:::Israel is a secular state, albeit it makes some notable concessions to Orthodox Jewish practice. If you're asking what the traditional Jewish take on democracy is, it's hard to answer because the question is an anachronism - the last "Jewish state" in the proper meaning ceased to exist a long time before western-style democracies evolved. Judaism itself has elements of democracy in it - in rabbinic arguments, opinion follows the majority, but it's not a popular vote, the ones with a voice are a meritocracy. The religion is unclear on whether the Biblical commands about having a king reflect what is desirable or a response to something that the people would desire. Equally, while [[Chabad]] terminology about the [[messiah]] typically includes the word "king", this is not something all strands of Judaism agree on. While I think you could probably find someone who'd argue that democracy is incompatible with Judasim, I don't think there's strong grounds for arguing it. The one exception would be to say that religious law cannot be voted on by the [[hoi polloi]] - something that's in common with what we understand of democracies anyway, but Judaism has a strong view on many aspects of ordinary life that liberal Christian society would not understand as being subject to "religious law", such as (see [[613_commandments#Maimonides.27_list]] how to wage war (no. 602), legislation on health and safety (no. 494), hunting (no. 207), ecology (no. 604) and so on. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 12:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Israel is a secular state, albeit it makes some notable concessions to Orthodox Jewish practice. If you're asking what the traditional Jewish take on democracy is, it's hard to answer because the question is an anachronism - the last "Jewish state" in the proper meaning ceased to exist a long time before western-style democracies evolved. Judaism itself has elements of democracy in it - in rabbinic arguments, opinion follows the majority, but it's not a popular vote, the ones with a voice are a meritocracy. The religion is unclear on whether the Biblical commands about having a king reflect what is desirable or a response to something that the people would desire. Equally, while [[Chabad]] terminology about the [[messiah]] typically includes the word "king", this is not something all strands of Judaism agree on. While I think you could probably find someone who'd argue that democracy is incompatible with Judasim, I don't think there's strong grounds for arguing it. The one exception would be to say that religious law cannot be voted on by the [[hoi polloi]] - something that's in common with what we understand of democracies anyway, but Judaism has a strong view on many aspects of ordinary life that liberal Christian society would not understand as being subject to "religious law", such as (see [[613_commandments#Maimonides.27_list]] how to wage war (no. 602), legislation on health and safety (no. 494), hunting (no. 207), ecology (no. 604) and so on. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 12:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
:I mostly agree with Dweller and Soman here. I also question the usefulness of random contributors opinions of a country's democracy. For example, the suggestion that Yemen's is not democractic because it has been dominated by a single party seems questionable. While countries with a [[Dominant-party system]] may often be questionable, this is usually because of some additional factors like media or campaigning limitations on other parties, gerry-mandering, legislative or other restrictions on other parties, voter or candidate intimidation, corrupt or questionable practices like bribing voters or election winners, other forms of questionable election management, etc etc. In other words, while the countries are nominally multi party democracies, they have some aspects of [[Single-party state]]. Japan is a notable example of a country with a single party which has dominated thorough much of recent history but, where the aforementioned issues have generally been limited and there is a fair degree of intraparty factions and voting. But as I said, I'm not asking you to take my word from it, take for example this ranking from 2006 (when the LDP remained in power in both houses) [http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf] which shows Japan falling in to the 'full democracies' category and scoring higher than the UK and France. Note South Africa which just falls in to the 'flawed democracy' is relative high, higher in fact than India and Israel despite the dominant party nature of South Africa in recent times. To be clear, I'm not saying Yemen should be called a democracy, they score very low in that ranking and despite the recent changes it's perhaps too soon to be clear where they stand. I'm simply illustrating the point that domination by one party is no guarantee a country is not democractic. The [[Democracy Index]] is perhaps the most well known democracy ranking, but there are plenty of others, [http://www.democracyranking.org/en/Democracy-Ranking_2011-Scores+Dimensions.htm] [http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm] [http://www.democracybarometer.org/ranking_en.html], also see [http://www.democracybarometer.org/links_en.html]. Of course this sort of thing is highly subjective and may reflect the biases of the producer of the ranking but at least by using such rankings people are actually discussing referenced ideas and rankings produced by people who hopefully at least have considered the problems in greater depth than 'dominated by one party, can't be democractic'. <small>P.S. Without defending Morsi, I think it's an interesting question (but not one for the RD) if the response from the Western media and governments would be the same if instead of Morsi a secular like [[Ahmed Shafik]] had been doing more or less the exact same things.</small> [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
:I mostly agree with Dweller and Soman here. I also question the usefulness of random contributors opinions of a country's democracy. For example, the suggestion that Yemen's is not democractic because it has been dominated by a single party seems questionable. While countries with a [[Dominant-party system]] may often be questionable, this is usually because of some additional factors like media or campaigning limitations on other parties, gerry-mandering, legislative or other restrictions on other parties, voter or candidate intimidation, corrupt or questionable practices like bribing voters or election winners, other forms of questionable election management, etc etc. In other words, while the countries are nominally multi party democracies, they have some aspects of [[Single-party state]]. Japan is a notable example of a country with a single party which has dominated thorough much of recent history but, where the aforementioned issues have generally been limited and there is a fair degree of intraparty factions and voting. But as I said, I'm not asking you to take my word from it, take for example this ranking from 2006 (when the LDP remained in power in both houses) [http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf] which shows Japan falling in to the 'full democracies' category and scoring higher than the UK and France. Note South Africa which just falls in to the 'flawed democracy' is relative high, higher in fact than India and Israel despite the dominant party nature of South Africa in recent times. To be clear, I'm not saying Yemen should be called a democracy, they score very low in that ranking and despite the recent changes it's perhaps too soon to be clear where they stand. I'm simply illustrating the point that domination by one party is no guarantee a country is not democractic. The [[Democracy Index]] is perhaps the most well known democracy ranking, but there are plenty of others, [http://www.democracyranking.org/en/Democracy-Ranking_2011-Scores+Dimensions.htm] [http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm] [http://www.democracybarometer.org/ranking_en.html], also see [http://www.democracybarometer.org/links_en.html]. Of course this sort of thing is highly subjective and may reflect the biases of the producer of the ranking but at least by using such rankings people are actually discussing referenced ideas and rankings produced by people who hopefully at least have considered the problems in greater depth than 'dominated by one party, can't be democractic'. <small>P.S. Without defending Morsi, I think it's an interesting question (but not one for the RD) if the response from the Western media and governments would be the same if instead of Morsi a secular like [[Ahmed Shafik]] had been doing more or less the exact same things.</small> [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
::2 counterexamples don't disprove a trend. You said yourself that Yemen scores very low on the democracy ranking, and that dominant-party systems may often be questionable. I never intended to give a comprehensive list of reasons, just one that I consider significant. Also, I find it unfair that you're attacking me when I was responding to another "random contributors opinions of a country's democracy", and when the question itself requires a reasonable definition of democracy. --[[Special:Contributions/140.180.252.134|140.180.252.134]] ([[User talk:140.180.252.134|talk]]) 18:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
== Propaganda in schools ==
== Propaganda in schools ==
Revision as of 18:31, 7 December 2012
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
The northern tier you listed are the main places where the later waves of migration from northern Asia occurred. I think some made it all the way to Iceland, too. For example, Björk looks partly Asian, to me: Björk looking Asian.. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For some odd reason we don't have an article on the Americanoid race. You can search google for that term, here's the link to it at google scholar. According to most anthropologists and the better linguists, there were some three major migrations into America. The first was the Amerind, the second the Na-Dene and the third the Eskaleut. None of these is exactly of the Mongoloid race as classically defined. But shovel teeth and other features (again, strangely not mentioned at wikipedia) are seen as features linking mongoloids and americanoids. PS, Björk looks Uralic, for which see Uralo-Siberian. μηδείς (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into debates about the validity of 'race' as a scientific concept, or the ethics of using Björk as an illustration of something-or-other, I'd just like to point out that if one ignores the misleading cartographic conventions, the distance (both geographic and presumably also in terms of whom you engage in reproductive hanky-panky with) between 'east' and 'west' as you move north gets smaller in both directions. It is entirely possible - and probably quite likely - that the inhabitants of Iceland descended from adventurers from the east shared relatively-recent-relatives (!) with those coming in the other direction. On this basis, trying to decide where Björk got her cheekbones from is rather futile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland is renowned for having thorough genetic records of their citizens, so if anyone can track down the origins of their ancestors, that would be them. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's next on their list... Anyway, you're speculation is incorrect - at least as far back as historic record goes, Iceland was settled by Scandinavian people and consistently a site of only their migrations for pretty much the entirety of it's history thereafter. There's no evidence to support the notion of earlier habitation from an east-moving migration, but as this did happen in somewhat-neighboring Greenland, it cannot be entirely ruled out. Regardless, there is no significant contiguous genetic connection between the early migratory groups who moved into the Americas via northeast Asia and the modern ethnicity that Bjork belongs to -- if indeed her genetics are typical of those who live there, and who can really speak as to that? Of course, as has been noted above, the question of whether she looks Asian is partially nonsensical; although we all agree there are trends in the phenotypes of certain ethnicities and that we all can intuit these subtleties to some degree, the truth is, we aren't as good at it as we tend to think we are. But then there are good reasons for this; if you study the diversity of human morphology long enough, you begin to see how recurrent certain phenotypical traits are, even when there is no strong genetic link. The independent evolution of a certain look to the eyelid or ears is not uncommon -- remember that these changes are based more on sexual selection than natural selection, so there's a lot more variation here (even within a given ethnic group) than with traits which are selected for purely by survival odds. Which is a bit of a tangent, but the sum is this: people typically will find all manner of traits from a given race on those occasions when they stop to determine the ancestry of a given face -- and usually these are entirely impressionistic, as with Asian Bjork. Edited to add: That being said, if you had shown me that picture and asked, "Could this woman be from Asia?" I'd certainly have said yes. Looking at her other pictures on our pages though, she certainly looks like she'd fit right in amongst the mixed Nordic-Sami type folk you find in the more northern reaches of Scandinavia. Snow (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the theory is that Iceland was uninhabited when discovered by the Vikings ? That doesn't seem likely, considered how long nearby Greenland had been occupied (since 2500 BC). And Iceland is a lot more habitable than Greenland, what with thermal springs and all. StuRat (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility can't be absolutely disproven, but there's never been any archeological or paleoanthropological evidence to suggest previous occupation before the arrival of European colonists. Bear in mind that the habitability of the region has varied considerably throughout the human epoch and while Greenland was subject to several different waves of migration, many of them did not fair well in the long run (the Scandinavian colonization of the island eventually failed, for example). It's possible the earlier Greenlanders simply never made it that far east. I agree it's not a very satisfying explanation, but the lack of any positive evidence for previous habitation for Iceland is compelling and the ubiquity of human life begins to break down as you approach the poles -- even today Greenland and Iceland have two of the lowest population densities of all nations/regions.Snow (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat -- when the Scandinavians settled Iceland, the only previous inhabitants they found were a few Irish monks. The lack of other previous inhabitants isn't too surprising, given that Iceland is several hundred miles away from other habitable regions at a somewhat inhospitable latitude. AnonMoos (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, where did I get the idea that Iceland had ever been settled from the east west from then? Should have checked. Then again there was a period when parts of Greenland were occupied by Norsemen, in contact with both Iceland to the east and Arctic peoples to the west, so gene flow was still just about possible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been settled from the East (where Europe is, relative to Iceland), not from the West (where the East coast of Greenland is ;-). A question about spelling: aren't the compass directions proper nouns and hence capitalized? I'm happy to learn something... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rule I use is that a direction isn't capitalized, but a region is: "I'm going to head south until I make it to the South." StuRat (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but for the purposes of handing on genes to modern-day people we can treat vikings as the first (and practically only) settlers; there may well have been visits by others, and it seems likely that there were a handful of Irish monks, but hardly the kind of long-term settlement where children are born & raised &c. If I remember correctly from Collapse, vikings who settled further west didn't intermingle with other people who had got there earlier (ie. the Inuit) so it's unlikely that the small number of descendants travelling back east would have brought back a lot of "inuit" DNA to Iceland that way... although this is tantalising. bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "intermingling" might very well have been forbidden, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it was more likely to have been kept hidden. StuRat (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly some monks could sail, but they learned it from sailors, not their book of vows. God forbid I had to travel from Ireland to Iceland bearing a cockleful of clerics and nary a navigator with me. A monastic colony would require more than just monasts. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What can Israel do now after the setback at the UN?
With only Canada, the U.S. and a bunch of tiny countries supporting Israel, what can the administration of Mr. Netanyahu do now as retaliation, or better said to avoid the predict future thing. What's doing now? Keeeith (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of news websites (the Guardian and the Washington Post, for example) are reporting that Israel has announced an expansion of settlements and that it is withholding taxes from the Palestinian government, and that these actions are widely seen as reactions to the General Assembly vote. Though, it isn't really accurate to describe the "yes" votes as "supporting Israel". The question being voted on was "should Palestine's status at the UN be changed from non-state observer to non-member observer", not "do you support Israel". 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Not sure that there's much the Israelis could or "should" do as a direct countermove. If the PNA tries to bring Israel before the International court, then that will open a whole new can of worms... AnonMoos (talk)
Pretend that nothing happened? Nobody knows. A much more interesting question is what Palestine can do not, with its newly granted status. Note: the vote was mainly about if people wanted a bilateral negotiation or an international negotiation, not, as pointed out above, about being pro or contra Israel. 15:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs)
I think it's a little hyperbolic to say that nobody supports Israel on account of their willingness to grant the Palestinian Authority a tiny, functionally insignificant upgrade in status. Israel has the same allies and enemies as it did before the UN vote. The situation of Palestine in the UN has changed only symbolically. The position of the United States, for example, was about the process, not the principle of the vote. The US doesn't even really care if Palestine has that status or not; it just disagrees about whether the UN should be involved in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process before direct talks, and saw the UN vote as an attempt of the UN to meddle into stuff it doesn't it meddling in. That other countries — those currently not involved in said peace process — don't think that is a good idea, or don't agree, or deliberately disagree, or what have you, is a somewhat more complicated question than whether they "support Israel" or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not the other nation's fault if they do not take the Palestinians? Do you think they deserve a nation within Israel? How would you feel if there was a giant Native American nation given at a time when the native americans did not have much power any longer, given by the UN in the middle of America? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember something about some other people being executed for exterminating the untermenschen when clearing out some lebensraum. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This obviously would not have happened if Nazi Germany had not lost WWII. So, it seems like Israel has a choice between winning a regional war, exterminating undesirables, with no repercussions, or otherwise allowing a nation to put itself there just because it has would-be "citizens". This would be similar to allowing a group of people to set up a country in the middle of the Nevada desert, just by being there. Actually a third choice would be for Israel to move there. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your posts are wrong under several aspects 178.48. 1. The US, incidentally, does grant some degree of independence in the middle of its territory through the Indian reservations. 2. Palestine won't be a nation within the Israeli state, but a second state in the same region, in the same way as in many other parts of the world. 3. Israel won't be exterminating the Palestinians. People saying that are trying to equate the Jews with the Nazis. 4. How can you imagine that there would be no repercussions? Note: I am not surprise that your IP geolocates to a certain country in Central Europe. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OsmanRF34, thank you for reading my response carefully. I will not contest your first-second points and therefore will say that the analogy is not a perfect one - perhaps it would be like the US, in the 1800's, not opposing a Native American state on adjacent land? Clearly it would have opposed it. Regarding 4, please understand that this was in response to "I seem to remember something about some other people [NAZI's] being executed for exterminating the untermenschen when clearing out some lebensraum". I think you can agree OsmanRF34, that it is a (counter-factual) historical fact that should the Nazi regime have prevailed in the long term according to its plans, there would have been no Nurenberg executions or other repercussions of the same magnitude. This is all that I meant -- the repercussions/consequences came as a direct factual consequence of the atrocities coupled with losing the war. For your final point, I would like to mention that I am, in fact, Jewish, and living in a thriving Jewish community in Eastern Europe. I am not equating Israel with Nazi Germany, because I would not like Israel to lose. You will note that I did not say Israel should exterminate the Palestinians: I said it should give other nations (such as the arab terrorist sympathizers shown on the map in an above question here on the reference desk) a chance to take in the Palestinian refugees. The extermination should only be a credible threat, and if other nations do not take these refugees, then provided that Israel has made this threat with credibility and resolve, it is the other nations that are truly guilty. Israel will face no negative repercussions so long as it prevails regionally (as Nazi Germany did not do). The alternative would be to have its enemy set up state alongside it. Does this seem like a reasonable course of action to you? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is political, historical, and moral nonsense. So if I go to a bank, and credibly threaten to shoot the teller if they don't give me money, it's not my fault if I then do shoot him if they give me no money? You're reason for not equating Israel and Nazi Germany is because you don't want Israel to lose? Can you explain the logic behind that? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Israel started an extermination campaign against the Palestinians, that would mean the end of Israel. It would lose all it's allies immediately, and all surrounding nations would attack it. Without US support, it would lose the war, quite possibly with it's population being exterminated. The best it could hope for is a US-backed UN and/or NATO occupation force. Even the threat of executing civilians might be enough for Israel to lose it's allies. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a politically loaded question, demanding opinions in response to a very opinionated question. We shouldn't be even trying to answer it. HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such questions got quite common lately. Maybe we should add a rule excluding questions about Israel to the no homework, no legal advise, no medical advise questions' rule. However, keep in mind that trying to understand events is by no means out of the RD's range. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are records of officially-canonized saints, and saints celebrated on the liturgical calendar, but a lot of saints in the early days were automatically considered saints due to martyrdom, or legends that grew around them, without ever having gone through a formal canonization process. Also, the early founders of various local Christian communities were considered "saints" in their local areas without their sainthood being recognized by the larger church (Saint Marinus, after whom San Marino is named, was one). AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fasting on 13, 14 and/or 15 day of lunar month if falls on Friday
Prophet Muhammad said that you don't fast on Fridays but what happens if the 13th, 14th or 15th day of the lunar month falls on Friday, do we fast on those days or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note you say "we" in your question. I think you need to talk to your imam and get his advice about fasting, as it may vary from sect to sect, community to community. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which days of Shawwal (e.g. 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7, etc.) do Muslims fast on after Ramadhan because I was told that they don't fast on the day that immediately comes after Eid ul Fitr? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our article Shawwal seems to do a decent job of answering this. Some begin the day after Eid but not all do and there's no consensus on whether the days even need to be consecutive although most appear to think they don't need to be. The linked source doesn't work but it's easy to find sources discussing this with a simple internet search for 'shawwal fasting' [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. In terms of the day after Eid ul Fitr as you can see from the earlier sources most only seem mention the day itself, [8] which comments on the forbidden days does the same as does [9] which specifically mentions they have no evidence of it being forbidden to fast the day after. Some sources mention two days [10][11], but if you read them carefull they are referring to Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Most interpretations also seem to agree fasting during Shawwal (or the 6 extra days) isn't wajib/obligatory so I'm not sure what percentage of Muslims actually observe the practice. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
error in article on German census?
Greetings,
While perusing the census dates map in this article;
I noticed that it seems to imply that the US hasn't had a census since 2004. I was under the distinct impression that I had responded to one in 2010.
Am I reading the map wrong? Color confusion? 108.249.33.21 (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the map labels to address the error. Unless they are committed to updating articles at least once a year, Wikipedia contributors really should not use words such as "since" or open-ended prepositions such as "after". The present will be the past. Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your changes as they made the situation arguably worse. If you look at the history of the map, people have been updating it since after 2008 (I'm not sure how StuRat missed this)(sorry StuRat misread your comment based on Marco polo's changes). I updated the US (at least I think I did, I initially missed out Alaksa). In truth I'm pretty sure the map is a mishmash of updated and non updated countries, e.g. it sounds like it hasn't been updated for the 2011 EU census. But clearly saying before 2008 is misleading when some of them are censuses after 2008 and the most recent one before was before 2005. It may be best to make a new copy (the map is used in other wikipedias so reverting in situ may be a bad idea) and leave it at a map which is hopefully accurate for 2008 and wait until someone updates it entirely for a new time period (say 2009-2012). In fact if someone plans to update it entirely, it may be better to start from scratch for a new version using SVG which should be easier to update if designed properly. The alternative is simply to remove it from our article, it's rather strange having it in the German census article, I think this arose because it originated from the German wikipedia but I'm not sure (didn't check properly). It would make more sense in the census article or something similar. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the map cannot have accurate labels, then it cannot be accurate. The map is clearly inaccurate in suggesting that the United States has not had a census since 2004. We should not be displaying inaccurate media in articles. Unless the map can be made accurate for some date (whether that date is 2008 or 2012), it should be deleted. I am posting this here, since the discussion started here, but I will also post this on the article's Talk page. Please let me know if you see any reason why an inaccurate map should not be deleted from an article. Unless someone is able to update the map to make it fully accurate, I intend to delete it. Marco polo (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, so sorry. I missed your comment that you had updated the US as displayed on the map, and also missed the updated map in the article because I didn't refresh the article in my browser. As far as I can tell, the map is now accurate. Thanks, Nil Einne! Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should keep that map. If we do so, we are committing ourselves to update it every time any nation on Earth does a census. That's a bit much to ask of us, especially since it's only used (in wikipedia.en) for the German census article, and not needed there. I'd remove it from our article and "cut it loose". If other Wikipedias want to maintain it and use it, that's up to them.
I also can't stand the colors used in that map. With only 5 colors, they ought to be able to find colors more different than the ones used.
If we do have a real need for that info, say in our general census article, then I'd present the data as a table, instead. This allows anyone to update it, not just the few who know how to update pics. (Even better, if we have the technology, would be if we could have a map which is automatically generated from a table, so anyone can update the map, too.) StuRat (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have met "so many people" who in conversation have implied that Africa is a country. And in my experience, probably more people I meet who are talking about Africa call it a country and not a continent. Legolover26 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] You must be in the United States. Ignorance of geography is widespread in the United States. I think it is just an aspect of American culture. Many Americans are not interested in the geography of places they don't intend to visit, most Americans never leave the country, and they aren't required to know world geography to finish school. Most don't really care if Africa is a country or a continent. They may assume it is a country because they don't know any African countries. American news sources often compound this misconception by giving "Africa" as the location of an event, rather than the name of the specific country as they would do for events in Europe, Asia, or even Latin America (though sometimes Latin America is reduced to Mexico, Central America, and South America). Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for America, we've been through this on this desk before, but America is an accepted English-language short-form name for the United States of America. It is analogous to the use of Britain for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In ordinary English, short forms such as these are permissible. The correct English term referring collectively to North and South America is not America but the Americas. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a recent one, but this story indicates that the amount of geographic ignorance, especially in the United States, is immense. (Which makes it a favorite topic for the Jaywalking segment on the Tonight Show.) Over 90% of respondents age 18-24 could not find Afghanistan on a map of Asia in a 2006 Roper poll. I suspect that those who think that Africa's a country might not be able to identify it on a world map, either. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's widely rumoured that 20% of USAmericans can't even find the US on a map as highlighted in a rather infamous video with Caitlin Upton an arguably worse statistic* then the inability of 90% to find Afghanistan. However the claim appears to be in doubt. An actual figure for young Americans is 6% can't [12]. * = It's obviously a lot lower, but it's their own country and not particularly hard to find. Nil .Einne (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reference desk, not an internet forum for bashing stupid Americans any more than it would be for linking to stories about arrogant Europeans or whatever. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This question is a loaded one. I don't believe many people think that. Equally, I don't believe many Americans are more ignorant about geography than in other countries. Obviously everyone knows the geography of his own area what implies that European will know about more countries than Americans or Australians. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bashing if it's true.... At least it looks like it was a few years ago, the most recent timepoint I could find data for in a quick search. See for instance these stories from 2006 and 2002. The relevant quote from 2006, discussing the 2002 study reads: "The 2002 project also surveyed 18- to 24-year-olds in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and Great Britain. The U.S. trailed every other country in that survey, except Mexico, which did only slightly worse." Other sources for this include the BBC and CNN. These studies included questions that were world-wide, so Europeans would not have had an unfair avantange, and that would also not be the case for Japan. Now, this was what I found after a 2 min search, and I stand to be corrected if someone else digs out sources showing the opposite, but don't call something bashing if there is data suggesting otherwise. EDIT:I've just seen that this story is already linked to above, poor reading on my part. Fgf10 (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not all that bad, it just puts the US 7th of 8 nations with high education standards. Presumably, if you included all the third world nations, the US will beat most of them. It's not great news for the US, but not horrible, either. And probably everyone agrees there are more important things to know, like how to read. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for why people might think that about Africa, particularly, it's due to it having a large number of nations, most of which have little international influence. Asia also has a large number of nations, but some are quite influential, like China, Japan, and Russia. The same is true of Europe and North America. South America is somewhat similar to Africa, in that no one nation stands out above the rest, although perhaps Brazil does. Australia only has one nation, and Antarctica none, so those are simple. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no reference, but I recall that after the 2008 U.S. Presidential election some advisors of John McCain claimed that his choice for vice president, Sarah Palin, thought that Africa was a sovereign country. Based on that, it wouldn't surprise me if a substantial fraction of Americans think that too. Incidentally, I've always assumed Jay Leno's Jaywalking segment is scripted -- that they tell the passerby what to say if he wants to be seen on the Tonight Show.Duoduoduo (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's the fact that that there are Italian Americans, Irish Americans, German Americans ... and lots of African Americans. The first three are countries, so ... Add that to what Marco Polo said about news events often being described as occurring in "Africa" rather than Lesotho or Chad or Ghana or wherever, and hey presto. But it must go deeper than that. If the news sources don't specify the country, it must be because either (a) they neither know nor care, or (b) they think their audience would neither know nor care - and that says a lot about what people are taught, and what they're taught to be interested in. Do kids collect stamps anymore? There's no better way of learning about foreign countries and a smattering of foreign languages than acquiring a pile of assorted international stamps and having to work out where they're from and discover whether those countries even exist anymore, and if not, what ever happened to them. Fiume, Trucial States, Ubangi-Chari, Cochin China and so on - I would never have heard of these defunct places had I not been a committed philatelist in my younger days. Same goes for an interest in coins and flags and maps. They reveal so much about the world we live in, and they're all related, vexillocartophilatelonumismatologically speaking. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Medeis, I am an American myself and did not mean to "bash" my countrymen and -women. I don't think acknowledging a weakness is the same as bashing. And the problem is not exclusive to the United States. A few years ago in Tanzania, I had to explain to a young Tanzanian that the United States was not in Europe. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My visiting Australian cousins were amused to be asked (more than once) if they would be "going to Europe" while they were staying in England. Quite right too - Europe is that funny place on the wrong side of the Channel. Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance about the cultural and historical differences of countries in a region doesn't only affect Africa, but in the Western mindset is still a special case. The percentage of Americans or Europeans who would attribute anything as "typically Togolese" or "typically Namibian" would be extremely small, whereas quite a few people would at least cough up a few stereotypes about Brazilian samba and football, Inca ruins in Peru, Mexican enchiladas and tequila and Cuban salsa and revolution. Likewise quite a few Americans would associate Switzerland with cheese and banks, France with wine and rude waiters, Spain with bullfights, etc., and quite a few Europeans would be quite well versed in knowing something about the cultural differences between New York and Texas. I think the assumption of Africa as a big homogenous bloc has somewhat to do with the whole Berlin Conference thing, compounded with general racist stereotypes.
The fact that the borders of Africa were drawn in Europe, cutting across linguistic, ethnic and religious communities, led many people to assume that nationality would be secondary to Africans. However, this shows a quite weak understanding of the relationship between citizenship and nationality. Over the decades of independence, national cultures and national polities have developed in Africa, whereby people do identify strongly with their nationality, and whereby some cultural features of some of the ethnic and linguistic groups of the country become identified as the mainstream culture. The case how Wollof developed as the de facto national language of Senegal or how the ivoirité idea developed in the Ivory Coast are a clear indications of this, but other examples can be found across the continent.
To some extent, pan-Africanists and civil rights activists are to blame for this. In the African diaspora, there have been many attempts to focus on racial identity (relevant as the discrimination in the US was on racial grounds, and the fact that most African Americans had completely lost their original language, religion and ethnic identity) as opposed to parochialisms of language and ethnicity. The creation of African American identity sought to unify all people of African descent also portrayed Africa as a quite homogenous place, thereby stressing the links between the diaspora and an imagined mystical heimat. A clear example is the usage of Swahili words in Black activism in the US, in spite the fact that the African American population is overwhelmingly of West African descent. --Soman (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points. When we say Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American, they all sound like country names. It occurs to me that the fact that it's a news item when somebody gets it wrong, suggests that it's the exception rather than the rule. (At least I hope so.) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A comment from the UK here - I think we may be a little bit better informed, partly because of our colonial history - so that most people know that Nigeria is a different country from Kenya, is a different country from South Africa, is a different country from Uganda, etc.; and partly perhaps because of sports - we're conscious of athletes from Ethiopia, footballers from Cameroun and Ivory Coast, etc., perhaps to a greater degree than those of you in the US. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the Western as more ignorant towards geography than the others. However, depending on the origin, people don't tend to see or even know that there is a difference between citizenship and nationality. They both tend to be the same in America and in Europe. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What frustrates me in this area of knowledge is people who are ignorant about their ignorance. I know that Africa isn't a country, but I couldn't, with any confidence, name all the countries within Africa, nor pick all of them out on a map showing borders but not names. I would get maybe half of them right. But I KNOW that's the limit of my knowledge. People who are confident to declare that Africa is a country are showing a double level of ignorance, and it annoys the crap out of me. HiLo48 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there are many people who believe Africa to be a country. It has become an Internet meme, once Sarah Palin asked if South Africa is also part of the country. Maybe she thought that there's a country called Africa (like the continent), and a South Africa, which is not a part of it, on the South. Who knows. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that if you asked people in the United States "To the best of your knowledge, is Africa one of the countries of the world?" I think the number who answer "yes" would exceed the number who answer "no". Marco polo (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible. But until your assumption gets corroborated by facts, it's only speculation. Although I don't deny that some people will get confused here. They are probably thinking since America is a country and a continent, and South America and South Africa are both countries, then there could be a country called Africa somewhere. 17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs)
Hold on... when did South America become a country? (Isn't it a was a colony of West Europe... or is it independent now?).
This reminds me of an entry I saw in an early twentieth-century directory from (what is now) Belarus: "Winnipeg, Manitomba [sic], Africa". הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many people died during the 1918 influenza epidemic in Tahiti? What is a good and detail account (books, newspaper, etc) about the event? I just know a lot of the Tahitian royals and chiefs died during this year because of it. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been moved to write an article about the abovementioned RMS Tahiti which was quite an unlucky ship. Beached by an earthquake in Jamaica (1907), one of the worst single flu outbreaks ever recorded (1918), ran down a ferry in Sydney Harbour killing 40 (1927), and finally sank herself when her own prop shaft smashed a big hole in the stern (1930). Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least 14% of the Tahitian population died as a result of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic. Google it. I tried posting a link to the website source but for same reason Wikipedia wouldn't allow me to do this. Futurist110 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
public access to criminal records
Does anyone know how one might go about getting the arrest or other court records of Hector Camacho from Florida or Mississippi? (I am interested in confirming his legal name.) Or whether such records are generally available to the public from the state on line? My searches all lead to pay sites that offer information like unlisted phone numbers and so forth. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are pay sites that include criminal records, aliases, etc. They may be public records, but this doesn't mean they are made available online for free. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to confirm is if he was ever referred to as Héctor Luís Camacho Sr. (It's unlikely the matronymic Matías will be used in American legal records.) Our article says that senior is his father's title. But the German article has the dead boxer's article named Hector Camacho Senior. Except for boxingscene, which I believe is a wiki, and is certainly not a reliable source, I have not seen Camacho referred to as senior in a good source. μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can appropriate the title like that. If his father was 'senior' as implied above, surely he would be 'junior' and his son would be 'the third'? Calling himself 'senior' as well would surely cause ambiguity with his father? – NULL‹talk› ‹edits›04:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to find out what specific court he went to proceedings in, and then visit that court's website or call the court directly to find out how documents are accessed. Some courts put the records online, and others must be visited in person. Even in criminal cases for adults, however, certain documents may be sealed from the general public. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The grandfather and grandson are still alive. I saw a caption in a video interviewing the grandfather which referred to him as senior, but haven't been able to find it again. Of course the titles don't change after death. John Smith III doesn't become John Smith II or Junior when his grandfather dies. I am hoping any court records will specify the title to differentiate him from his relatives of the same name. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
M. Brun
Who was the Protestant pastor of Tahiti by the name of M. Brun during the 1880s? I am getting a person by the name of Prosper Brun or Le Brun, which one is it? A full name, some dates and details will be helpful.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This question is part of which famous company’s interview process 'If your flight got cancelled, and you were stuck in the airport for a few hours with this guy or this girl, how happy would you be about that?' What name is given to it? please help me with this...Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkinfloyd (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Airport Test is not only a brain teaser. The Airport Test (How to Ace that Interview) suggests that it can also be a sort of filter used by the prospective employer, to weed out the boring or intolerable applicants. The Student Branding Blog - Interviewing: the Airport Test supports that usage; the interviewer wants to find out "if my colleagues had to spend hours at the airport with me, would I be someone that they would want to engage with?"IBankingFAQ... become an investment banker says "The primary use of fit questions is for the interviewer to make an assessment of whether you have the right attitude and skill-set to be a successful investment banker. Most importantly, interviewers will want to understand why you want to be a banker and whether you are someone they would want working FOR them. The secondary purpose of fit questions is to assess whether you are someone they would want to work WITH. Some refer to this is the airport test. How would they feel if they were stuck in an airport with you for 4 hours?"Alansplodge (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
December 4
staple food
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, first president of Bangladesh said that the staple food of the Bengali people were rice, Hilsa fish and lentil soup. Is there a list of a nation's or an ethnic groups' staple food? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is unanswerable. Any company will want to attract the best people to work for them. That means taking a holistic view of the candidates' work history, academic record, etc. These four companies are no exception. --Viennese Waltz13:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, that presumes that the HR departments of those companies takes direct influence from their founders. Possible, I suppose, but not necessarily guaranteed. I checked, just because references are nice here, some random jobs listed on Apple's Website: [13]. Not every job, of course, has a college degree as a requirements, but every one I would have expected such a requirement has such a requirement. That is, I don't see any difference in job requirements at Apple regarding the need for a college degree in certain jobs than I would expect at any company. --Jayron3213:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably qualify "drop-outs". If you mean those who graduated high school, but dropped out of college, then probably, yes. If you mean those who completed a GED instead of high school, then perhaps. If you mean those who dropped out of high school and never got a GED, then probably, no. Also, you might find artistic companies to value those who don't fit into the academic world more, say to be fashion designers. StuRat (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that but couldn't understand whether or not they are allowed to vote or not. I mean, if they were out of Canada for how long they are not able to vote anymore even if they still have Canadian citizenship? or what? Keeeith (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any Canadian citizen living abroad can vote in Canadian federal elections, provided s/he has lived outside of Canada for less than 5 consecutive years, and s/he intends to return to Canada. Having also a foreign citizenship is not a factor per se. (Of course, if the person's foreign citizenship is acquired by naturalization in a foreign country, it probably means that he's spent too long outside of Canada to be eligible to vote anymore). -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, provided s/he has lived outside of Canada for less than 5 consecutive years, and s/he intends to return to Canada. Having also a foreign citizenship is not a factor per se. I'd look in the given link for confirmation and elaboration. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as mentioned Vmenkov's answer seems to answer the question (and it's supported by the ref and also another official ref [14]) so it would help if Keeeith clarifies what part still confuses them. The only possible issue of contention I can see is there may be doubt of what happens if you just go back to Canada for a short stay. Per this source [15] it sounds like the current intepretation is you actually have to been considered to have 'lived' in Canada, simply visiting is likely not enough. Although it's a still a bit unclear to me how long you have to have been in Canada to be considered to have lived there again. And it's peossible they may be able to vote in person even if they are not really living in Canada any more, see also [16]. Based on that letter, it's possible if you are considered to have established residence as would be the case if you wanted to vote in a new riding, that is enough to be considered to have lived in Canada. On ther other hand per [17], it's somewhat unclear to me whether you will be considered to have established residence if you are say, living in some part of Canada for 3 months or even a year but completely intend to leave. (Even though if you're living continously in Canada for over 183 in a tax year, you'll likely have established tax residency for that year no matter your plans.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have no specific knowledge of Canadian law, as a permanent resident of Hong Kong, and a US citizen, I am entitled to vote (or, stand for office) in both places. Note that HK doesn't require citizenship for voting and for some official offices. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My questions are, does a person have to give up his Canadian citizenship in order to become an American citizen too?, and my other question is the same but if an Australian citizen becomes American. Keeeith (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship."
Excuse me, I am a stupid person, there are at least two examples of both citizenships, Michael J. Fox himself and Jim Carrey. It's okay with Canada, it's allowed to hold both citizenships. But what about Australia, does anybody know? Keeeith (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our Multiple citizenship article isn't great, but it does cover Australia with references. I suggest you check out the article or do a simple search if you have more questions of this nature since they are generally very easy to find. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though it's comparatively recent, per Australia's Dept of Immigration and Citizenship. So Canada, Australia, and the US all allow mutual dual citizenship in the general case, but specific circumstances may vary (and Wikipedia is not a suitable venue for determining those legal specifics). — Lomn16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're partially mistaken. The reference only says Australians taking on another citizenship lost their Australian citizenship before 2002. This would suggest it was possible for Australians to have dual citizenship for example if they acquired their Australian citizenship after their other citizenship (American in this case) or possibly if they acquired both at birth. Our article seems to support Australian nationality law#Dual Citizenship this. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an e-mail to his office and I received an automatic response telling me that I will get a response within three weeks. My worries come about that I now see the calendar and see that part of the three weeks falls into the winter break. Is there personnel on breaks too? I would appreciate your help. Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be understood as "three working weeks" - not 21 days on the calendar, but 15 working days. See if the GG's office has a website that announces their schedule for the winter holiday season. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Government offices in Canada don't shut down completely for the holiday season. They just do not work on the three statutory holidays (Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year's Day - with all three holidays being moved to the next weekday should they fall on a week-end). Offices are short-staffed during those periods, however, so routine and non-urgent work tends to get pushed aside until January 2nd. --Xuxl (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a) There is a drop of sweat on left side of her nose, near her eyes. She did not remove it shows chances of her behaving in an abnormal way because a person doing something unnatural has higher chances of missing natural tendencies.
b) There is a mole on right side of her eyebrows.
c) Her posture is a little bend forward.
d) Her hands seem in an uncomfortable position.
i) Her left hand bend and holding table showing anxiety or avoidance of showing nails.
ii) Her right hand's index finger a greater than normal distance apart indicating she might be scratching her left hand.
iii) Her right hand placed on left in a way that its hiding something.
e) Her eyes are reddish which could be pain or anger.
f) Her eyes were sad when drawn as seen by the curve they make.
g) Her face seems older than what Leonardo da Vinci made of her can be understood by observing her torso fat or may be its also possible that Da Vinci had to draw her her torso bigger than what it was just to please the person for whom he made the portrait.
h) Her face looks like a man when seen from extreme right and extreme left.
i) Her guarnello (the transparent cover) is seen mainly on her right side and its dirty near hairs.
j) The background though looks similar shows extremities may be indicative of two phases of her lives.
k) The photo is definitely a part of something whole.
l) In a whole the painter drew something not present in front of her but rather the better version of her.
m) The left bottom side of background looks like an old man when seen by turning photo 90 degree clockwise. May be a sign of Da Vinci.
Well, I'm skeptical of most of that, but are you aware that portrait painting required the subject to hold a constant posture for many hours? It was pretty stressful. Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
bespoke is a common term, and may be what you're looking for. custom, custom-designed, made-to-order, tailored to the customer (a metaphor, as you are not literally tailoring), customized, special-order, specialty, customer-specific or client-specific, special order, etc etc. There are many terms. why not just google for other people in your sector that do something like that, and use what they do? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your inputs..Can you be a little more specific, something to do with images...i'm looking for a term...i tried to google but i didnt get it...Can someone throw some light, please..Thanks for the help! Linkinfloyd (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the November 25, 2012 issue of The Washington Post, on page E4, speaking of John Malkovich, in the third-to-last paragraph of the article, it says: "In 2007, he directed the Zach Helm play 'Good Canary' in Paris. He says he earned 25,000 euros for the job. Punch line: 'My tax bill was 29,000 euros.'" Assuming the facts purveyed are accurate, how is it possible that the taxes you owe on income you receive to the income you receive is on the order of 116%? Peter Michner (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you get fined because the French IRS thinks you are earning more than you declared, then yes. It is also the case that France has some form of wealth tax, so low earnings doesn't imply low taxes there. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is also possible in a graduated tax system. Consider a simplified situation where an income up to 10,000 is taxed at 10%, and an income over 10,000 is taxed at 20%:
So, in this case, 1000 more in income causes 1200 more in taxes. Most countries avoid this problem by saying that only the income over 10000 is taxable at the higher rate and/or by having more gradations. I have run into such a situation, myself, though. In my case, they had a "luxury tax" on suits, so that any suit over $100 had to pay the tax. However, by buying the pants and jacket separately, I was able to avoid that limit. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, your arithmetic above illustrates a common misunderstanding of how such systems usually work (I do not claim always). In most jurisdictions (such as the UK) you would pay, on the 11,000, 10% of the 10,000 plus 20% of the 1,000 above the 10,000 threshold, totalling 1,200.
From my dim memories of such alleged situations (taxes exceeding income) applying to rock bands in the '70s, taxes exceeding income often arose from a confusion between gross and net earnings and which various taxes applied to, the years in which income was earned, confusions about exactly where in an international operation various incomes were earned and where they should be taxed (still a very live issue, as mentioned in our Starbucks article, Section 8.9), and dishonest accountants and other managerial entities ripping off and lying to the artists concerned. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nowhere on Earth where the normal situation is that you owe more in taxes compared to what you earn, unless you are fined for non tax paid or other irregularities. So either Malkovich was fined or his statement is not accurate (or his statement was reported inaccurately). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saddhiyama -- mid-20th century British "death duties" or inheritance taxes could often result in tax liabilities significantly beyond annual income... AnonMoos (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "my tax bill" could still be accurate. His "tax bill" could consist of money he owes as taxes, and money he owes as a fine. To him, it's all "tax", because it may as well be. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]02:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A similar situation existed in the US for those on welfare. Until recently, if they got a minimum wage job, they would lose many of their benefits from "being on the dole" and incur taxes, so their financial situation would worsen, not improve. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
France definitely has a wealth tax. If you are resident in France, for that tax year, you have to pay tax based on what you own, as well as a tax based on you earn. So if he was very wealthy, he had to pay both. I only ever paid income tax, though, since I was never (and probanbly will never be) wealthy enough to pay the wealth tax. --Lgriot (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Malkovich's case, it appears his tax rate is merely 65%, which he has refused to pay, saying he has paid his taxes to the American IRS instead. So in 2007 the French demanded more money as a consequence of this play than he earned on it. See [19] and [20] for more details. Gabbe (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(EC with 87 above.) I think StuRat is mistaken about what a graduated tax system means. AFAIK graduated tax system always implies a system with tax brackets. (Note that a graduated tax system is a form of progressive taxation but the terms are not synonymous. You can achieve progressive taxation in various ways besides tax brackets but as stated I believe a graduated tax system always implies a system with tax brackets.) Read the article if you don't know what a tax brackets means, it implies a brackets where you have a cutoff point beyond which the additional income above that value is taxed at a higher rate. I'm not aware if there is a name for the system described by StuRat where an income over a certain rate means an increase in rate for all the income (well with tax brackets the marginal rate increases but in specifics the lower income is still taxed at the lower level). Has any country ever even used such a system? (It isn't uncommon for people to misunderstand tax brackets and think the entire income is taxed at a higher rate if you enter into a different bracket.)
While there may be benefit systems where an increase in income can result in a reduction in money coming in I don't think this is common. AFAIK in most countries the system is designed to avoid that. E.g. here in NZ the issue of concern is generally not that you actually take less money in when you increase your income due to benefit reduction which rarely or never happens, but rather that the extra money you bring in is less some say significantly less then the extra you earn because of the combination of taxes and benefit reduction so there is far less incentive to earn more. This happens because benefits gradually reduce rather then being a case of either you get the full amount or none at all. (Theoretically a wealth tax could also mean a person a person will find they make less money by a higher income presuming said income doesn't increase their spending but from my reading of the article countries tend to use a progressive system starting at zero so avoid this. )
There are of course cases where you are either taxed or not taxed and a small increase in value can result in a sudden possibly large tax bill which would otherwise be due such as the suit example StuRat gave. This may be related to the example he gave of the hypothetical system where rather then using tax brackets a person earning over a certain amount has the entirety of their income taxed at a higher rate. But it's clearly not the same thing as it does not result in a person actually bringing less money in by earning more, as earning doesn't even come in to the picture. One of the effects of such cases is they can encourage people to tax evasion or tax avoidance schemes again as suggested by StuRat with the suit. But note that there can be the same thing even with stuff like a normal graduated taxation system particularly in special cases. E.g. Depending on the brackets, a person who expects to earn a lot less next year or even nothing may wish to find a way to defer about half of their income from this year to next year. Depending on the country and how it's done may or may not be legal but it can result in quite a different tax bill. However again this doesn't mean the person would have got less money because of an increase in income.
So, here $1 in extra income increases your tax by $10, so it's 1000% of the additional income. However, we're only talking about $10, so it's not such a concern. It also makes the calculations far simpler, with no need for tax tables (although the chart with the rates can get big, too). StuRat (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two different issues here -- income tax / income > 1 (the extreme issue, apparently misleadingly claimed by Malkovich), and marginal tax / marginal income > 1. As mentioned above, at least in the US the latter issue, of a marginal tax rate greater than one, sometimes comes up for people trying to work their way off public assistance, and for people earning social security and working. I remember back in the 1980s, the West Virginia state income tax system was designed so that at a certain income level, one more dollar would cause your tax to go up by many dollars; I wish I could remember the details, because it struck me that the system must have been designed by amateurs. Also, back in the 1960s and quite possibly more recently than that, I think the marginal US federal income tax rate on the highest income was something like 90%, and if you lived in a high-marginal-tax state your combined marginal rate could be very close to (or even greater than??) 100%. Does Wikipedia have anything about the history of US tax brackets? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Looks like the highest US income rate was 94% in 1945. Now we have it at 35% (with plenty of loopholes, to boot) and the Republicans claim the economy will collapse if we dare to raise it. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reading John Malkovich#Personal life and political views it becomes clear that "Malkovich ... lived and worked in a theater in Southern France [but] ... left France in a dispute over taxes in 2003". Seems he is not a fan of the French tax authorities and I think he might well have been joking in the Washington Post's interview. While France has high tax rates, at no time does it exceed 100% of income (only in 2013 will a rate of 75% on income over €1 million be introduced). Astronaut (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
December 5
Does Buddhism teach no fear/ no hope?
At least indirectly, if you live in the present, hope of a future positive outcome or fear of a negative one shouldn't be your top priority. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as Buddhism teaches us not to be attached to any particular outcome, and hope or fear regarding outcomes is a mark of attachment, yes. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if a Buddhist saw a missile headed straight for him, his reaction might be, "Oh, that's interesting - a missile that looks like it's headed straight for me. Will it hit me? Will it miss me? Only time will tell." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is possibly the most vague and unhelpful description of a song imaginable. Can you remember any lyrics at all? Because without that, we have basically no chance of helping you. It would also be useful to know what instruments, time signatures, vocal registers, languages, and musical style(s) were involved. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, how many rooms are in the world? I try to divide the world into richness levels Fermi problem style but I'm still not sure. I'd guess more people, but very dependent on if the poor great majority of humanity has fewer persons per room than I guess. (Now the definition of room itself is fuzzy but I'll at least count basements, attics, rooms on ships, rooms inside infrastructure and bathrooms (except ones the size of closets)) Either way it appears less than you could see per lifetime, flashing a few per second. Another fun over/under I can't decide is which has more volume: everything artificial on Earth or one Independence Day city ship? ([21], about 50 trillion cubic feet by my reckoning). Probably depens on how far you go with artificial Embankment dams? Reservoirs? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st part could be useful as a measure of wealth, although square footage (or square meterage ?) per person might be a better measure than the room count, since it's less subjective. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, rooms works better. There are some rich people in cities whose houses have a lot of rooms, but don't cover much ground; while some lower class farmers in the boonies would have a lot of space, but not really as many rooms. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a major city like New York or London I presume that each person has at least one room each (a bedroom), plus other shared space in the same same house, plus a room at their work place or school that they likely have to share with others, plus a room on their way to work (inside a car, bus, train, etc), plus a bathroom they can visit, and a kitchen, etc. However, in some places the poor have to live many to one small room and do everything there. It is hard to say, but I would be surprised if there were a lot less than 7 billion rooms on Earth. Astronaut (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Center for Sustainable Systems says there were 4.9 million commercial buildings in the US in 2003.[22] Guesstimate ten times that for the world, and a conservative 20 rooms a building. and we've already at a billion. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are murder followed by suicide so common in our country?
hot-button and functionally unanswerable topic closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am from the United States and for instance, it's the anniversary of the Westroads Mall shooting, this week the NFL player who kills his girlfriend and kills self, workplace shootings, among others. Why? Why so much? Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Why" is a difficult question to answer (and in cases like this, there may not even be a known answer). However, I think it's worth noting that we have an article on murder-suicide that provides a starting point for you to read and form your own ideas about the matter. Beyond that, I concur that this is a topic more likely to spawn arguing than references. — Lomn18:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people commit murder and then suicide ? ... because committing suicide followed by murder is so much more difficult to pull off. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A joke? Yes, maybe the whole thing should be taken that way. It would make more sense. (And I didn't even mention the somewhere-centrism of the question.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to apologize for the Hawkins thing, I was just angry that the post was closed. But innocent people were killed by him. I'm truly sorry. I apologize. Keeeith (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. But you use the word "sensitive" as if it's somehow a negative trait. Yes, we are sensitive, and we're proud of it. We're sensitive to what makes this place work well and what detracts from it. Without the "sensitives" around here, the ref desks would have gone to hell in a handbasket years ago and you'd be having to ask your questions somewhere else. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not fair, I feel like I have been poached.
Artur Carlos de Barros Basto - the name conversation
I have no information about this, but I would observe that many Jews in Britain (and I think elsewhere) use a Hebrew name which is quite different from their everyday name, and in which "ben" introduces not a surname but a patronymic. Two possibilities that present themselves are that his father's name (not given in the article) was something which he felt could be "Hebrewed" as "Rosh", or that he chose "Rosh" (Hebrew for "head") for its associations. --ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
December 6
Political Science is always misconceived as law or legalistic in nature.
I am a political science student and my instructor in political science minor subject happens to be an LLB. in law, thus he defined political science as the study of state and government. Luckily I have a professor PhD. in political science who said that political science is not so. This definition is what I argue against, first and foremost with that definition political science appears to be in a legalistic and traditionalistic fashion. I responded that politics does not only refer to the state and government and we should also utilize the modern approaches to the subject such as behaviorism. Because "state and government" will only adhere to the laws, principles, government of the state. It is inadequate in answering all other problems. I argued that political science is a social science different form law, thus political science focuses on the political activity which is not only confined to the state and government such as, international organizations and international relations. Political science does not study law or if it does it is in a social perspective. After this I offered a better definition, that given by David Easton- A study of the authoritative distribution of power, this is the safest and one of the most suitable definition ever made. I also offered a revision to his response by adding the term politics which refers to the social activity related to authority.
You seem to be referring to Political_science#Behavioral_revolution_and_new_institutionalism. Ultimately, political science is what you define it to be. Words and phrases have the meaning we assign to them. In the case of political science, some researchers, especially in the past, really did define it as nothing more than the study of state and government by looking at institutions and laws. Other researchers, especially recently, take your sort of broader view of political science. But to say that one of these definitions is "wrong" is plain stupid. Saying that coke is a drug not wrong just because it's also a soft drink. You might reasonably call the simple definition of political science unpopular, inferior, or archaic - but not wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might do well to also look into Political anthropology. Though sadly our article isn't as good as it could be, some of the sources cited might be of benefit - and your definition "a study of the authoritative distribution of power" would fit in well with the remit of political anthropology too - especially given its forays into contexts where there was apparently no 'state', 'government' or 'law' (or at least, not in the sense that such terms are commonly used). In this context, 'political science' arguably resides somewhere between the social sciences and the humanities as an academic field - and certainly has little to do with any legalistic definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Political science" (πολιτικῆ ἐπιστήμη) was a term used by Plato in his Statesman. Aristotle takes it up (and some of the material there) more famously in his Politics. It referred to what is best called political philosophy now. And "political science" was largely within the mold of Plato and Aristotle (see Cicero's De re publica, Augustine's City of God, and Aquinas' Treatise on Law) until Machiavelli. David Easton's definition accurately describes what Machiavelli started to do: describe the ways political power is and can be distributed. Machiavelli is commonly considered the father of modern political science (you see this emphasized by Strauss and his followers, for example); so then insofar as contemporary political science still follows Machiavelli, Easton's definition would seem to be fine. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss your instructor's definition. He may have meant more by "state" and "government" then you might realize. He also may never have meant his definition to be comprehensive; he may have just been describing one part of political science -- the part he was intending to lecture on. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That will redirect to this Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century but I don't see any "list" and I couldn't able to find a list of 100 most influential of the 20th century from Time 100 website. First there is a problem with the redirect since there is no list in the article so it is a wrong redirect. Second, can someone show me a list of 100 most influential people of the 20th century in a "trusted website"? Thanks!174.20.99.196 (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the redirect is ok. The article is not actually a list, so the redirect sends people looking for a list to the non-list article. The time.com link is in the external links section[23] but it is a paywalled article, so non-subscribers can only see a subset of the names. You could probably go to the library and look at the magazine there. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... this is an article about the Time magazine list... however, I think that is appropriate. If someone wants to see the list itself, they can follow the links to Time Magazine's website (although they will have to pay to read the entire list) or go to the library and find it for free.
I am not sure if it would be legal for Wikipedia to present the entire list ourselves, as doing so might violate Time Magazine's copyright. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Years ago, Wikipedia did routinely reproduce such lists (hottest swimsuit models, most eligible bachelors, bravest dogs, hottest milfs). But with reflection the community has decided, in a range of discussions, that such lists aren't like lists of postcodes in Stuttgart or highest points in Albania - that they're creative works (however arbitrary and uninformative) of the editorial staff of various organs, and so we can only quote from them ("Vanity Fair said George Clooney was the hunkiest actor of 2003") but not reproduce the whole list outright. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk02:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To my inexpert legal intuition, that argument seems fairly weak. I might be tempted to argue the point if I thought there were any actual encyclopedic value in these things. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is I'm sure there are many curious people who want to see the entire list. I think the purpose of Wikipedia is to serve the readers, as many as possible. It is arguable that the list is informative or not.174.20.99.196 (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What justifies providing for-pay information gratis merely because someone (or many people) express a want or need for it? Wikipedia does its job by explaining the nature of this information and indicating where it can be obtained. WP does not include all possible information within its virtual covers. ergo, I totally agree with User:Finlay McWalter remark (above). -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
174,20: there are a number of things that people come here looking for (or wanting to create) which Wikipedia is not; business directories, articles on their local bands or their favourite websites, for example. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with policies on what is appropriate for inclusion. --ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
online payment methods
I am looking into potential methods of sending and recieving money online for my company, looking into such things as google, amazon, popmoney, serve and so on, a wide variety of options. However their websites still leave me uncertain on some details, making a direct comparison difficult, so I am wondering if people with experience in this matter can offer some advice.
I need a service that will allow customers to send me money from all around the world, and for that money to be collected together in my account and sent as a bulk payment to the manufacturer to cover costs of making and shipping the items paid for, any ideas on a service that can provide this, to a company based in the UK?
a) can an author of [sci]fiction novel (debut) seek two or more literary agents (or agencies) for a better deal in domestic (best domestic agent) and international markets (best international agent)?
b) is it a wise idea to focus first on domestic market, holding foreign publication rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.141.254 (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While investigating options, expect the agent to present the author with proposed terms and conditions that relate to the domestic/international markets, to be included in a - possibly exclusive - contract the two parties would then sign and fulfill. Perhaps a more productive query here would be: what are the terms and conditions an author can expect a literary agent (independent or publisher's) to fulfill? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's spurious. The only such address is a listing for J Cafferty at 431 Tenth Ave, Scranton, NJ 07032. Doing an advanced search that excludes any results with "431" will not return any hits for Scranton, NJ at all. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from pragmatism what other philosophic tradition criticize the usefulness of formal logic?
Continental tradition doesn't directly dismiss formal logic unlike pragmatism, thus it cannot be the same with pragmatism. And if there is Perestroika movement for social sciences perhaps there are also philosophies which criticize mathematical/formal logic like pragmatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like digging through all the past elections for the data, but the answer boils down to 'it won't hurt, but it's not necessary'. The candidate who won California won the election in 2012 and 2008 (Obama); lost in 2004 or 2000 (Bush Jr.); won in 1996 and 1992 (Clinton); won in 1988 (Bush Sr.); won in 1984 and 1980 (Reagan — but everyone voted for Reagan and he was also a California candidate); lost in 1976 (Carter); won in 1972 and 1968 (Nixon)....
To win the necessary majority of the (current) electoral college – 50 percent plus one, or at least 270 of the 538 votes – a prospective candidate either wants to get the 10 percent (55 votes) from California, or needs to have a solid plan to make up for that shortfall. In the last several election cycles, California hasn't been seen as a swing state; neither party has campaigned seriously there, assuming that it would go firmly Democrat. It's also not tagged as a bellwether state; while California probably ends up aligned with the successful candidate more often than not, its 'hit rate' isn't anywhere close to 100%.
California is so Democratic now that it is uninformative about national elections. Every state official and over two thirds of the legislature are Democrats. The chances that California will vote for a Republican are slim. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but times change. Remember that until 1992, California tended to go heavily Republican: It went for Nixon twice, Ford in 76, Reagan twice, and Bush Sr. The trend for California to vote Democratic is relatively recent, only the last 20 years or so. For the 20 preceding, it went the other way. 20 years from now, who knows? --Jayron3203:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pete Wilson awakened and radicalized the Latino vote in the 90s with California Proposition 187 (1994). It's really hard to see how the GOP comes back in the near future. It's true that California elected a (very moderate) Republican governor in 2003, but that was a sort of perfect storm. Maybe when there's a new entrepreneurial generation (Latino or otherwise) it'll get a bit more skeptical about the overweening state. --Trovatore (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that even California Republicans are historically known to be very "liberal", i.e. Pete McCloskey, Pete Wilson, etc. many of whom are quite a ways to the left on many "social" issues on the American political spectrum. Many (not all, but many) of former "liberal" Republican California voters and politicians have switch party affiliations. McCloskey, a non-interventionist Republican, himself changed his affiliation citing the neocon movement within the party that strongly favored military action abroad. That kind of changing political landscape is probably why California tends to vote Democratic when it used to vote Republican: it isn't necessarily completely the Latino vote; it is also former liberal Republicans that have changed affiliation, as a kind of a reverse of what happened when conservative northern Democrats changed their affiliation in the 80s and 90s (the Reagan Democrats). --Jayron3206:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting paradox here: while California's Electoral Votes (unlike, say, New Mexico's) often differed from the Electoral College as a whole, the percentages of the popular vote, or the percentage margins between the two major candidates, were often until recent years very close to those of the national electorate as a whole. But the Golden State hasn't been a reliable bellwether state for decades, because for the last sixty years (since 1952) she has stayed with one party and then with the other, regardless of the national result. For no fewer than nine out of the ten elections from 1952 to 1988, she supported the Republican ticket, the only exception being Goldwater-Miller in 1964. But since then, California's voted for six straight Democratic tickets in a row. This means that California's supported the losing tickets of Nixon-Lodge (R) in 1960, Ford-Dole (R) in 1976 and Kerry-Edwards (D) in 2004, in addition to Gore-Lieberman (D) which won the national popular vote but not the Electoral College in 2000. So far as I can tell, however, the only candidate since New Mexico's admission in 1912 to carry the state without carrying the national popular vote is Gerald Ford in 1976. To see national and state percentages, see Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. As for size being essential to a winning combination, remember that Texas has voted Republican in most recent elections including those won by Democrats, such as 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012, while New York has voted Democratic after 1984, including elections won by Republicans such as 1988, 2000 and 2004. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone be a Zionist if he's not a Jew?
I am a Protestant American who strongly supports Israel and its right to exist in God's chosen land for them. Is that considered Zionism?, is there Zionism outside of Judaism? Keeeith (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Anyone who is in favor of a Jewish state in the Southern Levant is, by definition, a Zionist. Neither ethnicity nor religion is a requirement. Note the difference between ethnic Jewry and the religion of Judaism. EIN (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe that would be Zionism. I hope that's as opposed to the Protestant American sects [24] that want Israel to wage a nuclear war so God's will on Earth is accomplished and the Rapture comes. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic and turning into a debate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, I am not that kind of Protestant. I just want a Jewish state in all that part of the Middle East, including the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and that the Palestinians be sent to Jordan and Syria, where they came from. Keeeith (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When, exactly, do you think Palestinians came from Jordan or Syria? Who was living in the southern Levant, say, a thousand years ago? Five hundred? (If you prefer not to answer this question, you might also decide not to brandish inflammatory political statements on the RD.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were Jewish settlers from thousand years ago, when the Egyptians took the People of Israel as slaves, the Arabs came in and occupied the Jewish land. That's what's told in the Church. Keeeith (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded very much. Even according to the Bible, the Israelites under Joshua very much took the land by force and genocide. If that is the base for a valid claim, then so is the claim of Muslim Palestinians, whose families have been living there for longer than Israel existed (where the existence of David's Israel and later Juda as significant kingdoms is very much open to historical debate) from the initial conquest (which is very much open to historical debate, too) to the second diaspora (which is the first thing well-established in this sentence ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has it occurred to you to learn history from history books - ideally representing several different points of view - rather than from your church? It is important to distinguish between different time periods, such as the captivity in Egypt (~1400BC), the captivity in Babylon (~600BC), the exile after the Roman invasion (70 & 130 AD), and the Arab invasions much later in the 1st millennium AD. An inability to tell these things apart may lead to people not taking your views on the Middle East seriously.AlexTiefling (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's still just another man, and the idea of pastoral infallibility isn't usually a Protestant trait. You should always feel free to do your own research. If it's something you really care about, you should feel obligated to do so. The history of the region is more complicated than your pastor seems to know or seems to be telling you. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether one goes by theology or history/archaeology... there were people living in Israel/Palistine/Outremer/The Holy Land before Abraham brought his family out of Ur. Sodomites arise... take back your land! Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I commend Keeeith for asking his questions here. They do, at times, seem to be based on some less than completely accurate premises, but as he reads and thinks about more of the answers, his knowledge can only improve. HiLo48 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you be? If you support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, then you are a Zionist regardless of your religion or ethnicity. Futurist110 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me basically like that section of the nationalists in Northern Ireland that wanted to boot out the English and return the land to the Irish. On the other hand the current Irish also invaded Ireland so really we should find the descendants of the Tuatha Dé Danann or perhaps the Fir Bolg, anyway Britain should be restored to the Britons and America to the Native Americans. If you want to go by the Bible I think that anything that happened prior to seven generations ago is absolutely and totally irrelevant. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lanihau: Sources on Kauaian History
Who should I contact on the subject of Lanihau, an obscure chiefess from the 1800s, who was the Governess of Kauai from 1886 to 1888. Her name is mentioned in a few newspaper article, which gives nothing about her, and only one sentence in a few books. I have already email the Kauai Historical Society, who else (history professors, authors, museums, etc) is a good source in this subject area (Kauaian history)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many people in the world view the Bible as the inerrant word of God?
How many people in the world view the Bible as the infallible word of God?
How many people in the world view the Bible as the authoritative word of God?
How many people in the world view the Bible as a written record, based on thousand-year traditions and cultural memories, of ancient literature, daily life, and prophecies that still carries a significant impact in people's lives today, without divine intervention?
You asked this just over a month ago. It is unlikely that new scholarship has emerged in the meantime, and the problems with nonspecificity in the language of your questions are still there. — Lomn19:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't Nazi party members forced to have at least four children?
I don't believe your assumption is quite right. Maybe they motivated ethnic Germans to have more children, but how would they (yes, even the Nazi Germany would have a difficult task here) force them to have at least four children? They granted the Cross of Honor of the German Mother to mothers of four or more children, but I don't see any reference of any force or drawback for those who didn't cooperated with the German effort of populating the world with pure Germans. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)ac[reply]
See this article, Motherhood in Nazi Germany, which says that the Nazi regime encouraged large families by means of propaganda, tax breaks and support programmes. Birth control advice and contraception were controlled by law and eventually banned altogether. Wikipedia has an article on the Cross of Honor of the German Mother, for "mothers who exhibited probity, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent". Curiously, France has a similar award which is still in use, La Médaille de la Famille française. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
crazy babbling
There is someone near my building (maybe next door) who is angrily ranting about something I can't make any sense of. It's in unaccented English, has some profanity sprinkled in but mostly seems to be about some specific topic, and yet I can't make out more than a few words here or there. There are very few pauses. The person is just babbling nonstop and not making any sense, and (from my nonprofessional perspective) sounds mentally ill. I've seen similar behavior from streetpeople multiple times in the past.
Is there a particular illness associated with this symptom/behavior, or a name for the behavior itself?
Not looking for medical advice as I have no intention of going anywhere near the person. Just wondering if the situation has a name.
Because they don't know facts. If there would be a universal definition of democracy, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and/or Yemen might be included in this category. Someone already found the No True Scotsman fallacy, which pertains to this issue. Futurist110 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanon, Egypt, and Yemen are not democracies under any reasonable definition, especially not after Morsi's recent power grab. Yemen's politics has been completely dominated by one party since unification. Lebanon has a confessionalist constitution, which is hardly democratic if democracy is taken to include any kind of equality amongst religions. Of course Israel is only democratic within Israel proper--no matter what you think of its control of Palestine, it isn't democratic. --140.180.249.232 (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Morsy's recent power grab is supposed to be temporary and he was democratically elected. In regards to Yemen, let me double-check, but is there genuinely no viable political opposition there right now? As for Lebanon, despite the mandatory sectarian balance in the govt., aren't a lot of the politicians still democratically elected? I notice that you did not criticize my statement calling Iraq as a democracy. Does that mean that you agree with this statement? Also, the Palestinian Authority/Palestine is also a democracy, or is supposed to be a democracy and had free and fair elections in 2006. Futurist110 (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By your standards, I don't see how the UK could be considered to be democratic given the Church of England's representation in the House of Lords. Some other countries that are generally considered to be democracies, such as Belgium and Bosnia and Herzegovina, have consociational political systems much like Lebanon does (though based on ethnic rather than religious lines). A few others, like India and New Zealand, reserve seats in their parliaments for certain ethnic minorities. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People who use the argument 'Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East' use 'democracy' as an euphemism for 'Western'. The argument does not lie in electoral formalities nor human rights record, but an appeal to stress that Israel is 'one of us' (and thus have to be supported against the hordes of non-Western peoples surrounding it). --Soman (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict>How democratic a country is is subjective. One man's democracy is another man's flawed political system. Some people regard democratic monarchies like the UK, Netherlands and Denmark to be undemocratic. Others rail against things like hanging chads in the US democratic system. I've heard China apologists argue that the Chinese system is exceptionally democratic. I'd say that when you hear people say that about Israel it's because the Israeli democratic system resembles a western idea of what a democracy looks like, while the others don't come close. But to someone living under an authoritarian regime, many of Israel's neighbours would appear to have attractively democratic systems. See perception bias. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some Islamists have said that democracy is incompatible with Islam. (That's what appears to be starting to play out in Egypt, for examle.) Have some Jews ever said that democracy is incompatible with Judaism? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recall having seen that, some ultra-settler talking on camera about resurrecting a kingdom in Israel. Notably the Islamist mainstream (like Muslim Brotherhood) is not saying Islam and democracy are incompatible. --Soman (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is a secular state, albeit it makes some notable concessions to Orthodox Jewish practice. If you're asking what the traditional Jewish take on democracy is, it's hard to answer because the question is an anachronism - the last "Jewish state" in the proper meaning ceased to exist a long time before western-style democracies evolved. Judaism itself has elements of democracy in it - in rabbinic arguments, opinion follows the majority, but it's not a popular vote, the ones with a voice are a meritocracy. The religion is unclear on whether the Biblical commands about having a king reflect what is desirable or a response to something that the people would desire. Equally, while Chabad terminology about the messiah typically includes the word "king", this is not something all strands of Judaism agree on. While I think you could probably find someone who'd argue that democracy is incompatible with Judasim, I don't think there's strong grounds for arguing it. The one exception would be to say that religious law cannot be voted on by the hoi polloi - something that's in common with what we understand of democracies anyway, but Judaism has a strong view on many aspects of ordinary life that liberal Christian society would not understand as being subject to "religious law", such as (see 613_commandments#Maimonides.27_list how to wage war (no. 602), legislation on health and safety (no. 494), hunting (no. 207), ecology (no. 604) and so on. --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with Dweller and Soman here. I also question the usefulness of random contributors opinions of a country's democracy. For example, the suggestion that Yemen's is not democractic because it has been dominated by a single party seems questionable. While countries with a Dominant-party system may often be questionable, this is usually because of some additional factors like media or campaigning limitations on other parties, gerry-mandering, legislative or other restrictions on other parties, voter or candidate intimidation, corrupt or questionable practices like bribing voters or election winners, other forms of questionable election management, etc etc. In other words, while the countries are nominally multi party democracies, they have some aspects of Single-party state. Japan is a notable example of a country with a single party which has dominated thorough much of recent history but, where the aforementioned issues have generally been limited and there is a fair degree of intraparty factions and voting. But as I said, I'm not asking you to take my word from it, take for example this ranking from 2006 (when the LDP remained in power in both houses) [25] which shows Japan falling in to the 'full democracies' category and scoring higher than the UK and France. Note South Africa which just falls in to the 'flawed democracy' is relative high, higher in fact than India and Israel despite the dominant party nature of South Africa in recent times. To be clear, I'm not saying Yemen should be called a democracy, they score very low in that ranking and despite the recent changes it's perhaps too soon to be clear where they stand. I'm simply illustrating the point that domination by one party is no guarantee a country is not democractic. The Democracy Index is perhaps the most well known democracy ranking, but there are plenty of others, [26][27][28], also see [29]. Of course this sort of thing is highly subjective and may reflect the biases of the producer of the ranking but at least by using such rankings people are actually discussing referenced ideas and rankings produced by people who hopefully at least have considered the problems in greater depth than 'dominated by one party, can't be democractic'. P.S. Without defending Morsi, I think it's an interesting question (but not one for the RD) if the response from the Western media and governments would be the same if instead of Morsi a secular like Ahmed Shafik had been doing more or less the exact same things. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2 counterexamples don't disprove a trend. You said yourself that Yemen scores very low on the democracy ranking, and that dominant-party systems may often be questionable. I never intended to give a comprehensive list of reasons, just one that I consider significant. Also, I find it unfair that you're attacking me when I was responding to another "random contributors opinions of a country's democracy", and when the question itself requires a reasonable definition of democracy. --140.180.252.134 (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda in schools
Do we have an article about a type of propaganda where the state uses the public education to influence the students? For example, by making them study from biased textbooks, or by making them study topics that promote the ruling party (for example, if children had to study "the advantages of communism" in a communist state) Cambalachero (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that governments have tried to do this in Australia. A read of History wars and National Curriculum (Australia) will give some details. This is mostly to do with the issue of whether the arrival of the British in 1788, and subsequent events, should be described as an invasion or a benevolent colonisation. (OK, so those are the extreme positions.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the area of Social Studies, especially, there is always going to be some degree of bias. When I was a kid, Columbus was a good guy. Now he's a bad guy. And when people stop and realize where they'd be without Columbus, he'll be a good guy again. Other historical figures have been taken on this rollercoaster by revisionists. We all knew about the Boston Massacre. But until some historians started to change their emphasis, we didn't know that (1) the incident may have been deliberately provoked by the colonists, i.e. they weren't entirely innocent victims; and (2) the first victim was a black or mixed-race man, a good metaphor for the near-invisibility of blacks in prior history books. However, math is math, so the amount of bias is probably less than in the history subjects. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of us probably don't know about the Boston Massacre. I had never heard of it until just now. Not everyone lives in the USA. For those who don't live in the USA, or do but didn't get to enjoy history lessons, see Boston Massacre. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller, Bugs' we was clearly referring to the context of his school years ("when I was a kid"), and I'm fairly certain that everyone he went to school with lived in the USA. Your lecture was unnecessary. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Kipling short story
Hello Learned Ones ! I'm looking for the title of that short story about a German policeman in the Weimar republic, he tries to enforce law in the social turmoil of those years & I think he is killed ...Thanks beforehand for your help. T;y. Arapaima (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly Vice-Admiral (contre-amiral) Paul Serre (1818-1900), as he's the only French naval officer with that surname active during the period. A succint biography can be found here [30]. I can't find dates for his being in Tahiti, but he retired in 1880 according to that page. To find out more, you would need to consult the archives of the French Navy as he doesn't appear to be very notable. --Xuxl (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relatives and Child Support
Have there ever been any cases where a child's grandparent(s) or a child's aunts and/or uncles were forced to pay child support against their will for this child, such as if one of the child's parents died young? If not, are there any laws anywhere that would force grandparents, aunts, and/or uncles to pay child support against their will? Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Selling Question
Do gun dealers legally have the option to avoid selling guns to people if they want to, even if these people pass a background check and the requirements in order to buy a gun? Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, with the exception of laws against racial discrimination, any private business owner can refuse to do business with any individual. No one is required to sell you anything. --Jayron3203:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jayron. I'm aware of the anti-racial discrimination laws, but is there any specific court ruling or law that pertains to your refusal to do business with someone or it is just a general rule/principle? Futurist110 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of plenty of examples where businesses refuse to do business with patrons for any number of reasons. Vegas casinos can refuse to admit people known to count cards. Bars can refuse to serve liquor to drunk patrons. And on and on. You can't force me to sell you something. --Jayron3204:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron already said "with the exception of laws against racial discrimination". I guess that would extend to discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or marital status or sexual orientation. Trouble is, proving that that was their reason for refusal might be difficult or impossible; and very costly. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]06:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Racial discrimination is probably easier to prove than those other biases. Ironically, in addition to "de facto segregation" which used to be practiced in white suburbia, in the cities there was something called "Blockbusting", in which a realtor would purposely sell to a minority, in hopes of drumming up business from panicked white folks who would then engage the realtor (he hoped) to sell their houses and leave "before it was too late". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, at least, it's the opposite. The government has no authority to tell a private business who they can or can't sell to, unless there's a specific regulation. In addition to laws against segregation, there are also laws prohibiting sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors, and there are laws regulating the nature of items you can sell (foods and drugs, for example). That list goes on and on in our well-regulated society. Government-run operations such as license plate distributors probably have rules about who they can sell to and about when they can refuse. But private businesses have a lot more flexibility. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, in many states in the U.S., retailers can be legally liable for actions taken by customers: the classic example is drunk driving, where a bar or liquor retailer can be charged with crimes if they sell alcohol to a customer who then goes on to cause a drunk driving accident. My understanding is that some states have similar laws for gunshop owners, or at least allow the family of a murder victim to sue the owner of the store where the murderer acquired the weapon, so it would be prudent for retailers to use maximum caution when discriminating that way. Most businesses I know of have a sign (or at least a card that they can show to customers) that says something along the lines of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody". eldamorie (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is specific regulation in the US of public accomodations which are required to sell to all comers without discrimination according to civil rights statutes. Enforcement is a civil (as opposed to criminal) issue. A clerk at a Walmart counter where gun models are displayed at a set price might run into trouble denying a sale to a qualified customer. In a small private shop where prices weren't listed, the proprietor might just decide to tack on a few figures to the price to discourage a sale. At Walmart the manager would probably override a balky clerk, or, on the other hand, threaten to call the police if he thought there were some valid reason to deny the sale. In the private shop, you'd basically need to run a sting to show he did sell the gun at a lower price to another customer, then sue--an unlikely scenario. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have anecdotally heard of gun dealers refusing to sell to individuals who made them nervous for whatever reason, even if they passed the legal requirements. Shadowjams (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this theft?
I read a news article here: [31]. The short version is some people beat a guy up, tied him up and stuffed him in the trunk of his own car, then drove off with it. They are being charged with the theft of the car, among other (more obvious) crimes. How does that work? Theft is taking property away from somebody. This guy still had his car. gnfnrf (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite questionable he still had his car if he was locked in the trunk and it was being drive by someone else without his permission. Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW you may also be interested in our article Carjacking which mentions theft a few times (particularly in relation to the UK). One thing it doesn't mention is that if the victim remains in the car, it's not theft. I'm not sure the intentions of the people here, but presuming they planned to dump the victim somewhere and keep the car, you may want to consider that if you catch someone in your house with some of your property clearly intending to make off with it, in many countries they're unlikely able to avoid a theft charge just because they haven't left yet when their intention is clear. (Of course I doubt the people here will get off if they had only intended to keep the car for a short time and leave it with the owner when done, but it could be a different charge as it may be in the UK.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the important concept here is Possession (law). At least in my jurisdiction (Sweden) theft is taking possession of an object from its rightful owner (with the intent to keep it). Possession can be very loosely defined as having control over the access to something and the use of that something. In this case the thieves have taken control of the car, and the owner no longer has it, so they could be charged with theft (or maybe robbery, which is much the same but with the element of violence or threat). The definitions of theft and possession vary between jurisdictions, so there might be something specific to Kentucky law that I don’t know about. Sjö (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In reference to the bit I said on catching someone in your house, it's possible in some cases this may be 'attempted theft' or a similar charge rather then theft. However I believe in many jurisdictions this is not the case. See e.g. this forum [32] with some discussion of the circumstances in the UK in the case of stores. Attempted theft or related attempted charges would generally be if the attempt fails completely either because they were caught too early (e.g. if someone is caught before they actually pick anything up) or they failed for some reason (e.g. if they failed to pick the locks). Once they've picked up an item with the intention of depriving the rightful owner of their property, they've probably commited the offence even if they are caught before they manage to make off with it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of other famous persons assassinated in their cars: Rafik Hariri and Judge Giovanni Falcone, both through car bombs. Two famous cases of persons being shot in their cars in Canada: Atilla Altıkat and criminal lawyer Sidney Leithman [33]. I don't know if by "open car", the OP means a convertible, in which case, instances will be a lot fewer.--Xuxl (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all so far. Xuxl: I mean convertibles or older cars, not necessarily equipped with a roof. The gist is that there was no metal or glass between the assassin and the victim that could possibly have protected the latter, deflect a bullet or something like that. --KnightMove (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a philosophy question, but how someone killed themselves in the future for example if Marty_McFly from Back_to_the_Future_(franchise) kills his future self would it murder or suicide?
Since his future self would presumably know about it, having satisfied his murderous urge in his past, it would be suicide IMO. It's not altogether different from setting a bomb, for example, and sticking around to be blown to bits, rather than avoiding it. No time paradoxes involved whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest in the general case it's both murder/manslaughter. In general you could perhaps say the future self commited suicide because they stuck around. But the future self isn't the one doing the killing. The historic self is and as they aren't really the same person they aren't committing suicide when they kill the future self but homicide. Even if you believe assisted suicide in general is okay (i.e. you don't restrict it to hopeless medical cases and similar), unless you've carefully questioned your future self and ascertained the circumstances you can't really be said to be assisting suicide since you don't really know what's going on, it's unresonable to assume 'well my future self would know they can avoid this if I succeed, the fact they didn't must mean they want to be killed' as there could be circumstances you aren't aware of. As I said, this is generally speaking. If the future self is forced to be there or something then the future self may not be commiting suicide. If the historic self kills the future self after being sure it's what the future self wants with no coercion etc involved then you could say they are simply assisting suicide which some people may feel is okay and not a form of manslaughter or murder. (But note it's still the case the historic self isn't committing suicide but assisting suicide). P.S. I'm pretty sure if you search there's already people discussing the philosphical implications of people with dissociative identity disorder committing suicide. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Egypt Constitution Referendum: what percentage of what counts as "passed"?
I've been trying to find information about this, but to no avail. Regarding the announced referendum on the new draft constitution, what is the percentage required for the constitution to count as "passed"? Majority, plurality, 2/3? And of the entire electorate, or only the votes cast? Is there a minimum turnout necessary? Is there any information out there? Thanks. -- megA (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
where to find the next steve jobs
for my company i would like to find the next steve jobs and give him a lot of power over strategy and product, while other people are keeping things going operationally. the problem is that people like steve jobs actually "aren't very good" (at anything) and only through a partnership with woz (literally passing off woz's work as his own at HP) was s.j. able to execute.
So, my criteria seem to be something like:
perfectionist, big thinker
with innovative ideas that push what is possible
who has a good eye for product
and thinks in terms of the user
but who
can't do anything
is inconsistent
a poor communicator
For these reasons, I would think that he (or quite easily she) is selected AGAINST by any programs at any instititution. Where could I find this person for my company? A craigslist ad looking for someone to take dictatorial command over a world-changing product? Which city should I put it up in?
Steve was good at design, not details. There are design schools, and you could look at some of their student's projects. Keep in mind that they need not be practical, what you are looking for is big thinking. So, for example, if someone at a design school comes up with a car which uses a huge flywheel, powered up at home, to drive it, that's a good person to choose, because he's a "big thinker", even though that idea is completely impractical. You then need to find your Woz, somebody who can take impractical ideas like that and whittle them down to something that works (like a flywheel used just for regenerative braking). StuRat (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think Jobs' key skill was seeing the potential in ideas that were being neglected, like the mouse, and how to get the most out of them. He had very high-minded ideas about design and production values, but those aren't so unusual. That's a rare skill and I'm not sure you can interview for it. Microsoft try, apparently, but have they unearthed a "new Steve Jobs"? I suppose they're questions designed to find creative people with an awareness of practicality - you'll have to settle for that. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are good ideas, but (hehe) I would like the advice to be more practical. On a practical level what should my next step be in 1) finding and identifying this person 2) putting them in charge of anything? Think a bit lower-level than the (good) general responses I've already been given. Thanks. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a name for the style used in Robert Burns' "to a mouse" and the Stephenson verse here, basically this 6-line stanza with the AAABAB length/rhyming structure? It seems to be very popular with Scottish poets. - filelakeshoe10:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After the Palestine vote at the UN, I began to read about the tiny Pacific nations and became aware of the U.S. responsibility for their defense. My question is, who could and why would attack such countries? Keeeith (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There may be valuable resources, such as oil close to an island and in case of a large-scale war (e.g. China vs the USA) such islands can provide strategic points to operate from or to refuel aircrafts. - Lindert (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Pacific War for the history of the last time these countries actually were attacked (or threatened with attack)... that article will also help you understand why the U.S. currently has responsibility for their defense. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tiny country that is undefended can be conquered by a couple of dozen mercenaries with machine guns. That sort of thing has actually happened a number of times. Looie496 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
heir to the throne
What does the phrase "heir to the throne" mean? Does it mean a person who inherited the throne (the reigning monarch)? Or does it mean the person in line to inherit the throne (the heir apparent/presumptive)?
Yeah, with Charles being "heir to the throne" [34]. Elizabeth is of the heirs of the body of Sophia of Hanover but not the "heir to the throne," which are two different thing. "However, those terms obviously mean..." is your opinion, not the established usage or definition accepted by the world. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
