::"The civil service has collapsed" A rough analogy - if a country was a company, the government would be the board of directors, the civil service would be the employees and citizens are the shareholders (registered voters) and customers (all citizens). Parliament would be like the shareholder's AGM, with the members of parliament being the proxy-holders of the shareholder's votes. The comparison breaks down due to the peculiar American habit of electing even minor functoinaries, such as sheriffs - in much of the world the idea of electing someone to head the local police station is simply ridiculous, cops are expected to be strictly apolitical, in fact in many countries civil servants are forbidden to hold any publically elected position, except for minor stuff like parent's representative bodies of schools. [[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 19:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
::"The civil service has collapsed" A rough analogy - if a country was a company, the government would be the board of directors, the civil service would be the employees and citizens are the shareholders (registered voters) and customers (all citizens). Parliament would be like the shareholder's AGM, with the members of parliament being the proxy-holders of the shareholder's votes. The comparison breaks down due to the peculiar American habit of electing even minor functoinaries, such as sheriffs - in much of the world the idea of electing someone to head the local police station is simply ridiculous, cops are expected to be strictly apolitical, in fact in many countries civil servants are forbidden to hold any publically elected position, except for minor stuff like parent's representative bodies of schools. [[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 19:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
:::I think what most Europeans would say if they want to talk about what Americans call "the government" is "the state". In Syria "the state" would collapse if all civil service people ran away.--[[User:Zoppp|Zoppp]] ([[User talk:Zoppp|talk]]) 21:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
:::I think what most Europeans would say if they want to talk about what Americans call "the government" is "the state". In Syria "the state" would collapse if all civil service people ran away.--[[User:Zoppp|Zoppp]] ([[User talk:Zoppp|talk]]) 21:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
::::I agree, I would say the state has collapsed. We call states that are no longer able to effectively govern the country (which basically means they don't have functioning institutions like the civil service and police, they lack the basic ability to tax and spend, etc.) "[[failed states]]". To say that the civil service has collapsed sounds odd to me - the civil service refers more to the people than the institutions, to my mind, and the people haven't "collapsed" they just aren't doing their jobs for whatever reason. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 11:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
:Didn't Belgium fail to have a government for several years recently? [[User:RNealK|RNealK]] ([[User talk:RNealK|talk]]) 22:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
:Didn't Belgium fail to have a government for several years recently? [[User:RNealK|RNealK]] ([[User talk:RNealK|talk]]) 22:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
:: See Sussexonian @ 06:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC). -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[Talk]</sup></font>]] 02:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
:: See Sussexonian @ 06:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC). -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[Talk]</sup></font>]] 02:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
::Belgium had a caretaker government. There wasn't any significant new policy for a long time, but everything kept plodding along as it had been doing before. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 11:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
== Common law vs. civil law ==
== Common law vs. civil law ==
Revision as of 11:24, 12 April 2013
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.
Why don't I EVER hear of soldiers bringing women home from Iraq and Afghanistan?
In World War II, it was quite common for G.I.s to bring women home after the war, marry, and have productive lives thereafter.
Why don't Afghan or Iraqi women EVER come home with soldiers from these recent wars? --70.179.161.230 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several factors, probably, including wide cultural differences (much greater than between Americans and British or French, certainly), limited circumstances in which American soldiers could become more than very superficially acquainted with women there, prohibitions in traditional Islamic law against a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man, etc. There was a case about five years ago of a few U.S. soldiers in Iraq converting to Islam to marry Iraqi women; obviously that would be a big hurdle which WW2 GIs did not face... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus I imagine it's frowned upon by the US military head honchos, fraternisation and all that... 72.128.82.131 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, US troops in Europe found girlfriends and wives in countries such as France or the UK, which had seen terrible hardship for many years before the Americans arrived in force, and food was scarce, plus their own men were either away at war or dead. The women found them as a way to escape all of that, putting it bluntly (of course, love was involved, I am sure you know what I mean). The American soldiers were allowed time off, and they could go to local places, like pubs, bars, restaurants, cafes, cinemas, whatever, where they could meet local women. Iraq does indeed have these places, but they are certainly not places to meet a woman, especially alone. Afghanistan has fewer of these places, too, and similarly, are not places to go on a date. Also, in both cases, it's not exactly safe in those places for an American soldier to be wandering around town, unarmed, and alone (or with a couple of mates) - most of them stay back at base. Also, remember, the insurgency in Iraq is not even over yet, 18 months after the last US convoy left, and the war in Afghanistan looks to be going on for the foreseeable future, whether the coalition is there or not. Just imagine a slightly more violent reaction than the WW2 British view of the US soldiers stationed in the UK: "Overpaid, oversexed, and over here," just with bombs and local families being targeted. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between World War 2's war brides and today is that the war brides came from the Allies, and not from the Axis nations. Fraternising with the enemy is normally forbidden. I saw a documentary last week on an English squaddie who had a relationship with a German girl, and was so badly beaten by his comrades because of it that he suffered brain damage. So it won't happen in the same way (or if it does, it will be very, very rare). --TammyMoet (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. According to the war brides article you have linked there were 20000 American soldiers in WW2 who married German women. I understand something different under "very, very rare". 109.153.20.62 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read the article then. The "20000 American soldiers" doesn't refer to the number who married German women at all: it seems to refer to the numbers of US soldiers who brought home foreign brides by 1949, so 4 years after the war had finished, and with no mention of nationality. I stand by what I wrote which seems to have been in no way invalidated by the article. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OP specified 'after the war', Tammy. Forgive me if I misunderstood your clarification of '4 years after the war'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt of transcript of a HoC meeting in 1951: "Since 1947, permission to marry a German woman has been given to 7,342 [British] soldiers … in 1950 and 1951, 12 men were refused this permission. Three hundred and five cases of soldiers who have married without permission since 1948 are recorded." KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So Iraqis and Afghanis are U.S. enemies? I thought they were the ones the Americans wanted to liberate. — Kpalion(talk) 11:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That ambiguity is part of the difficulty with not only "winning" the wars, but finding war brides as well. It is the characteristic of modern war that the line between ally and enemy is a fuzzy one, more so in Iraq and Afghanistan than even in Vietnam. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Iraq and Afghanistan quickly became guerrilla warfare. There's no way to really know if the person you're talking to is friend or foe. So, it's better not to get too close to anyone as a soldier. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though that happened in Vietnam, too. But again, I think there are broad cultural differences between Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan, and the nature of the wars were very different. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sports affiliation with political parties
Is Bangladesh the only nation whose two main soccer rivals gets support from or affiliation with two main rival political parties in the nation? Mohammedan-BNP and Abahani-Awami League--Donmust90 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
There have always been rumours that Real Madrid C.F. benefited from Francisco Franco who gave favour to the club, apparently ensuring the signature of Alfredo Di Stéfano. Beyond that a more current one would be Silvio Berlusconi's ownership of A.C. Milan. I don't know if this is what you mean? The only other thing I can think of that's remotely similar is clubs and their religious links - e.g. Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C. with one (Rangers) being Protestant and the other (Celtic) being Catholic. ny156uk (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is as simple as there being a deliberate, overt political connection with most sports teams. Sports teams tend to be associated first with a geographical region; that region contains a people who have certain commonalities, culturally speaking (they may have the same religion, belong to the same socioeconomic class, same ethnic background, etc.) That may lead to people who have the same, or similar, political loyalties rooting for the club. That connection may then spill over as the fan base grows to a more national appeal. In the U.S. for example, the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders play in the same metropolitan area; Oakland is a poorer city, lower socioeconomically, more working class, whereas San Francisco is a more upper-middle class, richer, urban "elite" sort of city; and the fan bases of those teams tend to reflect that. Crowds at 49ers games tend to be more subdued, "classier", etc. Oakland is known for rowdier, more crazy fans (see Raider Nation and the "Black Hole" at the Colliseum). That difference in fan base may extend beyond the metro area, as you find Raiders or 49ers fans outside of the Bay Area that identify with one team or the other based on the perceptions of the team culture. And that sort of difference may also extend to people's political lives as well. --Jayron32 17:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ny156uk. I am talking about political parties linking with football/soccer clubs. I also learned that Likud of Israel has links with Beitar Jerusalem. Also, Jayron is also right when it comes to teams having fans with different backgrounds such as Oakland and San Fran rivalry. Any other clubs or teams that are linked to political parties or different backgrounds? Another thing is that Bnei Yehuda is supported by Mizrahi Jews who are Likudniks and nationalists.--Donmust90 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
Some of the sports clubs in present-day Israel were founded in the early to mid-20th century by Zionist ideological movements in Europe that sponsored youth movements and political parties, many of which morphed over time. You can tell by their names and read about their history. The connection between sports and politics needs to be studied on a per-case basis; avoid drawing conclusions based on superficial similarities and outdated information. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the news recently, Sunderland A.F.C. have longstanding links with the labour movement, and until a few days ago had prominent Labour MP David Miliband as its vice-chairman. It's not nearly so strong a connection as that in Bangladesh. In Europe, links between sporting clubs and the labour and communist movements were common before World War II: see Socialist Workers' Sport International and Red Sport International for more information. Warofdreamstalk 11:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for this, I will need to obtain copies of these Biographies. I am mystified has to how a self taught person, at this period of time, and from such a background, could rise so rapidly through the social stratas so quickly. Also,coming from Ireland during this period, his religion was Anglican and not Roman Catholic?86.4.69.158 (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was presumably a smart boy who diligently applied himself to his studies and took advantage of any opportunities which arose. He likely would have needed some type of scholarship or sponsorship to attend university in England. Not sure about a rapid rise, since he ended up as a clergyman in a somewhat poor and out of the way place, and couldn't really "establish" his children. AnonMoos (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick's father was a Protestant, and his mother a Catholic; he was brought up as a Protestant (see Brontë family). While I'm struggling to find a good source, it appears that the Protestantism was not a recent conversion, and the family was not part of the nobility nor of the Plantation, so it does seem a bit unusual. Warofdreamstalk 11:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to formally request a loan
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. --~~~~
A lot of trading occurs on Gold Prices in I - Banks (Markets Division). I am also aware of the London Gold Fixing. I would like to know what determines the hourly changing of Gold Prices on the traders screen ? Who determines it and how is it transmitted over to the traders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.110.130 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have been surprised, but we actually have an article on gold prices. The hourly changes are basically "stocks". I'm not familiar with stock exchanges, nor the rules on valuing gold, so I'll let someone else take it from there. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gold prices are decided just like the price of any equity (G.E., Microsoft, Vodafone) or of a ton of tomato or a barrel of oil, or a government bond: traders (by traders I mean people who need it, and people who sell it) trade it in large quantity at the price they "think" is fair given the current circumstances: their needs for it (urgent, not urgent, just for speculation, for melting into jewelry), their need to sell it (I mean their need to get some cash), the global economy, the planned future production etc. etc. , and the price they traded at is then broadccast for everyone to know. --Lgriot (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To complement that, a fixing is a special period during the day, where all the buyers and sellers are offered the possibility to state their need (qantity to buy, maximum price, quantity to sell, minimum price). Then an algorithm is run on all the buy and sell orders from all the traders, and a happy medium is found. At that point, everyone who was ready to trade at that medium price (or a worse price) get their requested quantity of gold traded, and there is an actual transfer of ownership between the buyers and the sellers. At that point the price as well as the quantity exchanged is made public. --Lgriot (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pyongyang handicap ban
I have heard, that formerly, handicapped as well as pregnant people where not allowed to be in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang. This ban was to have been in effect until some years ago. Is this true, and is so, which year was the ban lifted? Thank you --Aciram (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. About twenty to twenty five years ago I read a book about a man murdered in New York and dumped in a bare section and set on fire. I believe his surname was something like Tupper. His body was found by a Fireman who, according to the book, had previously written his own book on his experiences with a series of fires that terrorised New York in the 1960's. I believe the body was found in 1977. The alleged killer was said to be a Jewish horse trainer with a German sounding surname, whose first name may have been Howard. The killing was over a love triangle between the victim, the horse trainer and a then famous billboard model, but I forget her name. There was another model mentioned in the story whose name was Mel Harris, but I am not sure if this is the same Thirty Something actress, or not. If anyone can tell me the book's name, that of the killer, his victim and the model, and of the fireman who found the body and put out the fire, Thank You. Chris the RussianChristopher Lilly 05:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Howard "Buddy" Jacobson was charged with the murder of John Tupper (on 6 August 1978), who lived with Jacobson's former girlfriend, Melanie Cain at 153-155 East 84th St. in NYC. I'm not sure what book you have in mind, but it may have been Anthony Haden-Guest's Bad Dreams. Looking through the NY Times, they mention that firemen found the body and promptly notified the police, but I don't see any mention of the firemens' names. -- Nunh-huh 05:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You so much, -- Nunh-huh, this is exactly the event I was thinking about. Now I remember the model in question did have the name Melanie. I do not know if Bad Dreams was the name of the book, as I do not remember that as a title, although it called have been called something else when on sale in New Zealand, as some books and movies are. Thanks again.Chris the RussianChristopher Lilly 07:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Historiae Atlantis non Platonis
Are there any stories of Atlantis that are earlier or otherwise independent of Plato? --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 05:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As our article on Atlantis states, the first mention of Atlantis was in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias, written about 360 BC. - Nunh-huh 06:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the genitive case form of Atlantis in Latin would be "Atlantidis"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the lede of buttocks mentions it involves sexual attraction, but the lede of foot does not. However foot fetish plays out quite prominently in erotica. So why does one mention a sexual role but the other not? Pass a Methodtalk 11:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attraction to buttocks is much more common than to feet. That's why a foot fetish is called a fetish - fetishes are unusual attractions. --Tango (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably why underpants are more essential than socks. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feet don't leak. - Nunh-huh 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do buttocks. (Sorry, but "Noticed" completely fails as any kind of meaningful header by which one might search for this question, so I've changed it.) -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 21:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the articles were written by different people and don't have to live up to any standards of inclusion as to what is in the lede? Dismas|(talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something gives me the feeling this isn't the most serious question around, but the serious and boring answer is that there are degrees of attractiveness for buttocks that don't exist for feet. Any foot will do (except maybe your own). IBE (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IBE, are you a fetishist speaking from an informed position, or was that just a wild-footed guess? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
antisemitism
I am trying to get an historical perspective on anti-Semitism, particularly since the Industrial Revolution. Can you suggest any comprehensive resource(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak47dan (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that there was once used to be a Jewish population in Bangladesh before 1971 or after 1971?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
A Google search for "Jews in Bangladesh" would have instantly told you the answer, in the very top result. Looie496 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Donmust90, I'm going to ask you again: why don't you ever do your own research, even when people patiently show you how? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone really know what time it is? μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody really care? --Jayron32 03:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, Medeis? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably something to do with soccer. μηδείς (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Almost Englishmen: Baghdadi Jews in British Burma by Ruth Fredman Cernea, p. , sxvhe states "Like points in a silken cobweb, the Baghdadi Jewish diaspora once spread throughout Southeast Asia, from Bombay to Shanghai. Woven into the web were distant, but never isolated, communities in Singapore, Calcutta, Rangoon, Karachi, Dacca, Penang, Hong Kong, Yokahama, and Surabaya, and in many small towns throughout the countryside." I cannot find, in a brief search any info when this community emigrated, but considering this: "The partition of India in 1946[?] and the bloody riots coupled with the fear of a socialist government pushed the Calcutta Jews who were very close to the partition line with East Pakistan, and who felt especially threatened, to leave India.", it seems probable that Jews from Dacca would have emigrated around the same time as the Calcutta Jews. --Soman (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between these church officials?
Bishop
Deacon
Vicar
Priest
Pastor (Roman Catholic priest or Roman Catholic pastor?)
Minister
Lay Teacher
Chaplain
Friar (as in Frere Jacques or Friar Laurence)
Brother (as in Brother John, the English version of Frere Jacques)
That's wholly dependent on which particular church tradition you're asking about. Most flavors of Christianity (and probably a bunch of non-Christian religions) use many to all of those titles for different offices. — Lomn 21:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example, take "lay teacher". The laity is, broadly defined, anybody who's not clergy. So, taken literally, a "lay teacher" is anybody teaching who isn't clergy (presumably in a church-type role, but we could extend the metaphor to other fields). As an example of the diversity of answers, though, the United Methodists have two specifically defined varieties of lay speakers (who are laity and often fill a teaching role), each with requirements that must be met to the satisfaction of larger church heirarchy to be claimed as a title. And that's just the one denomination I'm familiar enough with to reference offhand; I have no doubt that similar-enough terms are used in other contexts by other groups. — Lomn 21:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Narrow down to Roman Catholic and Anglican perspectives. Sneazy (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Just to add to the discussion a bit, there are a few of those terms which are common enough in several strains of Christianity that a common definition can be hazarded. They would be:
Pastor: Usually the term for the leader of a specific congregation. Usually, the Pastor is charged as both the main leader of the worship service (usually presiding over major ceremonies at the service, and delivering the sermon/homily). While the term is usually applied more broadly to Protestant than Catholic or Orthodox churches, it is not wrong to call the "Parish Priest" a "Pastor", indeed the terms are used fairly interchangably. Of course, there are Priests in the Roman Catholic church who don't lead congregations in worship; priests with other jobs would not be pastors. The term comes from the word for "shepherd" (c.f. pastoralism)) and is closely tied to the agrigultural symbolism of the Chrtistian faith (Lamb of God, congregation as a "flock", etc.)
Minister: A member of the clergy. Some protestant faiths hold to the concept of the ministry of all believers, but that merely means that all members of a church congregation are supposed to take an active role in the internal and external operation of the church; it encourages full participation rather than just consumption of services (i.e. becoming active in church beyond merely sitting in the pew on Sundays). However, even in those churches the clergy are still called "Ministers".
Priest: A member of the ordained clergy in specific Christian denominations, most commonly Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. There are probably a few other smaller sects and strains that use the word Priest to describe their ordained clergy, but those are the three main ones. Other than Anglicanism, many other Protestant faiths don't use the word "Priest" and instead use the word "Minister" because there is no indication that the New Testament Church ordained any priests, the term is not used to describe any leaders of the early church, and as such is seen as a later, non-biblical innovation.
Chaplain is usually used to indicate a clergy member without a regular church/congregation. Chaplains often work in transient situations, places like hospitals, the military, prisons, etc. may employ full-time chaplains. They otherwise do the normal work of a clergy member or pastor: holding religious services, delivering sacraments, presiding over weddings, serving as a religious counselor, etc., but they do so outside of the bounds of a formal congregation/church setting.
Laity is any member of a church congregation which is not part of the clergy. Nearly all Christian denominations have roles within the church for lay members, such as teaching bible studies, serving as ushers, presenting communion, reading the scripture for the week, praying at certain times during the service, playing music or singing, performing jobs "behind the scenes" (media, sound, lighting technicians; treasurers and secretaries and receptionists), lots of other things. In most denominations, there are certain functions which are reserved for ordained clergy; any other job except for those reserved jobs could be done by the laity, but you will find a wide variance between denominations as to what those jobs are. Usually, however, most denominations require that clergy perform certain ceremonies (like weddings), or deliver the sermon/homily. In Catholicism, for example, the Priest or Deacon generally always reads the Gospel reading (other readings can be done by lay members), and the priest is required for Confession and to preside over the Eucharist. In some protestant congregations, there's very little, strictly speaking, that the lay members don't participate in. There are times, for example, when we at the Baptist church I am a member of, have sermons delivered by guest speakers who are not ordained; the Pastor usually performs Baptisms, but this is not required (any member may baptize any other member, and sometimes a parent will baptize their child for example.)
Friar or Brother are basically the same term, and in Catholicism usually refers to a member of a mendicant order, that is a specific set of monastic orders dedicated to poverty and charity. I think that some orders prefer Friar and other Brother, while some use the two interchangably.
The other terms are widely different depending on the denomination, broadly speaking a Bishop is an administrator over several parishes or congregations, his bailiwick is usually called a diocese. In most denominations that have Bishops, they are promoted in some way from the lower clergy into the role of Bishop. Likewise, a Vicar is an assistant of some sort (roughly equivalent to the military term "Lieutenant"), though there is some variation in this usage, and it is far from universal. Catholics, for example, have "apostolic vicars" who assist bishops by governing parts of a diocese, and "parochial vicars" that assist the pastor in leading a specific parish. Deacon is probably the most varied of all of the titles you listed, many denominations have Deacons, but there is such a huge variation in what the term means to each denomination it is impossible to give any universal definition. You'd do best to just read the article. --Jayron32 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But in England, "Vicar" usually means Vicar (anglicanism), for practical purposes the same as "Parish Priest". --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can children serve the church too? One position I know is the altar server. In the Coptic Orthodox denomination, only boys may become altar servers. I wonder what kind of position would be allowed for women and girls. Maybe volunteer positions? Lay teachers? Lay ministers? Lay chaplains? Nuns and religious sisters? Sneazy (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which denomination? Seriously, the answers you get are so varied it is impossible to say with any certainty with regard to any specific denomination. IIRC, girls have been able to serve as alter servers in Roman Catholic churches for some number of decades now. In some number of Protestant denominations, there are no restrictions at all on women holding any post in the clergy or laity; though some denominations have "split" over such issues (consider that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship split off from the Southern Baptist Convention over many issues, but one of the core ones was over women as pastors) so there's going to be a wide variation depending on the denomination, and even within some denominations from congregation to congregation (Baptists in particular are a "bottom up" organization, so individual Baptist churches are considered fully independent and not bound by rules from any greater organization than the church itself, which is governed by direct democracy. The same is true of many nondenominational christian churches) --Jayron32 03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32: Is it ok to say that asking questions about Christianity is even harder than asking questions about Islam simply because Christianity is way too diverse to be coherent? When I ask questions about Islam online, answerers seem to perceive Islam as one monolithic or homogeneous religion, as if they seem to know that that would be what Muslims believe in or would behave. When I ask questions about Christianity online, confusion usually follows among the askers, requesting specification of whatever denomination. Therefore, I draw a conclusion that asking questions about Christianity is nearly useless. Instead of asking questions about Christianity, one should ask questions regarding a specific denomination, or a specific congregation, of Christianity and even that may not be enough to fully understand how the system operates due to Christianity's immense diversity of followers. Sneazy (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the questions you are asking aren't about the universals of Christianity. You're asking questions which are about the minutiae of church governance, which is very varied. Also, there are questions about Islam where you're likely to get a lot of varied answers as well. Islam is as varied in its sects as is Christianity, but it looks like (from below) that your aren't asking the same sorts of questions. For example, many of the major issues of Christology and the like are pretty well settled among most major Christian denominations (i.e. you're going to find broad agreement among a vast majority of modern Christians on many of these issues.) For example, nearly all major Christian denominations agree with the Holy Trinity and with the concept of the Hypostatic union which hold that a) God is three persons or aspects, those being God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), and that the three aspects are both triune (literally three parts in one) and inseparable (Hypostasis is the theological term for this) and b) that Jesus is equally divine and human, he is simultaneously all divine and all human. In the early years of the church these were far from settled questions, but many of the early "schisms" that occurred over these issues happened so early that the groups that held different beliefs on such Christological issues never developed into major Christian groups; groups like the Gnostics and the Nestorians and other like groups are mainly historical footnotes, and modern mainstream Christianity considers this a settled issue. Your question below about Islam is about Ramadan, which is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, which are those things which all Muslims will agree with (much as I noted above with the broad agreement over Christological issues with nearly all modern Christians would agree with). However, if you started asking questions about the role of Muslim clergy, specific names thereof, specific practices within Islam you're going to get a lot of different answers. Even beyond the broad Sunni/Shia division (roughly analogous to the Orthodox/Catholic division that occured during the Great Schism in Christianity) you're going to run into things like various strains of, say, Sunnism that have different traditions and practices (see Madhhab which is a roughly Islamic equivalent to the Christian concept of "denomination"). You've got groups like the Twelvers, the Ismaili, the Alawi, etc., and taken in total, all of the various subdivisions of Islam are going to have as wide differences as one would find among various Christian groups. --Jayron32 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can a non-Muslim observe Ramadan?
Can a non-Muslim observe Ramadan? Does reading the Quran have to be in Arabic? Is it ok if a non-Muslim enters a mosque? Should a non-Muslim woman wear some head covering (hijab) over herself for modesty inside the mosque? Does the hijab have to be made out of a special type of fabric, or will any type of fabric suffice for the headwear? How should non-Muslims behave in a mosque? Is there a specific term for non-Muslims, and what does Allah expects from non-Muslims? Sneazy (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Islamic term for a non-believer is Kafir. Allah simply requires of non-Muslims that they become Muslims. The regulations inside a mosque vary in different traditions. In some mosques, women pray in an area that is separated from the men, in others they pray in the same room, however the wearing of some kind of head covering is normally expected (as in all public areas). Non-Muslims can often enter the mosque, provided they are not interrupting a prayer. According to conservative Islamic scholars, the Quran can only be properly read in Arabic, but many Muslims are unable to, so they do use translations sometimes. A non-Muslim can certainly observe Ramadan, the observance is a private thing. - Lindert (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Allah the same god as the Christian god or the Jewish god? Are they worshiping the same god? If they are worshiping the same god but different approaches to reach this god, then would being a Christian or Jew be enough to please Allah? Or does that person have to have explicit faith in Allah? Sneazy (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allah means something like "the only God", which squares with Judeo-Christian tradition. The exact nature of God/Allah's message to humans is where the controversy is. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic-speaking Christians use "Allah" to refer to the Christian God in Arabic-language Bible translations. There has been some controversy over Christians using the word "Allah" in Malaysia, but not in any Arabic-speaking country as far as I know. As for Ramadan, if non-Muslims conspicuously publicly eat food during the day where Muslims can see them, this can cause tensions and frictions in a Muslim-majority country, and occasionally turn ugly. Christians know to keep any daylight food eating strictly behind closed doors in many contexts when Ramadan comes around... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a Muslim-majority country during Ramadan, why would you think that there would be tensions and frictions between Muslims and non-Muslims if non-Muslims conspicuously publicly eat food during the day where Muslims can see them? What if the non-Muslims are really tourists, wearing tourist badges? If such a thing does occur in real life, then what would be some suggestions for traveling to a Muslim-majority country without causing frictions and tensions with the native community?
I know that Jews would not require non-Jews or Gentiles to obey the 613 mitzvot. However, a good Gentile from an Orthodox Jewish perspective, as I read on Judaism 101, would follow the seven commandments. I wonder how would a Christian react when the Christian sees a non-Christian person doing something blasphemous or whether or not that would cause tension and friction in Christian-majority societies. Sneazy (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can trolls ask any question they want? What happens if someone answers them? Does anyone really know what time it is? Does anyone really care? μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that you are critiquing the OP question as "trollish". Sneazy (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sneazy -- your answer of "01:45, 9 April 2013" unfortunately appears to mainly be concerned with counterfactual speculations which are rather separated from reality. AnonMoos (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sneazy should check out the Front Pembela Islam's actions during Ramadhan, if a restaurant refuses to close. Not representative of what moderates think, but it can certainly be an issue. During Ramadhan in Indonesia I never eat in front of people who are fasting; if I do eat in public and not at a restaurant, I usually place myself with my back to the street. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer should be the same to "Can a non-Christian celebrate Christmas?" I know of plenty of people who don't know that Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ, and for that matter, who Chist is, but celebrate it in any case. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas was declared a "folk holiday" some years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. I think that had to do with justifying taking it as a federal holiday. It's basically "Winter Holiday". Can Ramadan also be considered a folk holiday? Or is it only religious? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a holiday. But the end of it is: Eid al-Fitr. The Christian equivalent is Lent. Paul B (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Holiday" in its original sense of "holy day". Or month, in this case. But I gather that the answer is that it's primarily religious. Oddly enough, Lent refers to springtime, and Ramadan apparently referred originally to summertime. Just as Christmas was originally chosen to coincide with the winter solstice. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really Bugs, now you are just being disingenuous. You can't have a "folk holiday" or "Winter holiday" in the etymological sense, so if that's what you meant your whole post was nonsensical. And in any case, you've just conceded that it's not a "day", so the original sense is irrelevant to the point you were making anyway. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And thus to answer the original question: I have known secular folk who observe at least some form of abstinence in Lent, or in Ramadan, as a matter of personal discipline. They would not mark Lent in the way a Christian would, or Ramadan in the way a Muslim would, but they do make some observance by fasting. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1)What are the reasons for a non-Muslim person to observe Ramadan?
2)Anyone can read the Quran's translations in any language to understand better its meaning. But Muslims should pray and recite the Quran aloud only in Arabic. In some countries praying in non-Arabic can be even persecuted by law.
3)Allah expects non-Muslims to become Muslims.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) To honor someone else's faith; (2) Some nations don't believe in freedom of religion; (3) That's the Muslim view, not universally held. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to what I read, in Morocco people cannot enter the place of worship of different religion. Apparently it was a French law to avoid clashes that has not been removed after independence. However, in other countries such as Turkey, non-Muslims can visit mosques providing they keep some rules like removing shoes and being properly covered (no uncovered hair for women and no uncovered legs). Turkish touristic mosques keep a roped area in the back for tourist visits and most of the area for Muslims activities. During prayer time, the mosque can fill up and even overflow with praying Muslims, so it's not a good time to visit. --Error (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
April 9
Films / games of what would happen in a new Korean War?
Given that tensions have been heightening between the Koreas and the South's defenders in recent days, I am quite interested to find films about what would happen if a new Korean War were to erupt in contemporary times or the near-future.
Besides speculative-fiction films and TV episodes, are there documentaries detailing how such a "what-if" scenario would play out?
Moreover, what video games involve fighting a new war on the Korean peninsula in the contemporary period / near-future? Thanks. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about it when and if this "Korean War" breaks out. Is what I say. But since you asked I might as well answer. I haven't seen any documentaries about "what-if" scenarios and I couldn't find any. Though there are a few videos on YouTube, though they all just hogwash. If a war does break out (which I hope it will not) some companies may create games based on it but I doubt it because it would be rude and, could damage countries relationships, and well you don't see games about 9/11 do you now (Pardon me if there is)? RunningUranium 08:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little cultural penalty for the US being rude to North Korea; indeed, mocking its current and past "dear leaders" has become something of a national pastime. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for games, you might peruse Category:Video_games_set_in_Korea, which includes some in a modern idiom. Whether they are whatsoever accurate is highly unlikely. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding the administration of Ajmer Subah during the reign of Akbar?
Who was the Mughal Governor of Ajmer Subah during Akbar's reign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauravmitra (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit roundabout, but according to Medieval India: From Sultanate To The Mughals: Part I: Delhi Sultanate by Satish Chandra, page 142, Akbar conquered Ajmer in 1556, but did not create the 12 subahs until 1580, when he appointed a sipahsalar (later called a subahdar) to head each. In 1586, he gave joint command of Ajmer Subah to two Rajput rajas. Using these search terms and these dates (sipahsalar/subahdar and 1580 and 1586), I'm finding this:
Ajmer and the Mughal Emperors by Neha Vikas Prakashan: "However, we came to know that Abdur Rahim Khan Khana was appointed governor of Ajmer in the year 1580 A.D. Abul Fazl mentions that in year 1586 A.D., Jagannath was appointed Subahdar of Ajmer and with him Rai Durga Mujahid..."
We have an article on Abdul Rahim Khan-I-Khana, but it does not mention being sabahdar of Ajmer. The names of the rajas are so common; I'm not finding Wikipedia articles on them. To confirm, you could look through the Abul Fazl work mentioned by Prakashan, Akbarnama. There are translations here and here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Left wing Alternative parties Spain Portugal Italy Belgium Netherlands
Is there an alternative party in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Netherlands and Belgium like Respect party in United Kingdom, Quebec solidaire in Quebec, Meretz in Israel and MRC (Citizen and Republican Movement) in France?--Donmust90 (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
Respect Party is but one of the Socialist alternative parties in the UK. There is also Socialist Workers Party and TUSC to name but two. Can you clarify whether you just mean "socialist alternative" party, which is where Respect places itself, or maybe "alternative" parties such as Monster Raving Loony Party or British National Party? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, only left wing parties, regardless left-wing liberal, social democrat or other left wing ideologies-based. --65.92.153.108 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]
I don't know your criteria. Countries tend to have lots of small parties, including several left-wing, which may be described as alternatives to the larger parties. You can start here:
Just for the record, Respect+QS+Meretz+MRC are quite diverse. --Soman (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respect is a member of European Anti-Capitalist Left, so the other member parties have something in common with it (but Respect is quite unusual in many ways). As Soman says, the other parties you name are quite different again. Warofdreamstalk 11:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hitler vs stalin
while hitler is widely equated with evil, stalin holds a more positive cultural image. if asked "who is the most evil person on the last century". most people will say hitler, not stalin. why? --Yoglti (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because the Soviet Union was on the side of the Allies. Rojomoke (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say that Stalin "holds a more positive cultural image". They are both equally viewed in the culturally negative. However, because the Soviet Union was an ally of the US and Britain during WWII, the West was more willing to ignore (or at least not make a fuss about) Stalin's negatives... at least while the war lasted. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In summer 1941, Churchill said something like "If Hitler invaded hell, I would find something nice to say about the devil". In United States public opinion, a slightly naive "Uncle Joe" / "Mission to Moscow" / Walter Duranty and/or Popular Front influenced period gave way to bitter disillusionment due to events beginning basically in 1947, with Stalin's failure to hold promised democratic elections in Poland, the Czech Coup of 1948, the Greek civil war, the Berlin blockade, the Soviet A-bomb, the Communist victory in the Chinese civil war, etc. The outbreak of the Korean war in 1950 set the final seal on bitter U.S.-Soviet hostility, and the drastic swing in U.S. public opinion resulted in the rise of McCarthyism... AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is my guess, but there's something so coldly calculated about the Holocaust that it shocks people more than numbers. No doubt the purges were calculated, and Stalin, and to a different degree communism, is responsible for as many if not more deaths, but the holocaust is of a different character. Also, there's been a concerted effort to educate about the holocaust. There's less awareness of the details of Stalin's crimes. Shadowjams (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would not overstate Stalin's popularity. He's considered better than Hitler, but pretty much everyone is considered better than Hitler. Hitler started one of the most awful wars in history and at the same time came up with uniquely sadistic ways to try and exterminate entire groups of people in the name of ideology. That's a hard act to follow.
Stalin's crimes are by now very well known and accepted. 50 years ago it was a somewhat different situation and many people still gave him a lot of credit for fighting the Germans and for industrializing Russia. But today I think you'd find that most people know him by his gulag and his purges. Which people don't rate very highly.
Is there a difference, we might ask, between the kind of system Hitler ran and the kind of system Stalin ran? We seem, implicitly, to regard genocide as a particularly ugly crime, much worse than Stalin's terrors which were fairly arbitrary in who they targeted. (Ostensibly they were targeting people with bad politics, but you didn't have to actually do anything to get thrown in the gulag.) I wonder if much of this is because of the type of propaganda (and I don't use this in a necessarily pejorative sense) that emerged at the time and in the wake of Hitler, which argued fairly explicitly that there was no baser thing than genocide and institutionalized racism. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's natural to believe (at least at first glance) that an incidental or heat-of-passion crime is less dire than a premeditated and cold-blooded one. That coupled with the necessity of the USSR to the Allied war plan means a brutal dictatorship which committed incidental mass murders of those who resisted (or whom it imagined resisted) its ideology and the programs accompanying it; is less reviled than a brutal dictatorship which committed mass murders on a premeditated basis of a predefined set of people who had the wrong blood. Also, I think most people, if they had to choose, would rather be shot than gassed. So while you can't at all justify or ignore Stalin's crimes, he's not the elephant in the room of human enormity (he's more hippopotamus-sized). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder if there's something to be said for charisma here. Stalin could not be accused of being a Great Communicator. Part of the chronic mass corruption of the Soviet system was due to the Russian (& Ukrainian, Belorussian, etc.) people not being communists. There are stories of Ukrainian peasants in the early days of the war enthusiastically surrendering to Wehrmacht troops on the theory that no government could possibly treat them worse than the USSR had (they were quickly disillusioned, of course). By great contrast, the Nazi Party was democratically elected to the Weimar parliament, and Hitler, a powerful public speaker, well and truly convinced ordinary people to believe in him and his agenda. Informing to the NKVD was an opportunity for payment and advancement; informing to the Gestapo was a patriotic duty and a matter of pride. I think it's that earnest elevation of such an inherently murderous belief system to the civic pantheon of "God and country" that is uniquely horrifying. Anyone can terrorize people by using guns; it takes something different (or at least we sure as hell hope it does) to terrorize that many people by using words. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler's plan, spelled out in Mein Kampf, required exterminating the Jews and exterminating the Slavic population of eastern Europe so that their lebensraum could be filled by Germans. Stalin was utterly ruthless but his goals did not include the extermination of large masses of people. Looie496 (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many users said above that Stalin didn't exterminate large masses of people based on ethnicity, but that's absolutely false. See Decossackization and Population transfer in the Soviet Union, especially the section on "Ethnic operations". Entire ethnic minorities within Russia were deported to Siberia, with death rates due to starvation and disease of 43%. --140.180.242.70 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Sometimes I like to joke that Stalin was an equal opportunity homicidal maniac, but that's not entirely true.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO both Stalin and Hitler were plenty evil, but here are a few more reasons for Stalin being less unpopular: Germany is closer to Britain and France than Russia. Stalin won the war. Nazi propaganda died down considerably after WWII, but Communist propaganda continued in force for another half century. (BTW, Stalin's mass murders were not "incidental", were premeditated, and had reached into the millions before war had broken out.)--Wikimedes (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One factor is that Stalin actually improved his nation, in many ways, while Hitler did not. Industrialization, education, military and political power all increased under Stalin. While they may have initially increased under Hitler, all were in a sad state by the end of his reign, which comes down to losing the war. Had Hitler won, then he would probably be more popular, at least with his allies. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both men were absolutely evil. Stalin killed more than did Hitler--he just gets better press in the West. Of course Mao outdid them both. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with North Korea's modus operandi when it comes to these things, but I wondered if I'd missed it... has North Korea given a supposed reason for their recent provocations? I understand the real reason is transition of power, both with the new Kim Jong and the new South Korean president, but has the NK media given any excuses other than the usual stuff? Shadowjams (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may find The Pyongyang Times - the official website of the national newspaper (in English) - fascinating reading (don't click on the randomly hyperlinked words within each story, because they just produce a pop-up telling you that you can win an iPad2 if you 'answer the following question'.) I think all of the information you are looking for will be in there. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit] - Sorry, those popups have nothing to do with the site - they are from one of the addons for Chrome I got from the Google Store. Google doesn't like to spam by email, yet it allows it via addons. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I've heard in the news about Italy not having a government or that the government has changed. What does this mean? I'm American, if it helps explain it in terms relative to a system that I am familiar with. Dismas|(talk) 01:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no way to explain Italy in a way that an American is familiar with.
More seriously, in a parliamentary system, the executive part of the government is chosen by the Parliament. If the government steps down, for whatever reason, it typically takes a while before the various parties can work out a deal to form a new government. If no single party has an absolute majority, the process of choosing a government can involve a lot of intense negotiation and deal-making. Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When it's said that a country does not have a government, that's just at the lawmaking end for the most part, isn't it? It's not like all the various government agencies suddenly cease functioning, right? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The election gave a majority in the lower house of parliament (Chamber of Deputies) to the centre-left led by Pier Luigi Bersani (hereafter refer to as A). The centre-left (A) lacks a majority in the Senate, which it would need to pass any legislation. The centre-left’s leader, Pier Luigi Bersani, has discounted a coalition with the conservative partnership of Silvio Berlusconi’s People of Freedom (PdL) movement and the Northern League (hereafter refer to as B). But the biggest obstacle is C, the Five Star Movement (M5S) led by Beppe Grillo.
So to sum it up: Three groups, A, B and C each lack the necessary parliamentary majority; A will not form a coalition with B; C will not support either. No coalition possible.
No majority = can't pass legislation = no functional government. [2][3][4]Royor (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Italy also has a president, so there is still a head of state, just no legislative branch at the moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a legislative branch - the election happened without any problems, so there are members of parliament. What they are lacking is the executive branch (which is usually a subset of the legislative branch in parliamentary democracies). As mentioned above, there will be a caretaker executive doing the day-to-day stuff. (The President is a largely ceremonial role in Italy, I believe, their role in the day-to-day running of the country is very small.) --Tango (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify further, what is meant by government in this context is the political end of government. We sometimes hear of a US city government that goes bankrupt, and we get the impression that all government services cease because no-one will get paid. This is nothing like that. As far as I know, all government functions continue, the police, judges, tax inspectors etc continue to do their jobs but no political decisions are made. Belgium famously had no functioning federal government for over a year, though in that country most functions are delivered by sub-national entities. Sussexonian (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be a linguistic confusion between Europe and the US: in Europe, the government is about 30 people who are the part of executive branch, not the whole 100,000 people organisation that the US people call "the Government". So Saying Italy has no government is like saying that there are no misnisters appointed. --08:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriot (talk • contribs)
I was about to say something similar. In European parliamentary systems, there's a distinction drawn between the civil service and the government; the civil service being all those people employed directly by the state to do the work of the state: police, teachers, firemen, road engineers, mid-level bureaucrats, toll takers, etc, etc. All the people who keep the state working. In the U.S., these people would be considered to be employed by the government: the U.S. language does not make a distinction in wording between those people and the people who hold purely political positions who have their jobs not on merit, but on belonging to the right party. When a European county doesn't have a "government", that just means that the legislature can't agree on a slate of ministers to form the leadership of the country. The civil service (generally) keeps right on working and doing what they have always done; it's just that no new laws can be passed and there's no overall leadership. This isn't exactly a great situation, but it's not like total anarchy reigns and no one does any work. It could get to that situation if a governmentless country were to remain so for so long that appropriation bills expire and there's no money to pay the civil service, but I don't know that it ever gets that bad. --Jayron32 11:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The French Fourth Republic had twenty Prime Ministers in about eleven years... but I can't think of a situation in which a parliamentary state had no government for such an extended period that the state itself began to break down. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what the Europeans call a "government" is closest to what the US calls "an administration", including the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, etc. If, for some reason, those can't be appointed in the US, then the Deputy or Undersecretary or whoever's next in line takes over as the "acting" Secretary. The same is true in Europe, I imagine. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The narrow definition of "government" has to do with "rulers", and on a national scale the top-dog legislators and ministers would be the "rulers". I expect that's what they mean. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I've never understood is how Europeans would say it if they really meant what Americans hear when they say "the government has collapsed". Let's say in Syria, the rebels launch their final assault on Damascus, and all civil service workers flee or are killed, and the buildings are then torched, while Bashar al-Assad flees into exile. We Americans would say "their government has collapsed". How would Europeans describe that ? StuRat (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The civil service has collapsed" A rough analogy - if a country was a company, the government would be the board of directors, the civil service would be the employees and citizens are the shareholders (registered voters) and customers (all citizens). Parliament would be like the shareholder's AGM, with the members of parliament being the proxy-holders of the shareholder's votes. The comparison breaks down due to the peculiar American habit of electing even minor functoinaries, such as sheriffs - in much of the world the idea of electing someone to head the local police station is simply ridiculous, cops are expected to be strictly apolitical, in fact in many countries civil servants are forbidden to hold any publically elected position, except for minor stuff like parent's representative bodies of schools. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what most Europeans would say if they want to talk about what Americans call "the government" is "the state". In Syria "the state" would collapse if all civil service people ran away.--Zoppp (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I would say the state has collapsed. We call states that are no longer able to effectively govern the country (which basically means they don't have functioning institutions like the civil service and police, they lack the basic ability to tax and spend, etc.) "failed states". To say that the civil service has collapsed sounds odd to me - the civil service refers more to the people than the institutions, to my mind, and the people haven't "collapsed" they just aren't doing their jobs for whatever reason. --Tango (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Belgium fail to have a government for several years recently? RNealK (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Sussexonian @ 06:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC). -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 02:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belgium had a caretaker government. There wasn't any significant new policy for a long time, but everything kept plodding along as it had been doing before. --Tango (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Common law vs. civil law
Is common law or civil law more just? --128.42.156.120 (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really distinguish between common and civil law. Both are a man made code, just formulated differently. --Tango (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that question is far too broad for a categorical answer. The basic difference between the two is their sources of law. In Civil law countries, there are comprehensive codes that cover pretty much every subject imaginable in great detail, and the judges are just supposed to apply the code to the cases at hand. One result of this is that the law in Civil law jurisdictions pretty much only changes when new laws are past.
In common law jurisdictions, the codes and statutes are generally fairly general and leave more discretion to the courts, and so in addition to statutory law, judges have to also adhere to the principles laid down in previous appellate court decisions in their jurisdiction.
I don't see either of these systems as being somehow more just than the other. That would have to do more with the actual laws of the jurisdiction in question more than whether it is a common law or civil law jurisdiction. Bakmoon (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Justice in the political sense is more an issue of equal treatment under the law; due process, no ex post facto, no arbitrary rulings. See [5]. The exact forms can vary; trial before a judge or a jury, age of majority at 18 or 21, maximum sentencing versus minimum sentencing. What matters is that the rules and punishments be clearly defined ahead of time and equally applied. Perfect metaphysical justice is impossible. Under any system the innocent will be convicted and the guilty freed. Even then the system is just if mistakes can be recognized and rectified when possible.
As to common versus statutory law, common law has the benefits of being organic and procedural. Common law is an ancient institution with the wisdom of centuries put into ever better ways to protect the innocent according to long established and well-tested precedent. Statutory law is ephemeral, capricious, subject to ideological change according to the momentary trend expressed in a parliamentary majority sufficient to legislate this moment's fad. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you're asking an opinion question, or a poorly thought out homework question. The reference desk is not a forum (as much as it may try) and is ill suited at giving opinion answers. I suggest this question be closed. Shadowjams (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what did Daladier have to do with Poincaré in 1928?
I can't understand the last sentence of this paragraph:
"A government minister in various posts during the coalition governments between 1924 and 1928, he was instrumental in the Radical Party's break with the socialist SFIO in 1926, the first Cartel des gauches – "Left-wing Coalition"), and with the conservative Raymond Poincaré in November 1928."
what did Daladier have to do with Poincaré in November 1928? was he in his coalition? because as far as I know, he wasn't in his government.
The French Wikipedia article has more about him. See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89douard_Daladier . Daladier held the following posts: Minister of Colonies (1924), Minister of War (1925) and Minister of Public Instruction (1926), all during the Premiership of fellow Radical Édouard Herriot or his successor, leftist PRS member Paul Painlevé. He basically served in the Leftist Governments that came during 1924-1926, which came between the Poincaré terms before and after that period. It doesn't appear that Daladier served specifically in the Poincaré government at any time, but many of his political allies (Radical, PRS, or SFIO, all left or centre-left parties) did, including noted Center-Left politicians such as Aristide Briand, as well as Painlevé and Herriot; this seems fairly common in French governments of the French Third Republic where a Premiership from one side of the political spectrum would have ministers from the so-called "opposition" coalition. In this case, Poincaré was a noted Centre-Right politician and founder of the DRA, a group that filled the Right-side power vacuum in French politics left by the demise of the Monarchists in the early 20th century. --Jayron32 05:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all thanks for your detailed answer. Yes, I looked it up in the french wikipedia (with my almost-bad french), but the wording in the sentence I asked about remains unclear. It seems that the person who wrote it claimed that Daladier was "instrumental" somehow in the circumstances that made Poincaré the premier, but I can't think of any crucial contribution aside from causing the Independent Radicals to break from his party and join Poincaré's coalition, and I didn't find anything to support it. Virant (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, to my reading, the sentence says that Daladier was instrumental insofar as when his party left the coalition of the left, they didn't have enough support to maintain control of the ministry, and thus lost the premiership back to Poincaré DRA coalition. It makes sense if you think of it this way: If the left had something like 51% support, and the right had 45% in 1926, and at that point Daladier's Radical party withdraws his support for the left coalition, it falls from power as it no longer has the necessary support to maintain power. In the resulting reshuffling of the coalition, Poincaré's DRA is thus able to marshal his forces and establish the right with enough support. Thus, Daladier (perhaps inadvertantly) plays kingmaker in a similar way that Nick Clegg did in the recent British parliamentary elections. Because the Radicals pulled out of the "Cartel des Gauche", that coalition no longer had enough support to keep power, and the rights were able to regain power. That is at least my reading of the situation, though someone with more background in early 20th century French politics should weigh in before you take my word for anything. I'll do some more reading and see what I can find. --Jayron32 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that makes sense (and also means that the discussed sentence should be altered). Thanks a lot. Virant (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Words formed by arrangement of objects
A "living flag", 1898
CommonsCat on Twitter today noted the existence of Commons:Category:Words formed by arrangement of objects, which reminded me of a question I've been meaning to ask... Is there a specific term for this concept, or the more general case of objects arranged to represent a larger symbol (eg a picture composed of coloured objects)? "Mosaic" doesn't quite seem to cover it; it implies the objects are themselves quite trivial (basically coloured dots). Photographic mosaic only covers the special case where the subsidiary parts are photographic images.
I am thinking in particular of things like the image to the right - a flag made up of people wearing coloured clothing - or ones such as this, where people are spelling out a word.
Card stunt (a term spoonerists should regard with deep suspicion) would cover public displays such as those that are now common at Olympic opening ceremonies. -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 09:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Human formations! That's perfect - well done. Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the amateurish effort in the photo, it seems that we Britons are lagging far behind the Chinese and North Koreans. Oh, the shame of it... Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Working in North Korea
If I become a member of Korean Friendship Association and become heavily involved in its activities, will I be able to get North Korean citizenship? --Yoglti (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't look lucky to me. He looks like a ludicrous stooge for a brutal tyrant. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any country, even North Korea, there is a wide variety of living conditions. I expect that Kim Jong-un enjoys a higher standard of living than most Wikipedia editors. If millions of people slave away so that Perez (or Yoglti) can live the good life, it could be a very good life indeed (although morally reprehensible).--Wikimedes (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
La G.D.A.C.F. - Rome, 1962
In late May 1962, someone in Rome mailed a picture postcard addressed to Adolf Eichmann c/o the [Israeli] Supreme Court in Jerusalem. Written in blue ballpoint pen, the text: "Saluti dalla Citta' Eterna" (Greetings from the Eternal City), and signature: "La G.D.A.C.F. G.C." The latter two letters are positioned slightly lower than the first five, and I take them to stand for "Gesù Cristo". QUERY: What's the meaning of those first five letters? They're clearly initials, though handwritten and I may have misread one or two. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would Groupement Diocesain d'Action Catholique Feminin make sense in context? It seems to be the only common expansion of those initials. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sender(s) may well be Catholic(s), but my searches on this suggestion are drawing blanks. Would this have been a group sending a postcard from Rome in spring 1942? I'm inclined to think the sender is supportive of Eichmann rather than a detractor. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selling old library books
no legal advise on the RD. Ask a lawyer or somwhere else on the internet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can old library books be sold by the person who has possession ?
1) If checked out and never returned, should the library be contacted first and the fine paid ?
2) If the library no longer exists, then what ?
3) Is there something like a statute of limitations, allowing the person in possession to sell it after so many years ?
If the answers vary by jurisdiction, I'm in Michigan, USA. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absent any specific local laws to the contrary (and I've no idea about Michigan), ownership of the books fundamentally rests with the library; if the library was dissolved, the ownership of the books may in theory have passed to the local government, or whoever bought the assets of the library. My general advice would be to contact the library if they still exist; if they don't exist but there's another institution that's clearly related (ie, there is no public library in village X any more, but there is still a system of public libraries in the county), then write to them.
If the book was borrowed by you, then yes, you definitely owe them the fine and the book (but in practice, they'll almost certainly not charge you for it). If it was borrowed by someone else, they owe the fine, but they should not have disposed of the book - you should still give it back, or at least make a reasonable attempt to do so! Andrew Gray (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a book I inherited, which was last checked out in 1972. They might have very well given it away. It was actually a small, private library, for nurses working at a particular hospital (I imagine they read the books on their breaks). But, it's a valuable book (a "first printing" of Truman Capote's In Cold Blood), so I'd like to sell it, if I have the legal right to do so). BTW, I assume "first printing" is the same as "first edition". Am I correct ? StuRat (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case they're likely to have no practical record of it - you're faced with the unfortunate dilemma of the wrong thing which will never be noticed or the right thing which involves drawing attention to it :-). I do know of cases where a library still exists, has become aware of material which it owns but had lost for years being sold, and taken steps to get ownership of it again...
Of course, the book may well have been discarded or given away, or indeed sold by the library itself; small informal libraries tend to be fairly lax about actually marking things withdrawn. (If it was withdrawn, then there's no presumption of ownership and it's fair game). It's all a bit vague, and without actually asking them you can't really say.
(And first printing = first print-run of first edition; editions can go through many print runs, and strictly speaking just means that particular setup of type, etc.) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would that decrease it's value ? StuRat (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply contact the library and explain the situation. They may not want it back. They have only so much room, after all. If the book is important to you, offer a donation, although do not be so gauche as to make it like you are paying for the book.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, this was 41 years ago, so I doubt if the informal library still exists or even if anyone who worked there then still does. StuRat (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know where I can find a history of Swan Island prior to the industrialization of the regions? I want to know about the indigenous settlers or land usage in the area, specifically that area, the island itself, not adjacent lands or islands unless of course the history mentions that they used the island for hunting, etc. Also the European settling of the island region, I know there are history of the settling of Portland itself, but I need specifics on that area and that island during this period. I already know about this http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/entry/view/swan_island/ .--170.140.214.104 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do gym membership fees work? Does everyone pay something different? Do they have standard monthly rates? Why do they have sales advisors to discuss options? 90.212.191.218 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the gym, they may have initiation fees that can be waived in some situations, or classes that require an extra fee, or special equipment that requires an extra fee, and there may be a discount for long-term membership. This list is probably not exhaustive. Looie496 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For question 2, the answer is surely yes. Adding to Looie: in my local gym, there are discounts for people who only go on normal working hours. And extra fees for people who want to use any outlet of the chain or the sauna. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my (American) experience, there is a monthly fee, plus a "sign up fee" (often waived as part of an effort to pressure you to sign up on the spot — "we can only waive it the first time you're in here..."). The monthly fees sometimes vary depending on different types of discounts (many gyms have special student or teacher rates, and there are probably other categories as well that qualify, depending on the gym). There are sometimes different levels of membership which entitle one to take special classes or not (e.g. instructor-led yoga). There are sometimes different levels of membership which allow one to different facilities (e.g. pool fees) and services (e.g. towel service). In other words, it varies quite a lot on the whole, depending on the gym. As for the sales advisors, most gyms do a very "hard sell" approach — very high pressure, very "sign up now or sign up never", things like that. Not all gyms, but a lot of the standard gym chains do it this way, with the knowledge that most people who sign up for a gym account never use it, but continue to pay the monthly fee. So they really, really want you to sign up for that, and are willing to waive all sorts of other fees if it locks you in. It's part of the business model. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a brilliant business model for a gym once, somewhere in central London. They charge a ridiculously above-market-rate monthly fee, but heavily discount each time you visit. So incentivising you to use the gym you've signed up to. The kind of city boys they were aiming at seemed to like the gambling-like proposition. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
did immigrants to the united states ever have to renounce their previous citizenship?
My great grandfather immigrated to the united states from Greece and I'm wondering if he would have been forced to renounce his Greek citizenship. this would have been between the years of 1910 and 1930. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youbringtheocrn (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Immigrating doesn't constitute becoming a citizen. You have to apply to be a US citizen after certain years of residency. It depends on if your great grandfather applied for citizenship or not. If he did there would be the question of dual citizenship. It seems US laws historically did not required naturalized citizens to renounce citizenships of another country only allegiance to it in the oath which doesn't constitute a legal renounciation of citizenship. Current Greek laws allow for dual citizenship but I am not sure about the laws during the time of the monarchy. See History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevada Corporation Privacy
There are a lot of sources that talk about Nevada being a convenient place to incorporate under because of Nevada not having company owners listed as a matter of public record, but that doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't the owners need to be in the articles of incorporation for the company, and aren't the articles of incorporation a matter of public record? Bakmoon (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Nevada corporation, but I believe your question is more related to the term "piercing the corporate veil" (a court rules that a company's owners are liable for the actions of their corporation), which Nevada has strong protections against compared to other U.S. states. Generally speaking, the company's owners do not necessarily have to be the same people as the board of directors or the company officers. Nevada does not record the company's owners, just the initial directors and officers, and the registered agent -- the people actually running the business. Although courts are reluctant to hold owners liable for actions that are legally the responsibility of their corporation, some jurisdictions tend to be lenient in certain situations and will hold the owners responsible. So if someone wants to sue a Nevada company, and "pierce the corporate veil" to also get money from the owners, they'll have a harder time because Nevada won't be able to supply the owners' names (assuming they are not also an officer or on the board of directors). IMO, basically what Nevada is simply saying: "Come join our corporate haven: We do not really care who owns the car, just the people in the driver's seat". Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the part about piercing the corporate veil, but my interest is more about how Nevada prides itself on not requiring companies to disclose their owners. I just don't see how that makes sense when they would have to be listed in the articles of incorporation in order to get initial stock in the company. Bakmoon (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption is incorrect. Stockholders do not have to be listed in the articles of incorporation in order to get initial stock, either in Nevada or in most other states. John M Baker (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's just the kind of answer I like to hear. Bakmoon (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
clearing up some issues
The other day, I tried to ask a question on the Entertainment Reference Desk. I suddenly began having technical difficulties with my computer. Eventually, everything was straightened out. But I got a warning from Shadowjams about posting an inappropriate joke. I tried to explain everything to Shadowjams. So far, no response. What's the best thing to do now?142.255.103.121 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Give money to charity, pet your dog, tell people you love that you love them, and don't worry about what happens on some stupid website. Seriously, everyone will have forgotten any real or imagined slights unless you drag them up or do daft things repeatedly. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to your list of edits, you have already contacted Shadowjams. He will see your message the first time he logs in. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're asking for opinions, not facts; this could get quite inflammatory. I can think of plenty religions started as a deliberate scam (= evil), but obviously adherents to that religion will disagree. - Lindert (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean an evil founder, but religions who believe in an evil creator god. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should self-published books always be avoided on pedia? I have come accross self-published works by notable authors with expert content. From my perspective self-published work can be good at times. Pass a Methodtalk 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Self-publishing is losing its bad name, slowly. And there are a couple of notable novels which were self-published. However many journals with nice sounding names (like 'journal of such and such' or 'international review of') accept any article, provided they author pays the fee (which is a couple of thousand). I don't see how this can be a reliable source. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For other examples of self-published books that are highly reliable, consider Publish-or-Perish Press, which was basically a way for Michael Spivak to self-publish very high quality math texts (starting in 1967, so the idea that good stuff can be self published is not especially new to mathematicians). SemanticMantis (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
April 11
Mariam's bedroom
What would have the bedroom of Queen Mariam Tsitsishvili of Georgia's bedroom look like? The picture in the article depicts a more Persian/Eastern influenced setting with cushions while this documentary clip (www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5lzOotHNSQ) made by Georgians shows a more Western setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emperor's New Spy (talk • contribs) 02:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you assuming she only had one bedroom? I'd expect a queen to have a few more. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Georgian Lovers". 1797. E. Newbery's illustration of William Mavor's rendition of "Travels of Sir John Chardin." The picture in the article is from 42 years later; the video is inaccurate in that it shows a cold-blooded stabbing whereas sources say it happened in the heat of the moment when a soldier grabbed her foot. I don't know how you evaluate what is correct.
It's hard to find contemporary artworks that show interiors. Looking in the commons category History of Georgia, I found her father-in-law with a small table and her father-in-laws' throne. The picture to the right here (The Georgian Lovers) is a 1797 drawing (so contemporary), but the artist is English and basing it on someone else's description, so I don't know if it's accurate either.
What about contacting the "Friends of the Georgian National Museum"? Phone and email are here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patron Saint of Belgium; existence and coherent identity of Belgium before 1830
...il y a 330 années, à la demande du roi Charles II d’Espagne, le pape Innocent XI proclamait saint Joseph patron de la Belgique, donc bien avant l’indépendance du pays en 1830.
(no citation given)
But did a concept of Belgium exist at all before 1830? Would it not be patron of the Netherlands or the Spanish Netherlands, or patron of Brabant, Flanders, Hainaut etc?
I'd love to see a source for any of this, but it looks from that as though the Spanish Netherlands were intended - seeing as it was Carlos II who made the request. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Southern Netherlands or Belgica Regia in Latin, was roughly analogous with modern Belgium. Netherlands troops who fought with the allies at Waterloo in 1815 were known to the British as "Dutch-Belgians". Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The United States of Belgium was a short-lived state formed when the Southern Netherlands revolted against Austrian rule. (And if the Southern Netherlands article is correct, the Latin term for the Austrian Netherlands was Belgium Austriacum). The term Belgium clearly had some traction prior to 1830. Valiantis (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How odd - I took my Latin from the Belgium article. Perhaps it changed over time. The Latin name comes from the Belgae, a group of tribes that lived in the low countries and also invaded the south coast of England. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since, historians have referred to that notorious episode as "the USB shtick". :) -- Jack of Oz[Talk] 08:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
trying to remember name of a 19th century mystic
I was obsessed with him for a while, now his name escapes me - he was a concert violinist, in Austria, maybe - he went a bit funny - got messages from god about the creatures that populate the solar system - among the animals on Jupiter, I remember, were elephants with big pyramidal feet that stamped down the earth prior to the natives making roads...
The problem here is that "criminal" is a legal definition, not a medical one. A criminal is someone who has been tried and found guilty of a crime by a court of law. That said, Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy might be of interest. --Viennese Waltz 15:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I unable to find more about this on the internet? If true, I would expect something like this to generate much more interest.
Why is this the Queen of Denmark's business? The islands were part of the Kingdom of Norway. If anyone, her cousin the King of Norway should claim them.
Perhaps you should take another look at that article. Especially the name of its author. (Hint: try reading the name out loud). --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought, too strange to be true, though the supposed comment by David Starkey was enough for me not to dismiss it right away. Well, while we're at it, has it occurred to anyone to pay the dowry and claim the islands back? Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the story is a complete fabrication, including the comments by David Starkey, perhaps to put the cause of Scottish independence in a bad light (judging from the website it was posted on). There is nothing mentioned about this in Danish media anywhere, and believe me, it would have been a big story here if such a claim had ever been made by Queen Margrethe. Edit: I am no native English speaker, and even less fluent in Scottish, so what exactly is the name of the author supposed to mean when reading it out loud? "I laugh ..." something? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a native speaker and could not understand what the last name should sound like either. When Dweller suggested that I pay attention to the name of the author, I first thought Ilaf sounded somewhat Scandinavian (probably due to similarity to Olaf) - and then I pronounced it. Anyway, it would certainly be quite inappropriate for a constitutional monarch to make such a claim, but has anyone (whether in Norway, Denmark or in the UK) recently proposed paying the dowry in order to claim the islands? Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I laugh my head off" - 'my' = 'ma', 'head' = 'heed' in Scottish English. There is another down below - 'Gerritupyeson' = 'get it up you, son' (doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to work out what this means!) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it suggested, informally and partly in jest, that if Scotland becomes independent, Orcadians and Shetlanders might in turn secede, and consider rejoining Norway. As far as I know, no-one of any standing has made such a suggestion, though. Denmark, of course, does not feature. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous lawyers in lawsuits or copyright complaints
I've noticed that sometimes, when people file lawsuits, DMCA complaints, or other complaints requesting the removal of copyrighted material, the lawyers filing them are anonymous, or otherwise do not give their names, simply that they are a lawyer representing the defendant. This isn't the case with all complaints, but without mentioning any legal advice, why is this sometimes the case? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. Look at any filing in any U.S. court and you'll see a signature line accompanied by a bar number that the attorney affixes to it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said sometimes. In the vast majority of cases the lawyers do give names, but in a handful of instances (can't remember which), the lawyers don't give their names. In this tiny minority of cases, why could it be the case? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 07:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Culture and sport
TO WHAT EXTENT DOES CULTURE INFLUENCE SPORTS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.89.196.10 (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be sure, but this looks to me like a homework question. Please be aware of our policy called Wikipedia:Do your own homework. (Also, please avoid all capitals when you type. On the Internet that is often interpreted as shouting, and I'm sure you didn't mean that.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like homework to me too. To summarise the WP policy on h/w, do a bit of reading and come back with a more refined question. Announce the general topic, and the specific problem you are stuck with. We like helping, but we can't do your homework for you anyway - it won't come out as anything good, and your teacher only has to read this page to know you cheated. IBE (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A LOT. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I think our work is done here[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'd encourage you to register an account - it's free and only takes about a minute. Our article on Sport is not a very good one and is lacking in information relevant to your question, and surprisingly, we don't seem to have a more specifically titled relevant article, only ones about various "Sport and culture" ministries in governments around the world. While we don't answer homework questions, we're happy to give pointers to help you work it out for yourself. I suggest you start by looking through Sport, because it will give you ideas, eg when you read the sections on Politics and Gender. For us, we should consider creating a daughter article called something like Sport and culture, to spin off from the main Sport article. Finally, you might also like to read WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg){kind=link}
