Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 25

Merry Christmas

To all the Ref Desk readers and writers, of whatever spiritual or philosophical persuasion, may this day be filled with joy for you and all those you love. 01:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC) (Forgot to sign. Bielle (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Merry Christmas to you, Bielle, and to all the other Wikipedians. --Omidinist (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded Bielle, and thanks to all for your efforts on this site. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people celebrate Newton's Brithday rather than Christmas. Not sure but I think RMS may be one of them Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry merry Christmas to all!!! Rhinoracer (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Noël, Noël!--Wetman (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Festivus. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Deprivation of political rights in China

Criminals are often sentenced to "deprivation of political rights" (剝奪政治權利) in PRChina. Can someone please explain this to me? How can you deprive people of something they don't have in the first place? F (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know anything specifically about China, but in other contexts the phrase often means that the right to vote in elections or be a candidate for political office has been taken away. AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But the whole point is that you can't vote or stand in elections in China. F (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying there are no civil liberties at all in China??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, "political rights" in this sense has very little to do with actual substantive real-world freedom as experienced on the ground. It refers instead to the formal legal right to participate in elections etc (however meaningful or meaningless elections may happen to be in a particular society). There certainly are Elections in China (even though most candidates running for anything above the lowest village level have to be approved by the Communist party to be allowed to run). AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You must remember, that despite what it might seem like in international comparison and what it might sound like when China is discussed in e.g. the US, the people of the PRC do have political rights. They are not identical to, and in several fields far from as far-going as those of most Americans or Europeans, but they are political rights nonetheless. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good for you for pre-empting the sarcastic comment that I could have made. :) Typically in the USA, convicted felons are also deprived of certain civil liberties, such as voting. I don't think there's anything to legally stop them from running for office, as the elections depend on the good judgment of the voters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Our article zh:剥夺政治权利 says:

People who have been deprived of political rights [in the PRC] do not enjoy the following:

• Right to vote and eligibility for office (BTW, the Chinese here is the same as the German: "active and passive election rights")
• Freedom of expression, publication, congregation, joining of organizations, travel, and of holding protest demonstrations.
• Right to hold national public offices.
• Right to hold offices in state owned companies, enterprises, business units and people's collective leadership tasks.

If you're interested in this topic, it would be great if you could start an article about "deprivation of political rights"; I had thought of simply translating the Chinese article, but it would be odd to only limit ourselves to one country. — Sebastian 21:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec, so the matter seems to be clarified) I have no idea, but it is possible that the passive voting right (the right to stand for position X in an election), is curtailed in some legislations by the above procedure. It would seem nonsensical to "cancel" the right to vote and yet to allow the tight to be voted for. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The PRC isn't the only Marxist state in which this has been done; the USSR often used "deprivation of electoral rights" [or maybe a different translation, but that's what it amounted to] that as a punishment, especially under Stalin. While voting wasn't officially compulsory for eligible voters in the USSR, in practice it was much more compulsory than it is in countries such as Australia where it's legally compulsory; your vote didn't have any practical effect, but you definitely voted. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So, in reality, being deprived of voting rights meant they didn't have to stand outside in the cold with everyone else to vote for some idiot they hated. Sounds as much like a "punishment" as US cops who shoot someone under suspicious circumstances, and get suspended, with pay (AKA, a free vacation). StuRat (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sets of conditions seen as indicative of stock price rise

What sets of conditions (e.g., P/E ratio above/below X while other statistic above/below Y and et cetera) are considered to be indicative of increased probablilty of a rise in a stock's price? 72.218.12.90 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

None and nothing predicts a stocks rise in price, due to the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. People who make money out of you buying shares (directly or indirectly) will try to convince you otherwise, or people who've been suckered in by them. 78.146.194.118 (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But I didn't ask what actually works. I was curious what is considered indicative (obviously by the believers). Personally, I agree that it's a crap shoot. 72.218.12.90 (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about technical analysis. It is a highly questionable trading technique. I think it works (to the small extent that it does) because of self-fulfilling prophecies. All the technical analysts see a certain indicator that they've learned means "buy" so they buy. That pushes the price up and they think "oh look, we got it right!". Of course, you'll only make money from that if you are one of the first to react. It also means that anyone proposing a new system is almost certainly wrong, since a system only works if lots of people are doing it. --Tango (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

See the table at the top of Investment Environment for a number of indicators of major cycles in the stock market. There are also time cycle based theories. The applicability of usual cycles are being questioned at present largely because of the relative size of debt burdens (consumer, government and external) compared to GDP in many developed economies. In the US housing oversupply, shadow inventory of houses not yet in foreclosure but where the owner has negative equity, a coming second wave of mortgage resets are also casting duobt on whether or not the usual reflation strategies can work. dinghy (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A stock is considered a good candidate for a quick run-up in price when one of the following conditions apply: it is undervalued; the market or industrial sector is undervalued; or the day of the week ends in "y". DOR (HK) (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

xmas msg

wherelese, if anywhere, is teh Queens xmas message to the commonwealth boardcast to in the commonwealth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.40.13 (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Try http://news.bbc.com and The official website of The British Monarchy for the Royal Christmas Message. It used to be a simple, direct affair but now Her Majesty seems to be used more and more as the narrator of a multi-media extravaganza (produced by her cinematically-involved son). I'm much more of a traditionalist myself, with images of King George V or George VI sitting before a microphone at Bush House or Broadcasting House to talk to his people around the world. Our British family in Providence, Rhode Island used to gather around a short-wave radio to hear the Queen's Message over the BBC General Overseas Service when the BBC still broadcast direct to the U.S. and Canada. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Royal Christmas Message implies that it is not produced by her son. Lucky the CIA didn't catch you listening to the Queen. 78.151.96.82 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's on CBC in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia, 7:20 pm ABC Television. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In the (republican, non-Commonwealth) United States, it's broadcast by C-SPAN.[1] —D. Monack ^talk 05:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Who writes the Royal Christmas Message?

Who writes and scripts the Royal Christmas Message to the Empire Commonwealth? 78.146.194.118 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Queen. I'm sure she has aides that help, but it is a personal message. It's not like the Queen's Speech where she just reads what the government has written. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the Queen ever sing?

OK, here's a more-ignorant-than-usual question, from one who has never heard the Queen's Xmas message: Does the Queen ever sing in public? I mean aside from singing hymns along with the group in a church congregation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing Her Majesty with Queen (band) ...--TammyMoet (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really, although I'm sure watching the royals sing "We Are the Champions" would be a hoot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe she sang the US national anthem at a 9/11 memorial service. The British monarch singing a foreign national anthem was completely unprecedented. That's the only example of the Queen singing that I remember seeing on the news. I'm sure she sings in church and she may have sung "Happy Birthday" on occasion, but neither event would have been newsworthy enough for me to know about it. --Tango (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was in a group, again. Does she actually sing "God Save the Queen" when a group sings it, or would that be seen as a little immodest? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of immodesty as such. It would just be completely inappropriate. A bit like proposing a toast to oneself. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was in a group. I've certainly never heard of the Queen performing a solo in public - do you have any reason to think she might have done? I can't find any reliable source saying the Queen either does or doesn't sing the national anthem - she might do because it is the anthem of the nation, not the monarchy, and she may want to pay tribute to the nation. That is happens to mention her may be considered unimportant. --Tango (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

God save thy gracious Me,

Long live thy noble Me,

God save Me:

Send me victorious,

Happy and glorious,

Long to reign over thee:

God save Me.

I think there was something like that in To Be or Not To Be. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

DaVinci's "Last Supper"

Today I heard that when Leonardo daVinci finished painting the "Last Supper", that he felt the bottom of the picture was a bit too plain, so he painted a small ship at the bottom of the painting. However, as the story goes, at the first viewing of the painting, the viewers were more interested in the small ship than in the subjects of Jesus and the apostles, so as soon as everyone had gone, Leonardo quickly painted over the little ship to remove it from view.

What can you tell me about this little ship or the "story" about it? I have already read several websites who proclaim that they are telling all the "secrets" about the painting, but no one mentions any little ship. I am trying to verify the story. (Besides, it seems to me that if they have done all this restoration, and done it with the latest technology, that they would have uncovered the ship underneath the paint that Leonardo had masked it with.)

Please help me get to the truth about this item, either from your knowledge or your awareness of where I can find it. Thank you, and a Blessed Christmas to you. Jerry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.180.136 (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing at The Last Supper (Leonardo)... I presume the point of the story is that it's unverifiable because of the doorway cut into the center bottom of the painting. AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that artists often painted over earlier paintings, if they didn't like them, as canvas was apparently quite expensive then. We can see the under-paintings now with X-rays and other technology. I don't know if this applies to this particular painting, though. To me, the funny thing about that painting was always that everyone's on one side of the table. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

December 26

Princess of Girona

Was Isabella, Princess of Asturias and Joanna of Castile ever Princess of Girona during their father's reign? Aragon had different succession laws then Castile's and Ferdinand II of Aragon was trying to produce a male heir by his second wife, which might indicated he didn't recognize these two daughters as his heir till he had no other choice. I don't care about what any Wikipedia Article say, they're not reliable on this. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Prince of Asturias article says that Joanna was Princess of Girona (with no sourcing), but does not mention Isabella having that title. But the Prince of Girona article says Isabella was Princess of Girona. Woogee (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This link may be of use to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I edited those pages so don't mention them. I trying to remake the list but I'm not sure if she was or her sister Isabella were Princess of Girona. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a link that quotes documents showing Joanna was called princess of Asturias and Gerona during her lifetime. It does not show Isabella having that title. That doesn't necessarily prove that Isabella was not called princess of Gerona.--Cam (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Marrying in Washington

Basically I'm writing a story (ah, the usual opening). I have two characters who spontaneously decided to marry in Washington State. How long would it take between saying to the courts (or whoever makes it legal) "we want to marry ASAP" and "You are legally married"? Can it be arranged in 24 hours? What documentation do they need? Is it just proof of ID or do you need birth certificates? Any extra detail would be helpful too, although the narrator isn't present at the wedding, just hears about it afterwards as the groom is his older brother. I'm a Brit so I don't know how it works across the pond. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 02:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This site seems to haev a lot of what you want. For example, in terms of the 24 hours thing, it says: "There is a full three (3) day waiting period between the time of application and validation date of the marriage license although all the documents needed are issued at the time of application. THIS WAITING PERIOD CANNOT BE WAIVED FOR ANY REASON." Matt Deres (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Are your characters in any specific part of Washington, or just generically in that state? As the link is from the Cowlitz County website, it might not reflect things elsewhere in the state; it's always possible that state law would give counties the right to regulate this kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it's not just a county thing: §26.04.180 of the Revised Code of Washington says that "A marriage license issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter may not be used until three days after the date of application." Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If the 24 hours thing is important to the story, are they close enough to a state line (or even the Canadian border), and are the rules different in the surrounding states? Grutness...wha? 23:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. No, the plot-important thing is that they marry on a trip away without telling their parents (who have highly important objections). -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 03:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Make it a trip to Las Vegas, which has notoriously loose marriage laws. StuRat (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they're a respectable pair! Well, sort of. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 15:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Roman tunica

Would it have been typical for the Roman emperors like Tiberius and Augustus to have worn the tunic on a regular basis?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but presumably mainly under the "toga", which was the Roman garment signifying adult male status... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that by the period of the Imperium, most Roman male citizens would probably only wear the Toga on formal and semi-formal occasions, but of course Emperors were in such situations most of their waking lives. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Like an undershirt? Would the ancient Roman soldiers have worn the tunic in combat situations?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they would most likely have worn the tunic underneath their armour. In colder climates they would even have worn extra clothing underneath, and probably a cloak on top of it all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's badge

Was there any order in which Hitler would wear his badges? 83.31.114.102 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on pictures I've seen, when he did wear his badges and/or awards the order would be his Golden Party Badge first, then his Iron Cross, then his Wound Badge. This picture illustrates this. Other times he is pictured only with his Iron Cross. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 19:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't he wear his second Iron Cross? 83.31.98.45 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In many military organisations, if an individual is awarded the same medal/decoration/badge twice, the second is not worn as an actual second medal (or ribbon, when full medals are not being worn), but as a (usually) smaller element added to the first: in the British army, for example, this is called a Medal bar, so someone awarded, say, the Distinguished Service Order on two separate occasions would be described as wearing a DSO and bar. In the case of the Wehrmacht, a second Iron Cross was displayed not as the full badge but as a Spange zum Eisernen Kreuz (Clasp to the Iron Cross) or Spange. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Law against comparison shopping as depicted in the film Holiday Affair

In the beginning the of the 1949 American film Holiday Affair an employee of a department store suspects another character of being a "comparitive shopper" for a rival store and threatens to have her arrested. This is depicted as if it is a real crime. Was there some law at the time that applied to this? ike9898 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I read one account of a man who said he was noting prices for items for a big party who was ejected from a store for "stealing prices" but I could not find the article at Google News Archive. I don't see why the merchant has any ground for complaint, since the shopper might just be comparison shopping. It might be store policy rather than statute law. Perhaps the merchant has something to hide, like in a period of price controls, or if prices are different from what a chain wants them to be. For cars, cameras, and electronic gadgets, ads often do not post the prices, in an effort to get shoppers to come to the store, and to avoid shoppers going someplace cheaper. If some consumer organization collected and posted prices, it would hurt the high price sellers. In retail trade, I have noted than many consumers have no idea what the going rate is for an item. Edison (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movie, but the way it's described, they suspected him of being an employee of the other store, which might have been a somewhat different issue. Whatever the prevailing attitude at the time, you couldn't get away with a threat like that now, or you'd have a serious P.R. problem. In fact, stores often encourage shoppers to compare prices at other stores, "We'll match any price!", and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Janet Leigh = "her", not "him". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds very unlikely. Competition is such a fundamental part of the free market that laws against knowing what your competitors are charging would make no sense. I don't see any reason why they couldn't be thrown out (shops are private property - as long as you don't violate discrimination laws you can throw out anyone you please), though, and if they refused to leave they could possibly be arrested for trespass (in places where trespass is an arrestable offence). --Tango (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It could also be literary license for dramatic effect. There's a scene in It's a Wonderful Life, where George is running away from a policeman, who fires his gun at George, on a public street (potentially endangering other citizens) and for no good legal reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it simply the McGuffin that moves the plot of Holiday Affair?--Wetman (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a McGuffin. Robert Mitchum's character gets fired for not reporting the shopper to his superiors. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, the whole of Double Jeopardy (film) is based on a seriously flawed legal interpretation. --Tango (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think though that I've heard a little about some funny anti-competitive laws the US used to have. My father once told me about 'fair trade laws' that seem like they might have applied to this, but our articles don't support this. ike9898 (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film but Holiday Affair says: "Steve tells her that he should report her to the store detective, which would lead to her firing." The article doesn't mention a threat to have her arrested. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it (I have seen it, several times), she was worried about losing her job, not getting arrested. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He could have had her arrested for tresspassing. Stores are private property, and may ask people to leave for any reason (save racial descrimination or something like that). If they don't, the person is tresspassing. --Jayron32 05:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, that only works in jurisdictions where trespass is an arrestable offence. In many jurisdictions trespass is just a civil offence so, presumably, wouldn't be arrestable. The police would remove the person from the store if asked to, I expect, but they wouldn't arrest them (unless they committed some other offence by refusing to obey the policeman or something). --Tango (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone familiar with the scene give a more detailed description of what exactly goes on? Some of the bits and pieces above don't make much sense. Character 1 of Store A catches Character 2 of Store B noting prices and threatens to get her fired? How would that even work? "Hmm, my employee was doing something my rival didn't like, so I should... fire them?"

In a broader context, the comparative shopper could have been doing more than stealing prices, they could also have been noting stock levels. A tricky prospect in the days before RFID, etc., but certainly possible - and profitable. Noting mass numbers of prices could also be used to reveal stock costs by working backwards. For example, my rival store and I are of approximately the same size and we both sell sweaters by the same manufacturer and our prices are pretty similar for the whole line. However, we also both sell jeans from a different manufacturer and their prices are 20% less than mine. I could use that information to try to get a better deal from the jean manufacturer ("I want the same deal as that guy"), which would undermine my rival's advantage. Or worse, once the good deal is revealed, the jean manufacturer might bump their prices and remove my rival's advantage completely. Or, I could see that my rival is selling some shoes for a very good price from a vendor I don't deal with. It would be an advantage to me to begin negotiations with a specific price point already established. And so on. It's an extremely cut-throat industry. Matt Deres (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that, once detected, the comparison shopper would have her description passed around to the other employees (possibly to other chains as well), so she would be barred from the store and could no longer do her job. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Age of Jesus

Jesus Christ is generally reckoned to have been 33 years old at the time of his death. But what is thejustification for this? I don't think it's mentioned in the Bible, alhtough at one point someone says to him "Thou art not yet forty years old". --rossb (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As noted in Jesus#Chronology, His approximate birth and death dates are inferred from gospel references to documented historical facts, particularly the terms of office of named Roman officials at those times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Luke 3:23 states that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. Pieceing together textual evidence from the gospels puts Jesus's ministry at about 3 years from his baptism to his crucifixion, which makes him about 33 years old when he died. --Jayron32 05:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

December 27

us congressional districts

what is the largest city in each us congressional district? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.171.235 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not so easy to answer, because some districts have more than one city, while some cities have more than one district - New York City, for example. The article List of United States congressional districts has a fair chunk of useful info on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

property tax

Can property tax be properly characterized as "rent to the State"? 71.100.6.153 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because the state doesn't own the land, except as a sovereign right. Plus, property taxes are charged on other things that aren't real estate or land, such as cars. Property tax is basically a tax on the existing value of some bit of property, be it land, or a house, or a car, or some such. The state isn't claiming the right to property tax because it owns the land in the same way a landlord does. It claims the right to do so because it has sovereignty over that land (or car, or house, or whatever). --Jayron32 05:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So what happens if you do not pay the tax? 71.100.6.153 (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The State will file a tax lien on your property. This can have an unhappy ending. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Might eviction be one of those unhappy endings, as in when one does not pay one's rent? 71.100.6.153 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally not; since the state does not own the land, it cannot evict you from it. Generally, a tax lien only places a restriction on sale of the land, you need to pay off the lien before you can sell it, but you still own the land you have not paid taxes on. Additionally, the state may place you in prison for tax evasion, but you still retain title to your land you did not pay taxes on. The state can force you to sell your land to the state under eminent domain, but it must reimburse you "fair market value" for that land, so it isn't evicting you from your property in the way that a landlord does. So no, in absolutely no way is a property tax like rent. --Jayron32 21:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in the Fee simple article. Most land real estate is "fee simple owned"--at least in the US, and assuming you are from the US. As that article points out "fee simple ownership" of land is the most complete form of ownership short of allodial title. Fee simple ownership of land is subject to at least four government powers: taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. In other words, if you own land fee simple you truly own it--you do not rent it. But your ownership is not the same as sovereignty. The state still has certain powers, such as taxation. Pfly (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case and for a person deciding whether to build a boat and take up the responsibility of defending it on the high seas against all, versus paying rent to the State (or having to defend real property with allodial title in the event of revolution for instance) the idea of a boat as the superior choice might not be such a wild idea after all. 71.100.6.153 (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your ONLY requirement is to avoid paying property taxes, you may be able to do so. However, your scenario is unreasonable for several reasons:

• You will need to make port at sometime to take on supplies, etc. In order to legally use a port, you would need to have a boat that is properly registered. It need not be in the nation of the port you intend to use, but it should be registered somewhere, and the county that you register it with will likely charge you an ongoing annual fee for registration, functionally identical to paying annual property tax.
• You could remain entirely unregistered, but the only people that do that are pirates. You could, I suppose, take up with a group of Somali pirates, but that has its own dangers which I would think it would be worth it to pay some taxes to avoid having to deal with.

Some people have chosen to live stateless lives, but this again brings on its own set of problems. --Jayron32 21:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My property tax is far larger than my mortgage, If I do not pay my tax/rent to the state, they will certainly evict me and sell my home to someone else. I scoff at the notion that the "benevolent" state would let me stay in my home if I did not pay the property taxes. Thus the state is effectively my landlord, even though I hold title to my property. Edison (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If your land can be taken away for failure to pay some fee, whatever they call it, then you are effectively renting/leasing it. Saying you "own" it is just a meaningless word. I also say that about those who have a mortgage on their property and claim they "own" it. Stop paying the mortgage and you will soon find out who really owns it. In the US, one family even lost their house due to a water leak, which caused huge water bills to be charged, that, when unpaid, became a lien against the house, eventually leading to forfeiture of the home. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are both something else entirely though. If you have an active mortgage, you don't own the house, the bank does. They're just letting you stay there while you pay them back. Failure to pay them back is no different than bouncing a cheque and expecting the store to let you keep the TV. The water leak example is also a separate issue - they incurred a huge debt and couldn't pay it back. In that case, taking the house actually proved the contrary of your point- they couldn't have lost it if they hadn't owned it. Stuff like taxation and eminent domain are the places where ownership becomes much more murky. Matt Deres (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you could characterize property tax as "rent to the State", and it is an interesting way to put it. But in everyday speech people make a distinction between, for example, renting a car and owning a car--even if they are making car payments and the true "owner" of the car is some bank. Likewise for real estate--there is a meaningful and useful distinction between renting a house and owning a house--even if you have a mortgage and a bank could repossess the house. The ultimate sovereignty lies with the State, of course. So pedantically speaking no one really and truly "owns" a house, or a car or that matter. So sure, you can characterize property tax as "rent to the State". It is an unusual use of the word "rent" and evokes anti-state, anti-tax connotations. It sounds like rhetoric to me. Nothing wrong with that. But to be pedantic, property tax is tax, not rent. Pfly (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"If you have an active mortgage, you don't own the house, the bank does." That's just not true. You own the house, and you own an obligation to pay the debt that is secured by the house. Collateralizing a property does not transfer ownership; all the obligations and privileges of ownership are with the mortgagee. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This actually varies on a state-by-state level. In title theory states, the bank or other mortgagee owns the property and the mortgagor owns only the equity of redemption (i.e., the right to obtain full ownership upon paying off the mortgage). In lien theory states, which are the majority, the mortgagor retains ownership of the home. John M Baker (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Marxist Internet Archive

Marxist Internet Archive lists 50 volumes of Collected Works here. However, the page says:

Students and scholars should be aware that we have only transcribed most of the first 10 volumes, up to 1851 plus occasional pieces from elsewhere of the Marx Engels Collected Works and that there are 50 volumes in all.

Looking at individual volumes, they look complete with consecutive page numbers. Why do the MIA owners understate the scope of the project? Has anybody noted any missing portion from the 50 volume print edition? --117.204.88.191 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it has been a work-in-progress for some time. The other volumes are incomplete—click on them and you can see that only parts of them are available as links and not just listings. Even Volume 10 does not have its appendices transcribed. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why it's taking so long ? Perhaps they pay those hired to scan the pages regardless of how much work they do, thus removing any incentive for them to work hard ? :-) StuRat (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Transcription =/= scanning. From a brief glance at the linked site, it's evident that the on-line material is not in the form of scanned images of printed documents, but has been transcribed, i.e. re-keyed and otherwise formatted, a much more laborious process, but one which may enable added values such as consistent presentation, editorial commentary, and ease of searching. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitler--India--Subhas Chandra Bose---questions

Could / did Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian Nationalist leader , ever actually neet Hitler face-to-face ? Is there any historical evidence / photograph of that ? What was Hitler's personal views on India , especially India's freedom struggle against the British rulers ? Is there anything in writing / in interviews etc ? What was Hitler's personal views on Gandhi and/or Tagore , the Indian National Poet ? ( Moussolini once personally net Tagore in Rome & spoke high of him .) If Subhas Chandra Bose was an ardent lover of democracy , why he repeatedly joined hands with forces like Nazi Germany , Imperialist Japan & Stalinist Russia ? ? where can i get answers to my above queries ? d chowdhury , Calcutta , India <email deleted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdpnkr (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of Indian history is poor, but it looks like it is a classic case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend": Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were all three opposed to British Imperialism (not necessarily for the same reasons, though). Bose saw them as convenient Allies to overthrow the British yoke. Bose did not intend that Germany, Japan, or the USSR should ever rule India and was not endorsing their political systems. He was simply looking for ways to marshall military force against the British. (Similarly, the USA and the UK did not ally with the USSR during World War II because they loved Stalin or wanted his system of government.) See also, realpolitik—pursuing politics with a focus on practical aims, not ideology. There are many, of course, who see this approach to politics as morally problematic and practically dangerous, as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Netaji (i.e. Bose) met with Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. Note that he had first travelled to USSR, and sought Soviet aid for a rebellion in India against the British. Stalin has rejected the request, and Netaji then travelled to Berlin (this was during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Germany and Japan were more eager to support his endeavors. Netaji was transported from Germany to Tokyo through German and Japanese submarines. Japan in particular support gave military support for the INA, and the Provisional Government of Azad Hind was generally recognized by the Axis powers. Clearly, Netaji fought on the side of the Axis in the war. However, it is said that he condemned the German attack on the USSR (the sole person to do so publicly in Germany at the time), his speeches issued whilst in Tokyo are clearly socialist, etc.. There is little to suggest that Netaji would have taylored his political profile to suit Nazi or Japanese imperialist ideals.

If you are interested in more literature on Netaji, the Forward Bloc office on 49/C, Chitaranjan Avenue, Kolkata has a small book shop, with collections of Netaji's speeches and biographies. Their website, has some of the material also ([2]). --Soman (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a host of frequently-debated Wikipedia articles on Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian National Army, the Indische Legion, Azad Hind, etc. (look at each article's own "See also" and "External links" sections for more). George Orwell's wartime broadcasts, essays and journalism frequently discuss Bose (Orwell's branch of the BBC was directed to India specifically to counter pro-Axis propaganda). The Aryan theories held by Hitler and the SS, following various 19th and early 20th century philosophers, saw a racial connection between the Hindus and the non-Semitic European races. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Politics makes strange bedfellows." Charles Dudley Warner, 1829-1900. Despite their being brown skinned, the Nazi's might have seen some Indians as being "true Aryans." Edison (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's an article Honorary Aryan, but I think that most such professions were fairly insincere. The Japanese had disciplined economic and military power which the Germans could respect, but what did the Indians really have which would appeal to them (beyond being the objects of a vague linguistic mysticism centered around the word "Aryan"?). The Germans also strenuously tried to stir up trouble among the Arabs in British-dominated areas (Hitler met with Haj Amin Al-Husseini, and Germany was involved in the Rashid Ali coup in Iraq), but I doubt that most prominent Nazis had any very meaningful respect for Arabs... AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi's letter to Hitler

However, the original poster puts some interesting questions, which are so far unresolved. Much has been said about Gandhi's letter to Hitler, but what was Hitler's attitude on Gandhi? Did Hitler (or any other prominent figure of the Axis) comment on Indian politics? (bear in mind that Gandhi and Bose belonged to opposing sides in the Indian national movement, did the fact that the Axis put their weight behind Bose/INA impact on how they commented on the other streams of the Indian national movement?) How did Axis media comment on the Quit India Movement? --85.228.202.72 (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In Mein Kampf, Hitler referred to Indian freedom fighters as deluded 'Asiatic jugglers', and argued that they would never be able to end the British rule in India. Also:

...I, as a man of Germanic blood, would, in spite of everything, rather see India under English rule than under any other.

Halifax would later report on a November, 1937 conversation with Hitler in which he suggested a solution to British problems in India: first "shoot Gandhi"; if that didn't work shoot a dozen leaders of Congress; if that did not suffice, then shoot two hundred more and so on until order is established.

Hitler was jealous of British rule in India, and in August, 1941 would state:

The basic reason for English pride is India....What India was for England, the territories of Russia will be for us. If only I could make the German people understand what this space means for our future.

—eric 21:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Geography question - another

please help me identify the place which

Because of the local topography , has a unique claim to fame, a claim that revolves around altitude
and a familiar metallic element.

I have looked at highest places and gold and silver or similar metals but could not zero on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.89.250 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really enough information to go on. There are a lot of high-altitude mines in the world—of gold, copper, etc. It could be a whole host of places. It could be other planets. It might not be about mining at all. Who knows? --Mr.98 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did you see this question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And all the other very similar questions that get asked on this desk. Is there some weekly riddle in a newspaper or something that gives very vague clues about a place that you have to guess? --Tango (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds very much like the kind of questions asked on PRI's The World's Geo Quiz. http://www.theworld.org/geo-quiz/ Ucanlookitup (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Potosí is claimed as the highest city in the world and is home to a famous silver mine. Matt Deres (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Leadville, Colorado. Pfly (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Compton, California. From what I've gathered, it's very high and full of lead. --M@rēino 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

December 28

Technical term for "part of the story" (drama)

What is the technical term for describing whether an element of a drama is part of the action of a story or is for the audience's benefit only. For instance, much of the music composed for films is not heard by the characters, but is played only to enhance the emotional response of the audience, such as emphasizing the suspense of a scene. On the other hand, a scene in a nightclub might include music that is heard by both audience and characters. I've previously run across the term in some wikipedia article, but I can't remember it now. 58.147.52.66 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds in film which can be heard by the characters are diegetic; those heard by the audience only are termed non-diegetic (or, rarely, mimetic). Similarly, in a stage or film musical, songs performed by characters and experienced by them as song are termed diegetic, while those songs which only the audience experiences as song are non-diegetic. - Nunh-huh 00:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Hollywood types are more likely to call it "source music" (see Film score etc.) rather than "diegetic"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nunh-huh, diegetic (or diegesis) was the term I was looking for. And thank you AnonMoos, as it was interesting to learn that the term "source music" is used in the film industry to refer to "diegetic music" as it is music whose source is in the story. 58.147.59.58 (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but elements of a plot are called "tropes". See TV Tropes - a website that discusses said elements. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A trope is a common pattern, and may refer to character, setting or theme as well as plot. Not all plot elements are tropes. The normal term for an element of a plot is "plot element". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, "exposition" is dialog, flashbacks, etc., which has the sole purpose of getting the audience "up to speed" on the plot:

"Say, Bob, I haven't seen you since your identical twin brother George, who wears a beard and glasses, divorced his unfaithful red-haired wife, Karen, and won custody of their adopted cross-dressing Korean son, Kim-sung."

"Yes, Susan, and wasn't that right before your bald Uncle Gabriel was killed in the bombing of the abortion clinic run by your father, Michael, who now uses a cane to walk ?" :-) StuRat (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I shudder to contemplate the script writer's task if asked to introduce the characters of Days of our Lives (or any long-running soap, for that matter) to someone who'd never seen the show before. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

True. Aussie soaps might be easier, since I get the impression nothing ever happens during them. I tuned in to Neighbours once, accidentally, and a couple was making up up a grocery list. Well, I was sick then and need to get some sleep anyway. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your powers of deduction are amazing, Stu. Tuning in to one show, once, by accident, only for as long as it took you to realise you'd got the wrong program, enables you to claim that "nothing ever happens during them". Very impressive, Sherlock.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought the standard of soaps was that nothing ever actually happens, but only keeps building up and up with every episode, so that people will watch for years in anticipation of the eventual payoff. Which doesn't come. Matt Deres (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the received wisdom among those who, like me, don't watch them. But what does happen is fantastic, all-but-impossibly complex relationship development. I've had people try to tell me briefly who's related to who now, who was related to who before, and why it changed, and why Fred is now his own ex-grandfather-in-law, but after 30 seconds my eyes start glazing over and I just can't take any more in; but they've only just started on their 15-minute potted history. So, never one to be impolite, I mentally rehearse my List of Governors-General of Bombay, while nodding and inserting the occasional "uh, huh". :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Are these essential features of Gnosticism?

In the lead section of our article at Gnosticism, the identified features of Gnostic belief systems include, among others:

• That there exists a supreme being (Pleroma) that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
• That gnosis comes from revelations, rather than from empirical observation and/or reasoning.

Are these beliefs essential attributes of Gnosticism, to the point that a belief system lacking them cannot properly be called Gnosticism? NeonMerlin 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at the 17:13, 25 December 2009 version of the article right now, and I don't really see where it says that... AnonMoos (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While they aren't explicit in the article, I think the second at least is an essential point. The Gnosis has to be 'secret' for the religion to have a point, and if it could be deduced then it wouldn't really be secret. Likewise a god of some kind is essential (otherwise you can't really have revelation), but I don't think he has to be omnipotent or omnibenevolent. The article makes a point of Gnostic gods being 'imperfect'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about the Portuguese Estado Novo

After the overseas provinces were incorporated into the Portuguese state in 1951, were these provinces given a majority of the seats in the National Assembly in accordance with their population? Obviously Portugal was a dictatorship at the time, but I'm curious as to how they crafted the image of a multiracial, pluricontinental state, in which a majority of the citizens lived outside the metropole. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But was Portuguese citizenship given to all residents of the overseas provinces? --85.228.202.72 (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a word for that, but I don't seem to know it...

There is a term for using an implement for something different than its intended use, for instance taking off your shoe and using it to drive home a nail-it works, but that's not the original purpose of the shoe. I can't find it. Anyone? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Utilitarian? Pragmatic? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this one is specific and is not used for other things. Maybe an anthropology term. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to the suggestions that came up when the same question was asked in August 2009. It was then first asked on the Humanities desk, and moved to the Language desk. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tool substitution, or one of the terms used in that paragraph, e.g. repurpose? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In the specific case of prescription drugs, it's "off-label use". --Anonymous, 01:45 UTC, December 29, 2009.

The term is 'utilisation'. people confuse 'utilise' with 'use'.

Hitler

Did Hitler try to eliminate Jews in the religious or ethnic sense? That is, someone can be considered to be a Jew ethnically, but may have converted to some other religion, or also someone could be a of non-jewish ethnicity but converted to be a Jew. Which one did Hitler not like? XM (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick, unreferenced answer for the last part would be: All and any of them. I hope somebody can provide you with a link to a referenced elaboration, though./Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mischling would be a good spot to start to see what Hitler's definition of "Jew" was. - Nunh-huh 11:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Rosenberg was an early Nazi theorist promoting a racial view of antisemitism which the party adopted and implemented, culminating in the extermination program known as the Final Solution throughout Nazi-occupied Europe during WWII. This went along with the positive, "Aryan" model of white supremacy. Another consideration: Judaism doesn't proselytize and conversion to the Jewish religion is rare. On the other hand, those born Jews who converted to Christianity were sent to ghettos and Nazi concentration camps and extermination camps. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Nazi approach to Jews was primarily oriented around the idea of Jewishness as a race, from which religious and ethnic activity flowed. So an assimilated Jew who had been raised Christian was still a Jew in the Nazi mindset. Converting to Judaism did not make one racially Jewish, but in the Nazi mindset it would indicate that you were acting in an un-Aryan way and could be lumped in with them, even if you were not, under their approach, actually Jewish. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Geting out of the US

My question is 2 fold. First, what is the PPP of Brazil relative to the US? I saw a map on the article PPP, but it was dated as of 2003, which seems a bit out of date to me. Where can I find an updated map like this? Also, I want to leave the US and become a resident or citizen of brazil. What steps do I need to do this? And also, how can I get my car(s) to brazil? XM (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2007 PPP is 1.32 according to the same data source as the 2003 map. To get information on becoming a citizen of Brazil, contact the Brazillian consulate. To get a car to Brazil - just drive. Google Maps won't give you a route through Central America, but there are roads and they go all the way down to Brazil. -- kainaw™ 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you've never heard of the Darién Gap. 89.242.213.201 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have. In fact, I've ridden on a truck in it - on a road (not paved - just a path, really). Our article makes it sound like it is a huge swamp with nothing in it at all. That was not true in 1991 when I was there. I doubt it is true right now as it is a major route for drug trafficking through Central America. -- kainaw™ 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just how slow was you "ride"? From the article: "The first all-land auto crossing was in 1985–1987 by Loren Upton and Patty Mercier in a CJ-5 Jeep, taking 741 days to travel 125 miles (201 km), all on land. This crossing is documented in the 1992 Guinness Book of Records. In addition Upton returned in 1995 and became the first to drive a motorcycle, a two-wheel drive Rokon motorcycle, all on land through the Darién Gap, in 49 days." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We were riding around there for 29 days. Why 29? 30 days becomes a foreign deployment of military forces and results in oversight. We were on the southern side just "inhibiting" the flow of drugs through the gap. We didn't drive from the south side all the way to the north side. We just drove around from village to village on the south side along all the mud roads. I saw no reason to believe that it was not possible to drive though if (and this is a HUGE "if") you had the blessing of the drug cartels that pretty much run the entire area. If you didn't, you would probably have a higher chance of being kidnapped than making it through. Now... my advice to drive to Brazil sounds rather bad. I didn't think about how bad the area was until this discussion began. Hopefully it isn't as bad now, but I suspect it is worse. There are regular barges that ship from Panama to Columbia and Panama to Equador. When I was in the area, heading south was not a problem. Heading north was nearly impossible because Panama has a lot of restrictions on things coming into the country. Once you are in either country, it is possible to drive to Brasilia or Rio without trouble. I figure the OP is planning to go to economic/educational area of Brasilia or the party area of Rio. I strongly considered moving to Brasilia myself. -- kainaw™ 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any roads, not even dirt roads, all the way through the Darien Gap. The reason is that there are several major rivers and swamps that would require expensive and intensive road-building and bridge-building efforts, which have not occurred. No doubt there are dirt roads extending toward the Darien Gap from the nearest paved road in Colombia, possibly even a network of dirt roads that would allow the Colombian government to police the fringes of the gap and apprehend smuggling through the gap (which would have to travel partly by boat across the various rivers). However, the Panamanian and Colombian governments have chosen not to build roads across the natural barriers that make the gap impassable to ordinary cars, and nearly impassable to any four-wheeled vehicle. To get a car from the U.S. to Brazil, you could ship it from a U.S. port to a Brazilian port. This would certainly be the easiest option. Alternatively, you could drive it to Costa Rica or Panama, then ship it to Colombia or Ecuador, then drive it through to Brazil. (See this page for shipping options from Central America.) This would be a time-consuming matter. It would almost certainly be more expensive than shipping direct from the U.S., because land transport requires more fuel than sea transport, especially over long distances, and you will have to pay the cost of loading your vehicle onto and off of a ship anyway. Finally, traveling through so many countries by road is a bureaucratic challenge, because every time you cross a border with your vehicle, you will need to deal with customs and often the local motor vehicle authority, all of which will involve fees, and the rules for which will vary from one country to the next. Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why it wouldnt be better to buy a car when you get there? The cost of a car could easily be less than the cost of shipping alone from the US. Plus you would avoid lots of bureaucratic hassle, a lot of waiting for the car to arrive, and you might be wise not to advertise being a former American through having US registration plates. If you are not set on Brazil then I've heard a lot of good reports about Costa Rica. Be careful that you don't end up in a favella in Brazil. 89.242.213.201 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than shipping costs... Brazil has state-mandated ethanol (25% minimum, I believe). So, if your vehicle doesn't run well on an ethanol/gasoline mix, you will have troubles in Brazil. -- kainaw™ 22:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mineral Rights

If my neighbor has sold the mineral rights to his land and a company comes and is pumping oil/natural gas out of the ground on his property, how can I be sure they are not taking natural resources under my land? XM (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't, and you should also be aware that in most countries of the world all mineral resources belong to the government. See this article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. It completely depends on the jurisdiction. This is legal advice we can't answer anymore specifically than this: It's absolutely wrong to say that in all countries mineral resources belong to the government, from a legal perspective. Hire a lawyer. Shadowjams (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He didn't say "in all countries", he said "in most countries". As to whether it is possible to tell if someone is extracting minerals from under the OP's own land, that'd not a legal question but a mining one. It would be possible, but User XM would need to employ a mining surveyor of some sort to do this. DuncanHill (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The texas bar exam, for instance, is known for its oil and gas section. That means mineral resources. As a general academic answer it's not a problem, but as a specific "my neighbor" kind of question it is... not to mention even now, it's unclear what jurisdiction is at issue. I think this question, as it's phrased, is problematic. Shadowjams (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't asked for legal advice, he's asked how to tell if resources under his land are being taken. If he'd asked "Someone is extracting minerals from under my land, what are my rights and recourses?" then it would be a legal question, but he didn't and it isn't. DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Arrows vs musketts

My understanding is that the guns used in the revolutionary war were not rifles and didnt have much range due to accuracy. Wouldnt it have been better to arm soldiers with a long bow of sorts, which has a much higher fire rate and can be launched up in the air down on large concentrations of troops? For quite some time I have wondered how a division of soldiers armed with bow and arrow would have down vs musketters in the american revolution... XM (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Which revolution do you mean please - the 1641–1651 revolution or the 1688 revolution? 89.242.213.201 (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The OP does specify the American revolution. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The accuracy of the musket did not matter. The tactic was to fire a lot of them at once, over and over, creating a steady stream of shot heading in the general direction of the enemy. Arrows could be used for the same thing, but arrows cost more to make than shot. I would expect the result to be that the army using arrows would be out of ammunition long before the army using muskets. -- kainaw™ 13:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

During the American Revolution, both sides used some rifles and many muskets (and cannon and swords and bayonets), the Americans used more sophisticated rifle tactics in some situations than the British though. A perfect set piece battle would have consisted of cannon fire followed by marching close to the enemy firing only 3 or 4 shots and then bayonet charging. Soldiers carried only a dozen or two rounds each in pre-filled paper cartridges (not many more rounds than you could carry arrows.) Despite all the talk of the bows superiority to the musket, if we look at those who should have known best we see that European armies replaced them with firearms and Indians, as well, replaced replaced their bows with firearms as quickly as they could - even in light of the difficulty of obtaining shot and powder. The great Indian victories against Braddock in the French and Indian War or against Custer in the Indians Wars much later saw Indian use of firearms as well as bows. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, the problem with bows and arrows is that they require a lot of training to use well. That makes individual soldiers more expensive and more valuable and means that untrained soldiers are just cannon fodder. A musket allows you to de-skill your militia dramatically, and used en masse, can be very effective at killing a similarly massed enemy. Any fool can point a musket in the general direction of an enemy and pull the trigger. It takes quite some practice to be able to use arrows effectively. Rifles are a different matter altogether as their accuracy is much improved and allows for skilled use. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. 98 has it. Bullets for rifles are of course more expensive than shot, but still much less than the time and cost to make a good arrow. Matt Deres (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

With accuracy of rifles comes the "one shot one kill" strategy. So, the cost of ammunition isn't as much a concern. Of course, that strategy rarely plays out nicely. On the battlefield, soldiers tend to quickly revert to the "spray and pray" strategy. Quickly, they are out of ammunition and left wondering what they did wrong. Hopefully it won't be much longer before soldiers are completely removed from the battlefield. -- kainaw™ 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. No matter how many robot tanks and RPVs you have, you're still going to need the PBI to go in behind them and secure the area. However, this is getting out of scope... Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of factors at play here, historically. Mass-production of ammunition and munitions played a huge role in how World War I played out—in individual days on the European front, most ammunition was expended than had been developed for previous wars. Training as to how to shoot has changed a lot in the last 60 years; Grossman's On Killing goes into some detail on how soldiers were conditioned to be better killers with their accurate weapons. It isn't the case that armies went from musket to rifles and suddenly became modern armies... there are a few more transitions in between, there! I highly recommend Keegan's A History of Warfare, it is really a fun read and he does an excellent job of synthesizing many centuries of developments quite cogently. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Less important, but still noteworthy, is the effect on morale of a volley of arrows versus a volley of musketfire from closed ranks. The tremendous noise & smoke of the muskets can't be ignored. 61.189.63.130 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...especially against cavalry. If there were hroses involved in the battle, and they weren't battle-hardened (and in this sort of war many of them wouldn't be), the noise and sound of the musketry would have a powerful effect irrespective of the damage done by the projectiles. Grutness...wha? 03:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Counterfeiting

Obviously it would be illegal for me to counterfit currency of the nation I am in. Are there any laws that would prevent me from counterfiting (but not spending, as that would be fraud) other currencies? Also, if there are such laws, what would prevent someone from going to some country where it isnt illegal to do so, and printing a whole bunch of dollars with no risk of being imprisioned?? I dont think Iran would care if I were counterfitting huge amounts of US dollars. XM (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(It's spelled counterfeit, incidentally.) Each nation is going to have their own laws against counterfeiting. In the U.S., it is illegal to counterfeit foreign currency as well as domestic currency. I don't know why you think Iran would not want you to counterfeit U.S. dollars—what would stop you from trading them in for Iranian currency and thus taking money illicitly out of their economy? Now, it's true that some countries have promoted counterfeiting at various times for their national aims (North Korea reportedly does this; the excellent film The Counterfeiters concerns the Nazi's Operation Bernhard to do just this), but these are all done in the service of the state, not individuals. I doubt any nation is going to smile on individual counterfeiters, no matter what currency they are creating. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In Canada's Criminal Code, the sections on counterfeiting are quite simple:

449. Every one who makes or begins to make counterfeit money is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

450. Every one who, without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on him,

(a) buys, receives or offers to buy or receive,

(b) has in his custody or possession, or

(c) introduces into Canada,

counterfeit money is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

It doesn't say "Canadian money" and it does prohibit importing the stuff. --Anonymous, 01:51 UTC, December 29, 2009.

Sorry for not quoting the law, but I think that US law also prohibits counter-fitting non-US currency too. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Being desirous of stamping out Eggcorns, can I repeat Mr 98's point that the word is 'counterfeit', not "counter-fit." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The "feit" part is from Latin "facere" via French "faire" meaning "to make". This relates somewhat to a current question on the language desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleves and Soissons

• What are residences and people of Cleves called? Clevan? Clevese?
• What are residences and people of Soissons called? Soissonian?

Soissonnais, Soissonnaise--Wetman (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested to read our article on demonyms.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a standard demonym for Cleves. The English conventional place name is itself a bit obscure, occurring mainly in history texts. It is probably nearly equally well-known today by its German name, Kleve. Since the name Cleves is derived from the French Clèves, it would be tempting to refer to the inhabitants as Clevois or Clevoise/Clevoises, which are the correct French terms but probably a bit obscure even in that language, as French people wouldn't often have much reason to use a demonym for the inhabitants of a third-tier German town. The other alternative might be Clever/s (pronounced like cleaver or cleavers), which would be closer to the German demonyms Klever (masculine singular and masculine and combined plural), Kleverin (feminine singular), and Kleverinnen (feminine plural). Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes such issues are sidestepped by basing the adjective on the Latin or pseudo-Latin version of a placename, such as Manchester - "Mancunian". (There are other examples, but that's the only one I can remember at the moment...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Liverpudlian (Liverpool), Cantabridgian (Cambridge), Masshole (Massachusetts)... OK, one of those isn't from the Latin, but it is still semi-official --Jayron32 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Biological family of Jesus

Can someone please point me at the passage in the Bible which talks about the brothers and sisters of Jesus? The one I'm thinking of has Jesus preaching in the synagogue, and some of the people listening are saying that he can't be worth listening to because they know his parents, and brothers and sisters, and he's not a priest. The family bit is phrased as a series of questions, e.g. "Is this not Joseph and Mary's son? And are his brothers not James and Joseph...?" I've had a search using Bible Gateway but drew a blank. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I found it at Mark 6:3: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." AndrewWTaylor (talk)

Matthew 13:55. On BibleGateway. Tevildo (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the two passages mentioned are basically the same, as is not uncommon for the synoptic Gospels. And the OP's original search probably failed because she included "Joseph" - the phrase used in the text is "the carpenter's son". Tevildo (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of this verse as describing immediate siblings of Jesus is controversial- see Perpetual virginity of Mary. Someone who believes that Mary was always a virgin (for her whole life), as Catholics and many Orthodox do, will likely interpret that verse as describing close relatives (e.g. cousins) rather than actual other children of Mary. Staecker (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then there's desposyni... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There are other references to Jesus' immediate family, such as Mark 3:32 (and it's paralllel, Luke 8:19), John 2:12, John 7:5. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that passage in Mark/Luke is the first thing that came to mind. Ignoring his mother and brothers/sisters in favor of his audience was kinda a dick move, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this peeps - I'd searched on "Jesus family" among other things. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Desposyni only really discusses Jesus' blood relations on his father's side of the family. On his mother's side of the family, besides Mary, there were, at least, St. Anne, Joachim, St. Elizabeth, Zechariah, Sobe and John the Baptist. Woogee (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

See also Genealogy of Jesus. Woogee (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Did hand that bites just say that? I didn't ever think I'd hear about a wikt:dick move in the context of Jesus' family. And gees that's a redlink at Wiktionary, someone please create the entry, now!

Ahem, anyway, what I meant to say is that most secular or non-affiliated scholars take the word brother to be literal. At the risk of stepping on someone's religious feelings, there's something to be said about interpreting the verse to fit one's preconceived notions (i.e., virginity of Mary) rather than vice versa. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Name of a certain Korean food

When I was visiting my friend in the US her mum (who is Korean) made these things. It's basically mince in pancake rolls deep fried. I can't remember what they were called. Can anyone help? Cheers, Joe^Talk_Work 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's one of these. Sorry, I guess that's not being super useful as there are 124 Korean food items listed there, but it's a start. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they were mandu? Marco polo (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

German PhD

In the company I work at (IT related, CRM to be more precise), one German employee insists on being called Dr. X. Surname. No one in the company has any doubt that he rightfully earned his PhD. Whether went he to a degree mill, nor bought it online. The only problem is that he doesn't have a relevant PhD (to the IT field). Clients, new employees and contractors get the wrong idea that he is a sort of computer science PhD, when in reality he is on the client service. Is his insistence normal in Germany or is he abnormal? Does he have a right to be called Dr. X. Surname in the EU?--Quest09 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking from personal experience rather than as a reliable source, insistence on "Doktor" rather than "Herr" is certainly very common. Using "Herr" is a faux pas on the level of using du rather than Sie - see T-V distinction. Tevildo (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If he has a PhD then he is entitled to be called Doctor, whatever the relevance. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, he is entitle to call himself Dr. no doubt. But, can he demand that others address him by Dr. X. in any single mention about him as if it were his name?--Quest09 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone can "demand" to be called anything they want to be called - how others respond to the demand is up to them, as is the appropriateness of making the demand in the first place. "They call me Mr Tibbs!". I doubt whether such a demand would be legally enforceable, though. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In Germany it is entirely normal, even universal, for someone with a PhD to be addressed as Doktor regardless of the circumstances. They even repeat the title if you have two PhDs. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking whether he can actually bring a legal action against you for calling him "Mr" or "Herr"? (And if you are, isn't that asking for legal advice?) Marnanel (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the greater question is one of protocol. If it is customary for someone of his culture and status to get to use "Doktor" then others should defer to that. For example, the United States has no royalty or nobility, but the Queen of the UK is still called "Your Majesty" when she tours the U.S. If he is accostomed by his own culture to using Doktor, I see no reason not to defer to that usage. Its harmless, ultimately, and it serves to purpose to not use the title he wants to use himself, if it is a rightful title, and it seems it is... --Jayron32 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, but it's difficult to know whether the nomenclature of a person's birth culture trumps that of the culture they find themselves in. Here's a parallel example. I'm a British citizen, and I live in the United States. In my birth culture, my name is equally "Mr Thomas Thurman" or "Thomas Thurman, esq." I could call myself either of them. However, in the culture I actually live in, calling myself "Thomas Thurman, esq." would mean I was a lawyer, which I'm not; so even though it would be permitted by my birth culture, I don't do it. Marnanel (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that, in the U.S., if he has a legal PhD of any sort, he is entitled to use Doctor in front of his name; that few Americans choose do to so does not mean they are not allowed to do so. It is not uncommon, for example, on college campuses to call all PhD-bearing staff "Doctor So-and-so". Religious leaders in the U.S. with a Doctor of Theology degree frequently use Doctor as well (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for example), but they are not mandated to do so. In the U.S., a country with a strong sense of individualism, such affectations frequently come down to personal choice. I think of the American sportscaster Dr. Jack Ramsay, who is ALWAYS called "Dr. Jack Ramsay" on the TV. I have several friends who have PhD's who prefer "Mr." to "Dr.", but again, that is entirely a personal choice. If he has a legitimate doctorate degree, and is entitled to use it, and wishes you to use it, then go ahead and use it. --Jayron32 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of my analogy. In the OP's case, his German colleague is entitled in his birth culture to be called Dr So-and-so in all circumstances, but (at least as far as I can see) in his host culture it's expected that "Dr So-and-so" implies a relevant doctorate. For him to use the title would imply things in his host culture that would not be implied in his birth culture, and that are untrue-- just as it would for me to use "Esq.". Marnanel (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In Germany, a doctorate becomes part of the full form of address. Back in 2000, you were even required to register it and to get it into your passport and national ID card. I think they have changed this law since then, but any doctorate entitles you to the title. Usually, only assholes insist, but I don't think this is very different in the US or in Germany. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This phenomenon is not unknown in the U.S. Radio therapist Laura Schlessinger calls herself "Dr. Laura" even though she has a Ph.D. in physiology rather than one in psychology or an M.D. Maya Angelou's website refers to her as "Dr. Maya Angelou" even though she never went to college and has only honorary doctorates. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am an American who happens to have a Ph.D., and my Ph.D. is in fact relevant to the field in which I work for a living. That field does not happen to be academia or healthcare, which are the only American professional fields where titles are normally used. I must say that I think it would be terribly pretentious to insist that people address me as "Dr." In the United States work culture (of 2009), everyone is on a first-name basis. Even when we use our full names (when communicating professionally with those who don't know us), we leave off titles such as "Mr." or "Dr." Based on my experience living in Germany in the 1990s, I believe that Germany's work culture is more formal and that Germans at work probably do insist that others use their "proper" title when addressing them. However, it is just as inappropriate for a German working in the United States to insist that others conform to his home culture when addressing him as it would be for an American working in Germany to insist that everyone call him by his first name when nobody else in the office does that. The cases of "Dr. Laura" and "Dr. Maya Angelou" are the exceptions that prove the rule. In both cases, I think their use of the title is a deceptive form of self-promotion that departs from the American norm. I think that this is also the case of your colleague, though it would really be up to his superior to tell him to conform to the cultural norms of his workplace. Marco polo (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Second wisest man in England

I have a memory of reading somewhere in Boswell's works that a man called Johnson the second wisest man in England, and that Johnson was delighted because unqualified praise would have meant less thought had gone into the remark. I cannot now find it anywhere in Boswell's writing. Did I dream it, or does someone here recognise the incident? Marnanel (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not 'wisest' but 'greatest': see the first paragraph of this [3]. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you! Marnanel (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

December 29

Declining an Honorary Degree

Clearly a question prompted by the above exchange... I think honorary degrees are ridiculous, and if I am ever so esteemed to be offered one, I plan to decline it. I feel that universities handing these out willy-nilly cheapens the value of their real degrees and that a "We Really Like This Dude" award purpose-made would be more appropriate. I suspect these views are the minority opinion, however. Question: has anyone notable ever turned down the awarding of an honorary degree? Question 2: are there prestigious educational institutions with principles similar to mine which do not award them and bestow something else instead? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Honorary degree claims that Billy Graham has turned down many honorary degrees, but doesn't provide a reference. Many people have turned down honorary degrees, but usually because they have an objection to the institution that is honoring them, rather than to the degree in principle. Here are some links to those who have turned them down. [4] [5] [6]

Most people don't feel that handing out honorary degrees 'cheapens' the regular kind. Honorary degrees are almost always clearly differentiated from earned degrees, and don't make any pretense of being equivalent. Hardly anyone tries to pass off an honorary degree as the real thing (Maya Angelou is an exception - Stephen Colbert makes a joke of it). DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're objecting to an honorary, say, M.Sc. cheapening real M.Sc.s (rather than the fact of honorary degrees being called degrees at all), then there are several universities which have a set of degrees which are only honorary and a set of degrees which are only earned. Notable among the honorary-only set is DUniv, Doctor of the University. Furthermore, I believe that in the United States it is in general impossible to earn a higher doctorate: all higher doctorates are honorary, leading to a similar division. You should probably also direct your ire against the Oxbridge MA, which is never earned (as most people would understand earning an MA). Marnanel (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

serial killer

where can i find the text of serial killer Wesley Dodds diary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently parts of his journal were released in a book called: When the monster comes out of the closet: Westley Allan Dodd in his own words. This link contains a summary of his life as well as further sources. I was not able to find anything else. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

what did a typical Tongmenghui / Chinese republican revolutionary look like?

I'm using February 12 as an excuse to dress up as a revolutionary of the Xinhai Revolution. I don't plan on being too hardcore, like I could totally use an appropriately-coloured coat, stitch together some cheap cloth, use cardboard rolls to vaguely look like what firearms they carried then (but not too authentic, cuz I don't want to be arrested for brandishing a fake firearm and such). Any suggestions? John Riemann Soong (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem you have is that the Tongmenghui did not have a uniform. I searched for a good example and found this. They were tradesmen. They wore the clothing of their trade. Instead of looking like a revolutionary, you will just look like a poor Chinese worker. -- kainaw™ 16:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is Dr. Sun holding up three fingers in the painting? Is that some sort of revolutionary salute? TomorrowTime (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it refers to Three Principles of the People. But I expect the revolutionaries came from many sources -- what did the rebels of the Wuchang Uprising look like? John Riemann Soong (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Photograph from Algiers 1899

The File:Algiers cafe 1899.jpg is showing a group of people sitting in front of or walking into an open entrance. The description at the Library of Congress database doesn't give more details about the scene. Let us believe that the photograph has been taken at Algiers in 1899. Although the title says that it is a cafe, you don't see anyone actually drinking, and no tables with or for cups. I wonder if this really is a cafe, perhaps where you drink inside, and perhaps have to wait outside because of the high attendance. Or: is it a mosque, where people sit and talk before or after a prayer? --Schwalker (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Café" is a term which has been used in western writings for traditional establishments in some Arab countries where males only congregated to smoke water pipes, drink heavy sweetened coffee, and discuss things at length. Not sure what the Arabic word for it is, but there's no particular reason why there should be a strong resemblance to the cafés of Paris... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The fellow fifth from the left definite has a small glass in his hand. I suspect the fellow third from the left does as well. I love the bird cages over the door! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Do animals have nationality / citizenship?

Such a doubt ... --190.50.124.148 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, according to your IP address, you're from Argentina, and I just plain don't know the law there. For the USA, though, the Supreme Court decision that you'd want to read would be Missouri v. Holland. Basically, migratory birds are protected from harm without regard to their national origin. The implication is that a wild animal is not the property of any nation. For domesticated animals, I would assume that most nations (including the USA) deem them chattel. --M@rēino 17:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In the EU, pets need to get a pet passport if you travel abroad. It's not so much about nationality as it is a convenient piece of paper that has data on the various inoculations the pet has had, but they are defined by country of origin on the passports... TomorrowTime (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Purchasing music: profit breakdown

This question could be on /Entertainment, but I'm placing here because it's more about economics.

I often purchase my music in physical album form or online as single mp3s. What is the breakdown on profit of for vendor/artist/record company/other? Just a rough idea... I have a friend that asserts I'm insane for buying those because all the money goes to the record companies, and none to the artists. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably depends a lot on the individual record companies and their contracts with the performers. But in general, the rule of thumb has long been that record companies make most of the money from the physical sales of records, while performers make the money from touring. This is one of the reasons performers tour so much—it's the source of much of their profits. I am not sure how much that changed with electronic distribution—I recall reading some articles awhile back that implied that this was a contested battleground between performers and companies at the moment, a site for re-negotiation of contracts and etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This link may be of interest to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

December 30

Statute of limitations and extradition

When Spain requested the extradition of Josias Kumpf from Austria for Nazi war crimes in September 2009, Austria stated that there was no legal basis to extradite him because Austria has a statute of limitations for Kumpf's alleged crimes [7] [8]. Based on this, is it generally the case that one cannot be extradited from country A to country B to stand trial for alleged crimes which fall under statutes of limitations in country A? TML (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on the terms of the extradition treaty between the two nations. The extradition article discusses the general topic at some length, but unfortunately it does not appear to specifically discuss the statute-of-limitations scenario. It does, however, suggest that international tensions can arise if the parties to a treaty disagree about the terms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

World citizenship

I've just read much of the Statelessness article and was wondering... I've heard of dual citizenship but have not found a limit to the number of States in which one might claim citizenship or if is possible in fact yet to become a World Citizen by taking up residence in every country in the world within one's lifetime? 71.100.6.153 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all states place certain restrictions on obtaining citizenship. If you are not a natural born citizen of the U.S., for example, the process of becoming a citizen (called Naturalization, see also United_States_nationality_law#Naturalization) requires being a continuous permanent resident of the U.S. for at least 5 years (3 years in some cases). Many other states have similar requirements. The Naturalization notes similar requirements for other countries, such as 3 years in Canada and 5 years in the Netherlands). Likewise, many countries disallow "dual citizenship" entirely, and others only grant it in limited circumstances. So it would be impossible on several counts. First, you could not possibly live in all 193-ish sovereign states long enough to establish the residency requirements for citizenship in each of them. Secondly, many of these states do not allow multiple citizenships; you must renounce other citizenships before become a citizen of your new country. Third, some of these countries do not allow naturalization at all, or only in very limited circumstances.

Even living in every country of the world would be difficult. Lets just say you wanted to do so; you couldn't spend longer than 6 months or so in each country, and even in that case, consider that doing so would take about 95 years of your life. 95 years ago, something like half of the current list of sovereign states didn't exist, so 95 years from now I wouldn't even begin to guess what countries will or will not exist, further complicating your plan. --Jayron32 06:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well you don't become a citizen just for being a resident in every country, so even if you could become a resident in every nation state (which would be difficult in some, such as North Korea, and ill-advised in others, such as Somalia) you wouldn't really be a citizen of everywhere. There are ethnic Koreans in Japan, for instance, that do not have Japanese citizenship despite having lived there for generations. There are also countries that require you to give up citizenship if you become a citizen of another nation (multiple citizenship gives China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and India as examples of these). So in short, there is no limit in some countries, but it would depend which countries you have in mind, and becoming a citizen of every country in the world does not seem possible. TastyCakes (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I more or less expected as much but what about becoming a "citizen" of a world body like the UN under the same concept as one is a citizen of the US, they may only reside within the State of New York. 71.100.6.153 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

French Guiana and the freedom of panorama

Has French Guiana the freedom of panorama? --84.62.197.235 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)