Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

June 17

Natural and Positive Law

Which philosophers believe in natural and which philosophers believe in positive law? Which philosophers disbelieve in natural law and which philosophers disbelieve in positive law? Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Justinian, Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin or John Stuart Mill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.237 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Justinian, Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin or John Stuart Mill would be a quick way to find out. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CASPOROVA- INTERESTING PERSONALITY NOT FOUND IN ANY SEARCH ENGINE.....

CASPOROVA, HE IS A PERSON FAMILIAR FOR HIS MUSIC...THERE IS ALSO A ENGLISH MOVIE IN HIS NAME...HIS DIARY IS A FAMOUS ONE.. BUT COULD NOT FOUND HIS LIFE HISTORY IN ANY SEARCH ENGINE....WILL BE HAPPY IF GET THE INFO...ABT HIM...HE MAY BE A ITALIAN BELONG TO FEW CENTURIES BACK... ALL THE BEST! THANK U! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.132.42 (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you mean Giovanni Francesco di Caspará? dab (𒁳) 09:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Giacomo Casanova, perhaps? He matches the film part and the famous diary part (if one takes "diary" to mean "memoir"). The only connection with music that I'm aware of, however, is the persistent rumor that he had a hand in Lorenzo Da Ponte's libretto for Mozart's Don Giovanni. Deor (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he famous for SHOUTING?-- Mad031683 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do knights call each other "sir"?

Hi, can anyone help me with the above question? thanks in advance, 203.221.127.156 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In formal protocol, yes. The rest of the time, who knows. DAVID ŠENEK 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sir states "Sir is an honorific used as a title (see Knight) and in several other modern contexts." Knight notes that "Outside the British honours system it is usually considered improper to address a knighted person as 'Sir'." So, assuming the two knights in questions are both British, they would address each other as "Sir", at least if they were being formal about it.

"Sir" replaces the common title "Mister" for someone who has been knighted in the British honours system. It would be used in the same context that one would use Mister. If one were speaking with plain old Tommy Atkins, and was to stand on formality, one would address him as "Mr. Atkins". If he had been knighted, one would address him as "Sir Thomas". However, in both cases, if one had a more informal relationship, one could call him "Tommy". I think the big difference between addressing knights and commoners is that one is much more likely to be formal with the former than the latter. I would guess that, between knights, formality is less of an issue. (I'm now wondering what happens if Sir Paul runs into Sir Mick at a party.)

I am casually acquainted with one person who has been knighted in the British system. He's a fairly down to earth sort. Typically, when I see him for the first time at an event, I will address him as "Sir X", but if we are having a casual conversation I drop the Sir. (But I'm a rude colonial, so who knows if that's a faux pas or not.) I'm also not a knight myself. - Eron^Talk 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Sir, the brash statement "Outside the British honours system it is usually considered improper to address a knighted person as 'Sir'" is apparently not informed by experience in the larger world. "Sir" is always an appropriate interjection when speaking to anyone with whom one is not on a first-name basis and who is in fact a great deal more important, a great deal older, or a great deal more experienced than one is oneself. "Sir" is only improper in a circumstance where it might possibly be taken for an ironic impertinence. --Wetman (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that brash statement is simply meant to suggest that those knighted in other honours systems have other - or no - honorifics. I didn't read it as suggesting that no one but a British knight should be called sir.- Eron^Talk 22:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm the title sir isn't quite as formal as "mylord" or the likes. Sir more or less become attached to one's given name. I address knights as "sir" whether I know them personally or not. "Mylord" is rather more formal and I wouldn't use it whilst addressing a friend. Mind you if you're talking about internet correspondence: YOu can refer to people as what ever you want. = ) There are so many "lords" on the internet it's a wonder HM The Queen ever gets time to have break from her knighting activities! I have also noted the refusal of republicans to use such titles, even at formal occaisons. Pure rudeness and disregard for culture if you ask me. --Cameron (T|C) 19:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "My Lord" applies to most peers - barons, viscounts, earls and marquesses - but not dukes, who get "Your Grace". It never applies to knights. But again, if you're a close personal friend of one of these people, these forms of address would go by the way, except maybe on very formal occasions. (Proper form on encountering your old school chum for the first time since he was elevated to the peerage: "What ho, Algy, old boy. Kicked you upstairs, have they. That'll keep you out of harm's way, eh. What, what. Toodle pip. Oh, regards to the wife, whoever she is these days".) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHRONOLOGICAL YEARS

Hello everybody, I wonder if it is possible to advance in Chronological years,but in appearance look and feel younger as the years go by. I find myself in this position in life,and often ask other peoples estimate on my age,which is often 20 years less than my present age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! I went into semi-retirement as a lawyer because of the stress. I still do a will or two, though nothing else, in addition to my new career (ministry.) I had a client from 5-6 years before (the height of the strain) come in to have a codicil done, and she remarked that I looked younger than I had 5 years earlier.

Former American President Jimmy Carter looked about 80 his last days in office, because he was under the strain of the Iran hostage crisis. When he had been out of office for a few years, though, he look about his chronological age, 60.

So, the stress and strain you were under versus what you are now, lifestyle changes (Carter was very physically active post-Presidency, especially with Habitat for Humanity), and other things can all contribute to one appearing to age backwards for a time.209.244.30.221 (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

170.86, I just hope you aren't 21, 203.221.127.156 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain of Youth. Strawless (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or The Picture of Dorian Gray? Fribbler (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live life backwards, like Merlin. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Painting

I'm trying to find a painting - it's in a medieval (classical) style, and has a pale skinned women (Mary or another saint?) surrounded by red and blue angels (cherubim?) Anyone know?87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I found it http://www.pbase.com/karlc/image/55323496 also Image:Fouquet Madonna.jpg

But I still have a question - there seems something odd about this painting - compared to the little I've seen of the rest of 'fouquets' (sp?) work it seems to be 'on a different level' ie looks like a different painter did this.. Is much known about it? Has it been very heavily restored or something??87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different media, perhaps? this is a painting on panel. You may be comparing it to Jean Fouquet's manuscript illuminations. --Wetman (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly - I find the painting remarkable - any idea why the angels are red and blue?87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's to distinguish the seraphim from the cherubim. I know she's supposed to be breastfeeding, but all the same I can't recall ever seeing a portrait of the Madonna with an, er, wardrobe malfunction before. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or one with surgical implants, either! ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The iconological type is that of a Madonna lactans. Google Madonna lactans and Madonna lactante for more examples and contextual discussion. --Wetman (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, Wetman. That's the most out-of-the-way information I've come across all week. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly heavily over-restored, in common with almost all old masters. See the article on ArtWatch International, although it's not particularly informative. The painting looks particularly 'flat', ie. with little depth, which suggests to me that some restorer has been too enthusiastic in removing varnish and has taken the picture's tone with it. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric layers of tinted varnish may be expected in sixteenth-century and later paintings, but not pre-Leonardo.--Wetman (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little more about the painting from Johan Huizinga's The Waning of the Middle Ages:

In the seventeenth century, Denis Godefroy noted down a tradition, then already old, according to which the Madonna had the features of Agnes Sorel, the royal mistress, for whom Chevalier (Etienne Chevalier, the donor of the dyptych, depicted on the other panel) felt a passion that he did not trouble to conceal. However this may be, the Madonna is, in fact, represented here according to the canons of contemporary fashion: there is the bulging shaven forehead, the rounded breasts, placed high and wide apart, the high and slender waist. The bizarre inscrutable expression of the Madonna's face, the red and blue cherubim surrounding her, all contribute to give this painting an air of decadent impiety in spite of the stalwart figure of the donor. Godefroy observed on the large frame of blue velvet E's done in pearls linked by love-knots of gold and silver thread. There is a flavour of blasphemous boldness about the whole, unsurpassed by any artist of the Renaissance.

— Kpalion^(talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding/knowing that -splendid - not sure if I agree - but I certainly see the point.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Wetman: according to an article in the most recent ArtWatch UK journal (number 23, Spring 2008, p.9, 'Amber Delight' by Donald Fels), which specifically relates to [...] 15^th to 17^th century Flemish paintings [...] an amber oil of resin was typically used, with drying oils made with lead or manganese and a solvent of 'spike of lavender' (apparently a distillate of lavender, it subsequently evaporates after application and is, therefore, effectively impossible to discover through later scientific analysis). Leonardo da Vinci is cited in the article ('Treatises on Painting', by L da V, Codex Urbinas Latinos Nr. 1270, translated and annotated by Philip McMahon, Princeton University Press, 1956, p.200 nr. 557) as suggesting that an 'amber varnish be used as a final coating for an oil painting'. Other varnishes discussed in the article include walnut, copal (from trees not indigenous to Europe: first recorded purchase in 1592, first reference to use as a varnish, 1641), linseed/ hempseed oil (these in use in Novgorod in the 12^th century for the production of icons), pine resin, rosin (amber dissolved in turpentine), and 'sandarac or mastic'.

A light varnish, which might be referred to as a wash or glaze, would probably have been applied by the artist after he had finished the main picture in order to dampen down the colour of the background in order that the eye is naturally drawn to the main subject of the composition, in this case the Virgin Mary. In applying such a wash, the garish reds and blues would be subdued and a sense of depth added to the picture. Remove such a wash, and those reds and blues become discordant. Over the entire picture, a 'sealing' coat of varnish would have been applied, in order to protect and fix the painted surface. What usually happens in the case of a restoration is that the conservator removes both the 'preserving' and 'tonal' varnishes; the effect is then to reduce the sense of depth to a picture. As a cited example see Luncheon of the Boating Party#Cleaning, but, as I say, almost all of the Old Masters have been buggered-about with by ham-fisted restorers over the last 500 years. The pictures in the London National Gallery generally, I'm afraid, exhibit a 'house style' (of the restorers); what's happened to the Titians and, in particular, Holbein's The Ambassadors is a disgrace and a tragedy.

As an aside, may I say how much I appreciate your comments on this page, particularly the more witty examples! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I take it that the shaven head is because she is considered a 'servant (slave) of God'? See: Tonsure#History. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an often repeated fact especially in the context of this painting that shaved foreheads (and plucked eyebrows) were simply the fashion for women at that time - to emphasise a high forehead (still appreciated today I believe)87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

decents

of what decent are bahamians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.53.98 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Demographics of the Bahamas. DAVID ŠENEK 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Television Programming

Here in the U.S., on February 17, 2009, all television programming is required by law to become digital by the Federal Communications Commission. Under U.S. law, how is it legal for the government to mandate such a thing? Thanks, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Communications Act of 1934 gives the FCC power to assign parts of the broadcast spectrum to certain types of users. Congress granted the FCC that power under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The FCC has decided to reallocate the frequencies currently used by analog TV to other uses. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 23:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, it's not programming that will change, but over-the-air broadcast signals. The legal theory is that the public (ie. the government) owns the airwaves and merely licenses broadcast rights to the broadcasters. Those licenses are periodically renewed and can be revoked or modified. See Digital television in the United States. --D. Monack | talk 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "all" part isn't correct either, even though they are saturating the airwaves with announcments that say just that. The transition does not include "low power, class A, and translator stations". And, of course, border cities will continue to get analog broadcasts from Canada and Mexico. Why every TV station is putting out ads saying that all analog broadcasts will stop then, when this is untrue, is a question I'd like answered. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty good summary, and the (major) broadcast networks have a vested interest in making sure you keep watching them, not some other class of station that doesn't require you to purchase new hardware. — Lomn 13:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every TV station is putting out those ads because the FCC is mandating that they do so. In fact, recently the FCC decided that the stations weren't putting out enough warnings and ordered them to step it up. Corvus cornix_talk 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that. The government telling them what they must put on TV. Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with it if the government wasn't telling them to lie to the public and tell us ALL analog broadcasts will stop then. This can cause people to make poor purchasing decisions based on incorrect info, like getting a CECB without the analog pass-through feature that would allow them to continue to get analog stations. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FCC requires stations to show public service shows, even if they are shown in the wee hours of Sunday mornings. The broadcast networks belong to the "public", and there are quite a lot of FCC rules as to what can not be shown, what must be shown, etc. Corvus cornix_talk 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

"Inexperienced" presidents

Ordinarily, the American presidency is the culmination of a long political career that involves a succession of offices over several decades. Barak Obama seems to have come out of nowhere. Four years ago, he was just a state senator and adjunct professor. His rise to favorite for the highest elected office has been so swift, some people think he's the Antichrist (Google /Obama Antichrist/).

My question is -- has this ever happened before? Has anyone ever gone from relative obscurity to major-party presidential candidate so quickly -- at least since Abraham Lincoln? Theodore Roosevelt went from assistant Navy secretary to president in a few years, but he was elected as McKinley's vice president. Some candidates haven't held political office, but they were famous as generals.

Woodrow Wilson comes to mind. Grover Cleveland was sheriff of Erie County, NY, in 1881 and president in 1885. Any others? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower had little to no political experience, though he was not obscure by any definition. Polk was a surprise to many. Andrew Jackson was another famous military man, not a political one. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Gerald Ford was never elected to either the Presidency or Vice Presidency. He was in the US House of Representatives for 25 years, but not in the Senate, not a governor, and not a General. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U S Grant was also quite inexperienced at politics when he became President, which made him a rather ineffective political leader. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Hoover comes to mind. -- Taxa (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Barack Obama is really a good example of this. He would be a Senator for nearly 4 years by the time he is elected (if he is elected). Prior to that he was a Illinois state senator for quite a number of years. He even held the position of chairman of the "Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee" for nearly 2 years. He also had some experience in student politics... I.E. he may be young, but he's hardly new to politics. George W. Bush is probably a better example. He was only governor for nearly 56 years, just ~~one~~two more year then Obama was a Senator. He had run for office before, and was part of his father's campaign, but didn't really hold any other politic office or play any political role. He did have various roles (including managing) in business, but whether this better prepares you for office then being a university lecturer and a lawyer is IMHO questionable. The only reason why people didn't see GWB as coming out of no where was probably because of the fact his father was president Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Edit: Sorry mistake in my calculations, Bush was governet for nearly 6 years.[reply]

OK, just to clarify, I'm not trying to make a point about Barak Obama's supposed lack of experience. I'm just trying to see if there were other presidential candidates who shot into the public consciousness so quickly. I've got nothing against state senators -- I used to work for one -- but they rank slightly ahead of city council member in prestige. To go from state senator to president in four years is amazing. Eisenhower, Jackson, Ford, Grant and Hoover were well-known national figures at least eight years before becoming president. George W. Bush only entered politis in 1994, but he owned the Texas Rangers and of course was somewhat famous as a son of George H.W. Bush. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand US politics much, but it seems to me that in terms of experience, being a state senator is surely not much of a less useful experience to being president then being a governor and being a governor for 8 years including 2 years of being the chairman of a committee probably gives you nearly as much experience as the governor for 6 years which means that Obama has (or will have) nearly 4 years of experience of being a senator unmatched by Bush. Whether it's as much prestige seems irrelevant/unimportant to me. As I mentioned above, I don't really see the experience Bush gained from being the owner/manager of a sports team as really much more more useful then the experience of Obama as being a lecturer/lawyer so it's not the relevant to the calculations. In other words, from my POV, Obama has significantly more experience applicable to being President then Bush had. I'm not saying that Bush didn't have enough experience, or that Obama does have; I'm not an American so I really don't care that much but simply that I don't see any reason why Obama would be seen as more 'coming out of nowhere' then Bush since from my POV Bush can be said to have more came out of nowhere then Obama. While Bush have been more widely known then Obama, this seems to be to be irrelevant since what matters most is experience (and factors like character which are not under discussion) not whether you've heard of the person before. (I mean a lot of American's have heard of Britney Spears but I don't think many will vote her President). Or to put it a different way, if you say Obama came out of nowhere then surely Bush belongs on that list too, and I suspect quite a number of other people. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd say that having an executive position in a large state is certainly more valuable experience for the kind of role a president must play, I'd say even experience as a mayor is more valuable than a state senator, since you can judge how they handled executive decisions. I don't think experience is a useful guide on who to vote for anyway except for giving evidence to their viewpoints and ability to handle the responsibility of office. But this isn't what the OP is talking about, to go from relative obscurity to Democratic nominee for president in 4 years is incredible, and he/she was just asking if there was a precedent for it. -- Mad031683 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd have to disagree with you there, I don't see the experience of a mayor as more valuable then a state senator (but perhaps that's reflective of the fact I've always lived in a country with a Westminister style of government) and I have to admit, I still don't really see what make Obama any different from Bush. Both were relatively obscure beforehand. One have been more well known in general, but not as a politician but simply as the owner of a sports team. Bringing back the Britney Spears or perhaps even better Michael Jackson example, I personally think it would be more surprising even completely ignoring their likely unsuitability for the job if one of them were to become the next President even though both have been well known for a long time, MJ arguably even longer then Bush. In other words, perhaps for Americans, there is a significant difference between Bush and Obama but from my outsider POV, there doesn't seem to be which is why I can't help wondering whether this is a bit of case of recentism or people forgetting history as in people probably see Obama's rise as remarkable because it's happening now similarly to the way Bush's rise (or a number of other president's rise) may have seemed remarkable at the time. Or perhaps it's reflective of the the fact that US politics to at least some degree is dynastic and/or money orientated in other words, Bush's achievement are seen as less of a surprise because he was part of a political and/or exceptional wealthy family. Just to be clear, I'm not criticising the US political system or anything like that. I just find it odd that people make a big fuss about Obama but not Bush when it seems to me like both have great similarities in their potential lack of experience and obscurity before the election and I'm trying to understand why that is so. And to be clear, I'm not singling Bush out, but he was the first example that occured to me to look at and I know little about US politics Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln's political experience was only two years in the US House of Representatives, 11 years before his nomination for President. He was, however, a national figure in the slavery fight and became known for the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, which increased his national profile, even though he lost the Senate seat to Douglas. But Obama's national standing became better-known for his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, too. Corvus cornix_talk 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A related question I'm too ~~lazy~~ busy to look up the answer to. Traditionally, most US presidents have had one of the four following jobs on their resumés when they became president: vice president, state governor, general in a major war, and (in the old days) secretary of state. I wonder how many presidents have not had one of those jobs on their resumés? Kennedy, Hoover, Lincoln.... Who else? —Kevin Myers 16:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren G. Harding, William Howard Taft (had ruled a couple of colonies, but no states), Franklin Pierce, and a few more if the war of 1812 doesn't count as major. Algebraist 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the quick response. I'd say 1812 was major, maybe not by our standards, but certainly by theirs. Pierce became a general in the Mexican War, so he's off the list. Without looking it up, I would have guessed that Harding had been governor of Ohio, but I see he was only the lite gov. If Obama is elected, he joins a club with Kennedy, Hoover, Lincoln, Harding, and Taft (if we've got them all). A mixed bunch—a bit of the best & the worst. —Kevin Myers 17:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's definitely all of them (assuming the reliability of the relevant Wikipedia articles). I'm not sure how I missed Pierce's generalship. Unless I'm missing something again, McCain also stands to join the same club. Algebraist 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy was a long-time senator though, and was a "war hero" though not a general. Maybe those jobs should be added to your list (as they would also fit McCain). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Here's another approach: Except for Abraham Lincoln, all US presidents have had one of the five following jobs on their resumés when they became president: vice president, state governor, army general, cabinet member, and US Senator (for at least one full term). McCain would make this list; Obama is an exception, and would not qualify until he completed his term as senator, which would I guess be in 2011. This supports the notion that Obama's rise has been unusually fast—he's three years ahead of schedule! Unless, of course, he's the next Lincoln. ;-) —Kevin Myers 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Arthur do anything more notable than Obama before becoming VP and then President in 1881? Srnec (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Arthur is a classic example of the obscure "accidental president". I'd say that Arthur's career as NY militia quartermaster general in the Civil War and NY Port Collector gives him a weightier resumé than Obama, but others may disagree. The key difference, of course, is that Arthur never ran for president. He famously quipped that the vice presidency was a higher office than he could have reasonably hoped for. —Kevin Myers 00:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm isn't Obama 2 years ahead of schedule not 3 years? At least this is what my calculations early would suggest (I believe and supported by our article, Senators server 6 years not 7). In any case, this does bring back the point, is it really that much more remarkable to serve only 4 years instead of 6? For me, it doesn't seem to be. One is slightly quicker, but not by an ornane amount. Given the complexity of terms it still doesn't really seem that surprising to me. Since Senators serve 6 years those elected in non-Presidential years either have to serve 8 years or 4 compared to those elected in presidential years who can serve a full term. And since there are term limits nowadays it's usually difficult for a candidate to challenge an incumbent from the same party unless the candidate was absolutely shit, hence it's always going to be risky to wait, particularly when your party seems to have a good chance of winning since it will likely mean your shut out for 8 years if the candidate from your party wins. I guess the biggest issue is the ornane amount of time US Presidental elections seem to take means that Obama only had 3 years experience when people started voting for him and less then that when he started to campaign for the nomination and I have to admit 3 years compaed to 5 years or 2 years compared to 4 years does start to seem like a bigger difference. (See my above comment on how I'm not trying to criticise the US political system) Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I followed all of that, but I think I agree with your conclusion. When people first began talking about Obama for president, he was a somewhat obscure newcomer with very little experience compared to the traditional president. If he does become president, probably only Lincoln won the office with a less impressive resumé, which is not bad company to be in. Having little experience has actually worked to Obama's advantage so far: he hasn't done much in politics that opponents can use against him. Obama is fortunate to come along at a time when resumés don't matter much to American voters, if they ever did. Bush was a relative newcomer in 2000, and in 1992 the late night talk shows were joking about the improbability of a governor from Arkansas (not exactly a major state) becoming president. More important now than a thick resumé is the ability to be appealling on television to potential (especially swing) voters, and the ability to excite the party's core constituency. As has often been pointed out, Obama is very strong on television; appealing to swing voters is now the major drive of his campaign. —Kevin Myers 14:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How old is rape and murder?

How old is rape and murder? Coffsneeze (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both predate humans. I'd guess murder is as old as predators, with murder for cannabalism purposes being the earliest form. Rape probably didn't come along until there was sexual reproduction. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably?! How could rape have possibly existed before sexual reproduction? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a broader meaning of rape, "to exploit and give nothing in return", as in "to rape the land", where (hopefully), no actual sexual penetration occurs. Using this meaning, I suppose any parasites could be said to "rape" their hosts, regardless of whether the parasite or host can reproduce sexually. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ about murder, since said article defines it as the killing of a human being. If you are religious, you cain say it goes back a long way. If you're not, I doubt we're abel to make any specific claim. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't they both depend on a legal structure to define them? So while the acts predate history, laws against them presumably date from the earliest existing laws, whatever they are. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Adam Bishop, both are defined by society so they have existed as long as a law against them has existed. Both occur 'naturally' in the wild. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See:Murder#Origins and Rape#History. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from animals I've seen in the act, I'd say rape precedes consent. --Sean 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the words "rape" and "murder" have a legal usage, that isn't the only meaning. For example, if a dictator passed a law saying he could execute or have sexual relations by force with anyone he pleased, we would still refer to that as murder and rape, no matter what the law in that jurisdiction called it. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but I'm sure the OP was asking about humans. If you wanted to know when people started murdering/raping each other, would you specify in your question that you're referring to humans only? If you wanted to ask about animals, I'm sure you'd specify then. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is limited to humans, the answer then becomes "pretty much whenever you define humans to have first existed (would that be Homo sapiens sapiens ?), that's when rape and murder started". StuRat (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, based on the definitions of rape and murder, I'd say that it applies to humans only. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City walls

How common were city walls in the areas involved in the Thirty Years' War? How effective were they? --12.169.167.154 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were still common. See the article on the Military Revolution, and particularly the heading on the Trace Italienne. You might be interested in the Siege of Jasna Góra, albeit that that's part of 'the Deluge' rather than the Thirty Years' War. In the case of the Poles and the Swedes, only those cities that were fortified to modern (Vauban) standards were able to resist. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Jasna Góra is a monastery, not a city. From the same Polish-Swedish war, Zamość is a good example of an actual city that was fortified well enough to withstand a Swedish siege. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, returning to the subject, I was just going to add Zamość (which was also the site of a particularly ugly Nazi war atrocity), but couldn't remember it at the time - well done Kpalion! Most City walls were dismantled in the mid 19h. century - I'm thinking here of Krakow and Barcelona's Las Ramblas in particular

American Snipers In The Falklands Conflict (On the Argentinian side)

A typical story....

My father has repeatedly told me in his drunken state of how, as a young soildier of 18, he was ordered to shoot American and German mercs in an execution-esque style. He said this was never an official subject in the war.

So is my father just a delusional ex-squaddie suffering from Falklands War Syndrome (no offence to those affected by GWS) or is there some truth to this?

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/general-history/43126-mercs-falklands-war.html Taken from the above site.

This rumour has been going around the British army for decades. Before I joined up my friends dad was from 2 Para and fought in the Falklands and had told his son the same story. Having joined the army senior soldiers would also recite the same basic story that the attack on Goose Green was bogged down by very accurate sniper fire at night. The position was eventually over run and an American mercenary with a sniper rifle and night vision scope was caught. He told the paras that he was am American citizen and showed him his passport. Thinking that he would be let go. He was then shot on the spot as a mercenary.

The number of times and the number of different sources that have told this story leads me believe that it must have some grain of truth in it?

I have read many a book on the conflict but have not ever found anything to back this story up. I can imagine if it was true that the British army would have kept it very quiet not wanting to cause any trouble with its cold war ally.

Can anyone provide an accurate source for this story or it is just another drunken army tale?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.35.174 (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this particular rumor, but will warn against believing things because of "the number of times and the number of different sources that have told this story". The different sources frequently all got the info from each other or a common source, so you are really going off info from just a single, possibly unreliable, source. StuRat (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of speculation along these lines on google[1], some FAQs and we have an article of a century and a half ago: Irish and German Mercenary Soldiers' Revolt. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be flippant but have you considered asking your father about this when not "in his drunken state"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Clayworth Sorry but the above quote is not from my Father or I would not be asking this question. It was meant as an example of the rumour that is common among the ranks of the British army. It was put in the question to show how common a rumour it is and not just something I had dreamed up. The post above yours alludes to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.35.174 (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia Inducing Film

Hi there: About ten years ago a schizophrenia-inducing scene was shown on TV. All I remember about it was that it had a character called something like "Solarcane". He was a wizard, or a psychological machinator of some kind. While watching it, I had a strange temporary schizophrenic-like experience which lasted approximately 10 seconds. When I discussed this with a friend, he said he'd had the same experience when he'd watched it the night before. Does anyone know the name of this film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.132.20 (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call schizophrenia? Some Japanese cartoons seem to cause epilleptic attack, but it only happens with people that have a disposition for that. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you don't mean photosensitive epilepsy, one famous Japanese example being Dennō Senshi Porygon. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fair ethnic discrimination/racism?

Imagine that you want to contract a translator, but you want him to be a native speaker of language X. Wouldn't this be a form of discriminating against foreigners? 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be difficult to say for certain, but i'd consider it mildly discriminatory... Whilst ,most nations with anti-discrimination/anti-racism laws exclude set activities from them (e.g. it isn't discrimination/racist to not consider a black person to play the role of Shakespeare in a period drama), i'm not convinced this would count in the exclusions. Is the person being a native speaker somehow inherently better than a fluent speaker of that language? Define 'native' - do they have to have been born there, or can they just have spoken it their whole life? What if they are the child of natives but their first language is X and they also speak Y (the language of their parents)? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where discrimination against foreigners enters. It appears that foreigners would be more likely to be the native speaker you're looking for. From a more general discrimination standpoint, the US recognizes the idea of bona fide occupational qualifications, essential capabilities for a given job that permit an employer to discriminate (within narrow bounds) while hiring. Being a native speaker may well be one such BFOQ for a translator (certainly fluency at a minimum would be). — Lomn 13:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contract could simply require "native-level fluency" in the language, which could include not speaking it in a thick accent. In most of these situations it's easy to just focus on the actual desired trait, rather than a potentially discriminatory externality that serves as shorthand for that trait. --Sean 13:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a candidate meets the qualifications, i.e. is completely fluent in both language X and your language and is otherwise qualified, not hiring him because he is/isn't foreign would, I believe, be discrimination (and possibly racist, but that would depend much more on the motives of the hirer). Qualifications should be the only determining factor, not the ethnicity of the person. If, however, the ethnicity were a valid qualification (say you wanted a translator in Jerusalem and the people you would be communicating with would not talk to a Palestinian), ethnicity could be a factor in the hiring decision. — Sam 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk)

The key thing here is that a native speaker could be of an ethnicity. If you reject a fluent, native speaker because he or she is not of the 'right' ethnicity, then yes that would probably be discriminitory. For example in Indonesia many people ethnically Chinese are native speakers of Indonesian (as previously the government heavily discouraged them from retaining any signs of their culture). Similarly in Malaysia people speak a variety of languages and there are quite a number of people of a variety of ethnicities who can be best described as fluent, native speakers of these languages, especially English. The question of whether requiring a native speaker when you don't really require one would be discriminatory is more complicated. I suspect the answer is it would not be legally but personally I would consider it discriminatory. Obviously if you feel you have a legitimate reason then it would be diffirent Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what about a company that hires, for example, only employees with a US-degree? It do not discriminate, say, against Mexican who studies in the US and would not hire an American that studied in Mexico. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well presuming you have no good reason for doing so then as with my final issue I would personally consider discriminatory. I probably should refrain from commenting further on the legal situation since I really have no idea about the legal situation in the US. What make it a lot more complicated is the fact that US degrees appear to vary very greatly from the 'diploma mill college' type to the Ivy Leagues and it would be difficult to argue there is a legimate reason for you to allow a diploma mill degree while disallowing a degree from the National Autonomous University of Mexico and also the question of how you treat non-Mexican, non-US degrees. For example, do you reject a degree from Oxford or Cambridge? What about other UK degrees? German? Singaporean? Indian? Simply put, there more it seems like you are simply discriminating based on ethnicity without legitimate concern about the quality of the degrees, the more likely I suspect you are to violate the law. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lords

I am confused about how partisan politics organises itself in the House of Lords.

They appear to organise themselves along the lines of the Commons, with a "Government" and "Opposition", Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet. (it appears so on BBC Parliament anyway).

What sort of connection do these have with the party, is it just a stated affiliation or are they closely affiliated with party. Is there a whip from the party? If so, given that they have no concerns about elections does it work effectively?

Finally, is it a requirement that once a new party becomes government in the commons they form one in the Lords (e.g. do they move to the other side of the bench)? 78.148.84.63 (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last question I can answer in one word: No. A party which has a majority in the House of Commons does not need a majority in the House of Lords, but of course, it helps. The general consensus between parties seems to be that the House of Lords shouldn't be dominated by any party.

To your previous questions: the Labour and Conservative party groups in the House of Lords do have whips, but discipline can't be enforced as strictly - mostly because they are life peers. The party can't remove them just by not renominating them at the next election, because they aren't elected. There are cross-bench peers in the House of Lords - that includes members of smaller parties like the Liberal Democrats.78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Chief Whip might help a little. Peers can decide for themselves whether or not they take a party whip. Many will have long-standing affiliations with a political party, often having been MPs. There are fewer sanctions available to Lords whips, notably the absence of a deselection threat arising out of the tenure Peers possess, but incentives to toe the line still exist. Those affiliated with the governing party will wish the majority of its business to pass, since a government is weakened to the extent it cannot move its legislative programme on; and so opposing the bill one happens to despise may have some bearing over the passage of other bills one supports. I guess the whip also influences appointments to committees which presumably are desired by a good number of peers. Lords whips are aligned with Commons whips, in the sense that when the government changes, the outgoing party's whips will become shadow whips, in incoming party's whip will form the Government's Whips Office - http://www.lordswhips.org.uk/

I'm sure much more could be written about Lords whipping, and our main article is certainly lacking. Good questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well, a Lords majority isn't essential because the Prime Minister comes from the House of Commons (or possibly Scotland, in the case of Gordon Brown), and it is the confidence of the House of Commons which needs to be maintained. I don't think the House of Lords don't have votes of no confidence.78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) When the government changes after a long incumbent period, the likelihood is that the (Commons) “Government” will have a minority in the House of Lords.

The minor (opposition) party in the Lords therefore will be the government of the commons. Should you still refer to them as opposition and government lords? 78.148.84.63 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would detract from the word "government" - most ministers come from the Commons, not the Lords. It would simplify terminology, though.78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The governing party's whips in the Lords are known as the Government Whips - that you can check against their website - http://www.lordswhips.org.uk/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most? Is it still possible to have cabinet minister that is not in the commons? Who are they? 78.148.84.63 (talk)

(Thank you all for you answers btw) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.84.63 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for cabinet ministers to be from the Lords, but the convention is that ministers must be answerable to the commons. That's why, for instance, Charles Falconer was unable to continue with responsibility for Justice, when the Ministry of Justice was shelled out of the Home Office a couple of years ago. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ 78.148.121.214 - comment on "... the Prime Minister comes from the House of Commons (or possibly Scotland, in the case of Gordon Brown) ...". The Parliament of which the House of Commons forms a part is the Parliament of the entire UK. It's not just the parliament of England. Gordon Brown is a member of the House of Commons, representing a constituency that just happens to be located in Scotland. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, it's still possible for the UK to have a prime minister who isn't in parliament at all, and certainly it's possible (though very unlikely to happen) to have one sitting in the Lords, as most of the early PMs did. In practice, it would be a mistake for a major party to have a leader, let alone a prime minister, outside parliament. The last PM in the House of Lords was Alec Douglas-Home, who was Earl of Home when he formed a government on 18 October 1963. He resigned his peerages on 23 October and was elected to the House of Commons on 8 November. He could have stayed in the Lords, but that would have made his position very difficult. Xn4 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low homeless rate in major cities

If you'll pardon the vagueness inherent in the question, I'm searching for the major metropolitan city by population with the lowest rate of homelessness. This is not very helpful. Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to limit your scope somewhat, to cities of over a million or capital cities, for example? Are you dealing in terms of cities proper, or metropolitan areas?78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I'm dealing with the city proper (since I would think homelessness would be negligible in the suburbs). Over two million, maybe, or largest 100. Llamabr (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negligible by comparison? or unlikely because suburban. This search sample[2] might disagree. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient of the Inn

The Dictionary of National Biography article on Salathiel Lovell notes that "He was called to the bar at Gray's Inn in November 1656, and became an ancient of the inn in 1671." So what does "ancient of the inn" mean? Google's not being very forthcoming, pretty much pointing me back to the DNB article on Salathiel Lovell on Google Books. I'm writing a wikipedia article on the good (or bad - I haven't read that far) judge, and would like opinions on what the phrase might mean. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be pardoned for such an obvious answer... you could phone Gray's Inn and ask them. I would do it now, but it is 8.25 in the evening in London.78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But on balance, not that helpful. Whilst we're on the subject, what's a bencher (again in Grey's Inn parlance). Do we not have any barristers in the house this evening? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Bencher - "a senior member of an Inn of Court."78.144.155.233 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obliged to my learned friend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This becoming an 'ancient' of an Inn of court has nothing to do with old age, you could get there in your twenties. A bencher is one or two better. So far as I can remember, it's a particular kind of Reader and may be a title used only at Gray's Inn. Bencherlite might have been able to help us, but he's on enforced wikileave. Xn4 01:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 16th & 17th century England, "ancient" was a low-ranking officer (from a corruption of ensign), e.g. Shakespeare's Ancient Pistol. —Kevin Myers 13:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ancient = ensign = junior office-holder = I'm satisfied (and might yet trouble the Grey's Inn archivist to explain in some more detail the C21 translation of the term). --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-Anarchism

moved from Talk:Anarchism by User:Skomorokh

Is there a term for an anarchist that believes that not only should there be no central powers, there should be no rules whatsoever? No communities or any sort of social engagement, i.e. killing goes unpunished by any other human beings because no laws exist? -- LightSpectra (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of a particular term for what you describe. It might help if you clarified what you mean by "rules" (i.e. if you mean laws, our article on anarchist law might be of interest). Hardcore individualist anarchists who do not subscribe to the non-aggression principle and do not recognise property rights as natural rights might meet your description. Illegalist anarchists believe it is justifiable to commit "crimes" in statist environments, some Christian anarchists believe all manmade rules are illegitimate and defer to God, and insurrectionary anarchists are opposed to organizations, preferring instead direct action. The closest anarchist position to what you describe may be the philosophy of Max Stirner, a famous egoist:

“

All attempts to enact rational laws about property have put out from the bay of love into a desolate sea of regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot be excepted from this. Everyone one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from a community of goods. The individual's mind in this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence. The distributing board of equity lets me have only what the sense of equity, its loving care for all, prescribes. For me, the individual, there lies no less of a check in collective wealth than in that of individual others; neither that is mind, nor this: whether the wealth belongs to the collectivity, which confers part of it on me, or to individual possessors, is for me the same constraint, as I cannot decide about either of the two. One the Contrary, Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, viz., on the generality or collectivity; and, loudly as it always attacks the "State," what it intends is itself again a State, a status, a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity. Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will - bestow on you in the name of the collectivity (for such bestowal took place in "States" from the most ancient times, each receiving "according to his desert," and therefore according to the measure in which each was able to deserve it, to acquire it by service), but: Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have.

”

— Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own. Rebel Press 1982. p. 257

Skomorokh 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is something of a bias in this title. The implication is that somehow a society of utterly no ethical value and rule is an "ultamate" anarchy. I submit to you that this is the furthest conception of society from what anarchists have ever conceived of. As Skomorakh has already pointed out, there has never been a branch of anarchist thought that advocated for a world view of all-against-all, and have actually used such imagery as an argument against any given modern society. One of the key principals of anarchy is the concept that social harmony is best maintained through cooperation, not competition. This is known as mutual aid. At its most fundamental, this means getting along with your neighbor to get things done is better than regarding them as obstacles to be eliminated. That's a universal to each anarchist school of thought, and has been specifically argued for in such works as What is Property? and Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, just to name some of the oldest works on the topic. It can be argued that certain contemporary anarchist branches view competition as acceptable within the context of the free market, but they only consider this acceptable on the grounds that it is voluntary, and so do not advocate violent coercion. For these reasons, I would not consider a society as the one you have described to be an anarchy, much less an "ultra anarchy". --Cast (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can i be pregnant ?

i had sex may i was wondering if i could be pregnant i was waiting for my menstrual period and it came down in june i had it for about 6 days can i be pregnant or im i not pregnant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.104.110 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not give medical advice. Take a pregnancy test or consult a doctor. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice - if you're not sure and want to know for sure, consult your doctor. In the meantime you can also read up on Menstruation and Pregnancy to give you some of the science behind your question. Mattnad (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

Cheap Bike Parts

<moved to misc desk here for more scope. --Julia Rossi (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)>[reply]

Assault on Pollighautcherry, India, c. 1790

I have come across some references to a seige at "Pollighautcherry" in India in 1789: [3], and [4]. with this giving a date of 1790. But I can find no other reference to this place (the only other google hit is the article I'm wanting this for, the 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot). There is a Pondicherry (Puducherry), for which I have a siege date of 1793 [(ref) (a date supported by its WP article). So, is Pollighautcherry just Puducherry by another name? Are the sieges confused, or were there several? (I know there was also one in 1760). At the moment, I've got both mentioned at the 52nd Foot article, but it would be nice to clarify whether the 52nd assaulted two places with similar names, assaulted the same place twice, or made only one attack, with the other report merely a mis-dating. Any ideas? Gwinva (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few hits for Poligautcherry and one for Polighautcherry. 1790 under Medows looks to be correct, the 1789 references also place Bangalore in 1790.—eric 05:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best description of the campaign i've found is in Medows' entry in The Dictionary of National Biography.—eric 06:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palghautcherry.—eric 06:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palakkad Fort.—eric 06:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, you are a marvel. Do you lurk on the edges of the desk, just waiting to answer my 18th/19th C military questions? Having checked through those refs, I'm fairly confident it is, indeed, Palakkad. I will add links and redirects and all sorts through the various WP articles which I've come across during those searches! Intriguingly, I couldn't raise a ghit at "Polighautcherry", and the Medows DNB link has no preview (what did you search through?). I have access to the subscriber DNB, but the Medows entry there doesn't mention Palakkad/Palghaut/Pillighautcherry. Anyway, thanks for that (again). Gwinva (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Battle Honours of the British & Commonwealth Armies places the 52nd as having fought at Bangalore (7-21st March 1791), Arikera (or Seringapatam; 15 May 1791), Seringapatam (6-7 Feb 1792), and Pondicherry (10-22 August 1793). Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great: I don't have the 1791 Seringapatam battle. Do you have the bibliographical details for the source, so I can add it as a ref? Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book's by Anthony Baker. Published 1986 by Ian Allen, Shepperton; ISBN 0711016003.

The entry notes it was a non-honoured battle (ie, no regiment carries it on their colours) though the 76th Foot applied for it. It titles it "Arikera", with a sidenote saying "Could be called Seringapatam 1791", but doesn't explain any further. The units involved were pretty much the same as those that fought at Bangalore and at Seringapatam (1792). Shimgray | talk | 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! (But, if I might nag, is there a page no?) Were there honours for the other battles? The 52nd just got "Hindoostan", for the campaign. I've got the Peninsular War well sorted, plus Waterloo's easy (once I get around to it) but if you have any more details about the 52nd that'd be much appreciated. Many thanks for what you've done so far. Gwinva (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pp. 256-7. Another note from the same book (p.49): "...the British force almost reached Tippoo's capital at Seringapatam in 1791, but was forced to retire after a battle at Arikera." Incidentally, it mentions a siege of Pondicherry in 1778, just to further confuse matters! The only honoured battle of the Third Mysore War was "Nundy Droog", 18/10/1791, awarded to the 1st Madras European Infantry (later 102nd Foot), then the overall honours Carnatic (for 1747-92) and Mysore (1747-92). "Hindoostan" was awarded as a general service honour for the years 1790-1793. The 52nd applied for honours for the battle of Cananore (14/12/1783, in the 2nd Mysore War), Bangalore (in 1791), and Seringapatam (1792), but these weren't granted.

I've also looked in Sheppard's History of the British Army, which describes the opening of the Third Mysore War as such:

Tippoo ... at the end of 1789 invaded the territory of Travancore. The British plan of campaign [in 1790, I assume] was for the main army under Medows to advance from the south into Mysore, while a force of Bengal troops operating in Baramahal guarded its right flank ... Medows moved forward in May and took possession of the Coimbatore district with little opposition, but his progress was checked on the upper Cauvery by the main army of Tippoo, who ... moving south-east along the river valley overran the whole country as far as Pondicherry. Medows ... was compelled to follow in order to cover Madras, and the campaign thus ended decidedly to the disadvantage of the British.

(I've paraphrased some bits) This seems to explain the 1790 fighting at Pondicherry - if the Mysore army reached "as far as" there, there would have been something - but doesn't explain the 1789; I'd be inclined to place that simply as an error. Shimgray | talk | 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moral standing of Allies in 2nd world war

Hi. I was wondering how the allies could occupy the moral high ground after the second world war given that they had appeased the Nazis until it became impossible and the US itself joined only because of Pearl Harbour and not out of any sense of outrage over the activities of axis powers. Can someone please clarify it for me? Thanks. 125.21.243.66 (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbor was the final excuse that got the US into the war, but to say that the US did not have any sense of outrage over the activities of the Axis powers is quite false. As for "appeasement", there is no necessary moral low-ground in trying to negotiate, even if it fails. If you want to go on about the moral high ground, I suggest focusing instead on the wartime tactics of the Allies (e.g. purposeful mass slaughter of non-combatants as part of the firebombing and atomic bombing campaigns), which are more problematic from a moral point of view than the politics that led to war itself. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of detail: even Pearl Harbor did not bring the US into the war against Germany, only against Japan. It was Germany that declared war on the US, a few days later. --Anonymous, 17:06 UTC, June 19, 2008.

Also I understand the US provide huge amounts of support (technology/training/troops) for the allies before they officially went to war. Morality in times of war quickly changes from in times of peace. What was once consider crazy and unthinkable might be standard and normal. Our circumstances affect our actions. Whilst not exactly related to the war you could look at things like Broken window theory and that famous prison-experiment (forget the name of the people but the 21 general-public people made as guards/prisoners that only lasted 6 days) - all show that our morality/ethics etc. can often be discounted within certain circumstances. It's easy to say 60 years later that someone should have done X or Y, but at the time the situation is different, and the thought processes are affected by the situation they are within. As 98.217 alludes to the attempts to appease are not morally inferior to action, infact if they had brought about a peaceful resolution that would be the perfect outcome. They say for revolution you should use three boxes...the soap box, the ballot box and the ammo box...use in that order. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean the Stanford Prison Experiment. If you're using that, why not throw in the Milgram experiment as well? 79.66.85.219 (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeasement may seem awful to us now, knowing what we now know about the Nazis. Things were much less clear cut in 1935.

There is also a moral fallacy here. The (soon-to-be) Allies may have had some moral culpability for not opposing the Nazis, but the Nazis - well, they actually were the Nazis. You can't equate a failure to prevent a crime with the actual deliberate commission of a crime. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeasement may be cowardly, but it certainly isn't immoral. There are indeed additional varying degrees between Nazi attrocity and cowardly appeasement. For example, IMHO, though the Brits may have failed in the sense that they appeased Hitler, the French, and in particular the Vichy Regime led by Marshall Petain failed all the moreso and in a far more guiltworthy fashion insofar as they didn't merely appease Germany, they collaborated. The same can be said of the Swiss. Though nominally neutral, Switzerland served as an essential corridor for the exchange of Nazi loot for hard currency to fund the Nazi war effort. 69.157.171.158 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright fellas, thanks for your answers :) 125.21.243.66 (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that Sweden supplied the bulk of the iron ore needed to keep the Nazi war machine going, as well. Corvus cornix_talk 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic diversity of human with respect to Bible

So, at the beginning, there were only Adam and Eve, who gave birth to 2 sons(I forgot their names). Then, that' it, human is finished! There is just two men, how can this two men give birth to other human? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.124.108 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that particular case, Adam and Eve have more than two children—three are named in Genesis: Cain, Abel, and Seth. Genesis 5:4 points out that "And the days of Adam after he begot Seth were eight hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters." But anyway. Either massive incest, or God created more people that just aren't mentioned in the Bible. I have heard some literalists explain it by pointing out that nowhere does it NOT say that God didn't create more people after the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden. The most classic theological question in this regard is the question of who was Cain's wife (with whom he went off with to Nod after killing Abel)—it was even mentioned at the Scopes Trial. Google "Cain's wife" and you'll find half a million webpages offering up answers on the subjects (most are "she was someone that God created after Adam and Eve", some more literal ones say that she was indeed somehow directly descended from Adam—one of Cain's sisters, ugh). Anyway, if you add in the possibility of God creating more people, then the genetic diversity question goes away—temporarily, anyway. There's still the question of how the post-flood population could possibly be reconstituted from only Noah's family without suffering all of the other ravages of inbreeding, much less separating out into distinct races and wandering all over the globe in only a few thousand years. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To further complicate things, there are two creation narratives in the Book of Genesis. See Creation according to Genesis. The first narrative (before Adam and Eve) suggests a large scale creation of life on the planet "Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command). They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."" With the parallel creative narratives, there's room to reconcile the lack of genetic diversity in the Adam and Eve story if we see them as part of the larger population explosion on the 6th day. Of course a literal interpretation of the biblical creation narratives is at odds with Evolution, Geology and Genetics sciences. So like politics, better not to bring it up at a dinner party. Mattnad (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I doubt that societal taboos against incest would have existed when everybody was one step removed from everyone else. I suppose to even have a conversation on the topic, though, you need to simultaneously accept a couple of mutually contradictory histories. jeﬀjon (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, holders of a worldview in which polar bears, capybaras and kangaroos are within walking distance of a fellow in the Middle East don't spend a lot of time fretting about poor genetic diversity gumming up the story. --Sean 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting polar bears was nothing compared to finding a home for all the fish, shellfish, and other aquatic lifeforms that would die in the brackish flood waters. Matt Deres (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall some Creationist webpage explaining that Adam and Eve were genetically perfect, all genetic diseases result from deleterious mutations after the Fall, and so Cain could have children by his sisters without the "ravages of inbreeding". And it was OK, since God hadn't outlawed incest yet. I... guess that works.... ~~ N (t/c) 00:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't explain Noah's inbreeding, though. I've heard a lot of different explanations, but no one really knows the answer. If God really is all powerful, he can do what he wants, right? If that means diversifying the genetic pool at will then so be it. Wrad (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which comes down to an explanation of, "it's just magic!" Which, you know, I'm actually fine with, because it's a lot more intellectually honest (that is, the reason is far more transparent) than trying to pretend that there's actually some real way that the genetics of this sort of thing works out, which is just an effort in misdirection and sophistry. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at Mitochondrial Eve for a scientific take on this - noting that there are reputable scientists who think that all humanity is descended from a single woman living 150,000 years ago. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, that's not what Mitochondrial Eve is, exactly. Read the misconceptions section of the article a few more times until it makes sense. Or, as another useful website puts it: "However, perhaps because of her biblical namesake, mitchondrial Eve is often misconstrued as the first woman, the only woman alive at her time, or the sole mother of all humanity. Though mitochondrial Eve did exist, she was none of those things. True, all humans on Earth today can count mitochondrial Eve among their great-great-great-great-great-(fill in roughly 5000 "greats")-grandmas and inherited their mitochondrial DNA from her. But we have other great-great-great-great-great-(fill in 5000 "greats")-grandmas as well who lived at the same time as mitochondrial Eve — you can think of them as our nuclear great-great-great-(etc.)-grandmas. We inherited other bits of our nuclear DNA from them — and from all of our equally ancient grandpas. Mitochondrial Eve is only one of our many human ancestors."[5] --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answers I've seen on Cain's wife: 1) he married his sister, which was OK because a) God had not yet prohibited incest, possibly because b) there were not yet genetic disorders, so no harm could come of it. 2) he married one of the Nephilim/fallen angels/other such non-human things, and the "corruption of mankind" that led to the Deluge was largely referring to human lineages becoming mixed with non-human. Of course, not being a Biblical literalist, it's sort of irrelevant to me (but intellectually interesting to see what others have thought, nevertheless).

Noah's family might actually work, biologically. Everyone living would of course have to be a descendant of Noah, but at least you have the 3 sons' (presumably unrelated) wives to throw in a LITTLE diversity. The genetic situation wouldn't be any worse than the Chatham Island Black Robin; it could work if you assume that the 8 people on the Ark had few or no genetic disorders in the first place. [Note: I don't believe there was a literal "every-animal-on-Earth-on-one-boat, cover-every-mountain" Noah's Flood, though I think it's likely that flood myths are based on historical events, possibly the flooding of coastlines worldwide at the end of the last glacial period.] Vultur (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the benefits and overheads of high-interest rate in a country?

It also useful if you provide links. Thanks in advance. roscoe_x (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, it's not easy to find the answer on WP. High interest rates is a monetary policy tool often used by central banks to reduce high levels of inflation (see Contractionary monetary policy and Inflation targeting).

Advantages

It reduces spending and therefore demand and therefore reduces inflation.
It encourages consumer saving which may reduce pressure on state-provided pension schemes.
It tends to attract foreign investment which increases the value of currency and helps importers.

Disadvantages

By discouraging spending, it reduces growth and therefore increases unemployment. Also, firms reduce their level of investment since new ventures would need to provide higher returns and, in a slowing economy, this is unlikely.
It may lead to a recession or even stagflation (if coupled with poor fiscal policy).
If many people have floating rate (or prime-linked) home loans, higher interest rates leads to defaults which may lead to higher systemic risks. The same applies to companies' corporate bonds.
It tends to attract foreign investment which increases the value of currency and hurts exporters.
Very high interest rates in a developing economy may even be seen by foreigners as a sign of instability which would reduce foreign capital injections.

But as with everything in economics, the effects are very difficult to predict accurately - ever heard a newsreader say "Economists were surprised yesterday when . . . "? I have. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Economists were surprised yesterday when Reserve Bank governor Tito Mboweni raised interest rates by only 500 basis points. Many had expected a full 2000 point increase...". Raising interest rates is only successful in fighting inflation if the factors above apply. In South Africa at the moment most CPIX inflation is due to "imported" inflation because of high food and fuel prices. Raising interest rates in this case may even crate more inflation. Zun aid ©® 11:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one other benefit, high interest rates can "put the brakes on an overheated economy". This helps to even out a roller-coaster economy and can prevent or lessen the eventual downturn and recession. See business cycle. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever interest rates go up mu dad (retired with no mortgage and savings) leaps for joy, and I (working, paying a mortgage, no large savings) groan. When the rates drop it is the other way round. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Tsutomu Miyazaki.

Hi dear friends. I want to know why this scum was so many many years in prison and has been executed 18 years after being arrested?. He killed four little girls. Thanks and greetings. 190.49.97.59 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due process takes time. The matter is explained well enough at Tsutomu Miyazaki, I think. Due process is a good thing, IMO. Emotive appeal no so good. YMMV, of course. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be worse. --Sean 20:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to say that case is worse IMHO. While the Sagawa case may have been mishandled and his ability to profit from it may be controversial, on the whole, there doesn't seem to have been grave consequences arising from the way it was handled. Presuming you believe a criminal sentence is supposed to be primarily about rehabilitation and/or prevention rather then punishment, since Sagawa has never commited (as far as we know) any further crime or had a relapse, the treatment appears to have achieved its goal. Even if you don't agree with this view, as far as I'm aware in most countries even those where a criminal sentence is intended to be punitive i.e. to punish the person responsible, it's rare that this is extended to those who were legally insane when they commited the offence (since they are considered not competent and therefore not responsible for their actions). Generally AFAIK those held insane may be subject to involuntary commitment but the point there is always prevention and/or rehabilitation and not punishment. There may be a minimum period of commitment if this is considered necessary for the goas of prevention and/or rehabilitation but this is still not intended to be punishment. So whatever the flaws in the handling of the case, the outcome seems to have been as desired. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Mid-Campaign Presidential Election Polls

Would anyone know where I can find polls conducted at various points during the 1972 Nixon-McGovern campaign season in order to compare them with polls presently being taken for this year's election?

For example, I'd like to see how Nixon and McGovern were faring against each other in June of '72, and compare it with June '08 polls measuring public opinion in the McCain-Obama race, along with polls taken later on in the season. (July, August, September, '72 etc.)

I've tried the articles to no avail. I've even contacted the Gallup organization, but they require some sort of subscription fee to gain access to their "archived" polls.

(My apologies to those few insanely pedantic editors among you, but I see no reason in specifying just which country I'm talking about. Information on any country in the world that held presidential elections between individuals with the names Nixon and McGovern in 1972, and are this year holding presidential elections between inviduals with the names Obama and McCain will do.) 69.157.171.158 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irony alert: it would have been quicker to type "US" than to type your last, pedantic paragraph. But pedants like you & I can't resist giving a lecture, can we? —Kevin Myers 02:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Kevin. :) 69.157.171.158 (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I don't think anyone would have called you if you'd just left your question without your last para. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. It's just that Americans tend to be accused of being ignorant of the fact that there's a whole world out there that exists beyond their borders. And often this accusation is well founded, I just find that some people here really overdo it in trying to teach Americans otherwise. That last paragraph was meant just as a(n apparently annoying) joke to make a point. My sincerest apologies.

Still, I can't resist: Even if I did as Kevin suggest and spoke of the US, who's to say I wasn't referring to the United States of Mexico?

Don't bother. I apologize in advance for that one too. :) 69.157.168.230 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, any pedant knows that Mexico is actually the United Mexican States. --Anonymous 02:48 UTC, June 21, 2008.

I think the issue with many potential questions is not that there is only one country the question applies to, but that people may not know what your question refers to even if it only applies to one country. While I think most people would at least have heard of McCain and Obama, many would also have heard of Nixon and McCartney so I really wouldn't have cared if you hadn't specified what country you are referring to (in fact probably wouldn't have even noticed); there are a lot of times when it's foolish to presume people will know what country you are referring to despite the fact it may seem obvious to you and there is only one country it could apply to. Why should people reading something have to Google to work out what the heck you are referring to? For example, I would suspect there is only one country where there has recently been a fuss over one television network's decision to disallow flag lapel pins. I could probably have found out there was a fuss by Google (and I could have guessed anyway due to the fact that USAmericans are the only ones to make such a fuss about such things and they also predominate on the internet and are by far the ones who most commonly presume someone is going to know what they are talking about). But the fact remains, there is no reason why I (or anyone else) should be expected to know, nor any reason why I should have to read a question having no idea what the heck the person is talking about simply because the person asking the question is too discourteous to specify what country they are talking about. For example, if I were to ask the question, "Has the ever been time in history where the poll results were similar to the current Key - Clark results but the party expected to win had not won?" most people would have no idea what I'm talking about. (Those that do would probably think it's a dumb question but I digress...) You could probably work out what I'm referring to by Googling and I strongly suspect there is only one country where someone called Key and someone called Clark are the leaders (of the major parties) contesting an upcoming election. But that doesn't change the fact it would have been wise for me to specify what country I am referring to and not let the reader try to work out or guess. In other words, rather then going on a long rant about something stupid, why not just have the courtesy to specify what country you are referring to, since it obviously occured to you it's something people may want to know...? Either that or simply don't bother to say anything, when as I remarked there isn't really an issue since I doubt anyone would have made a fuss about your question where it not for the fact you choose to. (I do have to give you credit for at least realising the problem, my biggest gripe is when people start talking about obscure details of US or some other countries current or historical situation without realising most people probably have no idea what they're talking about)Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gallup organizarion has archives of their polls, perhaps for a fee. At a library you should be able to access the NY Times which published polling data, or Newsweek and Time magazines which reported polls during the campaign. Edison (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try the "News archive search" link in Google News (news.google.com), which searches older news articles. Most of the sites that it reaches require payment to view the articles, but not all. Sometimes even if the article requires payment, you will get a synopsis that will tell you want you want to know. --Anonymous, 05:48 UTC, June 20/08.

Try this: http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=nixon+mcgovern+polls&srchst=p You do have to pay to read the articles, though. Corvus cornix_talk 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but this may be useful [6] Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, there's a series of reasonably dry books on each general election (I forget the author - Butler?), giving an overview of the whole thing, and I suspect these have appendices with polls and so on. It might be worth poking around in libraries to see if anyone in the US produces a similar thing - it's quite possible.

For a good readable overview of the campaign as a whole, which may well mention some poll figures in passing but certainly gives you a feel for it, try Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail.

Here are some polls from 1972, all taken by the Harris Survey.
- March 1972: Nixon 59%, McGovern 32%
- April: Nixon 54%, McGovern 34%
- May: Nixon 48%, McGovern 41%
- June: Nixon 54%, McGovern 38%
- July: Nixon 55%, McGovern 34%
- August: Nixon 57%, McGovern 34%
- Early September: Nixon 63%, McGovern 29%
- Sept. 19-21: Nixon 59%, McGovern 31%
- Oct. 3-5: Nixon 60%, McGovern 33%
- Oct. 16-19: Nixon 59%, McGovern 34%
- Nov. 2-4: Nixon 59%, McGovern 35%. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

Disobedience

What happens to you if you disobey a superior ranking officer in the military whilst enrolled? Of course punishment can be given but in a modern-day military is physical harm done as punishment, or is it more along the lines of running and push-ups? These punishments can also be disobeyed. Will you get kicked out? Dishonorable discharge or something? Thanks, schyler (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical punishment is not allowed in the United States military. However, when I served (89-95), physical punishment was used extensively in areas where the intelligence level was just high enough to use a shovel or wrench. I often disobeyed ranking officers. Punishment was usually a good yelling - which I ignored. I would be restricted to the barracks, which was fine with me. I sometimes got a fine docked from my pay. I was once threatened with having my barracks room replaced with a tent in the parking lot. Since I was in a rather necessary position for the unit, none of the terrible punishments were ever acted upon - just threatened. But, I saw a great deal of creativity that avoided physical punishment. -- kainaw ™ 00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worse things can defiantly happen to you if you disobey a direct order.[7] I would imagine that even harsher punishment could be justified if solders were under fire. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "...can definitely happen to you if you (defiantly) disobey..." --Anon, 05:50 UTC, June 20/08.

Unfortunately, army punishments can go way too far, as this recent case shows. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer will vary by country, as each will have different laws. In the U.S, military law is covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Serious offenses are handled by a court-martial while most are handled by nonjudicial punishment. I'm not familiar with the UK laws, but the incident S.dedalus refers to is probably non-official punishment; it is technically illegal in the U.S. and is considered hazing or abuse. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US military is a place where the rule of law often isn't followed. They lack many of the safeguards in place for civilian laws that would ensure the rules are followed. For example, any "whistle blower" within the US military who complains about them not following the Uniform Code of Military Justice can look forward to having their military career destroyed (bad evaluations, no promotions, etc.). Therefore, the US military can, and does, in practice, use any level of physical punishment short of those causing permanent injury and death, as that level might get the attention of the press and civilian authorities. StuRat (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a strange story of an example where British and American mores diverge. General Michael Jackson (British) also disobeyed a direct order from General Wesley Clark (American) in Bosnia; similarly, General Mark Clark disobeyed a direct order to trap fleeing German units, and moved out of his area of operations, in order to be the first into Rome (see: Mark Wayne Clark#World War II). Probably the most famous case of disobeying orders is Admiral Nelson's famous 'blind eye' at the Battle of Copenhagen; I think the moral of all this is that you'll get away with it if (a) you win a great victory or turn out to be right (Jackson, Nelson), or (b) you have friends in high places (Clark). --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's policies

Firstly, please excuse me as I'm sure this is a naïve question - I don't know much about politics and US politics is particularly confusing. Has Obama commented on the absolute size of US farming subsidies? From a google search, I see that he mentioned that he's unhappy with the current distribution of the subsidies (which is to be expected). But has he expressed the opinion that they're too large in total? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a senator from Illinois, where farmers' votes are important, Obama is unlikely to have advocated reducing agricultural subsidies. Because he hopes to win votes from other states with significant agriculture, he is unlikely to advocate any reduction as a presidential candidate. There is no significant group of voters in the United States that supports cutting agricultural subsidies. (Professors of economics and development studies do not form a large enough bloc in any state to sway an election, and even they are likely to prioritize other issues.) It would be very surprising to me if any serious presidential candidate advocated cutting agricultural subsidies. Marco polo (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, that makes sense. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal arts education

What does it means?

The context: "PhDs are definitely more broadly educated in America because the entire concept of liberal arts education absolutely does not exist in any form in Germany." 80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a reading of Liberal arts would help? Dismas|^(talk) 14:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, why wouldn't the concept exist in Germany? I suppose that all-around the Western world people would recognize this educational curriculum. GoingOnTracks (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me wonder what "conservative arts" might be. I'm picturing a version of Michelangelo's David wearing boxing shorts. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The complement of "liberal arts" is not "conservative arts", but rather vocational training. Liberal is not meant to be a political term. GoingOnTracks (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the complement. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that in Germany students specialize more early on in their education than in the US—by the time you get to university level, you are not taking general or breadth courses like one would in a US university. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technologically behind

Is Africa generally considered to be "technologically behind"?

also, does technologically behind mean technolgy is not available? or its not affordable?

ty

DancingRobotek9 (talk) dancingrobotek9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingRobotek9 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most African countries have very low incomes and capital stocks compared to other parts of the world, so few Africans or African businesses can afford advanced-technology goods (computers, servers, advanced manufacturing equipment, aircraft, even cars, although cell phones are fairly widely distributed). However, technology is not just a matter of goods, or stuff. Technology is really know-how, and Africa lacks technological know-how partly because its educational system is underdeveloped (again due to a lack of funding), and partly because Africans who learn advanced technologies overseas can make much more money overseas and hence are unlikely to bring that know-how back to their home countries. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The greater problem is that many African countries have corrupt governments and a lack of enforced property rights. This means that there is no incentive for entrepreneurs to create jobs as there is no guarantee that what one creates won't be taken/burned/destroyed at gunpoint. Wikiant (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point. This map of Africa shows GDP per capita by nation: [8]. Note that the two nations with the highest per capita GDP (Botswana and Gabon) also have had very little conflict in recent history. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptions

Just out of interest, why is it that rail, ship and aviation etc enthusiasts are often perceived as and referred to as "retards" (in modern informal English), obsessive, no life, unemployed etc. In comparison car enthusiasts are often perceived as "cool". Why is this? Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One possible answer - cars convey, and thus represent the individual/individuals. Whereas trains, ships etc often are used for mass transit and thus are not individualistic (being and 'individual' is cool, right?)

Consider someone who is interested in luxury or high performance yachts - these represent individual desire, and thus are cool. Is this correct?87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car enthusiasts are generally only interested in the really old, really new or really fast. Train and plane enthusiasts on the other hand tend to be interested in almost anything. A petrolhead would probably laugh derisively at a 1987 Ford Fiesta, for example, while a trainspotter might be just as interested in a British Rail Class 142 as they would in the Orient Express, for instance. There's also the "gotta catch'em all" attitude many railfans and planespotters have which makes them seem quite anal - they'll want to get photos of, for example, every single Class 37 or DC-10, while a motor enthusiast would be happy just seeing one Lamborghini Gallardo. Finally, to spot trains or planes, you generally have to go to a railway station or airport, which means making a long trip, probably with some fairly serious camera kit. Car fans on the other prefer to collect, so other than the odd motor show, they'll be happy to stay at home polishing their pride and joy. Laïka 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another diff is that most car enthusiasts can afford at least one real car, whereas many train, ship, and plane enthusiasts can only afford models. The real thing is definitely cooler than a model, and some of this "coolness" wears off on the owner. StuRat (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat points out, most train/aircraft/ship enthusiasts are restricted to models or computer simulations to enjoy their hobby. Thus, they are piled into the geek social category, which is so uncool. Car enthusiasts, on the other hand, can often afford real cars and have to get their hands dirty to maintain/upgrade their machines. It's blue collar work and, thus, cool. Generally (at least in America), blue collar work & hobbies are considered more "manly" and thus cooler than white collar work & hobbies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British term is Anorak... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where would Richard Branson fit in then, he looks a white-collar kind of guy who collects planes and a lot of other things. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as a form of peer pressure. For example, in a typical rural community in Australia, a young man who doesn't express interest in the core social building blocks: footy, cars, beer, girls and rock music (not necessarily in that order but they're all non-negotiable), is seen as "different", not really "one of the boys". That's ok if you don't mind being different; but if you do mind, you conform. It's not as if these interests are somehow encoded in our genes (except maybe for the girl thing, for most guys). It's not much different in the capital cities, although there's wider scope for individualism there, and you have more of a chance of being invisible (he he, nice image: the "invisible individualist"), whereas in the country towns differences stand out more readily, and people talk (believe me, they talk). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Féin broadcast ban

I'm looking for information on the broadcast ban of Sinn Féin spokespeople that was in effect in Ireland and Britain in the 80s and early 90s (I think). I can't find any mention in the Sinn Féin article. Stanstaple (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Gerry Adams#Voice ban for some info. Nanonic (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stanstaple (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheapest coffee - instant or ground?

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#cheapest coffee - instant or ground?. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(thanks, but the reason it was here is that it's a finance question) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.57.89 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here it comes back home, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a coffee expert but like caffeine, for me it's just a drug. How can I maximize my caffeine, is really really cheap instant coffee (generic, store brand) a better value per mg of caffeine or is really really cheap ground coffee (generic, store brand) the better value? Not including the price of the coffee maker or water warmer, since that gets amortized over a looooooooooong time and can be picked up used too.
I'm having trouble deciding because I don't know how much of the ground coffee gets "thrown out" and how much gets into the coffee. Per net weight, ground coffee seems much cheaper than the cheapest instant coffee, but this could be misleading for the reason I just mentioned.

This sounds more like a question for the Science Desk than for Humanities. You would likely get a more reasoned argument there than here. If I knew how to move it, I would. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above moved from the Humanities desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try comparing the price per serving instead of price per weight. That is, if a jar of instant is $3 and says it makes 60 cups (I'm making up numbers...I can't stand instant!), consider it "5¢/cup" instead of "$3/whatever-net-weight". Likewise for however-many servings are claimed on a #10 can of whatever-store-brand grounds. DMacks (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buy mild roast; it contains more caffeine than dark roast. Even better, look into caffeine pills, which might be cheaper for someone with no taste buds and no interest in flavour whatsoever. At least in Canada, instant coffee is never cheaper - it's almost four times the price per serving of cheap ground coffee - if you can even find it. --NellieBly (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

Question

Is there any common term for this phenomenon - when for instance, a white person, perceives that most of the people from the Asian ethnicity look the same in his eyes, or vise versa. I would be glad to find a Wikipedia article on this phenomenon. Acidburn24m (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the precise term. I looked around (very hard to find anything about this issue) and found this article: Face perception. There is a paragraph which seems to deal with this issue. Flamarande (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Alexander Morrison should know. He got into hot water in 1995 when he told an all-white jury at Derby crown court "I have before me photographs of twelve Asian men, all of whom look exactly the same." Xn4 20:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term is "race blindness" but I may be wrong. 71.174.16.91 (talk)Glenda —Preceding comment was added at 04:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Great Classical Novels Dream of the Red Chamber

Of the Four Great Classical Novels, was Dream of the Red Chamber the only one that was not completely written in Classical Chinese?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to our article, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms "was written in partly vernacular and partly Classical Chinese."John Z (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided left and right wing... ie. social conservatism and fiscal conservatism go hand in hand

I always wondered why (at least in English-speaking and Western countries) liberal and conservative two seemingly completely unrelated issues (social values and economy) become intertwined to form left and right...ie. Why are a fundamentalist Christian related to capitalist businessmen, I'd expect they have nothing to do with each other (especially you'd expect Christians to be not associated with that bit about Jesus telling to reject material goods and all)and why are social liberals (ie. believe in being progressive and rejecting older traditions) associated with rejecting capitalism and being a hippie-like socialist...

Why is there this trend anyways? I always thought it would be more rational to have separate terms for the economic idealologies and social ones rather than lump them together to form left and right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.99 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a lot of thought on this. There are some—Libertarians in particular—who say, "let's disentangle them!" and use their little Nolan Charts and the like to show how that might be. And indeed it is the case that you can find people all over the scale—fundamentalist Christians who are socialists, sure, why not, I'm sure there are some out there, there's an almost infinite amount of variety when you are talking about the fringes. In practice, though, on the whole, I tend to think that the ideas of people like George Lakoff (as articulated in his 1996 book Moral Politics) are a bit more plausible as to explaining why certain seemingly unrelated beliefs consistently end up getting clumped together for most people—that they correspond to often unstated metaphors (or large-scale beliefs, whatever you want to call them) about what sort of thing our society is and how it should be run. Lakoff's personal approach says that the difference between "left" and "right" in the United States, anyway, is about fundamental metaphors analogizing the government and country as a family, and they correspond to different beliefs about how a family should be run (are kids inherently good and need to be protected, or inherently bad and need to be disciplined?). I'm butchering his argument—read his page if you want more details, or the book if you really want to jump in—but maybe you can see as an example the type of explanation he provides for such a thing. There are other explanations as well. I don't think the Libertarian answer is very satisfactory, personally, because it doesn't explain why the vast majority of people seem to honestly and organically fall into one of two primary categories. As Lakoff points out, even Libertarians tend to come in left and right varieties as well. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Left and Right have different meaning in other parts of the world. In general, though, leftists promote social programs, minority rights and providing for the community as a whole; while rightists (if that's even a word!) promote individual freedoms and self-sufficiency. Extremely left-wing groups promote Marxist socialism, while extreme right-wing groups promote tightly held tradition. Both are prone to racism, nationalism and isolationism. In the United States, even our liberals are considered rather right-wing by European standards. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I gather it leads to some confusion since economic and social values are tied together differently in different countries. Socially liberal but economically conservative is, I gather, how the UK government generally looks to the US (I seem to recall there being a whole article about this, but maybe I dreamt it?) 79.66.22.23 (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there has been a flip-flop on this in the US. During the Civil War, the Democrats were the party of the poor, yes, but were also the socially conservative party, being pro-slavery. The Republicans were the party of the rich and socially liberal. This trend continued until some time in the middle of the 20th century. I'd say the socially liberal policies of Democrats like JFK caused the Democrats to flip, and the Republicans did likewise. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to where FDR fits into this Stu. Interesting discussion so far, so I hope I don't torch the whole thing with my platitudes, but here goes.. One general idea, alluded to above by HandThatFeeds, is that the political left generally supports greater equality, and believes that needs to be secured by state intervention. They don't accept that the status quo is just, nor that the market alone can improve social welfare sufficiently. The political right generally thinks the opposite, hence they value freedom. This gives them sympathies on social matters that are at least reasonably predictable: left-wingers favour the "underdogs" - gays for example; right-wingers favour the idea that the status quo of middle class, white, patriarchal values (platitude alert!) is a successful tradition, and is a greater breeder of welfare than new ideas. Essentially, it has at least something to do with what the status quo is, economically and socially. This is never itself simple and clear, so the generalisation into two wings is only that, and not taken as anything more. Remember always that regardless of this, politics breeds strange bedfellows at the best of times. 203.221.127.50 (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and China

Did the two know of each other's existences in classical and Bronze age times? When would be the earliest contact between the two countries/empires and what would be their opinions of each other first time they met? 74.14.117.99 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Road might be what you're looking for. Corvus cornix_talk 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In classical times, and perhaps earlier, there was an awareness in the West of the great civilization of China; however, until Roman times, little was known about it except that it was the source of silk. During Roman times, travelers almost certainly journeyed between China and Rome along the Silk Road, and ambassadors traveled from Rome to China. However, during the time of the Kingdom of Israel, there was little or no travel from Israel to China, even if some Israelites may have known vaguely of China. On the other hand, the Chinese were almost certainly unaware of the Kingdom of Israel. The ancient Chinese were generally not interested in the world beyond the peoples on their borders. The opening of the Silk Road about the second century B.C. (long after the fall of the Kingdom of Israel) brought a greater awareness among the Chinese of the lands to the west, but Chinese records refer only to the largest and most important states to their west, such as the Seleucid Empire, the Parthian Empire, and the Roman Empire. Chinese interest in these distant lands was still limited, and it is unlikely that they would have known of the existence of the relatively small part of the Roman Empire known as Judaea or of the Jewish people who inhabited it. Marco polo (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest History of the Jews in China

Jewish settlers are documented in China as early as the 7th or 8th century CE, but may have arrived during the mid Han Dynasty, or even as early as 231 BCE

87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "neighborhoods" in our mind about?

Is there a name for it? And what is it, exactly? Messages from beyond? Subconscious hallucinations? Dreams, drug trips, and even the right music can trigger this. What evolutionary advanantage is there to being completely detached from reality? . Do mind machines (probably disguised as cell towers) have something to do with this?--Dr. Carefree (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagination, leisure, entertainment, escapism? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the government get money from?

Is it just taken directly from the treasury? Or is more money simply printed? Seems they can always come up with millions on short notice. Does this affect the national debt?Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The goverment can't "take" money directly from the treasury or print some for its own sake. It finances itself over taxes, fees, and emitting bonds and other similar debt instruments. GoingOnTracks (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some governments around the world have simply printed more money but that can cause hyperinflation. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US government actually currently can and does print money when it needs it, in combination with taxation and other money-producing programs. The irresponsible printing of money is part of the reason inflation is such a problem in America. Wrad (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no irresponsibl printing in the US. As far as I know, this is only an urban legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingOnTracks (talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation isn't a major problem in the US, and printing dollar bills is a very minor component of the increase in the amount of money circulating. Money supply would be a good starting point for reading more; in particular, there's a graph there comparing the size of the different measures of the amount of money in the US: M0, the amount of physical currency, has remained nearly constant as a fraction of the total money supply for at least the past half-century. --67.185.172.158 (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not inflation is a major problem is debatable, but the idea that there is "no irresponsible printing in the US" is a bit naive. There is irresponsible printing at least to some degree. Saying that there is absolutely none is quite a position to take. Irresponsible printing does contribute partly to inflation in the US. Wrad (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources about irreponsible printing in the US? Principally showing printing with the aim to pay debt (as in the third world). The Fed is smarter than that. GoingOnTracks (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the US only prints money to replace old, damaged, or destroyed money. Inflation hasn't been a problem in the US until quite recently, and the recent spike in prices was caused by the tight oil supply in conjunction with the US's overdependence on oil. A misguided policy decision to solve this problem by paying farmers to turn corn into ethanol also caused food prices to spike. Corn prices go up directly, so does the price of animals that use corn for feed, so does the price of alternative crops that are switched to corn production, etc. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, I came across cancelled checks from WWII in an archive transferring a few million dollars to Leslie Groves for the purposes of the Manhattan Project (they did it like this because they wanted to avoid the normal channels, for secrecy). I thought it was pretty amusing that they actually wrote him a check from the US Treasury. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

Wanted: Sword identification

I'm looking for information on a sword I've seen in a couple of fictional contexts. It's got a blade about three feet long, but instead of tapering to a point, the tip of the blade is a crescent about 50% wider than the body of the blade. I've seen it as the Greatsword in the video game Fable, and as a couple of the swords in the Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind manga. Is this an actual sword type, or are these drawing from a common fictional inspiration? --67.185.172.158 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are three here[9], more here.[10] It's called a cutlass or scimitar, even a form of katana – more recognisable as a pirate sword, but when I look at the articles, it's more of a theatrical or artist's impression by comparison. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. I'm not familiar with the Nausicaä blade, but the Greatsword in Fable is not a cutlass. Cutlasses and scimitars do indeed get wider toward the tip, but they're curved blades with a single, very distinct, cutting edge. The greatswords in Fable are straight, appear to be double-edged, and have a... er, swollen tip. That is, the edges are straight and parallel, then briefly widen and then form a flat "tip" that's perpendicular to the edges. In outline, it looks almost like a column with a Doric capital. Here is a (small) picture. I think they're entirely fictional; I've never seen anything quite like it and it would have some real limitations as a practical weapon - not only would they be insanely heavy, the knobbed tip would defeat the purpose of having the "blade" - you'd never cut anything because the tip would get in the way. Matt Deres (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a citizen kills a diplomat

What if a resident of a host nation kills a diplomats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.65 (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happens due to diplomatic immunity. This is not meant as legal advise. Kills diplomats at your own risk. GoingOnTracks (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, GoingOnTracks? In a sense, you always "kill at your own risk", but I know of no "diplomatic immunity" that protects the one who brings harm to a diplomat. The diplomat is protected if he/she does harm, to a great or lesser extent, depending on the laws of the diplomat's country of origin. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not legal advice, but the resident would likely be investigated and prosecuted for murder by the government of the place where the killing occurs, and, if found guilty, sent to prison for a very long time (or be subject to the death penalty if that place has capital punishment). Keep in mind that the killing of a foreign diplomat could have repercussions for the host nation's foreign relations, and so the government may well take a more aggressive stance in prosecution of the killer than they would in case of the killing of a citizen of their own country. Diplomatic immunity applies to crimes committed by a diplomat, not against a diplomat. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happens to a killer diplomat, but in the reverse, diplomatic immunity is non-transferable. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, putting it another way, diplomatic immunity is for diplomats. - Nunh-huh 03:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that nothing happens to a killer diplomat -- he would undoubtedly be expelled from the host country. (Depending on the circumstances and the home country's attitude toward the host country's justice system, the diplomat's home country might waive immunity and allow the diplomat to be tried in the host country.) He could also be prosecuted by his home country, but there's no guarantee of that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind if the murder is commited inside the diplomatic mission (embassy or high commision) of the diplomat, given the extraterritoriality status I suspect the diplomatic mission would be entitled to hold the murderer in the mission, and transfer him/her to their home country for trial for murder of the diplomat. Even if they don't manage to hold the murderer, they will probably be entitled to ask for extradition of the murderer (if there is an extradition treaty between the 2 countries). Indeed this may be the case even if the murder does not occur in the diplomatic mission. In reality, I suspect in most cases the diplomatic mission will simply hand over the murderer for trial by the host country.This discussion supports that view. Even if the country of the diplomat does want to try the murderer themselves, I suspect they will first hand over the suspect to the host country and then ask for extradition rather then try to hold the murderer in the mission and transfer him/her without explicit permission of the host country. (Bear in mind that the idea that a diplomatic mission is soveign territory of the country who owns it is in fact incorrect [11].) I also found some potentially interesting books via Google if you want to read further [12]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, everyone answering this question has jumped to the conclusion that a killer is ipso facto a murderer, but it isn't so. The killing might be lawful. Xn4 19:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy bleep, you just spontaneously used ispo facto, correctly, italicized as it should be, and not even blue linked, it comes so naturally for you. Will you marry me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.108.31 (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law question.com

I know that Wikipedia doesn't answer questions that deals with law, but is there any website that take questions that deals with Canadian and International Law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.65 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can answer questions that deal with the law. We can't give legal advice. There's an important distinction there. Dismas|^(talk) 03:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example, it would be OK to ask what the sentence is for murder in California. I'm quite new here, so I don't know if this is allowed or not - but maybe the person who asked their question could post it here, and we could tell them whether we could answer it or not.78.150.225.157 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

surnames

What type of surnames are these?: Bandali, Hundani, Haidari, Haiderzada, Khodadi, Medifar, Shahmoradi Zavareh, Sheidae'i, Hoidevzada, Karimzada, Pai, Noorbakhsh and Ahmadshahi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.65 (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean where they are from, they are all Persian. --Omidinist (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi-speaking and Urdu-speaking ethnic groups

Which ethnic groups in India speaks only Hindi and and which ethnic group in Pakistan speaks only Urdu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.65 (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the the Saharia in Madhya Pradesh speak Hindi exclusively. Rockpocket 05:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanafi

How Hanafi school of thought reached to Indian Subcontinent? Who introduced Hanafi to the people of Indian Subcontinent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.65 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Delhi Sultanate was the first Indian dynasty that followed the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. According to Development Of Islamic Jurisprudence In Sultanate Period:

The domination of Hanafi school of jurisprudence in Medieval India owes partly to the Turkish rulers who were Hanafi and partly to the 'ulama' who came from Nishapur, Sana'an, Gliaznin, Kashan, Balkh, Khwarizm, Tabrez, etc., which had been centres of the Hanafi school of thought.

That said, it is likely that Hanafi jurisprudence reached India long before that, albeit on a smaller scale. According to The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period, Islam reached the Mappila on the sub-continent at the time of Muhammad Himself and there was regular contact between Arab traders and Indians from then on. So its likely that Hanafi was introduced to India not too long after it was founded by Abu Hanifa an-Nu‘man. Rockpocket 06:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dress in Spain

I'm a 20s something American law student who's going to be taking some courses in Madrid next month. While I'm not interested in completely redoing my wardrobe, I would like to fit in a little, and wondered how a typical Spaniard in my situation would dress. I've done some Google searches, but I'm having trouble distinguishing legitimate advice. Anyone have any ideas for me? Thanks in advance. GreatManTheory (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but ... indicating if you are male or female might give others a good starting point ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, good point. I'm male. And now that I think about it, I'm not sure if the Entertainment desk is the best place to pose this question. Would anyone mind moving this to the Humanities or Miscellaneous desk for me? (I don't know how, or I'd do it myself) Thanks, GreatManTheory (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What they do look like[13] and what game stereotypers make them look like[14] (scroll down). Julia Rossi (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had this been left on the Entertainment Desk, I would have suggested wearing a bullfighter's outfit, for the pure entertainment value. StuRat (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick search I found [this picture of a faculty get-together] in Navarre. But academic staff looks pretty much the same anywhere in a moderate climate - perhaps you were more interested in street fashion? 84.239.133.47 (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The general trick is to arrive conservatively dressed and adjust your wardrobe after you've got the feel of the place. --Wetman (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be very hot and many buildings don't have air-conditioning. You could pack some short-sleeved shirts and chinos. I'm sure students and academics wear polo shirts (with logos) and t-shirts (without outrageous designs), but I don't think Spanish men usually wear shorts in town. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are jeans acceptable about town, or should I stick with chinos? GreatManTheory (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politician income

Can anyone direct me to a reference source for US Senators and Representatives true income, including benifits such as medical, retirement, income taxes etc.? I have read several wikipedia reference articles bur cannot find one that deals with total income. Thank you. WSC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.203.191 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WSC. You mean absolutely everything they earn - Congressional and privately (eg. speaking engagement salaries)? Publicly paid salaries and expenses are likely published, private income might be harder to track down.78.150.225.157 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is an income tax benefit? Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Nil Einne - I am not sure what the questioner means by the phrase, but there are parts of some politicians' salaries in some jurisdictions (Canadian Federal politicians, for example) that are not subject to income tax. That would be an "income-tax benefit" to me. I don't know how the U.S. system of compensation works, though.៛ Bielle (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What religions / philosophies believe that life and suffering give us reasons to enjoy heaven?

I believe that life and suffering (possibly over the course of several lifetimes) shape our unique desires, which give us reasons to enjoy Heaven. I use the term "Heaven" in the general sense, not specifically Christian. Also, I don't believe in Hell or enlightenment. I believe that malicious desires are extinguished upon entering Heaven. What religions / philosophies share these beliefs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steohawk (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe this to some degree. In their Book of Mormon it states that:

"There is an opposition in all things. If not so... righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." 2 Nep. 2:11-13

In other words, there can be no good without the bad. If there wasn't any misery here then God's whole plan for our happiness (and entrance into heaven) would be destroyed, because we need to be able to choose one or the other and experience both in order to appreciate either. Quite a lovely passage. Wrad (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wrad. Steohawk (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Inferiority Complex?

Is it true that Japanese have an inferiority complex about the way they look compared to Europeans? Hence the anime characters typically don't look Asian and have huge eyes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to the last line of this exerpt from the article Anime, which explains the large eyes as follows:

A common approach is the large eyes style drawn on many anime and manga characters. Osamu Tezuka was inspired by the exaggerated features of American cartoon characters such as Betty Boop, Mickey Mouse, and Disney's Bambi.[3][19] Tezuka found that large eyes style allowed his characters to show emotions distinctly. When Tezuka began drawing Ribbon no Kishi, the first manga specifically targeted at young girls, Tezuka further exaggerated the size of the characters' eyes. Indeed, through Ribbon no Kishi, Tezuka set a stylistic template that later shōjo artists tended to follow.

Coloring is added to give eyes, particularly the cornea, and some depth. The depth is accomplished by applying variable color shading. Generally, a mixture of a light shade, the tone color, and a dark shade is used.[20][21] Cultural anthropologist Matt Thorn argues that Japanese animators and audiences do not perceive such stylized eyes as inherently more or less foreign.[5]'

If they are not perceived as foreign, then it is not likely the eyes are any indication of a feeling of inferiority. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not perceived as foreign? Right... Somehow I find that unconvincing. Also, there are rumors of large numbers of Japanese women who get eye surgery to make the openings of their eyes larger. Seems to add up to an inferiority complex... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian blepharoplasty is not restricted to Japanese; it is used by many Asian groups. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no European who bears any more than a passing resemblance to the anime figures either. How things "seem" to you based on "rumors", and what arguments you find convincing are, of course, matters of your personal opinion and belief. I might equally argue, with the same type of data, that the figures of "Popeye" and "Superman" show an inherent sense of inferiority in the American male about his body shape with respect to gorillas, for example, but I wouldn't. This is beginning to feel like a trolling exercise, and I shall thus abandon my participation here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether and to what degree Japanese people find manga/anime characters with unrealistically large eyes make the latter look foreign is a question that can be resolved empirically, but the truth or falsity of (a properly formulated version of) that hypothesis is unaffected by how convincing you find it. Even if, for the sake of argument, unrealistically large eyes do make manga/anime characters look more foreign, your reasoning is still missing premises that would connect that "fact" with the conclusion. As it stands now, your conclusion is a non sequitur. If the Japanese did have an inferiority complex and which manifests as a preference for manga/anime characters with unrealistically large eyes, why didn't they give their manga/anime characters other body features that would make them more foreign or European-like, say blond hair, curly hair, prominent & pointed noses, freckles, and light-colored irises? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.233.193 (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facial features of many anime characters (light/white skin, big eyes) make them resemble Europeans more than Asians, as had been noted by many other than myself. Is the cause of that an inferiority complex? I've asked this question hoping for an unbiased and carefully thought out reply. This is supposed to be the place for questions to be asked and answered. An unbiased and well thought out reply I have not received. If you find the question too politically incorect, Bielle, by all means allow someone with a stronger stomach to answer it. BTW, I don't remember Popeye, but I'd indeed argue the character of Superman was born due partly to some feelings of male inferiority. I would like you to note, also, that I have nothing against the Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were given an answer with information specifically dealing with the only 'evidence' you put forth in favor of your 'theory'. It didn't seem biased to me. Pleaase consider the possibility that your theory is wrong, and Bielle isn't part of some conspiracy to cover it up because it's not politically correct.

"Do Manga Characters Look White"

Also, remember that anime characters are designed by and for Japanese people. To them a simple :) smiley face makes them think of what's familiar to them, an Asian face. If you want to draw a cartoon face that looks asian to an westerner, you've got to add some exaggerated features to it (Slanted eyes, dark hair, etc.), but all that stuff is taken for granted over there. APL (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given your argument some thought, APL, but I think it's not as convincing as the argument I've put forward. I've already read both articles cited here before asking this question. One other thing you might have difficulty explaining is girl's breasts in anime, which are also not drawn true to Japanese phenotype. You can't say that any breasts look to an Asian person like Asian breasts. The breasts in anime are notably un-Asian and it's not a coincidence real Japanese women's breast aren't large. What could help here is the opinion of some experts on Japanese culture. Even the opinion of any Japanese would be helpful.

[quote]If the Japanese did have an inferiority complex and which manifests as a preference for manga/anime characters with unrealistically large eyes, why didn't they give their manga/anime characters other body features that would make them more foreign or European-like, say blond hair, curly hair, prominent & pointed noses, freckles, and light-colored irises?[/quote] Because it's not freckles or pointed noses that make them feel inferior.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

Salem

Who were the youngest victims of the Salem Witch Hysteria and how many of them were under 25? 71.174.16.91 (talk)LeighAnn —Preceding comment was added at 02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM, there were two victims out of nineteen that were convicted of witchcraft. I am not sure of it really is two, because I just skimmed and scanned the article without reading in detail.Coffsneeze (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a bit on what you call a "victim" - many were victims who weren't convicted. It was primarily the perpetrators that were under 25, falsely accusing their elders, but probably the youngest victim was the infant daughter of Sarah Good, who was born in prison and died of disease from the intolerable conditions. -Nunh-huh 03:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to People of the Salem Witch Trials, most of those with their own articles who were executed were rather old. John Willard may have been as young as 19 or 20. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked because I just watched the movie Teaching Mrs. Tingle, where the main character does her history class project on a girl killed during the Salem Witch Hysteria. The use of the term "girl" and not "woman" made it sound like the victim was a teenager, and according to the movie character doing her project on the teenaged victim, she was eventually "burned at the stake". But it seems like no one was burned, they were all hanged or crushed by stones. So was that movie completely off and mixed up the perpetrators with the victims? 71.174.16.91 (talk)LeighAnn —Preceding comment was added at 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cézanne's "Flowers in a Rococo Vase"

I was wondering whether anyone could tell me whether the flowers painted in this painting are real flowers that exist in nature, and if so, what their names would be. I am trying to replicate or at least draw from this in a bouquet if possible. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Thucydides of Thrace (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The white flower with a dark center, in the middle of the bouquet, looks like a pansy[15]to me. The pinkish flower with a dark center (or is that an obstructing leaf?) directly above it might also be a pansy. 71.174.16.91 (talk)Glenda —Preceding comment was added at 03:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

international criminal court

Do you agree that the international criminal court has an important role to play in the international arena? should it's area of activity be expanded? please elaborate on your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.250.238 (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Borders

My question is whether wikipedia contains detailed information about the exact definitions of borders between countries. The most information I can find are bits and pieces embedded in articles, especially for famous borders or areas of dispute. Just to illustrate one of over 190 countries, Brazil has a rather complex border with many parts of it following a seemingly arbitrary path when viewing a satellite photo of the country. I would think that there has to be some legal agreements/treaties that precisely define the non-disputed borders of the world, but I just can't find any through google or wikipedia. (I am looking for data on all the countries in the world, not just Brazil) Thank you. Dwr12 (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]