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.
What's the origin of "of the Cross"? Our article says nothing about it, and the Catholic Encyclopedia article in the external links says that he adopted that name himself, but it doesn't explain anything about his motives or his source for the name. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would have ben a scandal at the time to propose Jesus died on a torture stake and not a cross, or that the symbol had been adopted from False Religion, and it still is today. The Catholic Encyclopedia you mention says he prayed constantly "to suffer and to be despised." He wanted, probably, to mark himself with the suffering Jesus experienced at his execution. schyler (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This biography, "St John of the Cross: his life and poetry" is on Google Books[1]. It goes into his life in great detail but only says; "This was in November 1568 and Fray Juan de San Matías, who was now 26, put on the rough habit that Teresa had sewn for him with her own hands and changed his name to Fray Juan de la Cruz" (p.15). Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to; "The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross", translated by Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and Otilio Rodriguez. ICS Publications Washington D.C. ISBN 0-935216-14-6 $17.95. The book portrays the famous inspired drawing by St. John of The Cross, called "Christ Crucified". This drawing was in such a dimension that Salvador Dali used this dimension in one of his paintings. It has been said that St. John of the Cross is to the Spanish Language as is Shakesphere is to English. The drawing was in such a novel dimension that today remains extrardinary; hence his name. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Religions without written texts
1) Are there any current major religions without written texts? Do they all have a corpus of writing such as for example the christian bible? 2) Did all religions which have now died out - for example Norse mythology or the Greek or Roman gods - not have a corpus of texts? 92.24.190.46 (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue to an extent that Shinto has no written texts. Of course, the Kojiki and the Nihongi are said to be Shinto's sacred texts, but really, they mainly cover how the Japanese Imperial family is connected to the gods, while there is a myriad of smaller gods of local importance that get little to no coverage in either. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think Norse mythology and the Greek and Roman gods did not have any written texts? How do you think we know about them now? Or did you mean a corpus of texts which are regarded as sacred in themselves? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
92.24.190.46 -- Ancient Norse culture actually had a rather limited use of writing until after Christianity was adopted; most of our information comes from Icelandic sagas etc. which were written down in the Christian period. Ancient Roman religion had written liturgical and divinatory rituals, and some literary collections of myths (such as by Ovid). Neither had anything that would really qualify as a comprehensive "scripture" similar to the Jewish and Christian Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The religious cults of Greek and Roman antiquity did not have Scripture, but they had hymns (see Homeric Hymn) and they had traditional incantations. Liturgy is a Greek word, an extension of the technical term in ancient Greek, leitourgia, signifying the often expensive offers of service to the people, and thus to the polis and the state. --Wetman (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Celtic religion administered by the Druids eschewed writing its tenets in favour of memorisation, although some Druids (which, Peter Berresford Ellis and others argue, was a wider social caste from which the priests were drawn) may have been secularly literate in Greek or Latin. Consequently, revived neo-Druidism has to rely on indirect evidence to reconstruct what it can of the original beliefs, sometimes also supplemented by presumed memories of past lives in the original Druidic era. This is not such a problem as it might seem, since neo-Druidism (like other neo-Pagan paths) also actively develops its belief system by experimentation and philosophical debate. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are some written accounts of the Druids, but in the written accounts of Saint Bridget and give good evidence of their migratory movements. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irish Military Logo as Lyre With Shield?
I remember seeing a logo for what I thought was the Irish military -- it was a modern design of a lyre used as a shield with a man carrying a spear. I've searched the military pages and can't find it. Does anyone have any idea what it actually was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.46.47 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried the emblems of the different Irish Army Regiments? Each have different badges, but never on the hat, that is reserved for the harp of Ireland and never polished! MacOfJesus (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I think it is one of the Regiment Badges of the Leinster Province. I would need to see it to be sure. When you say "lyre" are you referring to a shape or a musical instrument? MacOfJesus (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is an Irish Army Regiment Badge, then part of the badge will have the province, i.e. Munster, Leinster, Cannaught, & Ulster. Their emblems can be viewed in their respective article pages. However, some do not have the province emblem, and I think this is one of them. If I could see the shield/badge you are referring to we may be able to positively identify it. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
were there any advanced ancient cultures that left no traces?
Yes, just one. It was in modern-day Wisconsin. Highly advanced, but now completely gone. They left no trace of their existence at all, so no study has been done on them and nobody knows that they existed... Honestly... If something leaves no trace that it exists, it is impossible to know that it exists. -- kainaw™17:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes aside, you may want to rephrase your question - if the civilization left no traces, there'd be no way of knowing it ever existed. You may want to allow for at least some traces - what would those be? Ruins? Artworks? TomorrowTime (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Wisconsin. (Daydreams a bit about Laura Prepon.) Perhaps the person asking the question meant: How likely is this scenario? It is sort of wild speculation, but so is asking about the existence of extraterrestrial life. 83.81.60.233 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is meant to be "... advanced ancient cultures that left few traces?" there may be some useful answers such as the enigma surrounding the 2000 year old Antikythera mechanism or the little that is known about the Late Paleolithic period ending 30,000 years ago --Senra (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Antikythera mechanism was made by ancient Greeks, about whom we know quite a lot, of course (and the mechanism itself is not really an enigma, it's just an astronomical clock). But there are plenty of other cultures that left few traces. Who built Stonehenge? Great Zimbabwe? Catalhuyuk? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We know that fossilization is an extremely rare occurrence (Fossil#Rarity_of_fossils). So I think we can say that there must have been some small, soft bodied, island species, contemporary with dinosaurs, which didn't live near any handy lakes or tar pits, which went extinct without leaving a single fossil. Making the same kind of extrapolation about advanced civilizations sounds harder work, since a couple of qualities of advanced civilizations are that they are big, and that they habitually leave traces all over the place (was there ever an advanced civilization which didn't create a lot of nice artifacts?). 81.131.18.14 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that perhaps Indigenous Australians loosely fit this bill. Their presence in Australia over 50 thousand years ago can not be accounted for by what we currently know, or any evidence we have so far found. The only way they could have reasonably got there is by sea, but that would have required a level of seafaring not seen anywhere else in the world for some tens of thousands of years. Vespine (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily (regarding your last point); thanks to glaciation, the gap between the Malayan archipelago and Australia was probably not that great, perhaps around 90km, according to our Prehistory of Australia article. That's a considerable distance, but hardly something requiring advanced ship-building or anything. Matt Deres (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your conclusion. I agree the distance might have only been 60km but that still requires a coordinated effort to go out to sea and reach a land which could not have been "known" of, in a time several tens of thousands of years before any other culture would be in a similar position to do so. Other Asian cultures migrating out to Polynesia didn't repeat the feat until around 4k BC. The earliest boats we have evidence of are simple dugout canoes about 10k BC, which aren't really craft you'd make even a 60km sea journey easily, especially if you don't know what's over the horizon. Studies have been done which show that the absolute minimum number of people required to start a viable colony in Australia would have been something like 25. This seems to exclude the possibility that a few fisherman (or more necessarily "women") were just "blown off course". I definitely think there is a gap between what we know and what happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting this means Aborigines are from Atlantis, or that aliens did it, or something ridiculous like that, I just mean we currently don't seem to have the evidence to account for what happened, we might never find out conclusively. Vespine (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There might well be some early advanced civilization whose artifacts have not been found, or which have been found but attributed to a later civilization, Edison (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the points already made about you needing to allow some traces, you need to clarify "advanced". "Advanced" is a relative term, so you need to tell us what you are measuring it relative to. Do you want civilisations that were advanced compared to other civilisations around at the same time in the same general area? Advanced compared to some particular baseline (eg. iron age Europe)? Advanced compared to us? (Discovering signs of a previously unknown civilisation from millennia ago (or even a different species millions of years ago) with more advanced technology than us is a staple of science fiction, but it's likelihood is pretty much zero - technologies certainly have been lost when civilisations failed, but anything on that scale is highly implausible.) --Tango (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your definition of "advanced", the answer could be "almost certain". For instance, where was Rhapta, and was it the centre of a small ancient civilisation? Even if guesses at its site as being Pemba are correct, the only evidence of its existence are an inscription and some coins, none of which were created locally. The Ikom monoliths are the only known remains of an ancient civilisation, about which nothing else is known. Given these examples, it seems highly likely that there were similar civilisations which left no (known) remains at all. Warofdreamstalk17:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Percy Blakeney's Title Confusion
The Scarlet Pimpernel
Sir Percy Blakeney is several times called, or referred to by other characters in the Baroness Emmuska Orczy novel as "my Lord," and "your Lordship." But if he is a "Sir," his rank can be no higher than that of a Baronet, in which case he would/should never be called "Lord." Is this a mistake by the author, or something else I missed in reading it?
According to Wikipedia and Debrett's, a Baron is a Peer of the Realm, and is addressed as "Lord." Thus if Blakeney was a Baron (or higher rank), he would not be "Sir Percy Blakeney," but "Lord Blakeney," or "Lord (place name)."
If he was – as is likely – a Baronet or a knight, then "Sir Percy Blakeney" would be correct, but he would not be referred to as "Lord" by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Rogue (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In The Scarlet Pimpernel, it calls him "Sir Percy Blakeney, Bart." in chapter 6, therefore a baronet. However, I can only find one place where he is called "lord". Sir Andrew Ffoulkes says "my lord always wears beautiful clothes" to the innkeeper Brogard, but that may be as a synonym for "leader". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which would agree with the WP page Milord; "In the nineteenth century, milord (also milor) was well-known as a word which continental Europeans (especially French) whose jobs often brought them into contact with travellers (innkeepers, guides, etc.) commonly used to address Englishmen or male English-speakers who seemed to be upper-class[1] (or whom they wished to flatter) – even though the English-language phrase "my lord" (the source of "milord") played a somewhat minor role in the British system of honorific forms of address, and most of those addressed as "milord" were not in fact proper "lords" (members of the nobility) at all." Alansplodge (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legal question
I'm not looking for legal advice, first of all--this is purely hypothetical and I don't intend to use it to defend myself in court or whatever. Is there any way I could modify anything I legally own (provided these modifications do not turn my stuff into weapons and could not possibly affect other people in any way) for my own, private use, that would be illegal where I live (Waukesha). I mean things I own as in furniture and stuff, not real estate (i.e., so not like rewiring my house to be a safety/fire hazard or turning it into a factory in violation of zoning laws, and also including turning my car into a racecar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.185.33 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The tricky part is the "could not possibly affect other people in any way"; if nobody is affected at all, then nobody knows about what you've done and, as the saying goes, it ain't illegal if you don't get caught." That's terrible advice, but I'm not sure what else to say without something more specific about what you're planning on doing. I don't know about Wisconsin, but in some places it might be illegal to, say, carve your headboard into a sexually explicit statue of a prepubescent child. Is that the kind of thing you're after? Matt Deres (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buy (legal) electronic components, build an (illegal) TV transmitter and broadcast your own TV shows. It might not affect other people if you keep the output power low and stay away from interfering with other transmitters. However, as demonstrated in PTV (Family Guy), it won't be long before the FCC show up on your doorstep (at which point you can burst into song). Pirate radioAstronaut (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think — though I am no lawyer — that the legal point here is that the modification of personal property is not illegal as a modification of personal property. (There are potentially some exceptions where modifications are prohibited.) I think what's more important is what you are making out of it, which will fall under all sorts of more specific laws. For example, if you modify an assault rifle to be fully automatic in states where that is illegal, that is thus illegal. But it's not illegal because you are modifying personal property more generally — it is legal because of specifically what you are modifying it into. In New York City, if you paint your handgun pink, that is illegal. It is not because painting one's household objects pink is illegal, but because of specific laws against modifying real guns to look like toy guns. I could be wrong — the law is complicated — but it seems all the examples I can think of are of this nature. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modification of the property as in and of itself could be prohibited if there was lien, easement, covenant or other such restriction on the property when purchased. These are most commonly applied to real estate, but, depending on jurisdiction, could be applied to other property. For example, the purchase of a work of art could be accompanied with a restriction that the owner may not destroy or deface it. Other examples are heirlooms or other inherited items, where a will might specify (potentially complex) conditions of ownership (although see rule against perpetuities for various limitations). - The other example prohibiting modification of items I can think of is computer software, where modification tends to be prohibited by EULA, although technically that's because you don't *own* the software itself, but rather *license* its use. -- 174.24.200.206 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there is no North York any more, but we can talk about where it was.
Now, in the spirit of giving sources... curiously, Wikipedia seems to have maps showing each individual district in relation to the others but not a map showing all the districts with their names. However, these are available on the Elections Canada web site under this page and the map for Ontario, with a Toronto enlargement, is here. By comparing that map against this one showing where North York was located, we see that the list given above is essentially correct. Specifically, York West, York Centre, Willowdale, and Don Valley East ridings are entirely in the former North York; also more than half of Don Valley West and Eglinton—Lawrence, less than half of York South—Weston, and a tiny bit of Beaches—East York. --Anonymous, 13:47 UTC, August 15, 2010.
People do still talk about "North York" as a separate place though, like the other pre-amalgamation cities. You can even address mail there (of course, the postal code is more important than the name of the place). I know people who still give their address as "East York" or even "Weston"! Adam Bishop (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
North York certainly still exists as a geographical subdivision for property definition and administrative purposes, as well as the territory served by the North York Community Council. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consecration of Nero
The emperor Nero apparently did not accept a temple to Divus Nero, and his memory was damned. Was he ever consecrated after his death? Is there any sources stating that Nero was indeed made a Divus or called Divus in or after his lifetime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.120.75 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is more common for a white woman to date (marry, have sex with, have children with) a black man than vice versa by a disparity of it being about 5 times as common than black woman with white man, wouldn't it be in the genetic interest of all white women of reproductive age (regardless of how cruel this might be to white males and black females) to have offspring with black males? See sexy son hypothesis.--Cherchez la natation (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you mean are causes and/or effects here, and what the question is? Are you asking a hypothetical question about what would be in the genetic interest of women if your initial assumption was true? Or, are you asking if it is true? Or, are you asking if what you refer to as the "genetic interest" is the cause of the disparity? Or, are you suggesting a scheme to combat the low birth rate? Personally, I doubt that your assumption is true, and fail to see how projected immigration numbers are relevant. Both birth rate numbers and ethnic make-ups of couples are far more affected by attitudes in society than genetics[citation needed]./Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur. You make broad assumptions based on a pattern you discern in a small, well defined fragment of the population. You also completely fail to encompass social patterns - Europe has a low birth rate for socio-economical, not biological reasons. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about your logic here. Sexy son hypothesis would suggest you'd want to have offspring that were considered sexy, and would choose your mate accordingly. OK, let's just go with that for the moment as a given.
What you've shown with your statistics — assuming they are correct about 5:1 ratio — is that the more common "mixed" relationship is black male + white female, rather than white male + black female. You haven't addressed non-mixed relationships (e.g. black male + black female, or white male + white female), which are surely far more prevalent. So it's not clear to me, from the beginning, that considering the mixed case makes much sense by itself, if one is trying to figure out what is "desirable".
Lastly, I don't see how this connects with sexy son at all. Are you implying that the advantage would be because the offspring would black males, and thus be more attractive to future mates? That seems like a stretch — your statistics, again, are only between groups. It's not unambiguously clear that black males in general have better reproductive success. And, of course, you're assuming the child will be a male anyway, and you've already indicated that you don't think black females have as much reproductive success. (Which I think is also false, and just an artifact of looking only at mixed race relationships).
I might not be expressing myself as clearly as I could, but do you see the problem with your reasoning, here? If the 50 million Africans were going to all be men, then maybe considering only mixed race relationships would make sense (because you'd be assuming, I guess, that there would have to be a large racial disparity), but I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OP also fails to consider that since contraception is widely available how many children you have depends more on choice than on how many partners you can attract.Sjö (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true. It's probably worth noting that for the most part, very few people seem totally unable to find partners willing to have children with them these days on the basis of skin color alone. I doubt it has any bearing in modern society on whether one can reproduce or not, if one is not very picky. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Free Movement, Work and the Schengen Area?
In the article, on the Schengen_Area, it says that people are free to travel without border checks -- but does it also mean that people from one Schengen country can live and work in another? e.g. France to Norway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.46.47 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Schengen isn't about the right to work. But Norway is part of the European Economic Area, which does allow citizens of other countries of the European Economic Area and European Union to work there. As a counterexample, Great Britain does not take part in the Schengen agreements, but any EU citizen is allowed to work there. I'm not sure whether EU citizens are allowed to work in Switzerland (member of Schengen, but not EU/EEA) Unilynx (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true. Currently, citizens of member states other than A8 and A2 may work freely in the UK. Citizens of A8 states may work but must register the work once they start. Citizens of A2 states are restricted in the work they can do. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some questions from someone not that knowledgeable in economics.
Hello I would like to know the answer to these questions:
1) How would one country bailing out another weaken their shared currency?
2) what's the situation in Ireland and Spain at the moment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.199.121 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Quickly and very crudely, that depends on exactly what form the bailout takes. Normally, part of the rationale for bailouts in currency unions is to protect the common currency - the EU bailout of Greece, while expensive, was designed, in part, to protect the Euro from collapse. However, given how massive modern bailouts have become (the EU/Greece bailout in May approached $1 trillion), inflation becomes a near-certainty. Inflation reduces the ability of a certain amount of currency to buy goods, thus weakening the currency.
2)Both Spain and Ireland are in dire economic situations. Spain, with ~20% unemployment, is trying to institute austerity reforms to cut public spending. Ireland now has the highest level of household debt relative to disposable income in the developed world at 190%. The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RANKS WITHIN THE CHURCH
I'm trying to learn some basics about the church and christendom, and at the moment I'm finding it a little hard to get an overview over positions and ranks within the church. So if someone who possesses some more knowledge than me on the subject could help me making a little list of the positions within the church in a ranking order, i would be most grateful. (of course, i know things might vary a little bit from the catholic church to the eastern and the western ones but a general overview over who outranked who would be very helpful.
The Pope (the Highest rank)
Arch-Bishop (Outranked only by the pope, am i right?)
Bishop (outranked only by the two above, am i right?)
and so on... if you could help me extend the list with more positions within the church; Chaplain, chancellor, cardinal, curate, minister etc.
Krikkert7 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to answer. I did not mean the catholic church in particular, or any of them more than the other, but getting an overview of the catholic church positions is very helpful
The question is only possible to answer for a specific church- every church has its own hierarchy, and they're different from one another. For example, the Pope (who you put at the top of your list) is only Pope of the Catholics- he has no place in any other church's list. My own childhood church had a much shorter hierarchy - 1. Elders 2. Deacons 3. Everybody else, including the preacher. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)20:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i know a pope is only part of the Catholic church. But i'd like to learn who was the higher-ups and most prominent members of the clergy in all of the churches. Maybe I asked in a clumsy way because my knowledge on the matter is limited and i find it very difficult to get into it, and i'm very confused by how complicated it all seems.
Forexample : I have always thought bishop to be one of the highest and most prominent positions to be obtained in the church (in both catholic and others) but then i learned that there are INNUMERABLE variants of Bishop, then i learn that cardinals are higher than bishops, only to then learn that cardinals are in fact usually some sort of Bishop. So it suddenly seems that a bishop can be very high up or farther down in the ranking order...
Now i notice I mention Bishop a lot, but it is not only about Bishops but other important positions as well.
And what i forgot to mention was that I'm most of all interested in these things as they were during the middle-ages. I suppose things can have changed a lot since the 12th to 14th century
Krikkert7 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a pan-denominational view, then it's hard to be much more specific than first "minor orders", then priests/ministers, then bishops of varying kinds (of course, some denominations don't have bishops at all). Ca. 400 A.D., things were kind of formalized into a hierarchy of bishops and archbishops, under a "pentarchy" of the five patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but that scheme excluded the eastern Arian and Monophysite churches from the beginning, and over time the pentarchy came to be more and more irrelevant as an overall organizing scheme (and nothing else accepted by all prominent churches ever replaced it). AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know about the middle ages, it will not really be any less complicated...actually it might be even more complicated depending on when and where in the middle ages. They were very interested in this sort of thing, for precedence at church councils, etc. There is a surviving list of participants at the Fourth Lateran Council which gives you an idea of the order of precedence, at least in 1215. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the Protestant churches, the Anglican Church mainly follows the Roman Catholic setup except there are no Cardinals and of course, no Pope. See Anglican ministry for full details. The Lutheran Church also has an episcopal system (ie one based on bishops). However, both these churches are governed at a national level by a General Synod (like a church parliament) in which bishops, priests and congregations are all represented. Most other Protestant churches, following the teachings of John Calvin and others, have varying systems of elected leadership. Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You also have the Orthodox churches, which have hierarchies specific to them, mostly with either an archbishop or a patriarch at the top. There's at least the top echelons listed here. Just as a curiosity - there's even one Pope among those, his full title is (brace yourselves):"His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, Thirteenth of the Apostles, and Judge of the Œcumene" TomorrowTime (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That refers to the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria -- and despite the grandiose titles, it's very noticeable that the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria has far fewer followers than the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria... AnonMoos (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it's Lutheran churches that have the episcopal structure; there's no primary Lutheran organization. For example, the ELCA and the Missouri Synod are two "top-level" Lutheran organizations that aren't structurally connected in any way. Paul (Stansifer)15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other (upward) way to approach it is from the evangelical, fundamentalist or "Bible Christian" point of view (I'm none of these myself) and ask what orders were in the Primitive or Early Church, as related in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles. While there's much room for interpretation and debate, the three orders that are generally recognized were bishops, deacons and elders (presbyters). See Early Christianity#Organization. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Near the end of the John Wayne Gacy article it says "John Gacy spent much of his time on death row studying books on law and filing numerous, exhaustive appeals and motion" saying he had just "some" knowledge of 5 of the murders.
I would like to read the text of any of these appeals or motions? Can someone provide a link where I may do so? Thank you. 92.230.64.158 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The appeals cases are traceable backwards through the final appeal, which cites others. I doubt they are all online; that kind of legal minutiae is not usually digitized. Apparently the bulk of the Gacy legal files are in the Cook County Circuit Court Clerk. If you Google "People v. Gacy" you'll find some of the later appeals rulings online. There is even a law journal article on the legal legacy of his appeals, which apparently established some precedent. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Name change after Hajj?
I have heard from few sources that after one performs Hajj, (the pilgrimage to Mecca for Muslims), There is a name change or title that one carries for having performed this. The article doesn't seem to mention it, however. Is this a true statement or disinformation? Avicennasis @ 23:41, 4 Elul 5770 / 14 August 2010 (UTC)
. I have a photo I took of this same structure at Bang Pa-In Royal Palace, and inside it is a sculpture of a man in military uniform. Is the sculpture inside Rama IV or Rama V? 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.193.83 (talk)
This page[2] says "Phra Thinang Aisawan Thiphya-Art is a Thai-style pavilion with four porches and a spired roof built by King Chulalongkorn in the middle of an outer pond in 1876... This pavilion now houses a bronze statue of King Chulalongkorn in the uniform of a Field Marshal which was placed by his son King Vajiravudh (Rama VI). Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revisionism
Hey, It's me again. Monday is the last debate in our debate club before school starts. The director decided to give us a really controversial one to provoke thought or some other stuff he said. Short version: The debate is whether we should revise things like religious texts and other documents if there is a good chance that they might cause or be interpreted to encourage violence and unrest (probably intended as an aside to certain interpretations of jihad in the Qu'ran), and I'm in the pro-revisionism camp. An argument that I plainly can forsee against me is that if religious texts can be modified then any art should be. How can I counter this, preferably without asserting that the Mona Lisa or Shakespeare's Hamlet should be vandalized/bowdlerized to remove chauvinistic depictions of women/violence or however they're going ot say it? 76.228.198.120 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go the other route (in for a penny, in for a pound) and say that art itself should be revised if it produces unpleasant social results. that argument was successfully used, at any rate, to produce mounds of truly horrific "Worker's Art" in the Soviet Union and a few other socialist systems (plus some very good stuff, such as the work of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo). it's debate, man: go for the jugular. --Ludwigs201:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't one try to draw a firm distinction between religious texts and general works of art? People don't read Hamlet and say, "Oh, that's interesting, I guess I'll go kill my uncle now." It's not a prescription for how to live one's life — or, if it is (and there are such works of art), the penalties are usually pretty minor compared to the religious texts. To me the "art" question is a non-starter — we don't use art the same way we do religion. Even at its most political, art is pretty ineffectual at getting people to do anything. (Insert the cries of a thousand performance artists here, who desperately feel their art is "political" and important and influential.)
A tougher argument would be for political tracts and things that actually do try to incite violence, and have in the past. If you're going to bowdlerize the Qu'ran — a holy text over 1,000 years old and believed by millions of people around the world to be fairly close to the word of God — then what's to stop you from censoring everything that looks even remotely like revolutionary fervor. We might as well re-write the Declaration of Independence while we are at it. Certainly the works of the Founding Fathers — "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants," is pretty explosive stuff! I mean, the tough part of your argument is not art, it's that once you start censoring sacred, historical things, where do you stop? (Is anybody honestly proposing this? It seems to me like a totally silly thing to have to try and argue for, because nobody sensible would agree to it for a minute. But I might not be very sensible, myself.) --Mr.98 (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ludwigs2: I'd argue that this is pure utilitarianism; you're simply arguing we should always strive for the maximum social good, which is hard to argue against. You might also be able to sound very reasonable, if you're allowed to argue this, by conditioning the censorship on results. Do a large scale double-blind (somehow) scientific test of what happens when you bowdlerize text X or Y or Z, and if the censored text X correlates with the sample of people reading it to commit 20% fewer murders, then those arguing against the censorship sound like amoral, bloodthirsty crazies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A form of this has happened in the UK. Our national anthem mentions the crushing of the Jacobite Rebellion, in a verse which is seldom if ever sung nowadays. One might wish to ask why the French still sing about the blood of their enemies running on the floor in their national anthem... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, almost all anthems follow a pretty predictable pattern: "we love our country, it is the most beautiful in the world, we will die for it in the name of God/the sovereign, we will kill everybody who might even consider invading." Laibach did an interesting album based on this. Incidentally, the German anthem was amended after WWII to abridge some of the Vaterland that was in the old version spread too broadly for comfort.
Not quite. The full old German anthem was inherited by the Federal Republic, but only the third verse ("Unity and justice and freedom...") was ever played on official occasions. Only after reunification did this situation change and the third verse alone did, by presidential decree, become the national anthem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A form of this has happened in the UK. Our national anthem mentions the crushing of the Jacobite Rebellion, in a verse which is seldom if ever sung nowadays. One might wish to ask why the French still sing about the blood of their enemies running on the floor in their national anthem... --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI that vesrse was only ever used in 1745, but nationalistic Scots seem to know all the words. Some people like to make-up their own forms of discrimination. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The blood is running on the floor of the French national anthem? :) The seldom (or actually never) heard third verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" contains a charming line about how the blood of the fleeing British "has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth caveating that by saying that the majority of people can't remember beyond the first three lines of the national anthem. It's not some vast authoritarian conspiracy.
In the Discworld novels, it's recognised that nobody can remember the second verse of an anthem anyway, so the second verse of the Ankh-Morpork National Anthem "We Can Rule You Wholesale" officially mostly consists of "hner"s - as performed here. -- Arwel Parry(talk)15:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that you can't revise a historical work. A book such as the King James Bible is what it is. You can create a new Bible of your own; you can argue, perhaps with much justification, that your translation is better, or that your interpretation is clearer, or that your ethics are better justified by the entire body of Apocrypha only some of which were used to produce the original; or simply that your ethics are inspired by a clearer understanding of Jesus' true intent. You may be right. But if you say that's the original King James Bible, it would be a lie. If you try to force people to exchange their Bibles for yours, it is censorship.
Thus the energy of the opponents' argument should be helped on toward its logical conclusion: that people should use the historical texts and other sources to create new grand documents of their own, which some day may be respected themselves as timeless classics. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a person goes through a stop sign on a city street, he can be stopped by the police. And he can be charged with a crime (or an infraction or a violation). Now, what about those stop signs that are placed on private property? For example, if there is a very large store (let’s say, a Wal-Mart or a Stop and Shop or whatever), they often have huge parking lots. And these huge parking lots often have stop signs placed here and there. However, the parking lot is strictly private property, and not a public city street. So, does the Wal-Mart parking lot type of stop sign have the same legal effect as a city street stop sign? If you drive through one, can the police stop you and charge you with a crime or infraction or violation? I would think not, but I am curious. Are the Wal-Mart parking lot type of stop signs of any legal effect at all? Or do we stop at them, essentially, only voluntarily, and not as a legal mandate? This question refers to the USA, by the way. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The exact rules of the road vary state-by-state, but as I recall, any unmarked stopping point (your driveway, for example) is an implied yield-right-of-way, or maybe even an implied stop sign. Many stores will have those "fake" stop signs, as a reminder. So the cop could theoretically ticket you for failing to yield right-of-way; especially if, by so doing, you get into a collision with someone who has the right-of-way. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I googled ["rules of the road" "right of way"] and the first thing that came up was this,[3] from the state of New York, which seems typical of other rules of the road for other states I've lived in. Look about 2/3 of the way down the page. When approaching an unmarked intersection, or from a driveway, you are supposed to stop and yield to both traffic and pedestrians. In your own driveway, you're pretty much in control, but in a public parking area they need to post those stop signs in order to make it clear who has the right of way. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, in the public parking lot (Wal-Mart) "fake" stop sign scenario ... is it the same type of crime/infraction/violation as going through a "real" (city street) stop sign? And what would give the private party (owner of the Wal-Mart parking lot) the "right" to determine where he "feels" he can place his stop signs? If I were the owner, I can just place these "fake" stop signs willy-nilly, wherever I feel like it? And they have the legal effect of "determining" who has the right of way? That doesn't seem to add up? I am confused. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
With the disclaimer that the Ref Desk cannot offer Legal Advice. I concur with what Bugs has said here. • If you are parking in a privately owned parking lot, as a 'guest', it may be that you are obliged (morally or perhaps even legally) to follow the rules of the owner. If the land owner has Stop signs, then it would be advisable to heed them for your safety and that of other 'guests' (That perhaps even being a condition of you usage of the parking lot-if you read the fine print on the signs). If you have an accident,and dispute it, then go to a 'civil' court say to sue another driver, (as it was not on a public road) it will not look good for your case if you ignored any sign (even an 'advisory sign' possibly without 'legal' power of Police enforcement. • In NSW, Australia, as per Bugs above, a pedestrian legally has right of way, cars are supposed to always give way to a pedetrian. For example, when a vehicle crosses a footpath/sidewalk, thay are supposed to stop, or at least give way to pedestrians, but this is often ignored. • If you want a 'legal' answer to your query you should enquire of a police offcir or your local Roads Department. • No legal Advice given here, just food for thought!220.101talk\Contribs02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "fake" I should have said "non-standard", as they often seem to be made-to-order by the store. And as far as enforcement goes, if you violate one going onto a public thoroughfare, yes, you could be ticketed. But as far as stop signs placed strictly to regular traffic within the mall parking lot, that's a good question. I'll see if I can find anything about that. However, I suspect that shopping mall parking lots, being "public accomodations", are subject to traffic laws and regulations to some degree. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"what would give the private party the "right"" - rather, you may ask, who sets the obligations of the private landowner or tenant to maintain safety on their premises? East of Borschov12:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I googled ["parking lots" "right of way"] and a bunch of opinions popped up, many of them no more informed than mine. However, this one from The Straight Dope bulletin board might be of interest.[4] It points out various things, of which at least two are important here: (1) The laws vary state-by-state; and (2) Some shopping centers have agreements with the local police that effectively turn the mall lot into public roads. In short, don't make any assumptions, and call your local authorities to find out for sure about your particular community and stores. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the short answer is that it depends on where you are talking about. In Ohio, yes, running a stop sign on private property is ticket-able. (Ref. Ohio Revised Code, 4511.432 (C), covers some residential dwellings, I forget the code for businesses.) In New York, it's only valid with written permission from an authority. (Ref. New York Vehicle & Traffic Law: Article 39 - § 1640-a.) Some local laws may override these, as well. Avicennasis @ 03:54, 5 Elul 5770 / 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess the following question is also a part of what I am "getting at". Can the landowner just put up stop signs, arbitrarily and willy-nilly, where ever he "feels like" doing so? Or does some authority (the town, a local ordinance, some building permit requirements, etc.) dictate to the owner where he can/cannot put the signs? If his privately owned stop signs have some legal effect, I can't imagine that he can place them willy-nilly where ever he pleases. There must be some oversight, no? Otherwise, as a landowner, I can place a stop sign in the most "odd" places ... and my guests will incur legal liability for my idiosyncrasies? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
In British Columbia, in any place where the public can be reasonably expected to drive, whether public or private property, the Highways act and therefore the rules of the road apply. This doesn't mean the driveway to your house, but it doesn mean parking lots in shopping centres. I suspect (don't know for sure but it seems likely) that this means that, yes, the property owner could put up stop signs all willy-nilly. That said, they themselves would be forced to obey them, so it would be very inconvenient. Aaronite (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
prenatal influence
Am looking for info on the school of thought that was around at least as far back as the mid-1800's and used the vocabulary 'prenatal influence' when promoting the theory that a mother's thoughts and spoken words to her fetus could influence who the fetus would become. Dixie Willson (sister of Meredith Willson who created 'The Music Man') claimed that her parents were believers in this theory and that they had read a book titled 'Prenatal Influence' before their children were conceived. Dixie claimed that her parents decided that she would be a writer (which she did become)and that Meredith would be a musician. Am trying to learn more about this theory and it's influence on parents in the 1800's and early 1900's (Frank Lloyd Wright's mother is also reported to have been a believer of this theory <http://books.google.com/books?id=S7ZB90XmTdcC&pg=PA59&dq=frank+lloyd+wright+prenatal+influence&hl=en&ei=d0ZnTN2HOJPqnQflgJ3BBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false> and is reported to have decided before Frank Lloyd Wright's birth that he would be an architect)Jacollison (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There exist numerous indications that what fetuses experience in the womb influences their life after birth, although the actual theory of it makes few claims as grandiose as the 'Baby Einstein' pedlars, etc. I personally know little about the history of the theory, but I can help you with recent research into the cognitive science of 'prenatal influences', as you term them. Is this helpful? The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, there was a whole earlier pre-scientific theory of "impressions", that something striking or upsetting which a pregnant woman saw could affect her baby, especially the physical appearance (perhaps in the form of a birthmark shaped like what the mother saw). AnonMoos (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the two who responded so far, but I am really wanting specific information on how the 'prenatal influence' school of thought influenced parents especially in the time period of mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900's. We know that the Willson's parents and Frank Lloyd Wrights parents subscibed to the theory and produced children with the intended careers they had attempted to influence. What writings influenced these parents? Are there other famous/influential people whose parents had attempted to influence their life choices prenatally?Jacollison (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In ca. 1900, modern cognitive studies on newborns had not yet happened, and the old theory of impressions was no longer taken too seriously by most educated people (and was probably transmitted more orally than in writing in any case), so I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
parents who try to influence the child in the womb are not going to stop trying to influence the child after it's born, and parents trying to influence a child in the womb can safely be considered to be a bit obsessive, so it would be impossible to separate out the prenatal and postnatal influences on the child. 2. examination of success cases proves absolutely nothing: statistically, there will always be success cases to point to, no matter how absurd the theory in question.
This will all be anecdotal. 1. failure rates are much more indicative of the power of a theory, but we have no information on people who failed to become what their parents wanted them to become (except that such people constitute the vast majority of the world's population). really, this is 'patent medicine' territory: There's no evidence that children can do any language processing prenatally, and while they might pick up on tonal regularities (vocal emotions, musical compositions, etc.) they just don't have the cognitive structures to do anything with it. about the best you can hope for is that they will be acclimated to certain kinds of stimuli (e.g. if you read a lot of poetry aloud while you're pregnant your child might develop an emotional acclimation to the rhythms and cadences of the spoken word, and might be less resistant to reading and hearing such later in life, which might translate to better study habits...). But things like that are going to be far more profoundly influenced by how you interact with your child during the language acquisition stage. It can't hurt, I suppose, but it's really more for the parents than the child (like buying your baby designer clothes). --Ludwigs218:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 'parents who try to influence the child in the womb are not going to stop trying to influence the child after it's born, and parents trying to influence a child in the womb can safely be considered to be a bit obsessive, so it would be impossible to separate out the prenatal and postnatal influences on the child.'. That is a given but I am still not finding the information that i need and want. Who was promoting this school of thought? Dixie Willson reported that her parents read a book titled 'Prenatal Influence'. Who wrote this book? What other authors were promoting this theory? Do we have evidence that other parents of famous and influential people in the mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900's subscribed to this theory and were obsessive in influencing their children pre and postnatally?98.108.40.200 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abraham Lincoln
On Abraham Lincoln's biography under presidency it states...
the main one is that you will deprive them of a happy, long-lasting marriage of their own. "like father, like son", "the apple never falls far from the tree", etc etc. The truth is you are probably considering divorce because of money issues or other temporary hardships. Without exception every marriage faces that sooner or later. The people who don't know that you're supposed to ride that out are the ones whose parents didn't show them that. They are also the people who end up married five times. Instead of one marriage with five bumps and then a long golden period lasting for decades, they have five marriages ending at the first bump and are miserable for the rest of their lives. But, by all means, call a divorce lawyer: they will tell you, I am sure, the benefits of ditching the person you committed to. 92.230.234.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The IP makes a lot of rosy assumptions. Let me make my own: what if the marriage is falling apart because of an abusive spouse? Do you really believe that the children would prefer an abusive parent to a divorced one? What if in their minds, sticking around in an abusive marriage makes them lose all respect for the suffering parent? Worse yet, what if, following the IP's logic, it turns the children into abusive parents eventually? It could be the case, as could the IP's scenario. Truth is, I don't know, and neither does anyone else here. Divorces have their way of having different effects on different people. Quite frankly, this question cannot be answered here - we're just a bunch of random strangers on the Internet and we have no way of knowing how this particular divorce might affect the children. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite a stretch to assume a) that the OP is even considering divorcing their own partner (it could just as well be a homework question in from an "ethics" or "social science" class), and b) that divorce is inherited and always results in unhappy children destined to a life of unhappy and broken relationships. Consider this: perhaps a divorce from an abusive partner could be good for the children. Astronaut (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WW1 ended in 1919, the Russian Revolution was in 1917. Did the Russians keep fighting in the war during and after the revolution, or where they not involved in WW1? Thanks 92.29.114.222 (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just about the first thing the Bolsheviks did after the October revolution was to sue for peace with the Germans. The revolution was on 14th November (in the Western calender) and an armistice began on 14th December[5]. See the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans had put in a lot of work to facilitate Lenin's return to Russia. The armistice on the Eastern Front freed-up an extra 50 German divisions (more than half a million soldiers) to send to France and Belgium. This allowed the Germans to launch the Kaiserschlacht offensive against Britain, France and the US in April 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why some think it was more of a German imperial sealed-train putsch than a real Bolshevik "revolution" -- an impression that was reinforced by the fact that the Soviets refused to fight Germany, but were extremely eager and avaricious to seize great chunks of territory from Poland after others had accomplished the work of defeating Germany... By the way, the WW1 armistice was in 1918, not 1919 AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another date thing for Alansplodge: The 1917 Revolution took more than a day, but the starting day is usually quoted as 7 November NS (= 25 October OS, hence the Russian terminology "October Revolution". Even if it had happened on the last day of October OS, that still only gets to 13 November NS.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right JackofOz, my mistake. AnonMoos makes a good point; IIRC pre-1941 Soviet expansion was focussed on restoring the territory ceded at Brest-Litovsk and Versailles (ie the Baltic States, Finland and E Poland) but postwar (to be charitable) they just wanted a big buffer-zone that was under their influence. The fighting ceased on 11/11/18 but peace was not formally concluded until 28/06/19. (some war memorials in the UK are marked "1914-1919")Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. county borders
Resolved
Hello, I have a couple of questions about the borders between counties in the United States:
Are county borders that "look" (subjective, but bear with me) like they are based on a meridian or a parallel normally exactly aligned with that?
I presume that state governments were the entities deciding on borders between counties, but the article County (United States) does not say what criteria were used for that.
Also, the article does not say how borders are administrated. For example, the border with Canada is defined by the Treaty of Paris, but how does this work for counties? Are there official documents defining county borders and, if so, are these still in force?
As an example to partially answer 2 and 3, see page 40 of New York State's Local Government Handbook (http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/Handbook.pdf), which says "The first State Constitution in 1777...recognized the existence of 14 counties that had been established earlier by the colonial Assembly... All of New York’s other 50 counties were created by acts of the State Legislature." --Nricardo (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During much of the 19th-century, many people considered that the ideal size of a county was such that the great majority of farmers in the county could hitch up a horse-and-cart in the morning, drive to the county seat, transact some business there at mid-day, and then arrive back at the farm in the evening, without having to spend a night away from the farm. Of course, a number of factors could prevent this from being achieved in specific cases... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also (historically speaking) counties were defined pragmatically as regions that could be effectively maintained as a political unit (the name derives from the leader of some such units - i.e. 'Counts'), which usually meant they had to be large enough to be agriculturally capable of sustaining their population and a smallish military force, but small enough to be patrolled effectively by that force. --Ludwigs219:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the idea that military defense sets the side of a county leads to some interesting simple math. Assume defending soldiers (low alert) are picketed 1 unit apart, and county residents each take up n square units of land, and the fraction of the population on picket at any one time is a ratio m (say 1/30 - 10% military, 3 shifts). Then a square county of side r needs 4r pickets and musters m*r^2/n soldiers, so r = 4n / m (for m = 1/30, r=120 n). Thus a county using this definition should have a constant number of civilians (here 14400) given constant parameters for military spending. Which raises the question: were counties created with approximately constant population? Which would validate the model. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, that's rather irrelevant to the United States, since counties/shires in England lost all real feudal autonomy long before English colonies were settled in north America... AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no: even though the feudal structure has disappeared, counties are still largely determined for the same pragmatic reasons. for instance, one of the reasons that counties in the western US are larger than counties in the eastern US is that changes in technology (railroads, telegraphs, improved firearms, and etc.) made it possible to have centralized administration for larger areas: thus, trouble with criminals, Indians, Mexicans, or the dreaded Canadians could reach county sheriffs, US Marshals, or military bases far more quickly, and they could respond more rapidly with more firepower. --Ludwigs221:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In American law, the county is a subdivision of the state and is controlled by the state. There is no requirement that a state even have counties or other subdivisions, although all do and most call them counties (Louisiana has parishes and Alaska has boroughs). Normally the counties and their borders are determined by the state legislature, which can create new counties or change the borders of existing counties by enacting state laws to that effect. The county borders, in other words, are set out in the state's laws (or, in some cases, in the state's constitution). The counties and their borders are determined in response to political and administrative considerations. The considerations described by AnonMoos are no longer important, of course, but they did affect the creation of many existing counties. John M Baker (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has already been answered well, but since it is a favorite topic of mine I will respond as well, by question number, 1-3:
1. No, I doubt there are any county boundaries that are exactly aligned to a meridian or parallel. The legislation that created any given county might have specified a meridian or parallel, but the actual boundaries were the result of surveys, which always have some degree of error--and in the olden days when most US counties were surveyed the errors were often quite substantial. Sometimes you hear about a county or state declaring that part of another county or state should belong to them because the original legislation decreed such-and-such a boundary but the actual survey was off by so-and-so number of miles. These complaints never go anywhere. What matters is the boundaries as surveyed, not as decreed. The same holds true for countries. A long section of the Canada – United States border was decreed to be the 49th parallel north. The actual boundary today is the one established by survey teams (from both countries) and the boundary monuments they emplaced. According to a blogger who researched this topic, the US-Canada border is defined by 11,501 separate boundary markers--and this for a boundary 8,891 kilometers long. The line segments supposed to be on the 49th parallel are on average about 1.8 kilometers long, and at each marker the boundary bends slightly north and southward. Furthermore, a great number of US sub-national borders were "decreed" in terms of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), not explicit meridians and parallels. The PLSS system was based on principal meridians and baselines, which were usually defined as meridians and parallels (but again, did not follow them exactly when surveyed). As the surveying moved farther from the principal merdians and baselines the errors increased, in part due to the curvature of the Earth, and in part due to the compounding of errors upon errors as surveyors marked range and township lines farther and father from the principal meridians and baselines. There's plenty of info at the PLSS page. Suffice it to say that most counties in the US, at least after the PLSS system became standardized in the early 19th century, have borders legally defined in terms of PLSS townships and ranges, not actual latitude and longitude. The boundaries of US counties, states, and the nation itself, are the result of cadastral surveys, not the boundaries as decreed in the boundary-establishing legislation. In fact, I'm skeptical that there exists any national, state, county, or city boundary in the US that is "exactly aligned" with lines of longitude and latitude. All this said, county and state boundaries are often said to follow a single precise line of latitude or longitude. Our Colorado article, for example, describes the state's borders as 37°N, 41°N, 102°03'W, and 109°03'W. But the article goes on to point out that the actual boundary today is based on surveys, and those surveys had errors resulting in boundary "kinks". The article says they are "imperceptible", but I'd argue that their perceptibility depends on scale—how close in do you care? The kinks are quite perceptible at close scale, such as the Google Maps link from the Colorado page: CO-UT boundary kink.
2. Yes and no. Many counties were created by territories not states—and territories were were essentially under federal jurisdiction. Usually the size and boundaries of counties were repeatedly adjusted, well into the statehood era, but many of the boundaries today still date to pre-state terrotirial times. For example, King County, Washington was created in 1852 by the Oregon Territory legislature. It's original delineation was larger than today, but quite a bit of its present boundaries still date to the 1852 legislation. Lots--probably most counties in the western US were created in a similar way. You can view animated maps of county formation by state at this website. I linked to the Ohio page, but there's a menu for picking other states. The maps don't tell you how the boundaries were defined/surveyed, but does show how county borders changed quite a lot in earlier times.
3. I'm not sure what you mean by "administrated". The US-Canada border was defined (in part) by the Treaty of Paris (actually it was only vaguely defined and hammer out over many years via many further treaties and agreements). But the Treaty of Paris does not "administrate" the boundary. The agency that deals with the US-Canada border, not in terms of security, customs, etc, but in terms of where the border is exactly, is the [International Boundary Commission, or IBC. I doubt anything similar exists for states and counties, at least the the majority of the US surveyed under the PLSS system. The PLSS system was federal, and generally defined boundaries in pre-state, territorial times. That said, there certainly are official documents defining county borders, but they are not exactly "in force". Borders delineations are not based on documents but on survey markers in place "in the field"--that is, physical markers in the landscape are "in force", not the text of official documents. The surveyors placed boundary monuments and issued detailed reports that defined the boundaries. Unless I'm mistaken, the NGA, part of NOAA, is charged with keeping track of survey monuments of all kinds. The NGA is probably the agency in charge of "administrating" cadastral boundaries in the US—although local issues would be handled locally, using survey marker information from the NGA. But I'm not totally certain about this, and things may be more complicated in reality. Washington state and its counties, as far as I know, do keep track of the survey markers and resulting boundary lines, but they basically use information acquired from the NGA. In any case, most county boundaries have been established for so long, and counties have largely been filled in with parcels based on the PLSS system, there is not a great need to administrate the boundaries. Foe example, I live a block from a county boundary. The boundary runs down the center of a street. Whether or not this street is located exactly where the county-creation legislation said it should is irrelevant. Everyone, including local governments, know the road is the boundary. There's no need for boundary administration. If some boundary dispute does arise, where or elsewhere, and it is important enough for someone, or some organization to spend a bunch of money on, the matter would usually be resolved by having surveyors relocate the old monuments and calculate the boundary segments between them. In other words, boundaries at the county level are not administrated by any permanent agency, but rather by courts as the need arises. The situation might be slightly different and more complex in the pre-PLSS eastern part of the US. I've noticed that some counties lines in states like Tennessee are described as "indeterminate". But in most cases it still comes down to survey monuments.
Long, but very helpful. This all started when I noticed on Google Earth that the northern border of Tipton County, Indiana was not exactly "horizontal". (It's off by about 5 seconds, which is a hundred yards or so.) In my naivety, I kinda assumed that, to use your example, the borders of Colorado are defined in terms of coordinates, instead of by physical markers. So, by "administrated" I meant to refer to official documents containing such coordinates. (Off-topic, but I think the borders of the territorial claims on Antarctica are defined in terms of numbers (degrees). If not, I pity the poor sods who had to survey those.) Thank you! 83.81.60.104 (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) (OP with different IP)[reply]
Hugo metaphor
I'm teaching foreign literature this semester, beginning with French literature. I need to formulate a metaphor or simile that upper-middle and upper class English-speaking students can understand for the dominance Hugo's work, most notably Les Misérables, holds over French literature. This needs to be a cultured and refined metaphor and NOT something like Victor Hugo's work dominates French literature like Li'l Wayne dominates neo-hiphop rap fusion (or something like that) or like Stephenie Meyer's work dominates the Teen vampire romance genre! I also don't want to use another literary metaphor, so not something like Shakespeare dominates English drama. I was thinking about using a classical music reference (i.e., the loudest or most noticeably part of a symphony/orchestra) but am open to other suggestions. Any ideas? 76.229.157.110 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking American students, British students, students in Australia, South Africa, Hong Kong...? Accessible metaphors are going to vary according to cultural and racial makeup. If you're looking for a metaphor that also captures the sense of his relationship to French literature, that's more restrictive. Beethoven would probably be the closest analogy (he was considered "THE" composer that everyone else was compared to). You could also pick up on someone like Adam Smith (who wasn't prolific, but whose ideas dominate modern economics) or someone like Da Vinci or Michelangelo who redefined their art form. hard to say more without knowing more, however.
From "upper-middle and upper class English-speaking students", I'd assume either American students or that there is some reason social class is relevant. Or is that why they want it to be a 'cultured and refined metaphor'? In which case, I worry. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because comparing Victor Hugo to Madonna (entertainer) or Anne Rice would probably cause France to launch a nuclear strike on the Wikimedia servers in Florida. That wouldn't be so bad in itself, but there's a chance they'd miss and hit Barbados, and that would cut off our main supply of rum. Think of the consequences, man! --Ludwigs221:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP geo-locates to Wisconsin, US. I've heard "upper class" used to refer to seniors in high school as well as to describe a social class. So the OP's meaning isn't clear to me. I don't see why it needs to be "cultured and refined" since these are still kids, no matter what scholastic/social class they're in. They'd probably understand the Madonna or Beatles reference well and also identify with it better than Michelangelo or Da Vinci. Dismas|(talk)02:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as very strange. You speak as though Hugo's "dominance" in French literature is akin to something like that of Dante in Italian or Tolstoy in Russian, which is certainly not the case. Les Miserables, while popular, is certainly nowhere near the summit of French literature, as per an academic consensus - as George Steiner has summed the issue - "(Hugo's novels), for all their festive glory, (...) do not really lay claim to adult attention." Flaubert's Madame Bovary more or less invented the modern novel and in that sense is dominant in terms of form in both French prose and that of the world at large. I also can't imagine anyone claiming that Hugo is "more dominant" than Proust or Balzac or even Racine (moving out from the territory of prose). The Rhymesmith (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Les Misérables is to French literature and free speech is to American politics, as Bordeaux is to fine wine or Leonardo da Vinci was to just about everything else. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Les Mis is influential, yes, and near the center of the popular French canon. But I strongly dispute "dominance". (Which, perhaps, was your point, given that none of your examples are "dominant" in their areas.) The Rhymesmith (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
August 16
related by marriage
the wife and i have a child her sister has a child that would be cousins, my sister has a child that would make mine and my sisters child cousins,how are my sisters child and my wife sisters child related would that make them cousins horozontaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rougher bob (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They could think of each other as cousins, but they are not related by bloodline, only by marriage - UNLESS you and your wife have a traceable common ancestor. For example, in the 19th century and prior, marriage among cousins was common. So if you and your wife are first cousins, then your wife's sister and your sister would also be first cousins; which would make your child and your sister's child first cousins to each other; your child and your wife's sister's child first cousins to each other; and your sister's child and your wife's sister's child second cousins to each other. Got that? :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sister's child and your wife's sister's child are not "blood" first cousins in the usual sense (i.e. both descended from a common grandparent). I don't think that there's really a usual or accepted name for this in English, but it might possibly be considered a kind of "step"-cousin relationship (i.e. substituting a marriage link in the first ascending generation in place of common ancestry, which is also the difference between a sibling and a step-sibling)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In many families they would never meet each other, and not even know of each other's existence. If they regularly meet at your house then they might come to think of each other as cousins, even though "cousin's cousin" is not a "real" (blood) relationship in terms of a "family tree". Dbfirs22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no common blood at all, but there's still a traceable connection, and "cousin's cousin" would be more accurate than just "cousin". Unless we're talking about societies like Australian indigenous communities, where "cousin" encompasses a far wider range of people than merely non-siblings who have one set of grandparents in common. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they were close contemporaries, and both were somewhat prominent in London society, so they could well have been acquainted. What reason do you have to think they were more specifically linked? Quiz question? (87.81 posting from . . .) 87.82.229.195 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, actually. Given the vast number of people who've held national political office throughout the world for as long as such records have existed, and that's what's in technical scientific jargon known as "a lot", the instance of husbands and wives being involved is pretty infinitesimal. What I'm waiting to see is a husband-husband or wife-wife pair holding political office. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of such an instance. Angela Eagle is a former British minister, and her civil partner Maria Exall is a political activist on the NEC of the Communication Workers Union, but they are clearly very different posts. Warofdreamstalk15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the details. Philip II was king of Spain and (later) also of Portugal (where he ruled as Philip I). There was a serious Morisco Revolt during his reign. The rebellion was crushed and the survivors were expelled. I presume that they were also expelled from Portugal. Flamarande (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, it seems that the expulsion of the Muslims of Portugal is one of the unclear historical issues. This book states that the Muslims were expelled by order of Manuel I of Portugal around 1496 (therefore before Philip). Manuel I is more (in)famous because supposedly one of the conditions of his marriage (to a daughter of Isabella and Fernando, rulers of Spain) was the expulsion of the Jews from Portugal. Flamarande (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but here's a picture of him in the trunk: [6]. It was disguised as a taxi, so something taxi-ish, one assumes. --Sean18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site [7] says it was a Chevrolet. The link has a clearer picture from the side of the vehicle that could help car buffs identify the make and model, but it looks like an Impala circa 1968 to me. --Xuxl (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends entirely on the countries involved, but if they allow more than one citizenship then there's usually no restriction on three or more if they qualify. I know someone who was born in Northern Ireland and thus automatically has British and Irish citizenship, who has since naturalised as a Belgian citizen... -- Arwel Parry(talk)17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citizenship of more than one state (Country) is OK, provided it is not outlawed by any one of the states. It is OK to be a citizen of the UK and Ireland at the same time as both states allow. However, if the third state is one of those who forbid it then you have to pick which one you belong to and delete the others. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ask that question is because we have immigrants in Canada where they come from countries that Canada doesn't have an embassy in, like for example, we have people from Grenada and yet Canada doesn't have an embassy in Grenada. How can Grenadines come to Canada, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.229 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While Canada does not have a resident embassy in many countries, there is always an accredited embassy which handles diplomatic relations with the country in question. In the case of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, it's the Canadian High Commission in Bridgetown, Barbados. Visas are issued in non-resident embassies all the time; if there is a high demand for visas, there is sometimes even a mechanism put in place to facilitate applications, such as a special courier service between a location in the country where there is no embassy and the embassy where the visas are issued. In the case of St. Vincent, the responsible Canadian visa office is in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad. Applicants can download application forms on-line and send these to the visa office through the mail. The web site of the Canadian High Commission to Trinidad and Tobago has more information; see here. --Xuxl (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify this picture from my poor description, please?
My girlfriend has a stunning print on her lounge wall, that neither of us can identify. All I can do is say it looks Leighton-esque, as the luxury of the fabrics and skin tie in with Flaming June and other works, but it's not shown on his gallery here, nor in google images.
It's a sultry picture of a youngish lady, in a silvery gown, with a slightly blue sheen, wispy drapes of lace etc, sitting upright on a pale blue and silver banquette, which is visible behind her, and ending to her right. She faces us, although looks to the viewer's left shoulder, and has both arms up, seemingly clasping her blonde hair, which is tied back, behind her head.
All in all it smacks of Lord Leighton and his kin, and is definitely a quality image of that era - but I know nothing more, as I can't find anything like a signature.
Unfortunately that does not match all of the description given. There are lots of paintings that are partial matches. The blonde hair may be most distinctive, as black hair in the paintings is the norm. The blonde hair could indicate that it is a Pre-Raphaelite painting. 92.28.247.204 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If lace is depicted, then lace is only known to have existed from the 14th. century. This would mean it was not something set in Ancient Greece or Roman times which Leighton and other painters are known for. 92.28.255.157 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this. The answer is "that's what they believe." Continuing to insult Hindu beliefs is not what the RefDesk is for. If you created the article, I would hope you have references to satisfy your own question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From the article: "The main cause of this problem is of course the religious belief among Hindus that cow is a sacred animal and under no circumstance should be killed." Or is there something else you had in mind? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote the article the wording I used was "superstition" (the exact and justified term) not "religious belief" as it is now. Some hindu who felt insulted made the change. By all rights I should change it back (but that will result in a useless edit-war) Jon Ascton (talk)03:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you posted the same thing on the talk page as well. Perhaps a better way of putting your question would be: "Why is the cow considered sacred to the Hindu?", or is this not what you meant? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncomfortable with the wording of the question and, also, the asking of it. Disagreeing with religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable, but there's no need to deride them as "stupid superstition(s)". Given the fact that the user asking the question created the article in question... The Rhymesmith (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Rhymesmith. I made this article, what's more I have A usual scene I see every day. The day I shot this pic only one gaumata was there. Usually there are two or three, it's morning when school-kids have to pass through. Usually one responsible adult has to be "on duty" to make sure they get through unhurt.first-hand experience of the problem myself. In fact the first image (top one) of a cow wandering about is the street where I live. For you it's academic inquiry, for me a practical problem ! When I get out of house, they impose a danger to me. At certain time of the year when the bull are in heat, they fight over cows. I have seen people spent months in hospital ( a cow is several hundred kilograms in weight .) Hence, the strong wording. Jon Ascton (talk)02:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it's not clear to me (or to Richard Dawkins) why society has decided there should be a mandatory, vocal respect for all religious beliefs, when other sorts of beliefs (including moral beliefs) don't have the same stature. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cattle in religion article mentions the religious reasons. The background for why these came about is here, though I don't know if it's a reliable source; cows were made unkillable because cows were valuable, and had to be saved from ritual sacrifice to save money. So it says. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Link you have provided is not only not reliable source as you are (thankfully) already aware but its the usual Hindutvaist apologetic propaganda which no one should take at face-value. There are temples exclusively dedicated to cow. Just have a look at this please. The fact is that hindus are mad over the cow ! But educated (should I use that term ????? ) don't want to admit that ! Hindu mind is very complicated. Jon Ascton (talk)02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, they shouldn't be pampered and stuffed with delicious food. Or kept in homes with no rodent problem. Nor bred so they can't leap and capture properly. Nor declawed (frankly, they shouldn't be anyway. D:). Nor given expensive veterinary treatment when they're ill, old and infirm. Clearly, the widespread practice of pampering pet cats has little to nothing to do with rodent prevention. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is, of course, not really the same; horny cats might keep you awake at night, but they're not going to trample you while you're walking down the street. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merino has tried to imply the normalcy of the hindu obsession by providing a parallel that what hindus are doing is also happening somewhere else in world (African wildcat thing). I have given a link above to this page. There are several videos here where you will find a) Hindu holyman doing emotional appeal (by singing) to give cow more love, as if it were not enough. b) A sadhu giving a very unimpressive lecture in pseudoscience. He is telling us that cow is great because it's products milk etc. can solve "modern" problems like cancer and heart-disease which western medicine cannot. Drinking its urine (yes, many pious hindus do that including one former PM of India ) can save you from many troubles. c) A skit to educate people about importance of gaumata - when you die the angels of death will drag you across a river where a cow is waiting for you to help you cross it so better keep your relations with her fine ! Jon Ascton (talk)08:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No ! That won't help anyone. My concern is that people are overly sympathetic with this foolishness. Just imagine how harshly you would have dealt with such superstition in west. Is not India a part of world ? I'd also like to know what do you mean by "prejudices" ? Where are the prejudices ? Or perhaps you don't even know what this term means...or maybe ya afraid that perhaps I'll also switch to ridiculing cat-lovers as I blackguard cow-lovers !!! LOL :) No, I love the guys who love their cats, believe me. Jon Ascton (talk)11:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"I knew he was a Commie because he didn't drink"
Where did the old stereotype that Communists don't drink come from? I thought the Russians were known for...um...warming up on a cold winter day with a shot of vodka, if you get my drift ;) 76.230.150.36 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide us any references to it being used in context? The only place I find it on Google is in relation to the Simpsons. Or maybe in the (purposefully bizarro) bit in Strangelove where General Ripper claims that Communists don't drink water because of the fluoridation conspiracy. The Soviets did have a brief prohibition campaign, and many anti-alcoholism campaigns later, but the reason was because drinking was rampant, not because it was scarce. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the day, American communists didn't drink water, some said, because, as everyone knows, the commies were poisoning our water via fluoridation; see water fluoridation controversy. The belief was famously parodied in Dr. Strangelove, as mentioned above, and briefly mentioned in an episode of M*A*S*H. —KevinMyers00:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be most likely what The Simpsons were referencing. Many of their jokes are rooted in old cultural references, and you either get it or you wait for the next joke. "On no occasion will your Commie drink water; Vodka, that's what they drink - Vodka." And so on. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WWII
I was recently listening to a speech given by Hitler in 1939, where he stated quite rightly that it was England that declared war on Germany. What he went on to state is what I would like to question. He said that England attacked Germany but that Germany being a peaceful nation did not retaliate for several weeks. So my question is, who fired the first shot in WWII, and, assuming it was England, how long was it before Germany made a retaliatory attack on England or English forces. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Germans fired the first shot of WWII, not on England or France, but on Poland. England and France had told them before hte invasion that if Poland was invaded a state of war would exist between them.--178.167.247.172 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That speech could also have been part of the German follow-up to Operation Himmler. In what seems like an exercise in absurdity to modern mindsets, the German government actually ran a very thorough propaganda campaign to convince people that for some reason the Polish armed forces had attacked Germany, and Germany was just reacting in self-defense. Foreigners were not fooled, but since the German government had a strangle-hold on the flow of news, they actually were able to confuse their own citizens about the truth. --M@rēino20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
France finally told Germany that it would be war if Germany invaded France's ally Poland. Germany went ahead and invaded Poland, and then when the French delivered the declaration of war to the Germans, the Germans excitedly said "Then France is the aggressor." The French diplomat said: "History will be the judge of that." Source: Memoirs of the Second World War, by Winston Churchill, which I recommend as a readable history of the war. But which I obviously don't have at hand, or I would be specific and not use the lame descriptor "diplomat". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for treating me like an idiot. I know Germany invaded Poland and was prewarned, and thus England declared war. That was not my question. You input was appreciated but misdirected, I want to know who attacked first between England and Germany, and if England, how long was it before Germany retaliated against England with an attack on English forces. Sorry for the sarcasm at the start but so often I see questions on here that are answered by various people going off on a tangent and discussing vaguely related topics. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you intended to be humorous, but a route is a course or path, whereas a rout is a military victory where the opponent is caused to flee in a disorganized fashion. That said, the goal of the Germans probably was to rout the UK food supply routes. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rude response considering that you said, "So my question is, who fired the first shot in WWII ...", which will obviously invite people to mention Poland. Back to the question: a German U-boat sunk the SS Athenia just hours after the UK declared war, but perhaps someone will be along to mention something earlier. You might also like to clarify what you mean by "fired the first shot" -- literally or figuratively -- as declaring war on Germany is obviously an act of war. --Sean21:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which by no means demonstrates that somehow the British "started it", which is what the OP seems to be fishing for. The way alliances work is that if you attack one, you've attacked them all. So it was the Germans who fired first, when they invaded Poland. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Federal System
what are three reasons why Canada has federal system and explain why these three factors neccessitate the federal system of government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.30 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, the teacher who assigned this question discussed the matter in his or her lecture. Check your lecture notes and/or your class textbook. If this is meant to be something you research on your own, then the article linked above containes external links to other works which DO directly discuss the impact on said relationships. --Jayron3206:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd canal layout near Holland River
At coordinates 44.165,-79.522, just near the confluence of the East and West Holland Rivers, Google Maps
clearly shows a group of canals forming 3 interlinked triangles with 5 + signs at their intersections.
But it does not identify what this place is, and neither does my best print map covering the area, nor
does anything I can find in Wikipedia, nor do the maps on the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority web site.
My first thought was that it was a marina, but in that case where are the boats? Alternatively, it could be
something functional like a sewage treatment plant, but if so, why build it in such an elaborate shape?
What is this place?
--Anonymous, 03:27 UTC, corrected 03:30, August 17, 2010.
How odd. I've looked at the topo map for the area, and it shows the thing, but gives no indication of what's going on other than being in Holland Marsh. I would guess it has something to do with Holland Marsh drainage, a major operation there. --jpgordon::==( o )17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anglicanism, John Calvin, the Bishop of Rome and George Fox
1) Why isn't this called Tudorism, Henricianism, Edwardism (Low Church), Marianism (High Church), Elizabethanism (Broad Church)? Ought it not be called Wycliffism, Cranmerism or Cromwellianism? Or, is the authoring of the Church owing to Henry II and the Plantagenets, sort of like Frenchmen being kings of England, fighting other Frenchmen for the French throne, as in the relation of Anglicanism to Catholicism? Does Anglicanism have a foreign origin after all, on par with the Puritans and the Catholics?
2) Is it correct to say that Anglicanism stems more from the Classical Celtic Church (i.e. pre-Roman Joseph of Arimathea and post-Roman Arthurianism), from the Mediaeval Anglo-Saxon Church, or the Lollards and University of Oxford? What measure of influence comes from the forfeiture of King John's crown to the Pope and Statute of Praemunire in forming the Anglican Church, along with Richard II's Bohemian (i.e. Hussite?) marriage? Does it have to do with the Avignon Papacy and as a response to Gallicanism, rather than Luther or Calvin, with the latter two being proverbial straws on the camel's back? Is it correct that the Lancastrians were Reformers, from John of Gaunt himself down to Lady Jane Grey's family, whereas the Yorkists were resolute Catholics down to Richard Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury? What kinds of effects did this have on the Tudor family's approach to religion?
3) Is it true that Anglicanism was already pretty much set in stone by the time James VI of Scots took over the Church of England, or was this still subject to fluctuation according to the Puritan movement? How much did the King's Scottish heritage influence the Calvinistic aggression of the 17th century? Does the present Puritan movement consider itself Anglican, even though it is Congregational rather than Episcopalian, or has the Separatist fusion overwhelmed this? Does the English heritage of Congregationalism and Scottish nature of Prebyterianism preclude their merger? Is it true that Puritanism is as much a creature of Cambridge as the former is of Oxford?
4) What kind of developments were specifically Georgian or Albertine and monarchical in nature? Did the government turn the Calvinists loose onto the Catholics instead of try to merge Scotland's religion with England and Ireland? Why? Has the monarch ever had executive or consulting powers in The Kirk? Is it true that Prince Philip wants to disestablish the CoE? What would be the ramifications throughout the Communion and Commonwealth; America? Is it true that America owes more to Congregational or Episcopal Anglicanism? Is it a correct analogy to say that America went the way of the Quakers, Ireland the way of the Catholics, with the Commonwealth resoundingly Episcopalian (Via Media) and Presbyterian (The Kirk)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer most of your questions but I have this for you. "Anglicanism" comes from the Latinisation of the phrase "Church of England", the latin name for England being "Anglia". Henry the Eighth established it when he broke away from the Church of Rome and dissolved the monasteries, and appropriated their wealth for himself. It's not Prince Philip but Prince Charles who wants to disestablish the Church of England: he is on record as saying he wants to be the "Defender of Faith" rather than the "Defender of The Faith". --TammyMoet (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, very little of such medieval stuff had significant specific influence on the development and doctrines of Protestantism in England, other than John Wycliffe and Lollardy... In any case, there's no organizationally distinct "present Puritan movement" (in the sense in which you used the phrase). Traditionally, those who consider themselves to be especially Protestant within the Church of England form the "Low Church" wing. Methodism started out as a Low Church movement, but has since become a separate denomination. AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. AIUI, the Puritans grew within and then split from the CofE in the 17th Century, leading to today's Baptists. The Methodist movement started in the CofE in the 18th Century. Whereas the Puritans disliked the formality of the Book of Common Prayer, it was central to Methodism. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read that the Puritans were harsh Calvinists, whereas the Wesleyans were into more "inspired" religion than the CoE was offering in the dry and boring Georgian period. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was told that the Methodists were unimpressed with the haughty and formulaic nature of the CoE and wanted more authentic religion of and by the people, which seems to me to be like the descriptions for the Baptists and Quakers. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original "Methodist" movement was within the Church of England, but John Wesley was influenced by the Moravian Church and by Arminian theology (though the C of E wasn't Calvinist at that time). Methodism in the UK became a separate church mainly because the C of E didn't like the enthusiasm and open-air preaching.
"Edwardian Protestantism" & Oliver Cromwell
What was so much more Protestant about Edward's or Jane's reigns? Please define how they are not typically Tudor; were they proto-Cromwellian (not Thomas, but Oliver)? By the way, was anybody consciously aware that Oliver Cromwell was descended from Jasper Tudor, in the 17th century? Was Cromwell representing the views of his namesake, the Earl of Essex, or Lady Jane? Was Cromwell the fulfillment or intention of Dudley's conspiracy? I noticed how the Dudleys were involved in Holland against Spain, so was the invitation to William III based upon the same clique in Parliament? 68.111.15.164 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lady Jane was a figurehead for Northumberland's kin. If it may be difficult to see how Elizabethan religion and politics to do with Holland related to the Williamites a century later, then is it a stretch to find a common cause between the Fall of Calais under Mary and due to Philip's demands, with Bess's Anglo-Dutch, anti-French amd anti-Spanish treaty? 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just assumed that it was best to get all of my questions out while I still remembered them, so all of the intelligent people here could feast their eyes on them. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under Henry VIII, the Church of England was fully separate and schismatic -- rejecting all claims of papal overlordship -- but it wasn't unambiguously doctrinally Protestant. It was only under Edward VI that it became a fully Protestant church. As for the rest, you seem to have an idiosyncratic way of jumping centuries and seeking out conspiracies and/or noble families which you assume played a fixed and unchanging role over long periods -- and all this really doesn't result in any great historical insight, as far as I can see. AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the Edwardian church was infrastructurally Protestant. Or, was it simply more like the Episcopal Lutherans, just not like the Presbyterian or Congregational Calvinists? I ask these kinds of questions because all of the religious motivations of the various 17th century movements seem to have an inspiration in the 16th century Crown itself. So what's the logical result of Edwardianism? The Puritans? Likewise, what was the same with regard to Marianism? The Jacobites? Then there is the Restoration Settlement, which seems most Elizabethan in practicality. If one wanted to push matters in terms of sequence, you could compare James I or Charles I with Henry VIII. I assume there have been studies linking Tudor and Stuart religion and politics -- there has to have been some continuity, not a clean break. I pointed this out by noting both the Stuarts and Cromwells were of Owen Tudor's blood, just two different branches and apparently two very different points of view on the same things. 68.111.15.164 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baptists & Quakers
What kind of comparison and contrast can be made between these two? Is it true that they more in common with one another than with the other American colonial (established) religions, the Episcopalians and Congregationalists, that these other two have more in common with one another, when distinguished from Baptists and Quakers? I am wondering about a social origin, because I noticed that they shared Rhode Island 50/50 and Carolina as well, but I'm not so certain about their relations in the Mid-Atlantic, or why they no longer dominate their home regions but have taken to the American interior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.164 (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They may have certain commonalities of history, in many of their early adherents having similar social origins, in being oppressed in England during the second half of the 17th century, certain organizational similarities, and in stressing what the Baptists call the "priesthood of all believers". However, the overall history and development of the two groups, and their current doctrines and status, are very different... AnonMoos (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both denominations, ruled by their congregations rather than by bishops or presbyteries, suffered discrimination and often persecution in Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican countries alike in the 16th and 17th centuries. They share some common history in 17th-century England and New England. Roger Williams, after being expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony (which also persecuted Quakers), founded Rhode Island (1636) and the First Baptist Church in America (1638). He obtained a Royal Charter for the Colony in 1662 that established the principle of religious tolerance. In 1657, according to the (now no-longer published) Rhode Island Almanac, "Rhode Island refused to exclude Quakers on request of Plymouth Colony" (1997 ed., p. 17). Quakers, such as Moses Brown, and Quaker institutions (such as Moses Brown School, founded 1784) have been a small but prominent part of Rhode Island's history since the 18th century. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main differences is that there are about 100,000 Friends and about 33 million Baptists in America. Seriously. The hugeness of the Baptist movement means that it's hard for the religion (especially its Southern Convention, at 17 million strong) to ever be too far away from the mainstream of the Christian right. As a result of being so central to American life, it ends up picking up things like patriotism that were not necessarily part of its roots, and that Baptists' critics consider unrelated or even antithetical to Christianity. They also have to devote a lot of energy to fighting off violent, hateful people who claim to be part of their movement while violating its basic precepts, which is not a problem that most small denominations face. The Friends are tinier, and so they have stayed more distinct, holding on to things like the Peace Testimony and Testimony of Simplicity that most Friends consider to be very difficult but necessary teachings, but that other American denominations are not as fervent about. --M@rēino19:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I first heard that it was normal for mainstream American churches to have American flags in them, I thought it was a parody of the extreme patriotism/nationalism that feature in stereotypes of Americans. When I realised it wasn't, I was fully hand-on-mouth horrified. I imagine it's very hard for Christians less keen on that sort of thinking to resist, if that sort of thing is commonplace. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion with the first few statments of the Tractatus
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world of the totality of facts, not of things.
and
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
If the world is the totality of facts, and the totality of facts is what is and is not the case, doesn't that contradict the first statement which says that the world is that which is the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.146.70 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no philosopher, but if I read 1, 1.1 and 1.12, I understand "The world is everything that not only can be, but in fact is", "the world is every true statement, not every physical object", "because what 'is' means in the first sentence is determined by facts, not by objects" respectively. I don't see a contradiction. The guy is saying that 1+1=2 is a part of our world, as opposed to your dog, which is just some object. 92.230.69.124 (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the source, summarizing itself, "what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence," so the intent is clearly to work toward what one can, or can't, say as fact. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)Very crudely, Wittgenstein is defining the world in 1 and 1.1 - as the totality of facts (which I shall crudely gloss as propositions which correspond to states of affairs). The totality of facts is a description of all states of affairs that obtain in the world (which together constitute the world). All states of affairs which are logically possible but do not obtain in the world (the negations of atomic facts) are excluded. The above commentator is inaccurate in that he's using the word "world" in the ordinary fashion, whereas Wittgenstein is defining a logical term which has only a vague (family) resemblance to the conventional usage. I can go into more detail (and much more accuracy) if you'd like. The Rhymesmith (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First-past-the-post system in Canada
Somebody told me that Canada's "first-past-the-post" electoral system fail to accurately represent the political choices of Canadian voters. I asked him how and he said i don't know and but all I know that it failed.
How does it fail to represent the choices of Canadian voters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.229 (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose that there are three major candidates, A, B, and Z. A and B are similar to each other (and therefore, many people like both), and Z is from the other side of the political spectrum. One of these two things will probably happen:
A and B will split the vote of like-minded people, giving Z a huge advantage.
People who like both A and B but hate Z will vote for whichever of them is more "electable", rather than which one they like the best.
It's not really a "failure" any more than any other electoral system, but since we have ridings and an unusual population distribution, the results do not always represent the popular vote. For example, in the last election, the Bloc Quebecois won twice as many ridings as the NDP, but with half as many votes. How? Well, the Bloc only runs in Quebec, so there are less people available to vote for them, but more chances to win ridings. The NDP run candidates all over the country, but they usually end up second or third in individual ridings. It can also happen that one party can win a majority of ridings without a majority of the popular vote (as in the 2000 election when the Liberals won 59% of ridings with only 41% of the votes. First-past-the-post has some other general criticisms. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The winner of the election in terms of forming the government is the party that has won the most ridings; that is to say, the party that has more candidates elected in total for all electoral districts. The government is formed by the party with the most seats, but it does not have to be a majority. This means that, should voters split as the example A, B, Z above, Z could be the least popular party and still win government. Aaronite (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and parties that have a smattering of support throughout the country, but no big showing in an individual riding anywhere, end up with no representation. For example, in the 2008 election the Green Party won 4.5% of the vote, but received no seats (note that 4.5% of the total seats is about 14).
Typically, the first past the post system tends to support a couple of major, entrenched parties, in Canada's case this has historically been the Liberals and the PCs (now Conservatives). New Zealand had similar two party dominance until they changed their sytem to proportional representation in 1996. This has resulted in no majorities since - meaning the government has to rule by coalition, or at least cooperation, with other parties. I think there are good argument for both sides of whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. In general, I think the generally held notion that minority governments don't get anything done is a major reason many people support the first past the post system. TastyCakes (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but not nearly as fragmented as they would have been by a proportional system. Also, that's a bit of a historical anomaly, whereas in New Zealand there are doubts that there will ever be another majority government. TastyCakes (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian's don't seem to want proportional representation anyways, we had a referendum on it one or two elections ago and the proposal was voted down by a rather large margin if my memory serves me correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there has been a federal referendum about that. We had one in Ontario a few years ago, and there was one in BC in 2005, and in both cases, as you say, the voters were heavily in favour of keeping the first-past-the-post system. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem with proportional representation is that, especially in a federal nation like Canada, local candidates are supposed to represent the local people that send them. In the U.S., for example, there are generally residency requirements for representing a congressional district (though these are rather easy to get around). In a proportional system, the candidates are more beholden to their national party than to local voters. Whether this is true in practice in a first-past-the-post system, it at least in theory should result in better local representation. --Jayron3205:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned up-thread that FPTP elections tend to favour two entrenched and "opposed" parties, effectively making a two-party system regardless of how many parties are technically involved. (As in the US, where you may choose Democrat, Republican, or throw your ballot in the garbage). Canada is somewhat unique in that respect in that the strange geography and political history allow regionally based parties (such as the Bloc Quebecois of Quebec and, for a few years, the Reform Party of Canada in the western provinces) a chance to win significant numbers of seats. This was dramatically illustrated in the 1993 Federal election where the previously ruling party not only lost the election, but also failed to gain enough seats to qualify as a party any more. The analogous situation in the US would be for Obama to not only lose the next election, but for the Democrats to effectively cease to exist at the federal level - almost completely impossible. Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stray cow "problem" in India
The discussion above was closed, prematurely in my view, and on a false understanding of the facts (i.e., on the assumption that the answer is "that's what they believe"). I'm not sure of the appropriate protocol, but it seemed better to start a new section than to re-open the closed discussion.
In actuality, cows in India are held sacred and allowed to roam free for excellent reasons, which are validated but not created by religious beliefs, as shown by anthropologist Marvin Harris. Essentially, cows are sacred because they are extraordinarily useful, and because allowing them to be eaten would result in their slaughter during hard times, to the long-term detriment of Indians. They are allowed to roam free because they get most of their nutrition by scavenging. Harris writes convincingly in chapter 1 of his book, Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture, and a summary of his argument is in an online article, "India's Sacred Cow."John M Baker (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Male circumcision has its benefits as well; however one may write of those benefits does not change the (Judaic) religious aspect of said circumcision or make the act, as a covenant, subservient to (being derived from) practical aspects. Religion and "what we know" are best kept apart except to the degree that one comments on the other. One person's superstition is another person's faith is another person's practicality. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK16:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As for the aspect of needing to control human consumption, one only need to point to the desertification of Africa where it is denuded for simple charcoal. The day will come that humanity consumes everything. If just the roaches are left, it will take a while for humanity to re-evolve. If there are any cows left, it might speed the process. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in getting into a religious discussion here, so perhaps I should say just that there are excellent practical reasons for cows to roam free in India. The original post (in the prior discussion) was "What could be reason for such stupid superstition?" My point is, the belief in protecting cows is not stupid and has very good reasons. John M Baker (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it's stupid, frankly. Annoying, maybe. Why do we let cats roam free? Cats are destructive, murderous animals that leaves horrible messes and annoy dogs, yet they need not be licensed and dogs do. That's a stupid thing. Think of a cow as a big stupid cat. Aaronite (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Belchman: "Protected" in this sense really means just "protected from slaughter." Harris explains how, in many ways, cows in India are not treated very well. John M Baker (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that's not how it happened; I think people must be vaguely aware that at some point in history there was a cat massacre, and are unable to comprehend anything but "the past", so they can't differentiate between the eighteenth century (when there was an actual cat massacre in France), and any other point in the past. The black plague had nothing to do with any of that. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say dogs aren't dangerous, I said cats are destructive. Property damage vs human attacks, sure, but still, the point I make holds true. Why are roaming cows bad and roaming cats not? Aaronite (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would, if it was signed; I imagine the author is about 15 and that is a high school essay. Whatever it is, it's terrible; it has four errors in the first sentence alone. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bulls are dangerous. Cows, too, occasionally kill people, such as H. H. Munro's mother. He was born in Burma, but his mother was killed by a cow in Devon. None of this is conclusive. 81.131.30.187 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone running for state senate office a notable person to write about?
Is someone who is running for state senate office for the first time a notable person to write about? She has also published one book, appeared on The View and is married to a retired NHL hockey player.KatyRominski (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of that policy, it would seem to depend on how well covered the race is. In most cases, they are not notable enough until they win, but in an especially well media covered race, they might be notable as a mere candidate. Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an inclusionist who isn't particularly keen on the notability rule to begin with, this shows one of its weaknesses. This would be especially unfair if the incumbent state senator had a Wikipedia entry (with link to his or her official or campaign site). On the other hand, there are already too many Wikipedia entries that look like campaign propaganda because most of the people interested in creating them are either supporters or bitter foes of the article's subject. I happen to be organizing a neighborhood meeting next week to hear (non-incumbent) primary candidates for our City Council and state legislature, and know how little information most voters can find. Properly supervised Neutral POV articles on the candidates, without such conflicts of interest, would be very helpful to those voters. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges.[9]
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."
In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.
I said above why I think including state legislators but not unelected candidates for their jobs might be unfair. The View might be considered a neutral third-party source not connected to the campaign, but if the candidate fails notability, perhaps an article about the campaign or the district might pass muster. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in trying to formulate policies in this area years ago, and we came up with the idea that an article about a race ("New York 27th District Senate election, 2010," etc.) should be created before the articles on the individual candidates, and that the candidates' articles should only be created when there's enough independent and verifiable information out there to make one. What's important in all such cases like this is how much such info is available. Even a high school basketball player can have a Wikipedia article if there's been a lot of media coverage of him, but an "important" person like a major-party state Senate nominee shouldn't have an article without those kind of sources available. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish Embassy Incident
I was just reading about the incident at the Turkish embassy in Israel and was wondering why Israel has countries put their embassies in Tel Aviv instead of the capital like most countries. Googlemeister (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what cell tower is routing the call. See here and it's sometimes routed to the state police instead of a county sheriff or local department according to here. Dismas|(talk)02:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't they know you're street address? The phone is registered with the phone company, and for the efficacy of 9-1-1, I'm not surprised (and am pleased) that they know this. After all, mobile-only households are rising dramatically. I'm one of those households. This is the same as you phoning from a landline: they know where you are then, too. Aaronite (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the street address to whom the phone is registered may certainly be different than the street address from where the person is actually telephoning 9-1-1 (i.e., the location of the emergency). Right? (64.252.34.115 (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
In the US, they use Mobile phone tracking rather than just the street address your phone is registered to (if any - throwaway mobile phones don't have such an address). This was forced on the cell phone networks, who whined that it would cost them a lot of money to implement this system, that it would discourage future investment in the cell phone industry, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(rant alert) That's because people in their billions have fallen prey to the greatest scam in the history of the world. Once, people would use their phone when it was necessary or convenient to do so. Now, thanks to phone plans, people are charged for making a minimum number of calls/texts a month, whether they actually make that many calls/texts or not; but because they've agreed to be charged for them in return for not having to pay for the phone outright, in most cases they feel the need to then make that many calls/texts, but many of these are calls/texts they would not otherwise have made. Sure, the unit cost of calls has in many cases fallen, but people have been hoodwinked into making far more calls than they would naturally consider necessary, so the phone companies are making massive profits and the hot air industry has gone completely berserk. Imagine the stupidity of having a "lawyer plan" where you're charged for a certain number of consultations with your lawyer every year, whether you actually have those consultations or not. Or a "doctor plan", or a "dentist plan", or a "hospital admission plan". Dumb, eh. I rest my case. (end of rant). -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And a "doctor plan", if you consider that your taxes pay your doctor's salary whether you visit or not (assuming you live somewhere with universal health care). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a dentist plan and a doctor plan. I don't pay anything when I go to either of them. If I go at all. What I want to know is how you got from 911 calls to a personal rant about cell phones. Wait. No. I actually don't care. Dismas|(talk)08:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love the idea that people are hoodwinked into making more calls. That's hilarious. I see that all the time. "Gosh, I'd better make a bunch of phone calls I'd otherwise not make, because I need to use up my minutes!" Riiigght. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Imperial Land Company was a land colonization company incorporated in California in March, 1900 for the purpose of encouraging settlement of the Imperial Valley.
So I'm curious: Was the valley named after the company, or vice versa? Was "Imperial" chosen on a whim, or does it have some historical significance? The Aztecs, or Maximilian maybe. Rojomoke (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1900: "Chaffey [head of the California Development Company] renamed the Salton Sink to which he was bringing the empowering waters of the Colorado. The Sink would henceforth be called the Imperial Valley: imperial as in empire, for the million acres of arable land seized from the desert by irrigation were linked in Chaffey's Anglo-Canadian imagination to the march of empire in Canada and Australia in which he had played a part through his engineering and entrepreneurial skills. Imperial: not a kingdom inherited, but an empire seized from inhospitable nature through engineering and water." Kevin Starr (1991). Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920s (see footnotes to Imperial Land Company.) --jpgordon::==( o )18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The footnoted source, if you open the link, tells a good story, which the article short-changes, as the query above shows. Couldn't a brief report of the gist of Starr's text be edited into the article Imperial Land Company?--Wetman (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hero
wat is the diffrence between the byronic hero and the tragic her.
Resolved
Facepalm Thanks. Avicennasis @ 03:04, 5 Elul 5770 / 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
-- AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do your own homework.
