about Bermuda, what does that area has to do with Bermuda? I can understand the triangle part but not the Bermuda? Who was the first to name it "Bermuda Triangle". The name couldn't just pop up from nowhere.184.97.240.247 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's one corner of a triangle drawn on the map whose purpose is to contain the allegedly "mysterious disappearances" in the area. The other two corners are basically Puerto Rico and Florida, which don't sound quite as exotic. According to the article, the term first turned up around 1964. It was a big deal for a while, and then the 1975 book came out and demolished the claims, and the term has since passed into popular culture as one of those joke-myths that everyone knows about but has never actually seen, like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or the Great Pumpkin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So do people still crossing this triangle often even in today?184.97.240.247 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Define "often". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Often probably means several hundred boats and planes per day traverse at least part of the Bermuda Triangle. Considering that the ports and airports around Miami are busy, and that The Bahamas lies pretty much entirely within the Triangle, I imagine at any one point in time there are dozens if not hundreds of air and sea vessels within the space defined by the triangle. --Jayron32 03:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a video of the total number of airplane flights in one 24-hour period, worldwide. There's a significant number passing over the Triangle every day. And that doesn't count boats. --Jayron32 04:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The OP can also go to any number of online sites like Marinetraffic.com, which display in real time all sorts of pleasure and cargo vessels sailing in those waters. It will also show you pictures (not real time) of many of those ships, including some kick-ass megayachts. A pleasant time-waster. Textorus (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Execution by gas

What is the problem with lethal gas executions? It seems less painful, comparing itb to the electric chair, hanging or shooting, and maybe even comparing it to the lethal injection. Gorgeop (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You would prefer choking to death over simply falling asleep? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to choke to death, depending on the gas. Aspiring some gases can make you fall asleep and die. Not even heavy breathing. Gorgeop (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Let's interview people who have been through each, and compare their experiences.

More seriously, cyanide poisioning, from all indications we can see from the outside, is a dreadful way to go. The morituri go through convulsions that deeply disturb witnesses. You can tell yourself, if it makes you feel better, that they are not really conscious of suffering during these, but as far as I know there is no evidence for that position. --Trovatore (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And where does it say that someone has to witness a death sentence? Gorgeop (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

In many state laws. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

But are they forces to watch all the execution? Gorgeop (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I second that question. It strikes me as unusual at best that there would be laws actually forcing anyone to watch. (But then, it strikes me as odd enough that there are audiences at executions in the first place, it seems so... morbid.) 164.71.1.221 (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Imagine it would be difficult to execute somebody with nobody in the room. And what you're suggesting to me sounds just like a gas based version of the injection, I can see a lot more things that would go wrong with gas vs liquid's, easier to leak out etc--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What does it have to do with anything whether there are witnesses or not? I mentioned the witnesses as evidence of suffering; the witnesses are disturbed because of what they think the person is going through. I wasn't talking about the effect on the witnesses as a consideration in itself. --Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The gas doesn't have to be poisonous, helium would kill you if you breadth enough of it, and there are no convulsions either. Gorgeop (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nitrogen works too, and is much cheaper. —Tamfang (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (1949-53) (Cmd. 8932) examined alternative methods to hanging. It assessed them against the requirement of humanity, which it defined as being that the act of execution be quick and free from any additional 'poignancy', and also that it produce instantaneous unconsciousness passing quickly into death. They concluded that hanging was far quicker than the gas chamber, and that the requirement to remove almost all the prisoner's clothes to prevent pockets of gas lodging in them was unwelcome (para 727). They also mentioned that "while hanging is tainted by the memory of its barbarous history, 'gassing' is tainted by more recent but not less barbarous associations" (para 732). The British Medical Association put forward the idea of using Carbon Monoxide as a lethal gas, which would not necessarily require a gas chamber, but the commission found that forcibly applying a mask to a conscious prisoner would involve a distressing and unseemly struggle (para 736). The Commission did not recommend a change in method. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The idea that hanging causes "instant unconsciousness" is rather dubious. If the spinal cord is severed, the victim cannot move his body, so this may look like unconsciousness to observers, but severing the spinal cord in itself does not in general cause unconsciousness. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Commission based its view on a memorandum from HM Coroner for North London Bentley Purchase (a fascinating character, incidentally) who had conducted post-mortem examinations on prisoners hanged at Pentonville. Purchase said that in all 58 examinations, the immediate cause of death was fracture dislocation of cervical vertebrae and the report does not doubt that it caused instantaneous unconsciousness. The fact that the heart may continue to beat for up to 20 minutes afterwards is described as "a purely automatic function" (para 714). Not being medically trained I don't have any base to enter this discussion but thought it worth mentioning why the Royal Commission came to its decision to endorse long drop hanging as humane. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. And how would they know, exactly, that it caused instant unconsciousness? I call bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If the brainstem is violently separated from the midbrain, disrupting the latter, unconsciousness would be instantaneous. Not that I am saying such separation always happens. But that is the purpose of the long drop. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that the purpose? I thought it was to subluxate the cervical vertebrae and so cause the spinal cord to be severed. But severing the spinal cord does not in general cause instant unconsciousness, which makes me suspicious. The fact that there is an incentive for the executioners to claim instant unconsciousness, combined with the difficulty of determining that, makes me suspicious too. --Trovatore (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Same goes for injection: one of the drugs used causes paralysis, so that witnesses cannot see if the victim suffers. Presumably that's also why the occupant of the gas chamber was (is?) gagged. —Tamfang (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not very accurate. He is first made unconscious with sodium pentathol, then killed with various paralyzing agents that stop the heart. He's not paralyzed while conscious for the benefit of the audience. I can tell you that you don't feel having four wisdom teeth extracted under sodium pentathol. So you aren't exactly suffering from a mere paralytic while under from SP already. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sodium pentothal is an "ultra short-acting" thiobarbiturate. There is debate over whether the convict might regain consciousness in time to experience not being able to breathe.

I doubt you had four wisdom teeth extracted using just pentothal. Pentothal is used for quick induction of anesthesia, but then another anesthetic is used to maintain it. --Trovatore (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

They had some trouble reviving me (I had no detectable pulse for a minute) and I was told that it was a reaction to the sodium pentathol. But it's surely a technical matter of getting the prootcol right. They can certainly knock you out and kill you by the time you wake up. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but this is not really known. If they actually cared, they wouldn't use an ultra-short-acting one at all. You may have reacted to the pentathol, but I'm virtually certain it was not the only anesthetic they used on you; it just isn't done. --Trovatore (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Killing with helium would be an unusual punishment, therefore not constitutional in the US. Other countries simply don't care much about humane executions (what's the point after all. You are executing people, it will always be horrible). I personally believe that the lethal injection is maybe the 'cleanest.' No blood, no kicking, no screaming (well maybe before the execution a little). OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice bit of OR, but the punishment is not breathing helium, but execution, which itself is not unusual in capital cases. As for any random person dying, by helium is hardly more unusual than by cyanide, as compared to car accident or lightning strike. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The first use of gas, Old Sparky or injection was "unusual" too. The point of the Eighth Amendment, as I understand it, is to forbid sentencing judges to say: "And because the victim was especially popular and hanging is too good for you, we're gonna kill you in a special way." —Tamfang (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. You could just as well argue that no one should be imprisoned in a newly built prison because, no one ever having been imprisoned there before, it would be unusual for someone to be imprisoned on the site. Unusual is simply meant as a broadening synonym of cruel. Torturing someone to death in some slow strange way would fall under the prohibition. Killing them with a new technology, like a firing squad, instead of an old one, like a gallows, would not be. μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, if you mean my paragraph above (or some part of it) is utter nonsense, where's your disagreement? —Tamfang (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your use of what might be scare quotes makes it hard for me to interpret whether we are agreeing here or not. In any case, what would be nonsense would be a literal argument that because a certain tool was first being used for an execution that it would be "unusual" in the forbidden sense. Just like I argued, if no one had ever been imprisoned in Smithville before because there was never a prison there before, it would be unusual in a trivial sense for someone to be imprisoned in Smithville. The same with claiming that execution by firing squad with a machinegun would be unusual, or asphyxiation by gas instead of rope. That is what would be utter nonsense, a total confusion of the method with the result. I do agree that a method chosen because it was intentionally torturous would be problematic, since not just death, but disproportionate suffering might be the intent. But "cruel" covers that. My guess is that what was meant by including "unusual" was in part to hedge against people who would say that hanging itself was cruel. The case of the perjurer Titus Oates as mentioned in Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution would seem to be relevant. Once again, in his case it was the punishment, not the tool, that was viewed as unusual. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Might be scare quotes, might not, I can't decide either. – My suspicion is that cruel and unusual was a set phrase in judicial jargon. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course WHAAOE: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had given (and have just added) this link http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruel+and+Unusual+Punishment in my last response--it explains the origin of the term in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 in regards to the Titus Oates case. What was unusual was the prescribed punishment, not the means used to carry it out. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion and links at Gas chamber#United states will answer the original question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The BBC had a programme not so long ago, presented by Michael Portillo, examining the most humane way of judicially killing someone. His conclusion was the use of nitrogen. He also concluded that it is not used because, just before they die, people become really, really happy - and executing a happy person does not fit with concepts of justice and revenge. (As an aside, there are people in the UK who are not happy they brought him out of the nitrogen intoxication...) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no shortage of morbid humor connected with death and executions. To have the guy literally die laughing might be a bit much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See also Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, Part VII, scene 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

ObWHAAOE: Nitrogen asphyxiation. Marnanel (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Main Factors for Anti-Semitism

I was wondering, but are the large presence of Jews and/or Muslims in a particular country or area the main causes of anti-Semitism? I mean, most of the countries that have more anti-Semitism are the ones with either a lot of Jews and/or with a lot of Muslims. In countries where they are very few Jews or Muslims (many countries in South America, China, Japan, etc.) there is almost no anti-Semitism. Here's another example--it appears that Hungary has more anti-Semitism than any of the other former Warsaw Pact countries (excluding the former USSR), as evidenced by the strong showing of Jobbik in the polls there. Hungary also has the most Jews as a % of the population right now out of any of those former Warsaw Pact countries. Futurist110 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

First off, anti-semitism has a particular meaning that does not include prejudice against Islam or semitic speakers (like e.g. Arabs) in general. Secondly, I don't think your anecdotal evidence is very useful. Jobbik is generally xenophobic, not specifically anti-semitic, for example. In general, conditions where there is a notable presence of a minority (to act as a nucleus for fear and resentment), but not a strong presence (which leads to familiarisation) are most conductive to prejudice. However, there are plenty of historical circumstances that lead deviation from the general rule. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, I don't think Futurist110 was saying anti-Semitism applies to Arabs, I think he was saying that in an area with a lot of Arabs, anti-Semitism is more common.

Futurist, that is tough to say, as tough as it is to assign a "factor" for any form of irrational hatred, be it anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, white supremacism, etc. Certainly, Europe in the Medieval Ages had hardly any Arabs but was the most anti-Semitic place of its time. A reason for a surge in such hatred could be economic reasons, as it's easy to scapegoat and blame others rather than yourself (consider whether Adolf Hitler would've been elected in Germany had there not been such huge inflation, or whether he would've just been viewed as a nut). In Greece, where the economy sucks, the far-right Golden Dawn party has been elected, which is anti everyone who isn't "pure Greek," the whole shebang. --Jethro B 22:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that a lot of Muslims nowadays are anti-Semitic due to the whole Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus places with a lot of Muslims often have more anti-Semitism (even if there are virtually no Jews left in them right now, such as in most of the Arab and Muslim worlds). Likewise, if there are a lot of Jews in an area, then resentment and hatred against them often tends to be created, especially if the population is uneducated, as was the case in Europe in the Middle Ages and even in the 19th and early 20th centuries, since in a lot of cases Jews tend to become wealthier and more successful than their non-Jewish neighbours. Hitler was viewed as a nut before the Great Depression by many Germans, but a good number of Germans probably did share his anti-Semitic views, just not to the genocidal extent that Hitler had them. As for Jobbik, it is not exclusively anti-Semitic, but it is still pretty anti-Semitic, considering how Csanad Szegedi had to leave the party after it was discovered that his mother was ethnically Jewish. Futurist110 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how true the part about Jews tending to be wealther and more successfull... I mean, surely that was claimed by many anti-Semites, but until recent times, most European Jewry tended to be poor and live in a shtetl. Now, with religious freedom and some better mobility and rights, the situation has progressed. --Jethro B 00:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh. Futurist, if there's a significant presence of Jews in a certain place, that means there's a lot of people to hate * I F * you're anti-semitically inclined. But it could never be said that the presence of the Jews is the cause of anti-semitism, as per your opening question. That would legitimate anti-semitism by making Jews inherently hate-worthy, and making it their own fault for being Jews. That's not even remotely acceptable as a good faith question, in my book.

Unless, of course, you have great difficulty in expressing yourself in English. But given all the questions you've asked here, that is far from my impression of you. I recommend you have a cold shower and think more clearly even about whether you really need to ask a question at all, before launching into such an ill-considered utterance. There's a lot to be read about such subjects, and you need to do some reading and googling and your own research first. Not just pose uncritically the first question that happens to pop into your head each morning. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? Of course the presence of Jews is one of the causes of anti-Semitism. It's hard to hate "the people o'er yonder" with a passion if those people are 5000 km away and have little impact on your life. That's just human nature. On the other hand, if Jews are living within your own country, and you believe that them to be greedy God-killing infidels who deliberately sabotaged your country's last war effort, and that they're taking all the good jobs, controlling all the banks, inciting Communist revolutions, etc., you'd be more likely to be anti-Semitic. The naive view that you seem to have about anti-Semitism is that a bunch of hateful people magically gathered somewhere and decided to hate a randomly picked group of people. You seem to ignore the religious, economic, historical, and cultural reasons behind anti-Semitism, as well as the human psychology of hatred.

Jack's answer is not in good faith, but the answers above his answer Futurist's questions insightfully. It's easy to scapegoat other people when your economy is in the dumps, and it helps that Jews historically controlled a disproportionate percentage of the economy. Jobbik is not necessarily anti-Semitic; it's simply xenophobic, so the fact that Hungary has a lot of Jews makes Jews a target. Anti-semitism is mainly Islamic nowadays primarily due to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unlike many other cases of ethnic hatred--between Irish Catholics and Protestants, between Serbs and Croats/Bosniaks, between Basque separatists and the Spanish, etc--Islamic anti-Semitism of the type seen today has no deep historical roots. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

My answer was most certainly in good faith. What would you make of any suggestion that the cause of rape is the presence of women? Or the cause of fraud is the existence of money? Suggesting that Jews are the cause of the hatred visited upon them is redolent of classic "blame the victim" mentality. Words have meaning. Use them with caution, or accept the consequences. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack, I'm inclined to believe that Futurist's question is well-intentioned but phrased extremely awkwardly. His userpage identifies him as an ethnic Jew (although not religious) from Ashkenazi Jewry, a member of Wikiproject Israel, and from my interactions with him, he isn't a self-hater. --Jethro B 00:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case I reiterate my comments about thinking first and asking questions here only when other avenues of enquiry have been exhausted. - Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

IP guy, I'm inclined to disagree somewhat. Europeans in the 19th century had an inferior view of Africans, despite the fact that most didn't visit Africa or have large African populations. Irrational hatred doesn't need a motive or a factor. A surge in such irrational hatred can sometimes have a motive or factor, such as scapegoating someone... But the origins of such irrational hatred is often different. To a certain extent though, you are correct. Many far-right parties in Europe now focus on Arabs, rather than Jews, since although Jews have historically always been a tiny percentage of the world and Europe, in the past few decades there have been many Arabs coming to Europe, thus becoming a new target for these parties, who set a "higher priority" for them. That doesn't reduce their feelings towards Jews though (except perhaps in the case of Marine Le Pen, although even that's debatable).

Also, while I agree that anti-Semitism in the Arab world became prominent from the Arab-Israeli conflict (which certainly isn't any reason to hate a religion), there are certainly historical roots. Jews under Arab rule had good times and bad times. In Spain, during the time of the Moors, the Jews were lucky and had a better life than in most European countries. At other times, it was not such. Consider what Saudi Arabian King Ibn Saud told a British official in 1937 as his reasoning for anti-Semitism, "Our hatred for the Jews dates from God’s condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet." The Arab-Israeli conflict is not mentioend here as a reason. He even says that it'd be better for England to control the Mandate of Palestine for hundred years, which would contradict the current attempts of Palestinian/Arab statehood! (source - [[31]]) The Banu Qurayza in the 600's are another example. So again, while keeping in mind that Jews generally fared better under Araab rule than Christian rule historically, there are deep historic anti-Semitic roots in the Arab world. --Jethro B 01:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

19th century Britons mostly regarded Africans as an inferior people whose interests can be neglected, much like how supposedly enlightened people regard animals today. They didn't hate the Africans in the same sense that Hitler hated the Jews. Nobody accused the Africans of engaging in a worldwide conspiracy, or killing their God, or taking over their economy.

With regard to Arabs, I should clarify. Obviously Arabic societies never treated Jews with anything that could be called "equality" today. However, I stand by my point that the history of Jews in Arabic societies prior to the 20th century, unlike the history of Jews in Europe, was not defined by hatred and persecution. Your Saudi example is unfair because Wahhabism is essentially a nutjob movement that was considered the fringe of the fringe, both today and in 1937. The Banu Qurayza massacre was the result of a military conflict. Saying that Muhammad killed the men and enslaved the women because of antisemitism is like saying that Agamemnon killed the Trojan men and enslaved the Trojan women because he didn't like Anatolian gods. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed in books on the subject. Historic evidence is that antisemitism flowers without this type of logic. You'll find it endemic in societies where Jewish are a sizable minority and where Jews are a tiny minority or barely existent. You'll find it where Jews are comparatively rich and poor and neither in particular, where Jews are influential or not influential, visible or invisible, where there are political factors and where there are none, where there are religious factors and where there are none.

A particularly good analysis of this can be found in Why the Jews?, for one example. The Amazon page for the book includes an excerpt from Chapter one, from which here's a brief quote:

How are the universality, depth, and permanence of antisemitism to be explained? Why such hatred and fear of a people who never constituted more than a small minority among those who most hated and feared them? Why, nearly always and nearly everywhere, the Jews? Many answers have been offered by scholars. These include, most commonly, economic factors, the need for scapegoats, ethnic hatred, xenophobia, resentment of Jewish affluence and professional success, and religious bigotry. But ultimately these answers do not explain antisemitism; they only explain what factors have exacerbated it and caused it to erupt in a given circumstance.

Hope that helps, --Dweller (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, great quote! --Jethro B 05:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor above said "It's hard to hate "the people o'er yonder" with a passion if those people are 5000 km away and have little impact on your life." Well, back in the 1960 Australians (and, I suspect, Americans) became convinced that those gooks, slopes and chinks were worth making our enemies in Vietnam. Hardly anybody here had even met a Vietnamese person, but for several years government had support in sending our troops to kill Vietnamese people. Yes, I know it was complicated, but proximity certainly isn't required to establish "hate". HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The key phrase is "have little impact on your life". The Americans didn't believe that communism had little impact on their lives; in fact, they believed it was the greatest and most imminent existential threat they've ever faced. The 5000 km thing doesn't apply when your opponent can launch weapons into Earth orbit and have them reenter at any point on the globe. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, the average Jew living in Germany in the 1930's was utterly incapable of launching weapons into the orbit and attacking Germany. That, however, didn't prevent Hitler from his famous "stab in the back" conspiracy theory. --Jethro B 06:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Vietnamese couldn't "launch weapons into Earth orbit and have them reenter at any point on the globe", but they were the ones who were vilified. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings... and I hate people like that." - Tom Lehrer Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And in the same song, as I recall: "Oh, the Catholics hate the Protestants / And the Protestants hate the Catholics / And the Hindus hate the Moslems / And everybody hates the Jews. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Pistols in USA Movies

Why are these often held horizontally? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Because some adolescent gangsta thought it looked cool, and/or because it's less likely to obscure an actor's face. Certainly not to improve shooting accuracy. —Tamfang (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

We have an article about this: side grip. Looie496 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There was a joke about it in a Simpsons episode... AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There was also a skit about it (SNL ?), where somebody had to show them how to fire a gun properly, so they could start hitting each other instead of random bystanders. Between not aiming their guns properly and baggy pants that make running away difficult, they seem to have a death wish. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Mythbusters did an episode about various pistol grips shown in movies... and came to the conclusion that the "gangsta" sideways grip was very inaccurate (although more accurate than the "shoot from the waist" style favored by movie "gangsters" of an earlier era). Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wild speculation: in a drive by shooting, if you only want to lower your window a little bit (because it's tinted or bulletproof, for example) then you might want to turn a gun that way to get it out the window, especially if it has a banana clip or something. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

October 21

religious parties with spiritual leader

Shas party of Israel has a Sephardi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef as their spiritual leader. Hezbollah had a spiritual leader, late ayatollah Mohammad Fadhallah. What other religious parties have religious scholars as their spiritual leader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.72 (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Iran has an ayatollah as their supreme leader, see Ayatollah Khamenei. --Jethro B 02:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The mighty Christian Heritage Party of Canada has a Baptist deacon, Jim Hnatiuk, as its current leader. --NellieBly (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Arlington National Cemetery

Hi, my grandfather (1845 – 1940) fought in the American Civil War and I would love to have him buried in the Arlington Cemetery. What are the procedures and is it possible? Thank you indeed. Iowafromiowa (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See: Arlington Cemetery#Burial criteria. Following the various links to sources will give you further information. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

News coverage of Pussy Riot on American TV

OK, it's been over 15 years since I lived in the U.S., and maybe things have changed since then, but I can't imagine a network news anchor like Diane Sawyer using the word "pussy" on air. So how is Pussy Riot referred to on TV news in America? Or is the evening news there still as parochial as it was back in the '90s and nothing that happens outside the U.S. is mentioned at all? Angr (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it also has a non-obscene meaning of "cat" makes it OK. If the band was "Cunt Riot", they probably wouldn't say it. StuRat (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Freed Pussy Riot member: Putin influenced sentence. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• The James Bond movie Goldfinger had a character named Pussy Galore all the way back in the 60s -- if that goes, anything goes. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Although that wasn't on American TV, at least initially. I wonder when was the first time it aired on American TV, and was anything done to distort the name Pussy? Also, I remember that James Bond himself pronounced it /'pusi/ instead of /ˈpʊsi/. I've always wondered whether that was just Sean Connery's accent or whether it was a way around the censors. Anyone know? Duoduoduo (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think there would be a problem with an anchor saying the name of the band on air (if necessary, they would just "bleep" over the potentially offensive word)... I am not sure if the issue has come up. It is true that the Pussy Riot story has not had much coverage in the US (and perhaps none on the major network news). I don't think it is due to parochialism... other international news stories have been covered extensively. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think wikt:pussy already is a euphemism, sort of like wikt:boys (the latter term seems to me to have only recently become popular). Wnt (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a dim memory that a blue movie was advertised in my local newspaper (Champaign, Illinois) as P.... Talk, in 197x. —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, when Goldfinger was first aired on US broadcast TV, the lady in question's name was overdubbed as "Miss Galore". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not all that long ago, I Love Little Pussy was considered an unexceptionable nursery rhyme... AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've heard plenty of discussion of Pussy Riot on NPR. They just say "Pussy Riot", with no bleeps or censoring. Some of this content may have been from PRI, but plenty originates from US agencies and reporters. Now, I suppose TV networks may have additional, self-imposed restrictions that the follow, but as far as I know, radio and TV broadcasts are bound by the same FCC laws, meaning that TV anchors could say it too. Lastly, it is humorous to hear the staid and solemn NPR anchors say "Pussy Riot", which I imagine is part of why the group picked the name :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Now if you want to see something remarkably absent from the news, consider the action against Madonna for expressing pro-gay sentiments at her concert.[32][33] Even her Wikipedia article doesn't mention it. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

How can it be that this thread has lasted so long without mention of Mrs Slocombe's pussy? --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Language question: Does the "pussy" pun work in Russian in the same way as in English? HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. But the lexicon of rude Russian words is vast, and I don't pretend to know anything of its intricacies. Nothing would surprise me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Multilateral battles

Nearly all big battles have exactly two sides to them, even if multiple countries or groups are represented by each side.

Are there any examples of battles that took place with three or more mutually antagonistic opponents? So instead of side A vs. B, there was side A vs. B vs. C, all of which were equally interested in killing one another (A vs. B, A vs. C, B vs. C)?

I'm suspecting probably not, just because the logistics of such a thing would be difficult and generally would favor a third side waiting to let the first and second sides thin each other out, but the idea of it intrigued me so I thought I'd ask. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say communist chian under Mao, when the Communists fought Japan and the Nationalists, the Nationalists fought the Japanese and the Communists, and the Japanese foughtboth the Communists and Nationalists (since they're Chinese). Or perhaps the Boxer Rebellion to a certain extent, depending on how you view it. --Jethro B 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Continuation War is a very informative article to read ("There were even several cases of Jewish officers of Finland's army awarded the German Iron Cross, which they declined"), but I suppose it doesn't actually count. The Spanish Civil War, surely. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What were the three or more sides in the Spanish Civil War? I thought it was just two coalitions against each other. For example, our article in paragraph three refers to "both sides in the war". Duoduoduo (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Duoduoduo : see Barcelona May Days . Later, during the Huesca battle, anarchists troops refused to attack, and the franquists kept Huesca...T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Stalin considered purging anarchists and Trotskyists more important than actually winning the war against Franco, and the NKVD was present in Republican Spain towards the end... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know a real battle yet, but the final shootout in Extreme Prejudice is a movie example. --KnightMove (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

During the Crusader invasions of Egypt in the 1160s-70s, the Fatimids, Ayyubids and crusaders were sometimes fighting a three-way war. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your instinct is right, that they normally form two sides first, until one is defeated, then the remaining sides may fight amongst themselves. For example, in Syria, the rebels are composed of both secular and Islamic fundamentalist forces. It's quite predictable that, after Assad goes, they will then fight each other for control (with perhaps the Kurds joining in, too). So, in a situation of anarchy, then you can get everyone fighting everyone else. The Lebanese Civil War is a previous example of this. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "battle" as in a one-day actual physical battle, or are you using the word as a metaphor for "war"? Because the first seems difficult logistically. --NellieBly (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I mean an actual battle, not just a war. There are plenty of instances of multi-party wars. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

To add some magic to this, {{Infobox military conflict}} has a "combatant3" parameter to indicate a third, distinct combatant in a battle. Searching through the first few hundred examples of infoboxes that have this parameter instantiated, I've only found one real contender so far. The others are either fictional, between species of wildlife, or involved factions that just didn't want their own people killed. Perhaps more exhaustive analysis of this search would yield more results. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

All of those except Narnia are interesting links — thanks! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember, in WW1, possibly in Tanzania, the British were fighting a battle against the Germans, and then the locals joined in and fought both sides, during which the British and Germans had a temporary armistice to fight off the locals. After doing so, they resumed combat. I can't find any references for this, but I read it somewhere. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You won't find the word "Tanzania" in any such reference. I'm sure you're aware of this, but just in case. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It was German East Africa at the time. Sorry, about that. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See the brilliant second sentence of our article on Yugoslav Wars:

he wars were complex: characterized by bitter ethnic conflicts among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between Serbs (and to a lesser extent, Montenegrins) on the one side and Croats and Bosniaks (and to a lesser degree, Slovenes) on the other; but also between Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia (in addition to a separate conflict fought between rival Bosniak factions in Bosnia).

Summary: what a sad mess. --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems concerning scientific prodigies

Sometimes you read media reports about ingenious wonder children who move to major cities and start a university career in math or physics at the age of 10 or so. However, I assume that such kids and juveniles often face a bunch of social and legal problems about which I'd like to know more - are there reports about such problems? --KnightMove (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The potential problems are not limited to "scientific" prodigies... the same issue can affect other prodigies (child actors, children with musical talent, etc.) Prodigies who are pushed into adult situations too soon often have sociological and emotional difficulties. Being gifted can be lonely... a prodigy may be intellectually ready for great things but may not yet be emotionally ready for them. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok... what about legal problems? A child can't rent an apartment and live on his own. Or, at what age is this possible in the USA? --KnightMove (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In the case of a child who attends university, the university will act In loco parentis... and assume the legal responsibility for the child. This is what happens when a child attends a boarding school. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You may find this article an interesting read about the experience of Ruth Lawrence and the effect on her and her family then and now. Her father effectively dedicated himself to accompanying her, which solved the practical problems but not the others. - Karenjc 20:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Child protection policies make it difficult now for universities to take on the in loco parentis role. A boarding school ought to know what it is doing, and should have a full range of support structures in place. A university is geared to work with young adults (and older adults), not children. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See minor emancipation, KnightMove. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not really sure how that's related. Judith's point is valid: Universities are designed to handle the social development of the average 18-22 year old, not the social development of, say, the average 12 year old. Doogie Howsers may be intellectually ready for advanced physics, but they may not be ready to be socially integrated into, or be at a stage of life similar too, their classmates at a typical University. --Jayron32 05:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

October 22

women priests

In Judaism, Reform Jews and Conservative Jews and Reconstructionist Jews have rabbis who are women. Is Judaism the only religion in the world that have female priests in specific sects? No debate, just simple answer like no or yes. Thanks.--70.31.22.91 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

No. See Ordination of women. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Rabbis are not priests and certainly not priestesses. See http://www.jewfaq.org/rabbi.htm μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

To summarise the Christian situation briefly - there's a complete spectrum. The Anglican communion is divided on the subject. The Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church in the USA is a woman (and also a priest, necessarily). The Church of England is just getting set to create its first women bishops, but has had women priests for some time. The Lutheran Church of Sweden has women bishops too - the Bishop of Stockholm, for example.

The Roman Catholic church and the various Orthodox churches do not have women priests.

Not all Christian churches have priests at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, women played and play important rules in all kinds on non-Christian religions. See e.g. Vestal Virgin and Pythia for classical examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I found Religious sexism: when faith groups started (and two stopped) ordaining women. Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Some religions, unlike the Abrahamic religions, explicitly promote the elimination of prejudice. See Baha'i Faith and the unity of humanity. Baha'i has no priests (and considering that rabbis aren't priests, the OP's requirements are probably not strict), but its elected councils are open to both men and women. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not true, 140. The highest elected council, the Universal House of Justice, is definitely not open to women of any age, experience or wisdom. A 21-year-old male is, however, eligible. Bielle (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case - in what sense is Baha'i not 'Abrahamic'? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

@Bielle: You're most definitely right. I was somehow under the impression that it wasn't an elected council.

@Alex: It's not Abrahamic in the sense that it doesn't claim to have originated from Abraham and considers numerous religions to be "true", many of which have no relation to Abraham and explicitly claim another founder. In that sense, they're similar to delusional liberals who believe all religions to be true while ignoring the fact that all of them are ludicrous, self-contradictory, and mutually contradictory. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it developed from a form of Islam (Shaykhism/Babism), which is usually enough to count as "Abrahamic", unless there has been radical discarding of historical influences... You can look at The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis (a determined Christian who definitely did not think that all religions are "true") for a systematic defense of the idea that almost all religions contain valid moral foundations... AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Who is the person Obama is bowing to?

Who's Obama bowing to in this picture? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Viktor Yushchenko ---Sluzzelin talk 02:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, he looks great since the poisoning. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yuschenko's disfigurement was primarily chloracne and bloating, both of which fade over time. You can see the fading over the years — 2006 (bloating and chloracne) 2007 (just chloracne) 2009/2009 (much faded chloracne). (Compare before/after in 2004). I suspect some of his scarring may be permanent but it's gotten a lot better. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not unambigiously clear that Obama is in fact bowing. It's quite possible that he is meley looking at and commenting on Yushchenko's shoes. Roger (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he's both bowing and shaking hands at the same time, as he did much to the amusement of the incumbent Mikado?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes... bowing and shaking hands at the same time. Obama is known for doing this when greeting other heads of state (especially when he is the visitor to their country). Some criticize him for this practice (seeing the bow as a sign of submission, which should not be done between equals). Others don't have a problem with it (seeing the bow as a sign of respect, perfectly acceptable between equals). Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously he's about to pull the old "your shoelace is untied" gag. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazons

According to our article on the Amazons:

"According to ancient sources, (Plutarch Theseus,[74] Pausanias), Amazon tombs could be found frequently throughout what was once known as the ancient Greek world. Some are found in Megara, Athens, Chaeronea, Chalcis, Thessaly at Skotousa, in Cynoscephalae and statues of Amazons are all over Greece. At both Chalcis and Athens Plutarch tells us that there was an Amazoneum or shrine of Amazons that implied the presence of both tombs and cult. On the day before the Thesea at Athens there were annual sacrifices to the Amazons."

As far as I know, the Classical Greeks thought the Amazons were humans, not goddesses. Not only that, they were enemies of Greece and never had a single friendly encounter. So why were the Amazons worshipped? --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Remember that to the ancient Greeks, the Gods were just normal humans who happened to be immortal. And there were those in-between, like Hercules. So, they could think of the Amazons, at various times, as legendary humans or as goddesses. StuRat (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

140.180.242.9 -- In ancient Greek culture, local ancestors and culture heroes / "demigods" were honored, and sometimes sacrificed to, without being confused with gods as such... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

But the amazons were neither the ancestors of the Greeks nor demigods. The only full mortals I know of who were sacrificed to were legendary founders (and Greeks) like Perseus. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

They weren't particularly divinities, but they were semi-mythical figures with striking personal characteristics, and if some of them developed local associations, they might be considered "heroes" in a sense... AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Whitecollar : 2 cultural questions please

Hello L.O. (Learned Ones) ! The TV serie Whitecollar is gaining audience in France, thanks to its aesthetic qualities and winding intrigues, & the IIIrd season, 14° episod (Pulling Strings) has been welcomed : bound to be, it features Matt. Bomer as a beloved character of ours : Arsène Lupin (or at least as his great-grand-son) , and a good value for us here, a Stradivarius violin. Could you give me some cultural references tips about :

1/ the doll retrieved after 30 years : great round sullen eyes, concave profile with sunken little nose, stiff bleached hair, limp body, makes you think of an abused off-spring from alcoolic parents... I don’t remember having seen such a freak in little girls’s hands during the ’80. Was this doll à la mode in the US then , did it have a specific name ?

2/ I didn’t see clearly what New York concert hall Neal and Sara were attending : a wide amphitheatrum with big low armchairs, with mustard-colored (I think) walls and furniture. Can you tell me what theater it was ? Thank you beforehand for your answers, T.y Arapaima (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

1) Cabbage Patch Kids: [34] ? They were quite the fad in the 1980s. StuRat (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at screenshots (ETA: here) it doesn't seem to be a cabbage patch kid. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Blimey! It bears a slight resemblance to a Troll doll, but I can only find pictures of smiling ones.[35] Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It rings no bells with me. This wouldn't be the first fictional fad. —Tamfang (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

According to [36] it's a Little Miss No Name, a Hasbro line from 1965. (What, do we not have an article?) Marnanel (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Could this be the concert hall? That's the Metropolitan Opera House at the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. (ETA Or the Avery Fisher Hall?) --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Automatic Pistols

All the (semi)automatic pistols I have seen require manual loading of first cartridge, i.e. after inserting a loaded magazine you pull and release the bolt slide so that first cartridge gets into breech, then you fire and need not pull bolt next time, hence "automatic". My question is that are there any models that do not require the loading of first bullet ? If so then how does it manage to get first cartridge from magazine into breech ? 124.253.95.164 (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Answer to first question - No. Answer to second question - Moot (see answer to first question). All automatic weapons invented so far require a deliberate action by the operator to move the first round from the feed mechanism into the chamber. This applies equally to hanguns, rifles, machineguns all the way up to large automatic cannon. Roger (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The question reminds me of a funny blunder in The Killing (Kubrick's heist movie, 1956): Elisha Cook picks up an empty pistol, works the slide and then inserts a magazine, leaving the chamber empty.

A quibble worth noting imho: With most pistols, when you fire the last round of a magazine, the slide stays open. You then replace the magazine and release a catch, and the slide closes, loading the first round with less work on your part. —Tamfang (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not always a good thing, because it tells everyone that you've fired your last shot. Alansplodge (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Last living veteran of the Second Anglo Afghan War?

Last living veteran of the Second Anglo-Afghan War? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The best I can do is; The Second Anglo-Afghan War 1878-1880 which links to Yahoo Groups: The Second Anglo-Afghan War and says that "Some topics already mentioned include... longest living Afghan war veterans." You have to join the group to read the messages. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I should have known; WHAAOE. See List_of_last_survivors_of_historical_events#1850–1900; "Hugh Theodore Pinhey - February 6, 1953 (aged 96) - Last veteran of the Second Anglo-Afghan War." Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an amazing list. It even names the "last individual who claimed to have spoken to Virgin Mary." No more claimants then?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's surprising to me. Do Catholics no longer ask her to do something or other now and at the hour of their deaths amen?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not just Catholics... although, apparently she does not reply as often as she used to do. Perhaps the entry should be changed to "last individual to claim that the Virgin Mary spoke to him/her" Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not right either, since I'm sure there are many mentally ill people who have imagined that she's spoken to them. Perhaps "last individual believed by the Roman Catholic Church to have spoken with the Virgin Mary"? This also avoids the implication that Wikipedia is judging the merits of any claims. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Even more amazing is that whenever Joe and Rose Kennedy had a child, it's regarded as a historical event. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That 1917 Fatima claim is wrong, anyway. According to Marian apparition, the Catholic Church has accepted the claims of later apparitions and conversations with the Virgin Mary: in Beauraing 1932/33, Banneux 1933, and Akita 1973. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see what's going on. It's saying that Lúcia Santos was the last survivor of a conversation with Mary (1917), because she lived till as late as 2005. I'm still not sure that's a correct claim. Sister Agnes Sasagawa, who conversed with Mary at Akita in 1973, has not to my knowledge died, so she has outlived Lúcia Santos. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess they must meant that she was the last of the three children to see her at (edit) Fatima. I've edited the list to be clearer. --NellieBly (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nellie. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

More about our man Hugh; a long letter that he wrote to his mother describing the Siege of Kandahar can be seen here. "Hugh Pinhey was an Assistant Superintendent in the telegraphy department, but for the duration of the siege was given the rank of lieutenant and assigned to the 4th Bombay Rifle Corps". Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oath of Office of the President of the United States

Since this is the Oath of Office of the President of the United States [the district], an employee of the congress under the constitution of the US of 1789 and the chief administrator for the united States of America. What information is available regarding the "Oath of office for the President of the United States of America" under the Articles of Confederation 1777(?) as found in the present/current United States Code????

Thank you, robert: carr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.114.72 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Under the Articles of Confederation there was no such office as President of the United States. The nearest thing was the President of the Continental Congress, but that was a far less powerful office, having a one year term and very limited authority. The Articles did not specify an oath for that office. Looie496 (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The President of the Congress was basically the Speaker; he was in charge of maintaining order at the meetings of Congress and almost nothing else. There was no single Chief Executive of the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation (also no unified currency, barely any military, no federal judiciary, etc. AFAIK, all they did was send ambassadors abroad to secure loans and trade agreements and not much else). --Jayron32 22:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Being a member of the Continental Congress was a thankless and largely powerless office, and being the President of the Continental Congress also had its drawbacks. It is very easy to envision someone being elected, but not wanting to take on the office (Poor health, etc). Thus there was a need for some action to be taken at some point in time whereby the electee actually accepted and assumed the office. Journals of the Continental Congress were preserved. So what words were uttered, what actions were taken, and how was the action logged in the journal of the Continental Congress by the Secretary thereof? Edison (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A volume of the Journal says that the secretary and clerks had to take "an oath of fidelity to the United States and an oath of fidelity for the execution of their respective trusts." It is likely that the president had to take similar oaths. Edison (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Kippah type fabric Reconstructionist

In the Kippah article, you mentioned the type of kippahs for different sects of jewish and the fabric. What about Reconstructionists? Which fabric do they use for kippahs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.207 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll get a better chance of a good answer by posting this question at Talk:Kippah. You might want to crosspost a link to that question at Talk:Reconstructionist Judaism, but please don't cross post by putting up the question twice. --Dweller (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

sects protestantism

What are the main sects of Protestantism practiced in the world today in USA, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, South Africa, Anglophone Caribbean, UK, Australia and New Zealand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.207 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

By sect, do you mean branch/movement or are you referring to denominations? Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland each have a very large state/national church, which is by far the largest denomination in their resprective countries. All of these are Lutheran, but few of the members actually attend church services. Germany likewise has mainly Lutherans, although these are divided into many individual (though often cooperating) churches. The Protestant Church in the Netherlands is the largest protestant denomination in the Netherlands. This church and most other Dutch protestant churches originated from the Dutch Reformed Church, and are mostly rooted in reformed (calvinist) theology. I'll let others address the other countries. - Lindert (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your desired data for the US are available at Christianity in the United States, with a comprehensive list of like articles at Christianity by country. — Lomn 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Maximilian Kolbe

Hello,

I am curious about the article Maximilian Kolbe. What happened that it was viewed 56000 times in one day and was vandalized almost consequently? Just curious. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That was October 10. The article appeared on the main page in the "On this day" area, marking the 30th anniversary of his elevation to sainthood. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

how are saints made?

Yesterday on the radio I heard several times that someone was "made" a saint. Am I right in thinking that canonization (at least in Rome) doesn't make a saint but rather recognizes that someone is a saint? —Tamfang (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, but the point is a technical one, and it's almost certain the reporter got it wrong. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Saints are not made, they are born. Now seriously, just check canonization for more details, you just get recognized to be a saint. 80.39.52.222 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can "install" a pope without the aid of a rivet gun, it only stands to reason that you can "make" a saint without a factory. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I just figured the radio reporter had confused saints with the British system of titles of nobility, or possibly the mafia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Speak softly, Bugs. They won't want to hear that. --NellieBly (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"They" being Saints, Peers of the Realm or mafiosi? Surely a conjunction rarely found in one sentence. Alansplodge (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "created" is the more commonly used term in titles of nobility. "He was created the Earl of Oil", or whatever. In the underworld a "made guy" has committed his first murder for the family business. It's curious to think of a saint as being a "made guy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm suddenly reminded of The Bishop. Dismas|^(talk) 04:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Christian traditions...

Where and how can I find information about specific methods or beliefs of different Christian intepretative traditions? Often, people use the general term "in some traditions" without nailing on which tradition they may be referring to, thereby drawing a blank. Even the Wikipedia article Sacred Tradition talks about how this tradition is passed down orally, in the lives of Christians, thereby giving the impression that the only way to understand Christianity fully is to meet a Christian in person and assume that Christian knows/understand scripture as well as tradition passed down by his/her ancestors or learned from the church. Furthermore, the Christian would presumably use the conversation as an opportunity to proselytize the non-Christian, making the Christian life and faith attractive in every way to the point of bringing in more converts. How do Christians know what traditions to reject and what traditions to accept and what traditions are ought to be modified, or do they just accept whatever is part of their church without question? This may hint at the pejorative connotation of the word indoctrination. 140.254.227.51 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, would you take it from me that I'm a practising member of the Church of England, that I have no interest in converting you, and that I know a reasonable amount about my own tradition and others?

It's important to understand the distinction between a tradition and a denomination. For example, the high church tradition is found in Anglicanism and in Lutheranism. Those denominations are separate (although some of their constituent churches are linked by the Porvoo Agreement), and each contains many congregations (a sizeable majority) who do not represent that tradition - but also many who do.

And it's not just about scripture and the interpretation of scripture. Indeed, when the Roman Catholic church refers to its own three teaching traditions, only one of those is scripture. The others are reason and tradition itself. The idea that Christian life and worship is all about the Bible is itself the product of one particular tradition - which is often called fundamentalist, but might more properly be called evangelical.

So if you have specific questions, please ask. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The fundamentalist tradition would fit under the evangelical tradition, which would be a subset of Protestantism, as many evangelicals use the Protestant Bible (66 books, no Apocrypha). With so many Christian traditions around, it is easy for one particular denomination to think that that denomination is the one true church or one true faith and thus is superior than the other churches or denominations. Some Christians treat Christianity as a big-marketing strategy to help emotionally/socially isolated people or social outcasts or impoverished people in order to convert these people to Christianity. Also, given that some churches explicitly describe on their church websites that "salvation is free", they are hinting that anybody can become a Christian and receive God's "free gift", even though they may be forgetting that they are expecting that the Christians ought to behave what the church wants them to behave. 140.254.227.51 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC) :"Tradition" is a word that is often used nowadays to mean Christian denomination (our article uses the word twice in the first paragraph). It's a move away from "this is our faith and other Christians are wrong" towards "this is our faith, others have different traditions". So I suspect "in some traditions" means "in some denominations". Use of the word "church" in this meaning can be confusing, as it can refer to a) all Christians, regarded as "Christ's body on earth" Saint Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 12: verses 12-27 b) a particular denomination c) a subset within that denomination as the Church of England and the Church in Wales within Anglicanism d) a particular local congregation or e) an actual building. "How do Christians know what traditions to reject and what traditions to accept"? The most obvious answer is that they usually go to church on Sunday (see meaning "e") where those traditions are enacted, and explained during the sermon. Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

So, the only way to see the traditions enacted or come to life is to actually enter a church, or if you are a non-Christian, pretend to be one and enter a church, so that you can witness the sermon, the style, the manner, et cetera, and compare that experience to all Christian churches you may have visited in your local area - which, again, can be quite subjective - in order to track down what a particular church believes in. I suppose one needs to keep one's eye open when walking inside a church to see what others are doing and that person does the same. In Western churches, everyone does the same thing at the same time, which to Eastern churches would seem very regimented. In Eastern churches, everyone does different things at the same time and stand up to worship, which to Western churches would seem very disorganized. The non-Christian visitor would somehow have to find a way to keep that in mind and make an attempt to blend in with the crowd. Sort of like Waldo. 140.254.227.51 (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You will not have to pretend to be a Christian at all. Usually there are no restrictions for attending a service/sermon. If anyone asks, just tell them you are interested to learn about their faith. You could also ask if you can speak to the pastor or to an elder sometime after the service to learn more, or you can find the church's website, which will usually contain a statement of faith and more. - Lindert (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) Given that you asked this question, you've also done an awful lot to answer it too - mostly by delivering a sermon of your own. The short answer to your original question 'where and how can I find information' is (obviously) right here, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But I made a genuine offer to answer specific questions about my own tradition and those in which I've studied. If you've got questions, ask away. I'll try to back my answers up with links and so on where possible. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. There was this organization on campus that offered Bible study sessions every Wednesday. So, I attended a couple of times, and during my time there, it seemed that the group derived its interpretations on annotations made by "Living Stream Ministry". I looked up the ministry on Wikipedia, and noticed that it was an evangelical Christian ministry. Nevertheless, the group displayed on its website that it was "interdenominational", accommodating all denominations, not just "evangelical". One time, the group had these tiny pieces of paper that advertised "The Recovery Version" of the Bible, specifically the New Testament. How trustworthy or representative of Christianity are evangelicals? Do they just represent a non-denominational Protestant tradition? 140.254.227.51 (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a non-denominational evangelical Protestant group. For the maximum amount of amusement, you should tell them you're Roman Catholic. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, most evangelicals are not non-denominational. The answer on whether they represent Christianity well will obviously differ on whom you ask. - Lindert (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Going to an organization that offers Bible study lessons might not really be the best idea. There's a good chance you'll be surrounding yourself with zealots. You'll immediately stand out as a new face/outsider, and might perhaps be interrogated or be seen as a potential convert if you profess disbelief. .

As an agnostic atheist raised in a strongly Catholic society (the Philippines), I've had more than enough experience in being a non-Christian visitor in Christian mass. If you really want to see the different Christian traditions, try going instead to larger congregations, pick a mass held in a cathedral if you can. That way you won't have to defend yourself from overzealous conversion. In such environments, you won't have to pretend to be Christian. You won't even be asked. People don't really take much notice of others in large churches, except during the part where they say "peace be with you" to the people around them. The same is true with the older and larger denominations like the Anglican Church or the Orthodox Church. Just try to follow what everybody else is doing (e.g. stand when they stand). However, it's perfectly alright if you don't sing, chant, eat the bread (in fact, you shouldn't), or make the sign of the cross, you can even elect to stay seated during the time when the participants kneel. That's usually what non-Catholic people here do when taking part in a Catholic mass (usually in cases of mixed-religion families). Nobody will glare at you, they only do that when you fall asleep, lol. It's far less uncomfortable than going to evangelical churches or one of those extremely small protestant churches. Any stranger can enter one without having to be confronted with his beliefs, whereas in evangelical churches, you will likely immediately be noticed.

Admittedly, despite being an atheist, I'm more sympathetic to Catholics, as I was raised one, and most of my friends and relatives are Catholics. I know Catholics have a rather unfair image in American culture of being ultratraditionalist and pious due to their adherence to rituals and the "no sex before marriage"/"no divorce"/"no prophylactics" thing, but it's rather the opposite really. They're far less aggressive in converting people (with 1 billion members, they're pretty secure), are more tolerant of other faiths (at least at present times), largely self-sufficient (i.e. they don't trick your grandma into giving them her life savings), their clergy don't have personal net worths in the billions like Pat Robertson, and they're actually less fundamentalist than the Protestant churches that dot rural America. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) OK - this I can answer.

1) The idea of non-denominational ministries is very much associated with Protestantism, especially in America. The reason is simple - one can't be a non-denominational Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox, because membership of those traditions more or less requires adherence to a corresponding denomination. In Europe, there are major churches representing Protestant traditions such as Lutheranism and Presbyterianism - and in some places, those are the state-backed established churches. It's in America that free-floating Protestantism thrives.

2) Evangelicalism is definitely a movement or tradition,and not a denomination. So it's entirely possible for something to be interdenominational and yet thoroughly evangelical. Of course, they might not appear so completely interdenominational if you mentioned you were Roman Catholic, or Orthodox. The idea of a genuinely interdenominational ministry that insists not only on a particular canon of scripture, but also on a specific translation (obscure, and both commissioned and sold by the ministry itself) seems odd to me. I can generally expect to go into a church of my own denomination or any of the other major ones round here, and find several different translations on hand. I might even hear as many as three translations in the course of a single service. Most of those are just that - translations. No interpretation is provided, except perhaps for some tellingly biased chapter headings and a few notes from the translators.

3) Evangelicalism is huge. It's probably the largest single cross-denominational movement in Christianity. So my observations about Living Stream are in no way indicative of all Evangelicals! Indeed, Evangelicals have contributed substantially to the Bible translations used in my own and other denominations, and to their worship styles. I don't think it's possible to make useful generalisations about the trustworthiness of evangelicals.

4) The claim to be cross-denominational is considerably undermined by the fact that there is a close connection between the Local Churches and Living Stream.

5) So I would suggest that Living Stream are not really cross-denominational, or representative of evangelicals generally. I have no way to judge their trustworthiness, except to say that if you put "Recovery Version" into Google, one of its leading auto-complete suggestions is "Bible cult". Our article about the Local Churches movement has some poorly-referenced claims about the specifically Chinese origins of this movement.

6) Please feel free to ask further. I've got an associate's degree in theology (from an institution which does not grade according to doctrinal soundness), so some technical and historical queries may be easier to answer than others. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking this may differ from place to place. My experience with the phrase "non-denominational" is that it's often used to deceive potential congregants into seeing a church as more open and more mainstream than it actually is. And they always are a member of a denomination - they just don't want to admit it right off. --NellieBly (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I'd view a claim of being 'non-denominational' as valid if (a) it applied to a Free church which genuinely was not part of any larger structure, or (b) it applied to a publisher, service provider or other organisation which produced material which was applicable to the practice and worship of several denominations. But I broadly agree with your criticism of the way the term is used. I'd also suggest that it's used to appear less mainstream. I often see the term 'mainline protestant' used in the US in a vaguely negative sense to refer to (eg) Lutherans - the implication being that Protestant groups with more divergent eccelsiology (such as Baptists) or fewer ties to 'corrupt' mainstream society. Some of these organisations are themselves both modern and regressive all at once; the Southern Baptists are the only large denomination to have abandoned the ordination of women to the ministry. Amazingly, not all of their existing women ministers walked out. (See thread further up about this topic.) AlexTiefling (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The internet resource I refer to is Beliefnet, which will give you the answers for questions about Christianity and other religions too. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... I would not say beliefnet.com (or any other website) can give the answers to religious questions, but it certainly gives an answer to such questions. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cycling and drug cheats

Why has this sport been dominated by drug cheats? Ankh.Morpork 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Simply because it is hardly possible to compete without it, and apparently drug tests were inadequate for detecting the drugs used in many cases. Maybe a better question would be why other sports haven't. Or have they? - Lindert (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's circular cycular reasoning, Lindert, It's become "hardly possible to compete without drugs", precisely because the playing field has been distorted so badly by people taking drugs in the first place in order to give themselves an unfair advantage over their opponents. It's almost an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" situation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand Lindert's argument. One person in sport X uses performance-enhancing drugs, gets away with it, and wins. The losers then realize they must take performance-enhancing drugs if they are to win (even if they don't know that the winner was using them). So, "one bad (undiscovered) apple spoils the bunch". StuRat (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's survival of the fittest. The fittest are the ones that use performance-enhancing drugs. It's only natural that fair players 'die out'. - Lindert (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Although let's be careful about suggesting inferring that all successful cyclists are abusing drugs. Alansplodge (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, don't do that, or you will be infer it. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The answer is, of course "Because they can". For decades, it was ridiculously hard to get caught, you had to be a total idiot in order to get caught. If using PEDs meant you got to make shitloads more money than everyone else that wasn't, AND there was next to no chance of getting caught if you were careful, then it seems easy to understand why. --Jayron32 22:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think cycling is the only professional sport dominated by doping, doping occurs in practically all professional sports. It just seems to be the one sport where there has recently been an overall campaign against it in the media as well as in some sports organisations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No other sport has experienced the same level of systemic abuse. Since 1996, it has only happened once that all top three cyclists in the Tour de France have tested clean (2012) and it has occurred 13 times that all three, or two of the top three, were found to have used performance enhancing drugs. Lance Armstrong, Floyd Landis, Alberto Contador, Bernhard Kohl, Frank Scleck are examples of recent high-profile cases and it is no exaggeration to state that they represent the norm, not a minority. Ankh.Morpork 08:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that doping is a problem in many professional sports. I think, at least until recently, endurance athletes have had an easier time getting away with it. The drug of choice in say, sprinting or baseball is an anabolic steroid, whose metabolites are detectable in the urine a lot longer than EPO is, which a cyclist uses. It makes it easier for a cyclist to dodge drug tests: if he can get even short notice of an upcoming test, he can get clean pretty easily. Inject some saline right before blood is drawn for testing. Etc. EPO is also produced naturally by the body, making it harder to tell whether a cyclist has taken the stuff, or is just producing it at higher levels than average. The typical way to tell the difference is different patterns of glycosylation, but it's pretty subtle. Buddy431 (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

For more info how Armstrong was beating testing, as detailed by the recently released report from the USADA, you can look at [37]. There were several factors: off-season drug tests could be pretty easily avoided, the tests weren't that sensitive (or even didn't exist for some of the stuff they were taking), the team learned about "unannounced" drug tests ahead of time, the team was able to mask the signal of drugs with different techniques. That's not to say that similar techniques don't occur in other sports. The steroid THG was nicknamed The clear because (for a while) there was no test for it. This was what was used in the US baseball doping scandal a few years ago, as well as other athletes in other sports. Buddy431 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of good points have been made above, but there's also a simple factor. To the best of my knowledge, there is no drug that improves coordination skills in the long term, so it is unlikely that any drug will have much of an effect on golfing ability, for example. In sports like baseball, where coordination and strength play a role, the effect of building muscle will be muted if someone has poor coordination. Hence, in endurance sports, there is just more to gain. IBE (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well because initially they (drugs, blood doping, etc) were legal - see blood doping: "Blood doping probably started in the 1970s but was not outlawed until 1986. While it was still legal, it was commonly used by middle and long-distance runners.". After they were outlaw, concerns arise regarding the reliability and competence of some laboratories doing the testing. The World Anti-Doping Agency has also been criticized for not having an effective criteria for testing for EPO. The cycling's governing body might not be trusted to do its own anti-doping, and efforts to develop a coherent anti-doping strategy have been undermined by political in-fighting. See (or listen) to the two part BBC podcast: Secrets in the blood part 1part 2 (First broadcast on 28 Jul 2008, so even back then it's a widely know secret and nothing new.) Royor (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been close to a few sports at top level (no, not as a competitor), and I would suggest that cycling wasn't really trying as hard as some others to find the cheats. Timing of tests was well known, and too far from competition time. And Armstrong did bring in the crowds and money. One sport I'd like to hear more about, but which we don't hear much of in the English speaking world, is cross country ski racing. A fiend gave up 15 years ago because he was too principled to do the drugs all the leaders were doing. As for golf and similar sports, the likely area to find drugs is their use in recovery from injury. Steroids can help a lot there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google gave lots of entries for Nordic skiing and drugs - for example, the entire Finnish ski team was banned because of drugs, and lots of Russians. It seems that there were lots of bans in the early 00's, but that the number of bans have dropped off since - with the exception of Russians. It seems still to be widespread there. With ski jumping, maybe appetite suppressants would be the drug of choice: Sven Hannawald retired because of the ravages of anorexia, and I'm sure others suffer too. Personally I'd love to know what Ole Einar Bjorndalen was on, I'd love to believe it was fresh air and an addiction to exercise. Let's see what the coming winter brings to this fantastic sport. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not all sports are equally dependent from endurance alone. Soccer needs some talent, basketball needs some talent, baseball needs some talent. You cannot get those things from a drugs. Comploose (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

True, but I can't see the relevance. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Answering the question: the field is dominated by drug cheats because it's possible to dominate the field cheating with drugs. If wannabe soccer/basketball/baseball could cheat through drugs, their whole respective fields would also be dominated by drug cheats, but clean players have good chances to dominate through talent. It's just a summary of things said above. Comploose (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviations: "Ant. ad. Magn."

What do the above abbreviations stand for? Also, it was near an abbreviation "Ern." The "Ern." abbreviation is not a name, but a title. Lastly, there was "Ern. Ant." before a name. It might be French or Latin.

Thanks for your time. Ribbiters (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems it's Latin and stands for "Antiphon ad Magnificat", apparently some kind of hymn. "Ern. Ant." is used as an abbreviation of a name here e.g.: Ern. Ant. Nicolai = Ernst Anton Nicolai. - Lindert (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

October 23

Family tree

I apologize if my question is in the wrong Reference Desk subheader, but (as an example) if my mother divorces my father and marries another man, what is my family relationship to that man? Thank you in advance. 71.146.0.234 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

He would be your stepfather and you would be his stepson. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, I am the equivalent of a tomato when in comes to family relations. 71.146.0.234 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As for whether he would appear on your family tree, that all depends on what you want out of it. If you only list blood relations, then he doesn't belong. However, if he has children with your mother, those half-siblings of yours are blood relations, so you might want to add him back in, to explain where they came from. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 71.146.0.234 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Stock prices

If people are trading thousands of shares from stock X at price P and then someone pays P + 1 for one single share, will the stock price be now this P + 1? Comploose (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends which type of "stock price" you mean. The last traded price will now be P + 1, so in that sense the answer is yes. On the other hand, if you are tracking an average price for the day (or for a longer period) then a single trade will not change that by much. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the reported price in news tickets and such? Comploose (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers usually quote the previous day's closing price. The exact definition of "closing price" can be a little complicated. You can see the London Stock Exchange glossary here, but I didn't particularly understand the definition! --Tango (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it depends. The Google ticker shown here is displaying the last traded price. However, in a quote driven market you might see the mid price which is the average of the lowest offer and highest bid prices currently quoted in the market - there might not be any actual trades executed at this price. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't Israel respond to Iraqi attacks during the War???

Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The US asked Israel for friendly restrain, for not setting the whole area in fire. Since Saddam Hussein's strategy was to drag Israel into the conflict, it was perfectly reasonable to do the opposite. Comploose (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

See Gulf_War#Iraq_launches_missile_strikes. The US was nominally part of a Coalition of forces, which included many Arab states. It was felt that Israeli retaliation would jeopardise the Coalition. --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A good deal of Coalition effort was expended in trying to prevent Iraqi Scud missiles being fired at Israel; thereby hoping to prevent domestic political pressure from forcing Israeli retaliation. Special forces surveillance combined with air strikes in the launch areas were effective, but not entirely so.[38] The success of the Patriot missiles that the US sent to defend Israel is still being debated.[39] Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the missiles were a great success. Admittedly, it was a political success. The operational success is indeed very much up to debate... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

How much does interest cost the Greek Government?

Greece has tons of national debt at the moment, how much (annually, ideally) is it costing to pay the interest on? What % is that of GDP? And finally, I've seen on a couple of sites that 'experts' say that once you are paying 12% of GDP in interest that is a historical tipping point for default. Are there any good references for that? Many thanks, 46.30.55.66 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What games do Boy Scouts of America play that Scouts in England do not?

What games do Boy Scouts of America play that Scouts in England do not? A Scout in my troop here in England needs to teach Cub Scouts an American Scouts game that is not played in England, in order to earn his Global Challenge badge. 82.31.133.165 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)