Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:57, 26 April 2013

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

April 20

The two ring gambit.

What is a "two ring gambit"?(It is apparently some sort of confidence trick.)Mr.Magik-Pants (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it in Google, so will take a guess: You offer to sell someone a diamond ring. They examine it with a loupe, checking it for authenticity, etc. Then, once they decide to buy it, you do some sleight of hand and replace the real diamond ring with a cheap copy, which you then sell to them at full price, keeping the valuable ring. After such a grift, it would be important to leave the area before they discover the swap. Of course, you could do the same trick with other items, but rings are easier to swap without the buyer noticing, than, say, cars. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extremely common scam with laptops, where the punter ends up with a laptop bag containing a couple of bottles of water or something of equivalent mass and value. See this news article, out of many. Tevildo (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv Mizrahi and Sephardi Jew neighbourhoods and other cities

Which neighbourhoods in Tel Aviv are dominantly Mizrahi and Sephardi? Also, is there a website or Hebrew articles of Wikipedia that says about which neighbourhoods that are dominantly Mizrahi and Sephardi? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

There's an article here at English Wikipedia called Neighborhoods of Tel Aviv, which has an interlanguage link to the same article at Hebrew Wikipedia. I don't read Hebrew myself, but if you do, that may be a good place to start your research. --Jayron32 04:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do,you want to know? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Donmust90 is obsessed with minute distinctions of religion and ethnicity, and entirely unwilling to do any of their own research, or to discuss why any of this is the case. I'm increasingly impatient. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donmust90 (and in his anonymous IP incarnations before he got his username) seems to be most obsessed with constructing symmetrical and uniform matrices or grids cross-classifying groups A,B,C,D,E with respect to regions/countries/cities 1,2,3,4,5 etc. etc. -- even if such theoretical symmetry and uniformity makes little sense in light of the actual real-life situation on the ground... AnonMoos (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is for a political propaganda project. I hope it is not in order to target these populations for abuse or violence. Donmust, please let us know what all this is about and then we might be more interested in answering your questions. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing this for propaganda. I am doing this because I like to study about certain cities and certain groups and their culture and religion they practice. that's all. I have never been to Israel or other places that has large Muslim population or Bangladeshi population or African population like Birmingham had, according to 2011 census had 234,411 Muslims; largest than any other cities in England. That's why I asked about other cities in Europe like which one has the largest in numbers in France, Italy, and Netherlands because these three nations colonized Muslim nations. Also, I asked about African population in France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Belgium because these countries colonized or controlled African nations Italy on Libya and Somalia and Belgium on Rwanda, DR Congo and Burundi and I wanted to know about which Belgian city had largest in numbers and same thing in Spain and Portugal. Then, I asked questions about which political party they support in Europe in these nations. That way, in the future, I can search books about these certain ethnic and religious groups in certain nations and their culture and political views. Please, just help me okay. Thanks. Google sometimes doesn't help with these web sites they come up with. --Donmust90 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Boilerplate answer to Donmust90: "The term "Sephardi" has little or no relevance to modern day Israel". We could make it into a template. --Dweller (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and I explained the reasons in a reply to a query here in late 2012 or thereabouts. I'll consider retrieving it and pasting it to User:Donmust90's Talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The large immigration from the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa occurred in the early 1950s, and those immigrants are of "Mizrachi" origin. Since then, several generations are native-born, among them the offspring of Mizrachi-Ashkenazi mixed marriages. Regardless of identification with Mizrachi origins, these generations of immigrants and offspring are Hebrew-speaking and comprise about half of native-born Jews in Israel, so can't be properly called a minority. Their being "disadvantaged" relative to the Ashkenazim is a matter for historical and socioeconomic record. HOWEVER, this query is the equivalent of asking "Which neighborhoods of Greater Los Angeles are predominantly Jewish?" "Jewish" isn't a category on the US census, though the local Jewish community and antisemites and their ilk will probably have answers. The Wikipedia pages on locales in Israel will usually state the origins of their founders. Beyond that - it's a volatile issue and therefore a questionable question, almost if not actually taboo. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State‐owned casini

Has there ever been a gambling institution completely owned by the state? Perhaps in one of those state capitalist regimes? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about 100% ownership, but the Monte Carlo Casino is primarily owned by the state of Monaco and the Grimaldi family (Monaco's ruling family). I think some shares are in private hands, but as a controlling interest is in the hands of the government, it would not be incorrect to call it "state owned". Also, many Native American casinos are owned (in part or in total) by Native American tribes, which have a limited form of sovereignty which could be seen as a form of "state" ownership. Also, I'm not entirely sure how Macau works since China re-annexed it from Portugal in 1999; that is to what extent Macau's gaming operations have been nationalized or not. --Jayron32 05:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling in Macau has the operating concessions parcelled out to private hands in 2002. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kansas Star Casino in Kansas is state-owned. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Cosmopol, who run four casinos in Sweden, are wholly owned by Svenska Spel, a government owned company that used to have a monopoly on all gambling and betting in Sweden. (In practice, it doesn't anymore, because Internet...) /81.170.148.21 (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a casino, but The Tote was (1928-2011) a chain of bookmakers' shops wholly owned by the British government. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State-run lotteries are more typical since they don't require the management of a high-overhead building facility with lots of machines and a high opportunity for theft, fraud, and corruption. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, two out of three ain't bad... State run lotteries have a high potential for corruption, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and all... --Jayron32 22:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By state do you mean the government of the entire country or the provincial/state government as you would find in Canada or the US? If the latter then the Société des casinos du Québec, a subsidiary of Loto-Québec which is a Crown corporations of Canada, owns four casinos of which we have articles on three. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation another Crown Corporation owns 10 casinos of which there are articles on eight. A look through Category:Casinos in Canada should turn up more and List of casinos in Canada show some but looks incomplete.[www.abgaminginstitute.ualberta.ca/Canada_casinos.cfm This] is the source for the list but I'm getting a runtime error on that page. For the US take a look at state owned casinos which seems to indicate Kansas is a leader in this field with at least three but other states are considering them. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Casinò_di_Campione is owned by the Italian government, and operated by the local municipality. Dalliance (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

witchcraft

which Pope prohibited practice of witchcraft in Rome? --82.81.204.217 (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason to suspect that one single pope did this (you heard it somewhere) or is this just a question of curiosity? In general it would be banned along with any pagan practice. I'd be surprised if at some point in the middle ages witchcraft had been allowed and was suddenly banned. There have been papal bulls against witchcraft, for example that of Innocent VIII here. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More information in Witches and Witchtrials in Italy, but not an answer to your question. The Biblical passage which was used as a pretext for the persecution of supposed witches is from the Book of Exodus, chapter 22, verse 18; "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.", so it seems unlikely that the church would have actually approved of witchcraft at any stage. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entry on witchcraft in the Catholic Encyclopedia has quite a lot of detail on various papal bulls relating to witchcraft, though how objective it is about them, I am a little dubious. But it is a good start. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do love when the old Catholic Encyclopedia gives in to a little scholarly sarcasm, such as "[the confession manuals] were largely compiled by men who were in actual contact with the people" The old Catholic Encyclopedia is generally a reliable source for what was known when it was written: if it says a historical document says something, it does. And if one is sceptical of the surrounding context (as is quite reasonable), just about all the documents it references are now freely available online. The only question is whether it has left any useful documents out that were known when it was written, and it does typically actually include the bad as well as the good, but it's a very reasonable point to be dubious on. I don't know of a better source, though. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions regarding Influential Imams in non-muslim countries

Which Mosques are influential in politics in countries outside the Muslim World. For example I recently read that the Imam of Akhmad Kadyrov Mosque is used by the intelligence agencies in Russia for suppressing Jihad
Are there any similar titles to Shahi Imam, that is associated with royalty and royal decree and is the post of Imam always hereditary. I am not counting any mosques of Saudi Arabia since the country became a kingdom only in 1932. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what kind of influence you are looking for, but Abu Hamza al-Masri was pretty influential in London... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, the opinions of the the head of al-Azhar in Egypt were widely influential among Sunnis, but after the various twists and turns of the last 50 years, I'm not sure how true that still is. The internet age has led to the proliferation of numerous "cybermullahs" issuing authoritative-sounding pronouncements despite being quite obscure off-line ("in real life"). Of course among Shi`is, the term "Imam" is often reserved for (claimed) hereditary successors to Ali ibn Abi Talib; the Aga Khan is the main living person publicly claiming to be an Imam in that sense (though his followers are quite few in proportion to all Muslims). AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Khan IV is the 49th Imam of the Nizari Ismailis and is to a certain extent, as their leader, politically involved, just not in the politics of any particular country. In this case there is a degree of hereditary rule. The current Aga Khan's father was passed over and thus he is the grandson of Aga Khan III. Don't forget there is quite a difference between an imam in Sunni Islam and one, Imamah (Shia doctrine), in Shia Islam. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the second sentence of this question a BLP violation? RNealK (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

country voting patterns

Hello, I was wondering if there is a name for the phenomenon I have noticed in some countries with two political parties. One is normally biased to the right and the other, the left. One is voted in for their term; then several years later, the country votes and the opposite party is then in power. For example, the Conservatives (right) were much around the 1980s in the UK, then it was Labour (left) in the 1990s-2000s and now it is back to the Conservatives. This is what has happened during my lifetime but I'm sure if I went back in British political history much of the same pattern would appear. A similar situation appears to happen in the US with the Republicans and Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.235.204 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's known as a two-party system. Political scientists argue about why it happens. Probably the best explanation is that it is the natural result of a single-winner voting system, where voters vote for a specific person rather than for a party. In a ~~plurality voting system~~ proportional representation system, where voters vote directly for a party, there are almost always multiple parties. Looie496 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. The simplistic reason for shifts from left to right and back again (known as "swings"), is that there are a significant minority of "floating voters" who don't have a fixed party loyalty, but make their mind up in the weeks before an election. They get fed-up with the party in power and decide to give "the other lot" a chance. Sometimes it takes a few years for them to forget how awful "the other lot" were when they were actually in government. Political parties often target groups of voters whom they believe are likely to change allegiance in their favour; most famously the 1980s Conservative drive to capture the vote of "Mondeo man", a working-class home-owning voter with a family who was moving up the social ladder and was likely to espouse Conservative Party values that were tailored to suit him (or her). Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one reason why I've never joined a political party and never will. No matter how electorally successful a party may be now, its ultimate fate is defeat. Most politicians are really only interested in being around when their party is the flavour of the month. Sooner or later, it won't be, and they won't be. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The so called "Swing voters" can make major changes to the electorate, even if they only make up a small proportion. Consider a hypothetical country with a two-party (or two coalition) system with a winner-take-all single-member district election style, which is evenly divided between, say 45% rabid, died-in-the-wool far-right conservatives and 45% bleeding-heart leftist progressives, with the remaining 10% made up of centrist swing voters who are fairly middle of the road. Assuming the right would never ever vote for a leftist candidate, and the left likewise, that means as little as 5% of the electorate (well, an infinitesimally small amount more than 5%) actually plays "kingmaker" and decides which party wins. That's actually how elections work in the U.S. (the numbers probably don't break down exactly like that, but conceptually, you can follow it). If your the kind of voter who votes "straight ticket", i.e. if you are a Republican who would never vote for a Democratic candidate in your life, then no one cares and no one campaigns for your vote. The politicians who represent you don't have to do anything for your vote, because you've already guaranteed it to them before they even made a campaign promise. Throw in a healthy dose of Gerrymandering and there's very few competitive electoral districts; and thus there is very little incentive for politicians to respond to the needs of the electorate in any meaningful way. --Jayron32 22:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In real life, enthusiasm and degree of voter turnout among the "base" are also important... AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the use of primary elections in USA also means that Republican politicians have to care about Republican voters who would never swing Democratic. See for example Tea Party movement#2010 election. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question that is being asked is if there is a term for this phenomenon. In Norwegian, we have the word 'regjeringsslitasje', which would literally be translated as 'government "wear and tear"'. It is used somewhat as a 'catch-all' term for several effects of a government staying in power for a long time:

The people's disillusionment with the governing party (or parties, if it's a coalition), often stemming from a government's inability to deliver on its electoral promises to the complete satisfaction of the electorate.
Internal power struggles in the government, over time. This means that a government that was filled with energy when it won an election could 'break down' as its members do not work so well with each other anymore, due to personal/regional power struggles/conflicts.
At a certain point, the government will become more focused on defending the policies it has already put in place, and run out of ideas for further change. Some voters might be satisfied with these, but it is easier to rally the electorate around something that is 'wrong' and 'has to be changed' than to 'accept that what is already in place is a decent compromise that shouldn't be tinkered with'. In short, the government loses its 'oomph'.

While I agree with what has been said in previous posts, they seem to assume that both the electorate and political parties are static, so that one aspect that is missing, is that both the electorate and political parties change over timer. The Labour party that Thatcher defeated in 1979 wasn't the same Labour party that won the election in 1997. Similarly, the electorate that voted Conservative in 1979 wasn't the same electorate that 'voted for' Tony Blair in 1997. The electorate isn't static: people die, young people come of age, and what seemed very important when you were a recent graduate at 26 is less important as a recent parent with a mortgage at 31. Similarly, while the political parties might have the same names and claim to follow an overarching political ideology, the way that translates into specific policies can change, and the electorate might be willing to overlook ideological differences, so long as they agree with the specific policies that are implemented. V85 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any demographies of counter-strike players or servers?

For example, how many percent of players or servers for Counter-Strike are located in each country?--163.125.82.189 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like proprietary information that would only be held by Valve Corporation, and which they would be unlikely to release as it provides them with an economic advantage over competitors or customers.--Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This link might help[1].--Inspector (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NNDB and copyright

NNDB contains some useful photographs of celebrities. But it doesn't seem to say anywhere what the copyright status is of these. Can anyone throw any light on this? The context is that I do some editing for another Wiki, http://lgbthistoryuk.org/wiki/ (based in the United Kingdom) and have used the NNDB photograph (at http://www.nndb.com/people/167/000088900/) to illustrate an article on Terence Rattigan. Is this likely to get us into trouble? rossb (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know the copyright status of the photograph, you should assume it is fully under copyright. Its presence on another website does not indicate anything about its copyright status unless the website explicitly states it or you have other reasons to infer whether it is in the public domain (e.g. by knowing its age). We are not qualified to give you legal advice and are explicitly prohibited from doing so. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't looking for legal advice, although I can see my question might have been interpreted that way. I was just a bit surprised that an apparently significant encyclopedic website such as NNDB appears to make no statement one way or the other about the images it displays and the extent to which people are permitted to reuse them, and wonder if anyone has any further information about what their attitude is, or how they deal with their source material.rossb (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Ask on commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright‎... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of each page, they claim copyright on the content. That's their statement for reuse — they aren't explicitly allowing any. It is the most common stance in copyright on websites; it is much rarer to have something like Wikipedia where the terms of re-use are explicit. You should e-mail NNDB directly if you are curious about their copyright policy. There's not enough material on their site for us to possibly guess it. (Incidentally, the "legal advice" bit of your question was: "Is this likely to get us into trouble?") --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

Hispanic white people

Why are the many Hispanic white people not counted as white? E.g. statistics might say something like "In so and so city there are 200,000 Hispanic people and 500,000 white people". Of course, many of those Hispanic people will have what is normally considered white skin, and be culturally European (e.g. maybe an Argentine, or a white Cuban). What use is there in this mixing of racial and ethnic categories? Does it serve some overall statistical purpose? 138.16.101.142 (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean in the U.S. census, all are counted both ways. The U.S. census asks two separate questions: one about one's race (White, Black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, etc.) and a different question that asks whether or not you are Hispanic. Thus, since the same person answers both questions, a person will be counted as both: Hispanic and White, or Hispanic and Black, or Hispanic and Native American, or indeed any such combination is possible. See Race and ethnicity in the United States Census for a fuller explanation. --Jayron32 01:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the newsmedia articles about the "coming minority majority" or "future non-white majority" in the United States seem to be based on conflating the numbers of anybody who picks a race other than "white" OR selects "Hispanic" on the census form, which could be considered dubious... AnonMoos (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not relevant to OP's question

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The GOP might disagree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some legitimate reason for that stupid, biased statement, Bugs? What's next, "Obummer" comments as if this were a comments section on a political website? μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"How she doth froth and fume and stew and scold". Not bad for one who was recently advocating bestiality (!) on these hallowed pages. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Bestiality is not illegal everywhere, I did not "advocate" it, I mentioned it as an alternative to a person who seemed to be into paraphilias, and did not gratuitously smear a whole class of people with an unsupported allegation. Is some part of that unclear? μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's as clear as you being the self-appointed Ref Desk Policeperson when it comes to other editors' perceived indiscretions and breaches of "appropriate behaviour", but you're more than happy to inject helpful suggestions about bestiality and necrophilia. Yes, very clear. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

It is widely perceived, including by the GOP's own analysts, that they lost their chance at the presidency in part due to not taking the Hispanic vote into consideration. That's a bit more certain than just "dubious". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the distinction is made is cultural. Most european immigrants assimilate to the dominant Anglo culture with only rather small enclaves like Hassidic Jews, Amish, etc., standing out culturally and linguistically. The only major exception is Latino culture. Many hispanics do ultimately assimilate to a "pure" anglo culture, but enough retain their language and remain distinct culturally to warrant people's interest. This distinction between Hispanic and non-Hispanic should make sense in America if you consider the map to the right. μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In every census they should be clearly differentiate among some categories. Race, culture and religion all are intermingled, even if all combinations are possible. You could look Latino/Arabic/European, be Latino/Arabic/European, speak a Latino/Arabic/European language, and so on. There shouldn't be such confusion, if people could think about the combinations (muslim Americans, black Europeans, white Europeans, Christian Chinese). OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I suppose. I just don’t get the "non-white" when referring to Latinos (a pretty heterogenous group). There are, of course, non-white Latinos. There are, also, white Latinos. If we are taking "white" to be a cultural label rather than based on skin color, then adds a ton of ambiguity. What about Arabs or Persians? Or even Southern Europeans, who are different culturally from Norther Europeans. If Latinos are not "culturally white", then neither are Italians (who retained their cultural identity in a similar way to Latinos) or Greeks. The whole thing seems like a mire, that I can’t understand why it is perpetuated. 138.16.103.170 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- It seems odd only because your living in the time you are now. There were times and places in American history when other dominant immigrant groups were seen as undesirable outsiders, who would never assimilate into American culture. The current cultural attitudes towards people of Hispanic background once applied to Italian or Irish or even French Canadian immigrants, who were all seen in much the same way that Hispanic immigrants are today: undesirables who are taking jobs away from good Americans, don't speak like us or eat like us or dress like us, etc. etc. In another 50 years, people will think it odd, or even forget, that we discriminate against Latino people in the same way that we don't really discriminate against Americans of Irish background the way the country used to. Also, just to reiterate because I wasn't clear enough above: Hispanics can be both white and non-white. Th official U.S. census data does not consider "Hispanicness" a race. Non-white does not refer to Latinos in any way. There are Latinos of a variety of racial backgrounds. --Jayron32 19:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-white Latinos refers to the descendants of either slaves (blacks) or indigenous peoples (Amerinds and Filipinos) and various mixtures thereof subjugated and ruled by Hidalgos. In other words, the descendants of people who were not themselves the conquerors of (primarily) Spanish lands. Again, this is cultural, not biological, given that white Spaniards can pass for Irish, etc. Obviously Greeks and Italians don't look like Amerinds nd they don't adopt piñatas, Spanish cooking, bull fighting, or the cult of Santa Muerte if they move to the US. See the Treaty of Tordesillas. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some white Hispanics are Irish. See Bernardo O'Higgins, Anthony Quinn (paternal grandfather), Che Guevara (paternal grandmother (Lynch)), also more broadly Irish immigration to Puerto Rico. Also, many Hispanics are also Italians, see Immigration to Argentina, which shows that Italy leads European immigration to Argentina, also Pope Francis has an Italian ancestry, as does Manu Ginóbili. Greek Hispanics could include Doménikos Theotokópoulos. --Jayron32 23:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess Helene of Mecklenburg-Schwerin

Why did Duchess Helene of Mecklenburg-Schwerin remain a Protestant after her marriage to Prince Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans? Why wasn't it requested by the French royal family during the marriage search that any Protestant potential bride would have to convert when they ran out of Catholic princesses?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 19th century was a very different place than the 17th century? Perhaps such things became less of a problem in post-Revolution France than during, say, the Wars of Religion where it was a big deal? --Jayron32 02:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Religion may not have been an issue to go to war for in the 19th century but it was still of importance especially in royal marriages. The marriage proposal of Ferdinand Philippe's sister Princess Clémentine of Orléans to Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was rejected by the latter because of the requirement that Ernest, the heir to a traditionally Protestant throne, had to become Catholic. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read this whole biography of Helene, but it might help you. Here. From what I've seen there (pp 128ff), plus in Philippe's article, all these things might be factors: (1) He personally didn't care (2) It had been difficult to find him a wife and perhaps requirements had been relaxed (3) She was very religious (4) It was agreed (and happened) that the children would be Catholic. 174.88.8.9 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal of Service

One time a friend of mine went to a bank to resolve a dispute but was unsuccessful and the employees were rude and dismissive to him. The bank threatened to call the police. But my friend refused to leave until he was heard. This came to my attention when my friend told me the story and another friend stated to me that if you are an existing customer that you cannot be removed for trespassing during business hours. Fortunately my friend was able to get ahold of a district manager and the branch manager ended up being fired for being rude to my friend and all the excessive and unwarranted charges were recredited to his account. My question I suppose is, what law states that you may stay on the premises if you are already a paying customer with a customer service dispute? Which law or laws or case law/court decisions/cases cover this area? I am going to be writing a report on this subject for my political science class and have an interest in these civil liberties areas. Specifically I am asking about American laws as I live in California. Any insights would be welcome, thank you in advance if you find yourself inclined to chime in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.65.134 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 21 April 2013

For California the relevant law is state penal code 602, section o. That's the section that makes it a misdemeanor to remain on private property after being asked to leave by the property's owner or representative. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see anything in the caveats about exceptions for paying customers. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this doesn't sound like a law. In most jurisdictions I'm aware of, private businesses have broad discretion to refuse service as they feel necessary. Individual banks may have internal policies like that which benefited your friend, however. The fact that the branch manager was sanctioned by his or her employer rather than through the legal system suggests that this was company policy, not law. --BDD (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could interview a lawyer for your paper. I'd call the State Bar of California and ask for referral to a lawyer in the correct subfield in your home town. 174.88.8.9 (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's technically legal or not may not much matter. That is, if they call the police and the police arrest you for "creating a public disturbance" or some such thing, then whether you had the legal right to be there becomes irrelevant, as trespassing isn't the charge. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paying customers at busy restaurants, specifically ones which rely on high lunch time turn over, are frequently asked to move on as soon as they've finished eating, and sometimes not so politely. I don't think purchasing something gives you any special rights in a premises. This sounds like a classic "it takes two to tango" story. Refusing to leave until you are heard reeks of the kind of self righteous indignation you see on youtube videos frequently before someone is tazed or peppersprayed by the police. You will respect my rights!! lol... Anyway, there are official channels of dispute resolution that don't involve throwing a tantrums in a bank branch. Telephone complaints department being the primary one since they're actually trained in dispute resolution, unlike every random bank manager. If that fails take it to the industry ombudsman. Vespine (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, however, that the U.S. has a long history of protesting refusal of services by refusing to leave. See Greensboro sit-ins for one famous example. Of course, that was based on protesting abhorrent racial segregation policies. Such acts of civil disobedience can be justified in cases of protesting genuine injustice; one must take care because sometimes there isn't any genuine injustice, and you're just being an asshole. One needs the wisdom to know the difference. --Jayron32 05:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, if someone truly and genuinely believed they were being treated unjustly, and protested accordingly, but then it was explained to them why things are the way they are and there's no injustice involved, they'd have to come to the conclusion that they're an asshole even though they acted in good faith. That seems like a pretty unjust state of affairs. Where do I go to protest about this? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking generally on the basis of general principles of traditional common law trespass to land (from which most of the English-speaking world derives its rules on such things), I suspect the argument for a customer to be able to enter a premises would be based on an implied licence to enter a property to a reasonable extent. If you have a path from your front yard fence to your house door, the court would usually find an implied licence for someone to walk into your yard and up to your door in order to knock on it. However, the implication probably would not go so far as to permit the intruder to open the door (if it is not locked) and sit down in your living room. In the same way, there is probably an implied licence for a customer to enter a bank which is open for business in order to transact his business with the bank. Of course, the implied licence can be revoked: you can tell someone who has come to your door to get off your property. In the same way, the bank could tell its customer to go away. Whether this would violate (i) discrimination laws; (ii) consumer protection laws; (iii) the bank's own policies, is another matter which does not really have anything to do with the issue of trespass. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PalaceGuard008 gave a good answer, so this is the tl;dr version: Unless it's a municipal (ie. your city) law, there is no such legal entity. Basically, an owner of a private company may refuse service at will and, if the person fails to leave when asked, they can be arrested for trespassing.

Now, there are some caveats. Mainly, if you can prove the company discriminated against you based on race, ethnicity, etc. then you might have cause for a civil suit against the company. But there's really no recourse at the moment you're in the shop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ventnor Commies - PKD?

I remember reading a science fiction short story set in the future, which featured American forces laying waste to England after a communist insurrection on the Isle of Wight. For nostalgic reasons, they called their enemies VCs (standing in this case for Ventnor Commies). It was probably 20 years ago that I read this story, so it couldn't have been written in the years since then; I thought it might have been by Philip K Dick, but have been unable to find anything on the internet about it at all. Any ideas? 46.208.114.84 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is found here and here, the author is Brian Aldiss. --Soman (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Buddhist practice some kind of alternative psychology?

In the same way that oriental medicine is a kind of alternative medicine? Could both get trouble with the law, since the fields are regulated in some places? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any kind of answer completely depends on specifying a jurisdiction. Chinese medicine is unlikely to be illegal in China, for example. But in any case, we are not permitted to answer legal questions, nor speculate about the future. If you specify a jurisdiction, the best volunteers can do is point you to the legal codes of said jurisdiction, or news reports about similar cases. 174.88.8.9 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do are permitted to answer legal questions and it happens all the time here. That's different from giving legal advice. Anyway, has the Buddhist practice or the Chinese medicine got into any legal trouble in the US, Europe due to professional intrusion? (or in whatever Western country) OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental medicine is "a kind of alternative medicine" in the same sense that the flat Earth theory is "a kind of alternative geodesy". In reality, it is dangerous quackery with no evidence of efficacy and often no evidence of safety. As for whether Chinese medicine has gotten into legal trouble, see these two warning letters by the FDA, requesting that the sellers pull their products. In general, however, the FDA has been extremely lax in enforcing the law when it comes to oriental medicine: [2]. --140.180.244.177 (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have a pretty decent article on Buddhism and psychology, which discusses clinical applications. Looie496 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, being a religion might protect Buddhism from charges of practicing psychiatry without a license. That is, the separation of church and state means that the state can't regulate religion, at least to the degree that it regulates the general population. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But do they claim to be a religion? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Buddhists?* ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, they don't seem to care if what they do is a philosophy or religion. But, if they want to enjoy some special status and the protection of this, then I suppose they might claim to be a religion. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meant that rhetorically. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP: You do understand that there are many denominations to Buddhism, do you? Please read the Wiki entry on Buddhism. This question is like asking whether or not Christian prayer is an alternative medicine/psychology. Sneazy (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-citizenship

Is there a term to describe me, if I am a non-citizen? (Legally speaking, I'm not a citizen of any nation, but I am a permanent resident.) Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stateless if it's for real in the legal sense, world citizen is if it's just a cultural thing.OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the article, I'm de jure stateless. What effects does this have, beyond my ability to travel past the border of my country, which is New Zealand? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering this would be slipping into legal advice. A lawyer could advise you better about issues like applying for refugee status, obtaining the nationality of your host country or getting travel documents issued. On the bright side, maybe Spielberg wants to films your story. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm not after legal advice. I'm just trying to find out anything interesting that may come in useful, or may be obstrutive. It's not worth pursuing beyond Wikipedia. That is a good movie though, luckily I'm not stuck at the airport. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the only effect I can think of, beyond the legal implications, is towards your social identity. Maybe you could also join some association of world citizens like the Commonwealth of World Citizens. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but they hold to the tennet of democracy, I do not. In my informed opinion, democracy has proven to be a failure in terms of effective governance. I won't explore the idea further, unless I'm poked (in a manner of speaking). Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you hate democracy, you might find North Korea an ideal place to live. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of alternatives to what exists in North Korea. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you identified a country that most closely fits with your ideal situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not. It is interesting though, I do agree with some of the communist critisims of capatalism, but not not agree with their ideals. We can see it for ourselves, how by way of democracy, we have signed away our future into the hands of bureaucrats who are more interested in lining their own pockets, and telling people what they want to hear. Through democracy, politics have become a sport for the wealthy and beguiling. The most important consequence, is that the goverment is held at the behest of the banks, by our own doing. That is one of the reasons why the world economy is constantly on the verge of collapse. Democracy opens the door wider to the workings of moral corruption, to bring about these things. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old saying, sometimes attributed to Churchill, "Under capitalism, man exploits man; under communism, it's the other way around." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've never heard that attributed to Churchill. I think it originated with Will Rogers. Churchill was the one who said democracy is the worst system of governance imaginable, except for all the other ones we've tried. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I think you're right. It's the same general idea, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People love to stick their noses into politics, only to complain about the consequences. I say, let them opinionate, but let them not determine law. Is it fitting for a child to command a parent? Furthermore, those with knowledge and wisdom should lead, not those who chase after riches and glory. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I would be content to sustain under such a government, if I am required to relinquish my vote. A monarchy type government led by a consortium of scientific advisors of various disciplines. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit like the ideal state in Plato's Republic? Proteus (Talk) 11:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Plato's Republic, however, at first glance, the major difference seem to be that my system has a monarch. Besides that, I think that is as a good starting point for a model government. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A permanent resident is typically called a Permanent resident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not very informative, nor was it in question. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could swear a permanent resident was normally called permanent resident. Thanks for the confirmation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in the OP describing a scenario in which someone would be born without citizenship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have countries (like Nepal until ~2006, think that is changed now) where citizenship is passed on by the father. Meaning that any child born out of wedlock and without an identified father would be considered as a non-citizen. --Soman (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not impossible. Refugees get stripped of their nationality after they leave Plasmicphysicistan. They have a baby in a host country that only grants jus sanguinis citizenships. There's your stateless baby, who is allowed to stay as permanent resident. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that's the OP's situation, or if he's more a believer in what some call individual sovereignty. (I might have cited the wrong article. I'm talking about the folks who claim they have no social responsibilities and that laws do not apply to them.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My case resulted from a legal loop-hole. All non-citizens must apply for citizenship, and when a family immigrated, and both parents surrender their former citizenship, all children who was part of the original immigrated group lose their former citizenships by default. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your legal status in your current country? That is, is there any risk of being deported? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no risk of being deported, since I'm not a citizen of South Africa. So, where can I be deported to? (Rhetorical) "Legal status", beyond what I've mentioned? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they wanted to deport you, couldn't they just say, "We don't care where you go, just go." However, if you have permanent residence status, you should be pretty much safe as long as you don't do something horrible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, they could say that, but they can't force me to leave, especially if no country is willing to accept me. The best they could do, is leave me on a raft in international water. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a rather convoluted explanation. I fail to understand what went wrong. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like some kind of bureaucratic catch-22. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that even had South Africa withdrawn your citizenship, New Zealand would have been forced to take you as they are a signatory to the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Rmhermen (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that apply to a person who is of an age that no longer requires a legal guardian? Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmic: how y9our questions do not constitute a request for legal advice? If you have any doubt about your specific case ask a lawyer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for advice, I'm asking for information. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still would be best off to see a lawyer, if you want solid answers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness doesn't really work the way you describe. In particular, it doesn't generally force other countries to take someone as a citizen unless that person has some reason to claim citizenship either by birth/foundling or by their parent's citizenship status. The convention is supposed to prevent statelessness by making it difficult for people to become stateless in the first place. This includes preventing other countries from removing someone's citizenship unless they've got citizenship elsewhere and requiring countries to provide citizenship to people who would otherwise be stateless, either if they were born in that country or born in another country but one of their parents are a citizen of the first country. Of course this means even if you are resident in a country which is a signatory, you may still be stateless if you were born elsewhere and your parents are or were citizens of another country which is not a signatory and they and you never obtained citizenship in your current country of residence. (Well for your parents it had to be at the time of your birth.)

Now without getting into the area of legal advice, if the OP is a legal permanent resident here in NZ they are likely entitled to vote if they are of age barring a few odd exceptions [3]. (The concept of permanent resident can be a bit confusing in NZ since they term is often not used nowadays in official immigration speak (the actual terms used have changed over time [4] [5]) and for quite a while most people with resident permits or visas living in NZ have actually been entitled to permanently reside in NZ. The general variance is in travel conditions. Some people, while entitled to live and work here as long as they want to, may not be able to come back to NZ as residents if they leave or leave for too long. Generally speaking, after a period of time, usually two years, if a person has been living here for long enough during that time, they obtained an residence visa entitling them to leave and return at will. So most residents are actually considered permanent residents. There are of course other categories of people like those with work permits and student visas who are not considered residents.) If they've been living here for long enough, they will generally be entitled to the same benefits (social security, hospital treatment, education etc) as citizens. And after a period of time (5 years), they will likely be entitled to claim NZ citizenship [6] although as mentioned, I don't think them being stateless is going to make a difference here. There is a provision for a special grant of citizenship for stateless people New Zealand nationality law#Special grant of New Zealand citizenship to stateless persons but I don't know how often this is done (and likely the OP will need to prove their are stateless, I wonder whether if the OP can reclaim their SA citizenship if they return there this may be a sufficient barrier to the OP).

Note that even though South Africa is not a signatory to the treaty, there is a provision to reclaim South Africa citizenship if the OP does wish to return there [7]. In addition, I wonder how certain the OP is that they aren't a South African citizen. My impression from [8], [9] and [10] is that it's actually not that easy for a child to lose their citizenship solely by the actions of their parents nowadays. I'm presuming that the OP was likely born in South Africa, with both parents being South African citizens at the time so was likely entitled to South African citizenship by birth. I'm presuming the OP was not born here in NZ since unless they are some sort of kid-genius, they would almost definitely be a New Zealand citizen by birth. Now if there's a third country involved either for the OP or their parents, then things get more complicated as the laws of this third country need to be considered. If the OP lost their SA citizenship before 1995 then I'm not entirely sure how the new law deals with that either.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect answer. Since I've met the requirements, I can easiliy obtain citizenship for a small fee, if I so choose. Yet I do not, for the time being. I can prove that I'm stateless by contacting the SA Embassy in Australia, confirming that my SA passport has been revoked. Yes, I was born in SA (1989), and immigrated in 2001. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Late Medieval events - House of Luxembourg

While expanding the article on Elizabeth of Luxembourg, only child of Emperor Sigismund, I noticed a mild discrepancy. Our article, as well as articles in other languages, claims that Sigismund's eldest grandchild, Anne of Austria, was born in 1432. There is even a precise date: 12 April 1432. It is certain that Sigismund was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on 31 May 1433; prior to the coronation, he reigned as king of the Romans. However, Bertrandon de la Broquière apparently wrote that "the Duchess, a tall, handsome woman, daughter to the Emperor, and heiress after him to the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia and their dependencies", gave birth to a daughter, "which had occasioned festivals and tournaments that were the more numerously attended because hitherto she had not had any children." Why would Bertrandon refer to the newborn's mother as the emperor's daughter more than a year before he actually became emperor? Surtsicna (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between election to King of the Romans and coronation as Emperor is quite academic, both contemporaneously and in modern Historiography, uncrowned German Kings are often called Holy Roman Emperor (technically, they were called "Emperor-elect", and not "Emperor", but no one really includes the "-elect" part). Indeed, Charles V was the last Emperor to even bother with Papal coronation. After him, all of his successors simply forwent the coronation, and started to exercise the Imperial authority from their election. Indeed, even earlier Emperors did so, basically from the Golden Bull of 1356, when the election procedure was formalized, the implied source of Imperial power was shifted from the Pope to the German princes who elected him, and by the Diet of Augsburg in 1500 (see Imperial Circle), which basically cut out all non-German constituent states of the Empire from participating in its operation, the HRE was a putative "Kingdom of Germany" only, there was little need for formal recognition from the Pope. Many of these developments were official recognition of procedures and realities that had existed for some time; and not really all that novel, so by the 1430s, Sigismund, while officially only "Emperor-elect" prior to his coronation, would have been widely (if not officially) recognized as Emperor. --Jayron32 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A first cursory perusal of Bertrandon de la Broquière's travel report seems to indicate that he came to Vienna on his way home from Constantinople in the spring of 1433, meeting there the duchess ~~(who had passed away earlier in December 1432)~~ and she had just born a child (in April 1432). There is an obvious discrepancy in the dates. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the duchess (Elizabeth of Luxembourg) died in December 1442. So, the explanation here is that Sigismund was styled as emperor by his contemporaries before the coronation? Is it possible that his granddaughter was born a year later? Though even then she could not have been born in April. Surtsicna (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pp.paul.4 -- during the middle ages, different places started the year at different times (March 25th and January 1st were two common new-year days, but there were others), and there could be as much as a whole year's difference in the start of a new numbered year between different calendar usages... AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my misinformation. In that case, however, if de la Broquière came to Vienna in the spring of 1433 and returned home to Burgundy in mid-1433 and started writing his account then, and both Vienna and Burgundy would have started the year at the same time, Sigismund would have been Emperor. The granddaughter, however, does not fit. So we follow AnonMoos and assume that Vienna started the year on January 1st (31 Dec 1432 -> 1 Jan 1433) and was ahead in the counting of years with respect to Burgundy starting the year at Easter (11 April 1432 -> 12 April 1433). Not sure, however, whether the dates have already been normalized (we cannot normalize them twice). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source which provides the following quote from one Reginald Poole:

"If we suppose a traveller to set out from Venice on March 1, 1245, the first day of the Venetian year, he would find himself in 1244 when he reached Florence; and if after a short stay he went to Pisa, the year 1246 would already have begun there. Continuing his journey westward, he would find himself in 1245 again when he entered Provence, and on arriving in France before Easter (April 16), he would once more be in 1244. This seems a bewildering tangle of dates."

AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

How is Commanders and leaders in template:Infobox military conflict defined?

For example, should Adolf Hitler be included in the "Commanders and leaders" in Battle of Berlin?--Inspector (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions at the page you just linked state " the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary)." If Hitler was in active command of troops at that battle, then yes. If not, then no. --Jayron32 04:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Hitler was not the commander in the Battle of Berlin. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hitler had assumed overall command of the German army on 19 December 1941[11]. During the initial stages of the battle, it seems that Hitler was solely responsible for the disposition of IX Army and IV Panzer Army, and for constantly sacking and replacing commanders whom he thought were being disloyal or defeatist. So it's a moot point. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Cycling

What is the connection between presidents and cycling in the Presidential Cycling Tour of Turkey?Curb Chain (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidebook for the tour says that it is organized on behalf of the President of Turkey (currently Abdullah Gül). Looie496 (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a tiny bit of googling and used Google translate for the corresponding Turkish article, but without finding something that seems to be the rationale for the term 'presidential'. My 'stab in the dark' answer, would be that this could be a republic's parallel ot the use of 'royal' in certain monarchies, i.e. it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a very strong connection between the presidents and cycling, but that the office of the presidency is invoked to give credence and prestige to the event. V85 (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it has presidential patronage. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a US Congress passed law from 1872

Hi all, been bothered by trying to track down this law. I have checked wikipedia here and followed some of their links to here and others but no luck. Thanks for the help in advance.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really no expert on US federal regulation, but a quick google on 'interstate commerce 1872' has given me Commerce of the Schuylkill River. (To accompany bill H. R. 1769.) Resolution of the Select and Common Council of the City of Philadelphia, relative to the commerce of the Schuylkill River and a book, The Struggle for the Adoption of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 1872-1887. Do either of these give you a lead? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find this law, at least not in the form described. The article's source seems to be Tarbell's History of the Standard Oil Company, an excerpt from which, linked in our article, says that Rep. James H. Hopkins presented "the first Interstate Commerce Bill which promised to be effective." The same excerpt says that the railroads succeeded in pigeon-holing the bill for the time. It isn't clear from the excerpt exactly when this bill was presented, but it appears to be after (not in) 1872 and before 1876. As our article on James Herron Hopkins indicates, Hopkins was a U.S. Representative in 1875 - 1877 and 1883 - 1885. John M Baker (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CucumberMike but it would be a federal (i.e. nationwide law) though some of those links may hold some promise, yes John M Baker I am fearing that someone took some liberties with the actual reality of 1872-76 in that source, not to say its false just not quite the "whole truth". Any other ideas or resources would be most appreciated.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the University of Pittsburgh law library (Forbes Avenue on the western edge of campus, near UPMC Oakland) and ask how to use the Congressional Record; Pitt's library catalogue says that some or all of their CR collection is available there, and some or all is also available at the main library. Find the indices for the 44th and 48th Congresses; if they're anything like the indices published a century later, the index's section for Hopkins will list the places where he appears and the bills that he introduces. If that doesn't work, try looking up Standard Oil and the railroads, since bills are also indexed by their subjects. A major library system like Pitt will likely have additional resources, so if you can't find anything with the methods I've suggested, the librarians will probably be able to get you lots more information. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want the CR... you'll want the Public Laws and/or the Statutes at Large (all law libraries will have these on campus), although this may be before the SaL. As far as I know those (that far back) aren't even on Lexis or Westlaw, so you'll have to hit the books for them. Finding a law librarian (not some undergrad paid to work the front desk) and asking them would be your best first start. Shadowjams (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way... that statement's slightly overbroad in the article you linked. I think it's referring to the Interstate Commerce Commission (or some early predecessor; you can bet that it had to do with railroads) which is widely known as the first law of that sort, although any eager 2L could easily find some case to usurp a claim that bold. But I have a hunch the law you're looking for is the ICC. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it was really Hopkins that sponsored the bill in question, the CR will give the details needed to find the law — it's going to list the details for the law, which was passed before the Public Law system was started, although the Statutes at Large had existed since 1845. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think finding things in the CR is easy then I need to go back in time and hire you as a research assistant. But If that works, great. I think to find the bill he's going to need to get at least a critical date. I found many a weird statements by focusing on the date. Shadowjams (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it different for the earliest years of the CR, in the 1870s? I used the CR every day while working on the 1972 portion of this project; my supervisor arranged for us to have the 1972 indices on indefinite loan from the GovDocs section of our library because we were using them daily to look up bills, both those that were enacted and those that weren't. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any interstate commerce bill introduced or discussed in the 42nd Congress. There was debate about an interstate commerce bill (HR 1385) in the 43rd Congress [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] I see no indication whether that bill passed or that Hopkins had any involvement. Unfortunately, the online LOC records don't go past the 43rd Congress. older ≠ wiser 12:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the William S. Hein & Co. is the only company crazy enough to scan in and OCR the entire Statutes at Large (and a lot of other old legal materials) all the way to the beginning in 1789. However, only the largest universities can afford a subscription to HeinOnline, though, and only the wealthiest ones can subscribe to all parts of their database. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

In the unlikely event that she woke up one morning and decided she'd had enough of playing by the rules and went on a murderous rampage, how/would she be prosecuted? She couldn't be tried by the Crown Prosecution Service, she is the crown, she couldn't be tried abroad, she has diplomatic immunity and trying to force her to abdicate could be risky as she is commander in chief of the armed forces of 16 countries who all pledge allegiance to her. Do the countries governments where she is monarch just hope and pray that no psychotic person accedes the throne, or are there measures in place to ensure prosecution? --Andrew 16:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She would probably be deposed as monarch, and then tried like anyone else. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been "psychotic" monarchs before: George III of the United Kingdom, Maria I of Portugal, Christian VII of Denmark, Joanna of Castile, Charles VI of France (the latter two conveniently named "Joanna the Mad" and "Charles the Mad" respectively), etc. Even in absolute monarchies, such as the 18th-century Denmark, there were always means to deal with such situations. Surtsicna (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, as far as I understand, none of them has murdered one of their subjects? --Andrew 16:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been English monarchs implicated in murder, however. See Henry II of England and Thomas Becket, as well as Richard II of England and The Princes in the Tower. While neither of those directly did the killing, it is widely supposed that the killings happened as a result of their direct orders, which would make them criminally culpable in most modern legal systems. --Jayron32 17:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several English Monarchs were deposed or killed in battle during internal wars. These include Edward II of England, Richard II of England, Henry VI of England (multiple times), Edward IV of England (multiple times), Edward V of England, Richard III of England, Charles I of England and James II of England. You could also include in there situations like Henry III of England, who was deposed in all but name by Simon de Montfort, as well as monarchs left off the "official list" but which de jure ruled England or parts thereof, including the Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey. So, there has been a long-standing precedent in English history for deposing a monarch. --Jayron32 16:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she were deposed though, she'd still have been sovereign when she committed the crime, and therefore unable to be prosecuted? --Andrew 18:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't she be tried in the House of Lords? μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the legislation allowing trials in the House of Lords was replaced by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which established the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in its place. No sense of tradition, these socialists!

King Charles I was famously tried before a court which had been specially created by Parliament, however the constitutional legitimacy of the proceedings has never been fully resolved. The most likely answer to the question is that she would be confined under the terms of the Mental Health Act 2007 and Parliament would appoint Charles, Prince of Wales the Prince Regent, by means of the Regency Act 1953. This is more or less what happened to King George III, who was replaced by his wayward son when the old king started behaving rather oddly. By the way, given the amount of security surrounding Her Brittanic Majesty (whom God Save), the chances of her killing more than one person before somebody noticed seem rather remote. Alansplodge (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps security around the British queen is stronger than that which used to surround the king of Nepal, but in any case, royal killing sprees do happen; e.g.: Nepalese royal massacre. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"How unlike the life of our own dear Queen".[19] Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it happened within Buckingham Palace or Windsor or Balmoral Castles, the public might never get to hear about it. I've read stories that when the Shah of Iran was on a state visit to the UK, he had occasion to sentence to death one of his staff, who was executed and quietly buried in the gardens of Buck Palace. I cannot testify as to the accuracy of this story, but if I've read about it, I'm sure the Queen has too. For every story we've heard that has no foundation in truth, there are others that are true that we've never heard anything about. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a myth - the corgis would have dug the poor fellow up by now. Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it all back - but it wasn't the late Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, but a totally unrelated predecessor, Naser al-Din Shah Qajar, who visited the Palace in 1873. Apparently, "...a servant was charged with guarding his bedroom throughout the night, but was later discovered to be asleep on duty. His master ordered him to be beaten, and the bodyguards took the order so literally that he died from his injuries. His body is said to have been buried in a far corner of the palace gardens, near Hyde Park Corner, where, it is claimed, no flowers have ever blossomed since".[20] Alansplodge (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There you go then. It wasn't the Shah, but a Shah. Shahanshah alike. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, everyone knows there's no better fertilizer than a dead body. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what it was ensarcophagated* in. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* I assert primacy in the use of this word. It gets zero google hits. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hmmm, I was going to make a joke about Americans coming up with "sarcophagized", but then I did a Google search! Alansplodge (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd be more likely to say "coffinated". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I prefer mine decoff. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like a mug of exhumed coffee with that? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Only if it's fresh ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the Crown Prosecution Service today asking them to clarify what, if any, procedures are in place if an incident involving the Crown vs the Crown were to occur. When I get a response from them, for those of you who are as curious as I am, I'll post their reply on here --Andrew 00:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Beautiful Things List - Authors

Hello. I'm trying to compile a list of things claimed to be the most beautiful by authors and artists, thinkers. The only one I can recall offhand is Poe saying something to the effect of the most beautiful thing is a dead girl. Any ideas or quotes would be very helpful! Thanks! 129.3.151.74 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could Search Wikiquote for "beautiful"? Some other online quote collections: Bartleby, Brainy Quote (includes modern celebrities) and Good Reads. 184.147.125.78 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The death of a beautiful woman is, unquestionably, the most poetical topic in the world. "The Philosophy of Composition by Edgar Allan Poe".. I don't think it means quite the same thing as "the most beautiful things are dead girls".. Vespine (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During Prohibition, alcohol fans took to the idea that cellar-door was the most beautiful word in the English language. Though not, as you might have gathered, for purely aesthetic reasons. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Ruskin: "Remember that the most beautiful things in the world are the most useless; peacocks and lilies for instance" (in The Stones of Venice, Vol. 1, Chapter 2, Section 17, or so the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations asserts). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19 regional councillors in France MRC and candidates

Who are the 19 regional councillors in France from MRC (Citizen and Republican Movement party)? and also who were the candidates for the 2012 legislative elections? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

English Wikipedia has an article titled French legislative election, 2012. On the left of that is an interlanguage link to the French Wikipedia article on the same election, which has even more information than the English article. About 2/3rds of the way down the French article is a map in the section titled "Résultats par département et par circonscription" On that map you can select every single French Department which will take you to a page that lists every candidate for every riding within that department. Do so for every single department, and you'll have the candidates for every party for every one of the 577 seats in the National Assembly. --Jayron32 16:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I got two regional councilors and they are Jean-Marie Alexandre from Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Etienne Butzbach from Franche-Comte. I cannot find the other 17 who are they?--Donmust90 (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

Regional concillors from MRC. Auvergne: 1 (Jean-Marc Miguet), Franche-Comté: 2 (Etienne Butzbach, Alain Letailleur), Ile-de-France: 7 (Pierre Dubreuil, Eric Chevaillier, Jean-Marc Nicolle, Béatrice Desmartin, Jean-Luc Laurent, Daniel Guérin, Guillaume Vuilletet), Languedoc-Roussillon: 1 (Béatrice Négrier), Midi-Pyrénées: 1 (Marie-Pierre Gleizes), Nord-Pas-de-Calais: 3 (Françoise Dal, Claude Nicolet, Jean-Marie Alexandre), Picardie: 2 (Sandrine Goffinon, Michel Vignal), Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur: 1 (Ladislas Polski), Réunion: 1 (Christine Soupramanien). Found here. — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Euro

Why is Russia listed as European, but Turkey listed as Asian? It can't be sources since there are sources: [21], Geographically Turkey appears closer to Europe. Pass a Method talk 20:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is European, and Turkey not. Turks seem to feel ashamed of their Middle Eastern culture, but that's where they can be better classified. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Where is Russia listed as 'European'? Although most of Russia is in Asia, the most populous part is in Europe, including Moscow, the capital. Turkey, on the other hand, has only a tiny bit of land inside Europe, and half a city. Both Russia and Turkey are partly European and partly Asian, according to the conventional border between Europe/Asia, but I don't think there is any universal definition of what constitutes Europe/Asia. - Lindert (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very definitive geographic/geological definition of the "European Continent" which if I remember correctly does include that tiny slice of Turkey and Instanbul and Russia to the Ural Mountains. I think some of what your trying to classify is not pure geography but culture and ethnicity. There are "Middle Easterners"/"Asians" who since 1453 and the conquest of the Byzantine Empire have settled in the Balkans and the part of Turkey in the geographic Europe, and Russians of European extraction (though many interbred with Mongols and some Persians/Arabs because of conflicts dating back hundreds of years) went east into Siberia. "European" doesn't exactly mean "White" and "Asian" doesn't exactly mean Arab or of Mongol/Persian or Turkish extraction. European and Asian are at their core geographic definitions that have cultures, foods, music and ethnicities attached to them in some contexts but their are exceptions.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Russians of European extraction interbred with Mongols and some Persians/Arabs because of conflicts dating back hundreds of years" - what a bunch of nonsense! --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a bunch of truth! The Russian people are an amalgam of different historical people, being as they were, at a major crossroads of Eurasia. Everyone from the Vikings (see Varangians) to the Slavs to Central Asian peoples (such as the Scythians and Sarmatians), to Uralic peoples, to Mongols, Khazars, and Tartars at one time occupied and ruled and lived on the land that became the core of Russia (i.e. the Russia of the Kievan Rus' through the establishment of the Tsardom of Russia). Slavic culture came to dominate what became the Russian people, but there have been clear contributions from many different peoples over the centuries. Every modern ethnic group is an amalgam of many different earlier ethnic groups that coalesced over time. There has not been an isolated, distinct, and unique "Russian" culture since time immemorial, rather Russian culture evolved (as every single culture does and has) through changes and contacts and intermixing between various other cultures. --Jayron32 21:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from all those cultural things (although in general Russian culture is mostly common European in character with Slavic substratum and Byzantine/Greek and West European adstrata, and only with very shallow Turkic, Uralic and so on elements), there are many genetic and anthropological researches which clearly show that the great bulk (at least 80%) of the ethnic Russian population neither "interbred" with "Mongols" (I suppose Mongoloids were meant here), nor with "Arabs/Persians".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Kurgan hypothesis, the Slavs occupied the PIE urheimat longer than any other Indo-European group. Actually, the Russians still occupy the Great Steppe that gave birth to the Indo-European stock. Unlike the Germanic, Italic, Greek peoples that were prone to large-scale westward migrations. There never was a period when the Russians or any other Slavic nation "interbred" with either Persians, Arabs, or Mongols. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians may not have moved, but other people did move all over the Russian homeland. Maybe not Persians or Arabs, but the entirety of Russia spent centuries as a Mongol vassal. --Jayron32 00:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pass a Method -- Turkey has a very small part of its land area in Europe, and in fact its European borders were pretty much defined so as to contain the minimum feasible area in Europe consistent with including the cities of Adrianople and Constantinople. Russia has more land area in Asia than in Europe (according to conventional definitions), but the bulk of its population, as well as the historic Russian cultural heartland, are in Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Europe and Asia, and indeed Africa, form one huge contiguous land mass, it's always going to be arbitrary where any artificial divisions are drawn. And the Europe/Asia and Asia/Africa divisions are just that, arbitrary. It seems to make sense to separate Asia from Africa at the thinnest point, the northern end of the Red Sea (which is why they dug the Suez Canal there and not somewhere else). That's akin to deciding that North and South America are naturally separated by the Isthmus of Panama (which is why they dug the Panama Canal there and not somewhere else). But splitting Asia from Europe is a far more vexed question. There is no geographical split except for entirely arbitrary ones like the Ural Mountains. There is, however, a profound cultural and ethnic split, which explains why people from Norway see themselves as very different from people from Thailand. But it's possible to walk from Norway to Thailand without ever leaving the continental land mass you started out on. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samizdat in the Russian gulags

Encyclopaedia of Literature and Politics: Censorship, Revolution, and Writing Vol. 1 A-G. Greenwood p.21 ISBN 0-313-32939-7 states that some new works of poetry were disseminated by samizdat in Russian gulags - in secret, person to person, often written out after memorising or passed on small scraps of paper. An editor has stated that it was not possible for any external works to have reached or be passed within the gulags. Do you know of any sources/authorities that discuss this? Thanks Span (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some referenced information at Art and culture in the Gulag labor camps#Literature. Memorised poetry would have been impossible to confiscate. Alansplodge (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing in the Maldives

I just saw a TV show where fisherman were using a rod and reel to catch fish there. The odd part is, that to get the fish off the line, they just pulled the rod over their heads, and the fish flew off and landed behind them, to be collected by others. The fisherman would then cast directly back into the water. They never had to take the fish off the hooks. So, how exactly does this work ? Does the hook release when the line goes slack ? StuRat (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen similar, I think. I assume you're referring to teams of men with individual rods (& sometimes reels) on medium scale commercial fishing boats using large unbaited treble hooks to catch fish schooling/feeding near the surface. The technique is often called 'snagging' (sometimes called 'gaffing' as well, although 'gaffing' more often refers to landing fish with a large fixed hook mounted on a solid pole). Not sure how the fish come off the hook so easily/consistently. Perhaps they use barbless hooks?

note - The footage I've seen showed what appeared to be fairly low budget operations and I doubt any high tech solutions were being applied. I suspect the details lay in basic physics and not pricey gadetry.

Here are a coupla' links: This has a video describing one type of gear. (note: Bunker) bunker snagging. This nest one mentions bending the shaft of the hook which might affect the release. tarpon snagging.

Unfortunately I didn't find any articles specific to the commercial fishing ventures in Asian waters I'd previously seen footage of. Just stuff relating to sport fishing, mostly freshwater at that. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the answer is not already in the article "Fishing industry in the Maldives", then it can be added to it if and when it has been found. Please see WP:RDAC.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember seeing a video of fisherman in California using that same hook and line technique so I don't think it is just Asia. Probably on the San Diego episode of "After the Catch". Rmhermen (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

benefitting the bombing victims

I've been searching Google for where I can purchase ribbons and lapel pins to benefit the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings. Many people would want just about the same things, as well. One ribbon shown was during a New York Yankees game. The ribbon looked very nice. Another ribbon was shown before a Boston Bruins game. That ribbon also looked very nice. Another ribbon was shown on the Level Renner website. That ribbon also looked nice. Can anyone tell me where I can purchase ribbons like those, please? Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than wanting a pretty trinket from a potentially doubtful, newly created "charity", guaranteed to be creaming off some of the takings, I'd suggest going direct to one of the majors, such as the Red Cross. If they aren't running a campaign explicitly for Boston, they can probably direct you to someone reliable who is. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fund set up by the mayor and governor is The One Fund Boston. Alternatively, you could type "Boston bomb victims ribbons" into Google. Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that finding some random site on the net that has pretty ribbons is not the way to go. Go through an established charity or one endorsed by the city like that mentioned above. Dismas|^(talk) 07:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the number of injured, which was about 180 in the days immediately after the bombing, has now risen to 282. The news article cited [22] says that some people thought their injury would clear up on its own, but later went to the hospital with minor lacerations from shrapnel or ringing in the ears from the blast. Coincidentally, there are news stories about multimillion dollar funds set to to give to those injured in the bombings, with it up to $21 million so far. Clearly it is good to help the persons with severe injuries, even though the money cannot compensate for lost limbs. But how common is it for people to claim they have tinnitus, or an invisible soft tissue injury to the back, or PTSD so severe they can't work, from a terrorist bombing when it really was preexisting or nonexistent, especially if there is a monetary incentive to make the claim? Is there history of such fakery in countries where terrorist bombings are more common, and which have compensation from the government or private charities for the victims? In the US, fake injury claims after bus accidents, for instance, are common: [23], [24], [25]. Edison (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fox farming - what species?

I've been categorising a few images on Commons showing fox farming in Prince Edward Island in 1914. Any idea what species of fox is this likely to be? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This rather fascinating article suggests that they're almost certainly Silver foxes - actually not a separate species, but a mutation of the Red fox, Vulpes vulpes. There are further contemporary images in the PEI archives, showing the similarities with your images. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome - many thanks! Images now updated, and the article on my reading list. I had vaguely remembered the reports about silver foxes being part-domesticated in the USSR and had for some reason assumed they were a Eurasian-specific species. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how good is it to be king?

so.... in those monarchies where kingship was elected, would the royal treasury, the royal lands, etc. come along with the job? could you divide them up among your offspring in the same way as with inherited kingships? or were you stuck with your accumulated wealth as a duke or whatever and of course whatever future earnings you could extort as the king? (note, this is not a request for legal advice) Gzuckier (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any monarchies where the king was elected regularly? I know of instances where the monarch was elected and dynasty followed, but I'm not personally aware of any instances where the monarch was regularly elected. The Romanov Dynasty was elected by the Russian assembly of the land, this was an example of the elite choosing one of their own and elections ended there with the Romanov Dynasty continuing until the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917. Ryan Vesey 19:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were two major elective monarchies in Europe: the Kingdom of Poland (see Royal elections in Poland) and the Holy Roman Empire (see Prince-elector). --Jayron32 20:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that. All of the Kings of Poland I knew were named either Alexander or Nicholas. Ryan Vesey 20:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were the Tsars of Russia. And yes, there are still elective monarchies to this day. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most European medieval monarchs were formally elected. Absolutism in Europe is far more recent. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia) is elective, chosen for a 5-year period from among the rulers of the states. The current holder is the first person to hold the job twice, having previously held the position between 1970-1975. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Apparently not very good. When Henry Valois, fourth son of Henry II of France, was offered the Kingship of Poland, seeing as he wasn't going to get much more than a minor Duchy in France, he accepted the Sejm's election. The second he showed up, they forced the Henrician Articles upon him (the Polish equivalent of the Magna Carta) and he found his life severely restricted, he was basically to be a figurehead king in a country which was de facto ruled by the aristocracy, and even aspects of his personal life were closely monitored, and though given living expenses commensurate with a King, the office came with no heritable property. Within a short while, however, he himself inherited the throne of France, and he GTFO of Poland fast enough to leave skid marks. The Polish Elective Monarchy from then on was a mess, frequently the source of political fighting, and eventually all of the other great powers began to influence Sejm elections to get their own candidates on the throne; the weak Kingship in Poland is widely cited as the reason why Poland was eventually partitioned and ceased to exist. The Federalist Papers, written at a time when Poland was busy being carved up by its neighbors, specifically cite the elective Monarchy of Poland as an example of how a weak executive beholden to a legislature was a bad way to run a country; it is used as a justification for the U.S. system with its strong, independent President who must be a natural-born citizen of the U.S. The other major elective Monarchy in Europe for most of history was the Holy Roman Emperor, but this became elective in name only: from the 16th century it was essentially a hereditary office of the Habsburg family, and the office itself became an insignificant part of the Habsburg Monarchy; indeed from the time of the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, the Imperial Office became completely insignificant, it was offered to Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor, husband of Maria Theresa (Archduchess of Austria) with the understanding that she held the real power, which derived from her Austrian titles. From then forward, the office was held by her decedents (the house of Habsburg-Lorraine), but though they lived well enough, that was because of the Austrian posessions. The HRE itself had little power, as the individual constituent states were pretty much independent at this point. --Jayron32 20:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec)I understand that the king of Anglo-Saxon (i.e. pre-Conquest) England was elected but I'm not sure how it worked in practice. My source for this isn't particularly well remembered by me, I think it was a series on monarchs of England which was on Channel 4 a few years ago. The anecdote I remember was that, at the coronation of William I, those attending, having been used to shouting to acclaim their assent to the new ruler, duly shouted their assent to the new ruler. However, William and his troops thought this was a pre-arranged signal to storm the cathedral and fight, and so started fighting. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love how the original question included a not-legal-advice disclaimer :-) Do you mean the kings before or after the end of the Heptarchy? It seems to have been a strongly Germanic thing in early mediæval times to elect kings (whether practically, comparable to Poland, or simply formally, comparable to the HRE, I don't know) and to acclaim them by having them sit on shields and then raise them up into the air; the latter portion made it into the Roman Empire, and this passage mentions it being done by Gothic kings in early mediæval Spain. Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sort of. For a time, Anglo-Saxon England wasn't a single state, but a collection of petty kingdoms. From time to time, the kings on the island would elect from their own number a Bretwalda who would be recognized as an "Overking" or "First among firsts" or something like that. By the time of Æthelstan, the title of Bretwalda became semi-automatically bestowed on the Kings of Wessex, and modern historians thus date the Kingdom of England to that point. Near as I can tell, the title passed according to primogeniture from then forward, though I believe that the nobles of the Kingdom did formally "assent" to the King at each passing. Of course, England in the 10th century is quite a different place from Poland in the 16th. --Jayron32 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the King of England had to be appointed by the Witenagemot who had the power to appoint any member of the extended royal family to the throne. Although primogeniture was the norm, after the death of Edward the Confessor, the Witan elected Godwin's second son Harold to the throne in preference to his older brother Sweyn Godwinson or William of Normandy. This caused no end of bother for "Haroldus infelix". The acclamation at the coronation was to confirm the loyalty of the nobles and commoners, and was last done in 1953. Alansplodge (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the Wikipedia article itself notes that it is unclear whether or not the election by the Witenagemot represented a genuine free election, or was merely a formality to confirm the kings formal heir as the next king. I'd say it is far from settled whether or not it was truly freely elected (as Poland had been from the 16th century) or whether the "election" was a forgone formality. You'll note that when they did deviate from primogeniture, things went to hell rather quickly... --Jayron32 22:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that's what I meant about "practically, comparable to Poland, or simply formally, comparable to the HRE"; I wish I could say something specific. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to divert the discussion down a dead-end, but what Anglo-Saxon kings had was fraternal succession. Primogeniture would have meant Eadwig became king on his father's death, whereas it was instead his uncle Eadred, last surviving son of Edward the Elder. What they would have done had two of Edward the Elder's sons left surviving children, particularly surviving adult children, will always be an open question. I believe the earliest written documents on the principles of hypothetical future succession in Britain date from 1280x1282 in the form of treaties drawn up before the marriage of Alexander III of Scotland's daughter Margaret to King Eirik Magnusson in 1281 and before the marriage of his son Alexander to Margaret, daughter of Guy de Dampierre, in 1282. But those represent a wholly different world view, one in which female succession is considered acceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Federal Reserve

Dear Sirs, Excuse me but their seems to be a small but important discrepancy in your references to which entity is the central bank of the U.S. In the third paragraph it seems to suggest that the US Treasury is the central bank whereas in the guiding principle of the FED it suggests that it was enacted to be the central bank. Thank you, Steven Rosenfeld — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.14.156 (talk • contribs)

The Reference Desk isn't really the place for this kind of note, but I'm inclined to correct the error anyway. However, I'm stymied, because I can't tell which article's third paragraph seems to suggest that the US Treasury is the central bank. John M Baker (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only article that seems to contain "US treasury" and "central bank" is Federal Reserve System. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather. I don't see anything in that article suggesting that Treasury is the central bank, though. John M Baker (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard drugs

Are there any studies on what attracts people to hard drugs such as cocaine, crack, heroin, meth etc. ? Pass a Method talk 16:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start at the Wikipedia article titled Substance abuse and follow links from there. --Jayron32 16:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not mention what causes the initial attraction in the first place. Pass a Method talk 16:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually substance dependence is more relevant here. There has been an enormous amount of research on this topic. Generally speaking drugs that are addictive either upregulate the brain systems that implement pleasure and reward (cocaine, meth, nicotine), or downregulate the brain systems that implement pain and suffering (heroin, alcohol, tranquilizers), or both. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's describing the effect of having taken the drugs. But I think PtM is asking about why someone would cross the bridge from "Never used that drug" to "Have used that drug". Both deliberate and unconscious peer pressure would play a major role (that's what's at play when young people get smashed on alcohol, and continues when they immediately hop in their cars full of their equally smashed mates and go and drive into trees at 120 kph). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jack ofoz understood me correctly Pass a Method talk 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Jack has failed to illustrate why a peer-preussure would exist for something so unappealing. Pass a Method talk 19:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are unappealing to you, but obviously not to others. See this study, for example, in response to your question. Marco polo (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, they're not unappealing to a number of people. Some will use it just for recreation, others to escape the unpleasantness of their life for a while. Plus, people have a strong capacity for assuming the bad side "would never happen to me." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's this "failed" business, Pass a Method? Failure occurs only when one identifies a goal, attempts to reach it, but falls short. I never said I would illustrate why peer-pressure would exist for something so unappealing. Mainly because I don't know. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard drug and alcohol abuse described as "self-medicating". That is, those substances provide some benefit similar to medication. One example is pain relievers. I wonder if people who feel pain more intensely are thus more likely to abuse pain killers. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything unappealing in taking drugs if you don't think about the future. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HELP IDENTIFYING PIECE OF ANTIQUE GOLD JEWELRY (POSSIBLY GEORGIAN ERA)

Hi, so this is the first time I have used this forum. But it seems like it might be the right place to ask:

I came across this antique jewelry set, and would like to know some more information on it if possible.

All I know for certain is that it is at least 18 karat gold (I only have 18k test acid and lower).

And I am fairly certain the stones are garnets. A jeweler friend of mine thinks it might be Georgian era, but even he concedes that it is older than the time frame his field of knowledge is limited to.

Pics attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thennekmay (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't view pictures that are located on your computer. If you want us to see them, you'll have to upload them either to a Wikimedia site (which is a bit of an ordeal), or to some other photo-sharing site and then give us links to them. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a wizard to guide you through uploading to Wikipedia, see here. However, like Looie says, it's a fairly involved process, so you might find using something like http://tinypic.com/ (other image sharing sites are available) to be more convenient. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frontal_picture_of_jewelry_piece_in_question.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thennekmay (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can never tell much from a photo, but just as a matter of vocabulary what you have seems to be a parure consisting of earrings, necklace and brooch. Since it comes in a case, with no missing items, you can be reasonably sure it's complete. You should look for jewelry markings or stamps that indicate the materials used in their construction. If you're very lucky there may also be a maker's mark. Look on the case as well as on the jewelry. - Nunh-huh 22:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like garnets (or maybe a dark spinel?) to my untrained eye. As NH says, I'd go over it very closely looking for any kind of hallmark or a maker's mark, as this may be able to date it as well as giving information about what it is; the back of the brooch may be a good place to look. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "new" type of discrimination?

I know this will anger more than a few people here, but I think it needs to be said: is there a "new" type of discrimination going on in today's society? When most people think of discrimination, they think of racism and sexism: "all black people are stupid", "women should stay in the kitchen", etc. However, I am noticing a new type of stereotyping occurring across many different aspects of popular culture, stereotyping based on subculture and interests. A perfect example of this is the widespread hatred of hipsters and nerds. "Nerds" are important to the development of many of today's technology (smartphones, Facebook and the like,) and yet they are treated by the majority of people as being worthy of contempt. And hipsters...well, people use that word in so many contradictory and confusing ways I have no idea what the hell it's supposed to mean, but people still spit on them, whatever they are, anyway.

So, all of this really begs the question: does this constitute a new "form" of discrimination?

(For the record, I do not consider myself a nerd or hipster.) --72.28.136.205 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's new about that? See Revenge of the Nerds, for example. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. First, people have been made fun of for personal, rather than physical, characteristics since Ancient Rome, so it's not new. Second, I've never seen any instances of legitimate discrimination directed towards these groups. Ryan Vesey 18:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. I just know that at my workplace, being called a hipster is the equivalent of being sent to the electric chair. --72.28.136.205 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in the UK, such discrimination has been recognised, and this link is about people being arrested for beating up a member of a subculture. So yes, you're right. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that that arrest was for, well, beating someone up - which is a criminal offence anyway. It's just that the local police force have started recording subculture-based hatred as a factor in their crime statistics. The Equality Act and other UK legislation is extremely clear on what features are protected categories for sentencing purposes, and subculture is not included. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it's a cruel and unusual means of execution that any sensible nation would abolish?

Grumpiness about hyperbole aside, this is neither a new nor an interesting phenomenon. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is the term "hipster". Haven't heard that one used for decades. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's back. Very popular now on web boards, referring to the "I knew about them before they went commercial and sold out" person, or the "I can only refer to popular things with condescending sarcasm" person. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I hear "hipster", I think Maynard G. Krebs, or possibly the "hippies", many of whom evolved into "yuppies". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most widespread discrimination patterns, based on behavior rather than appearance, is against homosexuals. In many places government regulations have been put in place to prevent that. Religion could also qualify. So, it's not completely impossible that other forms of discrimination against people based on their clothing, beliefs, behavior, etc., could be banned. For example, night clubs that only allow "the in crowd" to enter might be forced to let everybody in.

Personally, I think the idea of having numerous protected classes is untenable. Instead, the law should state "you may only discriminate based on factors which you can prove will damage the profitability of your business". Thus, if they wanted to keep nerds out, they would need to prove that night clubs with nerds in them are less profitable. (I suppose it's possible.) StuRat (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would backfire spectacularly in heavily discriminatory regions. It wouldn't take much effort for, say, a popular racist hangout to prove that if they let "colored" in, the regulars would stop coming. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then they would have new income from their new clients. So, to keep them out, they would need to prove that their old clients pay more than the new would. As a practical matter, if the burden of proof was on them, most wouldn't bother. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the hikkomori? μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are smartphones and facebook so important or useful? ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nerds are not discriminated in their niche: IT. And that's a huge industry. The best definition of hipster that I know is: a kind of hippie with an iPhone. I suppose they are not discriminated in some field like design or art. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World War II and Hitler

It is my understanding that Hitler was racist against the Japanese and only allied with them for practical reasons. If this is true, why did he declare war on the US after pearl harbor? He clearly had no intention of invading them, and he could have easily negotiated a truce if the US wanted war with Germany. I doubt he would have declared war on a super power just to maintain solidarity with Japan. Did he have some other motive for declaring war? I am not Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that time the US was giving England so much support that there was almost an undeclared war anyway. According to Winston Churchill's history, a major factor was that declaring war would allow the German U-boats to attack America-to-England shipping much more freely. In the months after the declaration they sank enormous amounts of shipping in the American coastal zone, which they hadn't been able to enter before. Another factor was that Hitler believed America would declare war on him in any case, and he thought that for propaganda purposes it would be better for him to do it first. There were other factors, but Churchill believed that those were the most important. (By the way, I wish you would use a different signature. I find this one kind of annoying.) Looie496 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that clears things up.GurkhaGherkin (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looie's answer misses the point entirely. Japanese were treated as Honorary Aryans based on a lot of pseudoscientific race research. There are various other articles such as those on Turanian race to look into. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it backwards, μηδείς. Those convoluted excuses for treating the Japanese as equals was only implemented because the Nazis wanted to encourage the Japanese expansion in the Pacific. It took resources away from potential enemies, and kept those powers from focusing entirely on Germany. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have studied this tangentially in detail and the "research" existed long before the alliance was declared. The Japanese were considered the height of the Turanian race and this was posited long before WWII. If the OP cares he can look into it. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also ask, if the US was offering so much support for Hitler's enemies, why Hitler didn't declare war on the US earlier. Well, the calculation was that, as harmful as the support for Germany's enemies was, having to fight the US, in addition to all their current enemies, would be even worse. However, after Pearl Harbor, Germany figured the US would go after Japan, and not have the resources to fight a two-front war, and thus would need to withdraw from it's support of England. However, this turned out to be an incorrect assessment. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the US wartime production of apostrophes was so great, they could squander them on bare, unadorned "its", much to the envy of all, particularly the grammar police. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Like

I've heard the theory that Hitler's declaring war on the U.S. when he did was one of his [many] strategic blunders. While after Pearl Harbor it was certain the U.S. would go to war against Japan, it was less clear the U.S. wanted to get involved in Europe, but Hitler made that much easier for Roosevelt. Shadowjams (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foreskin Restoration

Help! I've lived my whole life as a circumcised man, and never known the difference between having a foreskin or not. Now I've done research, and it would appear that restoration can increase sensitivity and moisture. This would help me greatly, as I have an insensitive penis and it is very hard for me to have pleasure. Are there any communities, websites or groups devoted to the cause of helping people to get their foreskin back? I want to be whole again! Help! --174.79.50.132 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you find in the course of your research? Dismas|^(talk) 20:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly what I found in Wikipedia's own page on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.50.132 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before getting too carried away, check out smegma. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, very funny. I've done my research, and you just need to wash it. This does not deter me from wanting a whole, natural penis.

What's wrong with the one you've got? Doesn't it work? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an answer to that in the fourth sentence of the OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to what, though? And he should discuss this with a doctor before doing something radical. The problem could lie elsewhere than what he suspects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the comparison point is an interesting one. I don't how easily one could accurately compare one's own feelings during sexual activity to those of others. And yes, seeing a mainstream health professional would be essential. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdatally, I know some people and read about others who've been circumcised post-puberty, and they usually report a significant loss of pleasure/sensation after the snip compared to before.

Btw, Bugs, mentioning smegma as a justification for circumcision would be like suggesting someone sew up their anus because their farts are smelly. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that in trying to fix a perceived problem, he might create a new problem and not even get the original problem resolved. That's why a doctor's advice is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh absolutely. Couldn't agree with you more. Which is why a smegmatic reference was inappropriate. The doctor is the best person to run through the issues with the patient. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now, of course, we're going to have to make the first addition to the Four Temperaments since Hippocrates in Ancient Greece. The Five Temperaments are now: Sanguine, Melancholic, Choleric, Phlegmatic and Smegmatic (mycobacteria tend to be your smegmatics). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are such groups. A quick Google search would give you quite a few hits. That said, there's no proven method to fully restore it. Plastic surgery (transplanting skin from another part of the body) is the most effective way that I've come across. You will come across a ton of "self-remedies" that are of dubious worth, and some that could easily be damaging! Your best bet is to just go ask an actual physician what your options are. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matron of honor - Catholic marriage

In a Catholic wedding ceremony, can the mother of the bride or groom be selected as "matron of honor", provided that the matron must be married and must be a practicing Catholic? Can the father of the bride or groom be selected as "best man"? Also, what happens if two or more unrelated couples just happen to schedule a wedding ceremony at the same time? Does that mean one of them have to re-schedule the wedding ceremony? Sneazy (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or have a double wedding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Titles like that have no religious significance. All that matters is the priest, a second witness, and the bride and groom. Feel free to appoint a giraffe of honor if you like, and the venue can accommodate it. Now, the real question is, what about Episcopalians? μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re the scheduling question: It can't happen unless the church's administrative procedures are wacko. Couples do not decide in isolation that they will be married in Church A on Day B at Time C. They have to involve the church in the matter to see if this is suitable. If another wedding has already been scheduled for that day and time, the later couple will have to choose a different time. That is a matter of simple common sense, not something you really need to seek the advice of a Reference Desk about. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take the hint that Baseball_Bugs was being sarcastic. Apparently, Baseball_Bugs seemed to suggest that there is a choice between rescheduling a wedding and holding a double wedding, while JackofOz suggested that it would be commonsensical to just reschedule weddings.

No, I said it would not be scheduled in the first place unless there was a space in the church's calendar/diary. A couple who think they'd like to be married on a certain date at a certain time - that does not amount to a "scheduling" until the church agrees it's OK to hold it on that date and at that time. A "rescheduling" would only occur if the date and time are agreed by all parties, and then something like an illness happens that causes plans to be changed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a quick search on Google, and it appears that some people on random websites asked this question about inviting the mother or father of the bride/groom to be the matron of honor or best man. I wonder what does Medeis mean by a "second witness". I understand the purpose of the priest in the wedding, which is supposed to act as a wedding officiant. I suppose a wedding officiant is someone who performs weddings. So, where does the "second witness" play a role in the wedding? Sneazy (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least, the wedding has to be attended by "Two witnesses, who must be over 16, (who) must also sign at the time of the marriage. Witnesses must understand the language of the ceremony and have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the ceremony."[26] A quick Google suggests that one or two witnesses are required by some American States. Alansplodge (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue or anything, but I'm just curious: what is the purpose of having witnesses or a wedding officiant in the first place? Sneazy (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they're required by law - most developed nations have quite strict rules about marriage. Alansplodge (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sneazy, the purpose of the witnesses is just that, to witness. They can then verify that the two are married. Dismas|^(talk) 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the couple allowed to pick their witnesses? Are the parents allowed to be their children's witnesses? What if the parents want to see their children married because the marriage was arranged? Sneazy (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of 'allowed'. As far as I know, in most jurisdictions the couple is expected to provide the witnesses. The only general requirement is the witness is of sufficient age although in NZ there is no fixed age requirement [27] rather 'Children may act as witnesses if they understand the importance of the part they take in the recording of the marriage and can demonstrate that understanding in court if later required to do so'. For a ceremony taking place in the registry office or similar, it's possible employees could stand in for them [28] but I'm not sure if this would be possible in every jurisdiction or location e.g. the UK apparently doesn't allow registry office staff to be witnesses [29]. In most cases you could probably just find someone from the street or perhaps another couple waiting to get married as I don't believe there is generally a requirement the witnesses actually know the couple. In NZ and it seems in the UK, there is no problem with the witnesses being related, but it's possible in some jurisdictions this isn't allowed or at least they can't both be closely related to the same family since as I understand it, in some jurisdictions technically the witnesses are also supposed to be witnessing that the wedding is taking place on the free will of both participants (and I believe a key reason why there are usually at least two witnesses is because each member of the couple is expected to name one witness). Note that I'm primarily thinking of this from a general wedding POV, it's possible the Catholic church may impose additional requirements on witnesses but these sources [30] [31] for example doesn't mention any (but does clarify that witnesses are required by church law as well). Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's got it right, but there is such a thing as a double wedding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was married in a double wedding. It was planned and not due to a scheduling error. I think I would have known if anyone else was planning on getting married on my front lawn. Dismas|^(talk) 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, we do have an article Catholic marriage. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

Active societies promulgating Jakob Lorber's work

Hi - there are several sites on the web, but the email links don't seem to be operating - I'd like to get in touch with whomever has copyright over his writing, and/or any Jakob Lorber societies that are still functioning, especially English-speaking ones.

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this Jakob Lorber, who died in 1864? That would mean his writings are in the public domain in every jurisdiction that I know of - no copyright. 184.147.125.78 (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that his writings were published post-humously (don't know the dates); I don't know if that affects the copyright status. Our article says the German company Lorber & Turm holds most of the original writings in an archive. Their contact page is here. Have to go, hope someone else can help you with the societies, and in figuring out the copyright status. 184.147.125.78 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of shared government services on balance of trade

I think I already know the answer to my question, but I'd like to have it sanity checked by people who might actually have survived through some sort of economics course.

Assume we have two countries, A and B, which share a common defence force. With defence being a public good, A and B decide to fund defence spending on a per capita basis, so A contributes $(population * X) and so does B. So far, so simple. But life's never simple. For the sake of this argument, let's assume that spending (and hence employment, etc) on defence is distributed logically. And logic dictates that instead of the ratio being a per capita one, spending in country B is only 50% of $(population * X) with the balance spent in A.

(If a real-world example helps, you could imagine a NATO member state that wasn't Belgium or Luxemburg. Although the amount concerned is a tiny fraction of the total defence budget, some part of that budget is spent on NATO's various shared services in Belgium, Luxemburg, etc. Or if you fancied a different public good, you could imagine an European Union member state's contribution to the EU's admin budget.)

My assumption is that the 50% of B's defence budget which ends up being spent in A is, in economic terms, importing services - specifically the public good of defence - from A. Is this correct? Does the service component of A and B's respective balance of payments numbers include this transaction? "Yes" is fine as an answer, but if it's "No" then please help me understand why that is! Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to think of real-world examples, I don't think "balance of payment" applies here. When country A transfers money to country B for defense purposes, it is treated as a gift, I believe, rather than as payment for a service. The example that comes to mind is the US relationship with Israel -- we provide massive support for their defense expenditures, but we treat it as foreign aid, not as payment. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind a relationship like NATO in the defence field - NATO has some shared assets like HQs in Belgium and E-3 Sentry AWACS planes somewhere funded by its membership - rather than straightforward gifts. But even US aid to Israel has to show up in the various national accounts of both countries somehow. Can't have debits without credits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is this guy an idiot?

Not answerable with references

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"If any of you take Britain's future seriously then you must know by now that Britain has to get out of the EU to continue to run our own Political system. At the moment Parliament is bossed around daily by Brussels. All this Homosexual and Lesbian Marriage stuff all comes from the EU in Brussels . It is now a crisis in France. If we want our own Country back you have to vote UKIP. The ony Party dedicated to remove Britain from Europe. The Tory Party is full of people with the same view, but are frightened to speak out loudlu and effectively enough to force the likes of the Tory hierarchy and the Lib Dems like Clegg to do anything . They love Europe and its gravy train potential Clegg has already had a basin full, as well as Kinnock and Mandelson. They are all now millioniares on the back of it , of course they will keep it going as a fall back position for themselves.. Vote UKIP and have done with it now."

I think so but perhaps I don't understand his point. Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for debate so we can't answer your question. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want a debate - I just want to know if his argument works in basic sentential logic or if he's very confused. Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you're presenting a false choice, but that said, I see no reason to conclude that it's internally logically meaningless. All the statement really says is "this party is the only one that can accomplish what's needed", and that is (from a logical standpoint) perfectly valid. It doesn't really concern itself with any of the hows, whys, or details that might be usefully subject to logical analysis. — Lomn 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a person's argument is logical gives no evidence whether a person is idiotic or confused. A shrewd, intelligent, and rational person may make inaccurate, illogical, and irrational statements because they believe that those statements will advance their cause. So it isn't possible to answer the question in your heading with the evidence provided. It is possible to assess the accuracy of some of this person's assertions. For example, it is certainly not true that support for same-sex marriage in Britain comes only from the EU. In fact, the EU has no position on the matter, and there is plenty of support for it among Britons with no significant connection to the EU. On the other hand, it is certainly true that because the UK is a member of the EU, Parliament has to take into account EU rules very frequently, and perhaps nearly daily, as he asserts, though this does not necessarily amount to being "bossed around." This person's assertion that leading Conservatives and Liberal Democrats support the EU because they have gained personally is doubtful. These individuals could command high compensation whether their work was involved with the EU or not, so unless there are clear cases of corruption, it's hard to argue that they support the EU for personal gain. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that most major financial contributors to all major UK parties (except the UKIP) support EU membership for the UK, most likely because people with money are concerned about their firms' profitability, and Britain's EU membership is good for business. So the person's statement is a mix of untruths, partial truths, and untruths. As I've pointed out, though, that has nothing to do with the person's intelligence, and it says nothing about whether his goal (exit from the EU) would be good or bad for the UK. Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a real quote? maybe from an election leaflet? It is county council election time in England, and UKIP candidates are hoping to get more votes than usual from regular Tory voters. Like other small parties they have fewer people to choose their candidates from, so there will be plenty who don't have the typical politician's way of presenting an argument, or prefer the "man in the pub" type of language found here. If this person ever got elected to the local council he(?) would be required to take part in making serious decisions, representing constituents, etc, and would very quickly become out of their depth. A bit like the Five Star movement in Italy as far as I know. Sussexonian (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is real, it doesn't appear to have made it on to the Internet in the form quoted above. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Marco Polo's comment above - "A shrewd, intelligent, and rational person may make inaccurate, illogical, and irrational statements because they believe that those statements will advance their cause." I've seen some very clever but sneaky politicians say things that they probably don't believe themselves but that will appeal to the bigots, nationalists or racists, etc. in society simply to gain their votes. I don't believe what politicians say. I find that a practical starting point for understanding their behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing with you on not believing what they say, but I don't understand how that's a starting point for understanding them. Now, if you were to believe the opposite of what they say, that would be a starting point, maybe helpful maybe not. But just not believing it? How does that give you any information? --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference desk. Even if idiot had a clear definition, which it doesn't, no reference can tell you whether or not this person is an idiot. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Living people associated with Nazi Germany

I saw the article Otto Carius and he is living. Is there other people who is still living and was associated with organizations in Nazi Germany? --Yoglti (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 276: / Line 276: @@
 {{hab}}
 :This is a reference desk.  Even if [[idiot]] had a clear definition, which it doesn't, no reference can tell you whether or not this person is an idiot.  --[[Special:Contributions/128.112.25.104|128.112.25.104]] ([[User talk:128.112.25.104|talk]]) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
+== Living people associated with Nazi Germany ==
+I saw the article [[Otto Carius]] and he is living. Is there other people who is still living and was associated with organizations in Nazi Germany? --[[User:Yoglti|Yoglti]] ([[User talk:Yoglti|talk]]) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)