Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

September 24

Assonance Picture

Removed per policy because this is a duplicate of a question asked on the Language reference desk. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the UN General Assembly

Why does the UN continue to invite Iranian President Ahmadinejad to address the General Assembly? What is the UN's policy about inviting controversial or "disruptive" people to address it? Could the US prevent Ahmadinejad from speaking by denying him a visa to NYC? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US imposing its will on the UN by refusing the right of out-of-favor heads of state to address the body would totally violate the spirit of locating the UN in the US post WW2. Khruschev, Castro, Arafat, Ahmadinejad or any other head of state must be free to address the General Assembly. The proper response to such an action as refusal of access to the UN by the US to some head of state or some UN delegation would be to relocate the UN headquarters to a neutral country such as Switzerland. The UN is as irrelevant as the League of Nations the day it becomes a puppet body of any US regime. Edison (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if they stop inviting him, not deny his right to come, but just not invite him, could he still show up unannounced with no repercussions? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Iran still a member of the UN? With membership in an organization, there usually comes voice and vote in assemblies. Edison (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who would draw the line, anyway, around "controversial" leaders or countries? Would that mean excluding Russia and China? How about the US itself? Is "disruption" related to speeches really such a problem? If the US started to have the ability to determine who got to give speeches at the UN, it would be a clear sign that the UN headquarters should be moved somewhere other than the US. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not many leaders promt mass walk-outs. Grsz¹¹ 13:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel could be considered more "problematic" than in just that way. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

(Good question. ;)

There have been some impressive antics by world leaders addressing the UN, and Ahmadinejad is not the most "disruptive" speaker they've had address them:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez actually called then-President Bush "a devil" on the floor of the General Assembly!
Yasser Arafat famously addressed the UN wearing a gun holster (without the gun, but still) while he was still considered an "active" terrorist by US authorities! (see the #Terrorism in the 1970s and official recognition section of his article).
And then there was the Shoe-banging incident, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe in anger against the rostrum while in the General Assembly -- in 1960, at the height of the Cold War, when the US and the USSR were busily striving to out-do each other in their capacity to blow each other up, and all of civilization could have been destroyed within twenty minutes of someone on either side hitting the wrong button! (Note though that Krushchev's movements were highly restricted while in NYC).

OP, why do you think the UN let's this sort of thing go on there? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One note: I'm pretty sure that all of civilization can still be destroyed within twenty minutes of someone on either side hitting the wrong button. We just gloss over this fact since the end of the Cold War. The fact itself hasn't really changed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations General Assembly convenes its regular session each year beginning on the third Tuesday in September, and one of the opening agenda items is the "General Debate" lasting for two weeks, in which each Member State is invited to present a high-level address to the Assembly. Virtually all Member States' member speeches during this occasion are presented by the Head of State or Government, or occasionally a Foreign Minister or the equivalent, rather than by the country's U.N. Ambassador ("Permanent Representative") who represents the country on all other occasions. There is, to my knowledge, no precedent for denying the leader of a Member State the right to address the General Assembly during the General Debate (or at any other time). In fact, for better or worse (and for me it is worse because I live and work a couple of blocks from the UN Building and have been caught up in the heightened security), it would be a violation of the United States' international treaty obligations as Host Country under the Headquarters Agreement to deny entry to a Head of State or Government or to an accredited Permanent Representative. I believe that several years ago, the U.S. refused to admit Yasser Arafat to the U.S. to address a session of the General Assembly on behalf of the PLO, contending that he was not entitled to privileges under the Headquarters Agreement, and the General Assembly session was moved for a day to the U.N.'s other location at Geneva so that Arafat could speak. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Arafat#Terrorism in the 1970s and official recognition has "Arafat became the first representative of a non-governmental organization to address a plenary session of the UN General Assembly. Arafat was also the first leader to address the UN while wearing a holster, although it did not contain a gun." Are you saying that did not happen in NYC?! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That did occur in New York City. The incident I'm recalling happened later. (Poking around, I see that his initial speech that you are citing was in 1974, while the one I am thinking of was in 1988.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for being late to the party that I started, but WikiDao, the examples you cited were all one-time incidents. Ahmadinejad does this sort of thing all the time. Disrupting the assembly once can certainly be forgiven, but doing it several times over, I think it's pretty clear that the guy is basically a real life version of an internet troll, right? So why keep bringing him back if you can't even have his word that he won't deliberately say highly inflammatory things that will piss off other world leaders to the point of making them walk out of the assembly, and thereby grabbing the spotlight away from the real issues at hand? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, again: why do you think they'd do something like that? You seem to have some very strong feelings about it. Why not get involved, and write your Congressperson, Senator, and/or President to ask our UN Ambassador to raise the issue the next time she gets a chance? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinejad's hijinks are really nothing compared to the general "disruption" that takes place regularly in the UN and has for decades. There is a reason that it has a reputation as a place for grandstanding rather than action, but that's been part of the original set up from the beginning. The entire point of an international deliberative body is to allow different nations, however kooky, to have a place to present their view of the world. Attempt to declare some points of view out of bounds and unmentionable is a slippery slope that nobody really wants to go down, and for good reason. Part of having open communication is putting up with stupid communication.

Both the USSR and USA did things throughout the Cold War that resulted in walk-outs. Ahmadinejad is an elected (with some irregularities) leader of a member state in full standing. The idea that the UN as an organization would remove him from diplomacy altogether because what he said is offensive to some members (but hardly all) is kind of ridiculous. Arguably Ahmadinejad's offensiveness is at worst a distraction, nothing like the misinformation that far more consequential states have distributed to the UN in recent years. In any case, a strong argument can be made (in the Lockean tradition) that giving someone like Ahmadinejad a pulpit is better than trying to shut him up. If what he says is really so outrageous, it is better to have it coming out of his own mouth and clearly identified with him, than to give him the honor and prestige of being censored. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to comments above about the state of things during the Cold War, this item appears in today's "On This Day" list: Soviet nuclear-weapons duty officer Stanislav Petrov refused to launch a counter-strike despite his system telling him that as many as four US missiles were already in the air and on their way, narrowly averting a completely devastating global catastrophe. I don't think anyone is hovering over "the button" that vigilantly anywhere today, but it's still astonishing to think how quickly all of this could be gone (and even just "by accident," arising out of mutual distrust and failure to communicate). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislov Petrov didn't decide not to launch missiles. The Soviets didn't give lieutenant colonels the chance to start World War III. He decided not to tell his superiors about the missiles showing up on his satellite early-warning system. That wasn't supposed to be his call to make. He was supposed to tell his superiors, who would realize that none of the other warnings systems showed any incoming missiles and decide not to launch a counter-attack. There is a chance that, considering how freaked out everyone was at that time, the Soviet command would have launched an attack anyway based on that one warning. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bicep chain

Is there a religious significance (in any popular religion) to a silver chain worn around the bicep? -- kainaw ™ 04:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of a cilice? It is sometimes worn around the bicep. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 05:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, JW. What you have in mind is something far-different. You are talking about the thing the villain (a Christan fanatic) wears in Da Vinci Code Jon Ascton (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those look purposely uncomfortable. The ones I've seen (that I am wondering about) look like simple jewellery chains fastened around the upper part of the bicep. It is under the sleeve, but part of the chain hangs down and, if the guy is wearing a short sleeve shirt, the dangling part of the chain is visible. I don't want to assume these men are Hindi. But, it is only an assumption that this is religious and not just some cool fashion accessory from India. -- kainaw ™ 12:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Keyur. You can do a google image search of "baju bandh". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are worn in a similar manner - just far more decorative that what I've seen. Further, it appears to be more fashion than religion, which is what I was wondering about. -- kainaw ™ 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searches on the World Wide Web are probably more successful with the correct spelling. The singular is biceps, and the plural is either biceps or bicepses. (http://www.onelook.com/?w=biceps&ls=a).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Five K's#Kara. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wave. The ਕੱੜਾ, this →

you have in mind is an iron bangle worn by Sikhs on wrist. Maybe what OP has in mind this, it's called a tabij in India, sometimes worn around the bicep (but mostly around neck), it's made of silver so someone may use it with a silver chain, though typically a black thread is used Jon Ascton (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republicanism in Australia versus Canada

I realize that we seldom penetrate to the "why" of things, but I've always been curious as to why republicanism has always enjoyed much stronger support in Australia than in Canada. It's not as if Canada is a right-wing Protestant stronghold. Canada is famously liberal, certainly to a greater extent than Australia, yet Australia is much closer to becoming a republic. What is the cultural difference that makes Australia more prone to republicanism? LANTZY ^TALK 06:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia isn't as close to the United States?

-- AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Better the devil you know than the other devil you know, eh? In the various essays I've seen, it seems that there's a lot of love for ol' QE2 - enough to overcome the republican sentiment in people who would otherwise be in favour of removing the link to the monarchy. I've personally never understood that argument - you can still appreciate and honour, say, Gandhi without having him politically linked to your country at all. I don't understand it, but I've seen it trotted out enough to wonder what public sentiment for republicanism will be like when she dies. Mostly, though, I think it's because things are going good - Canada didn't suffer the kind of hit the US did in the recent economic and real estate hiccup and it's hard to foment support for sweeping political change when people have jobs, access to health care, and homes. Matt Deres (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Canada is "famously liberal"? That's not a widely known fact where I live (for either sense of "liberal"). Maybe this is just an impression for USians who live in close proximity in a less liberal system, but who have little experience with e.g. Australia? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's something more than just a figment of my Usonian imagination to say that Canada's political environment is well to the left of Australia's. To take just one issue: In Australia, even the principal party of the left is opposed to same-sex marriage. In Canada, even the reigning conservatives have thrown in the towel on that issue. It may be that Australians themselves are as liberal-minded as Canadians, but their political culture has yet to catch up. That's why I find it odd that republicanism is a viable position in Australia but entirely off the table in Canada. LANTZY ^TALK 20:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "liberalism" (however you want to define it) really has to do with it anyway; that might be a red herring. What does someone's opinion on gay marriage or gun control or whatever really have to do with abolishing the monarchy? Matt Deres (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchism tends to be a conservative viewpoint. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the US is a republic and the Netherlands and Sweden are monarchies ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions proving the rule. But bear in mind that in the USA, even the most liberal of mainstream viewpoints would be considered hopelessly conservative in Europe. → ROUX ₪ 01:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I suspect there may be some exceptions to that rule. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, especially if by "Europe" you mean "Europe", rather than "Western Europe". Eastern Europe is considerably more benighted and bigoted than even the southernmost bowls of the United States. And western Europe isn't exactly Shangri-La. The French, whom Americans stereotypically associate with limp-wristed liberalism, are fully as xenophobic and homophobic as Americans, notwithstanding their greater tolerance of trade unionism and adultery. LANTZY ^TALK 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is extremely liberal compared to the USA, and about on-par with many European nations (though not quite as far as say Sweden). Were even the most conservative of Canadian politicians to be active in the USA, they would almost all be considered left wing. In terms of republicanism here, part of the issue is that the institution of the monarchy is embedded in the constitution. As we have seen in the past couple of decades, attempting constitutional amendment is no small issue and would require a political unity at both federal and provincial levels which is unlikely to happen. Yes, a large part of HM's popularity is quite simply that she herself is an institution; there are comparatively few people alive who even remember a time when she wasn't the Queen. Add that to the general Canadian attitude of keeping things as they are and making changes slowly (yes there are exceptions), particularly when it comes to issues that address our national identity, and we are unlikely to see change in the near future. That notwithstanding, I firmly believe, sadly, that whoever accedes to the throne next will probably be the last. If it is Charles, we will almost certainly be a republic by the end of his (likely to be rather short, compared to his mother's) reign; if he somehow does not accede (which wouldn't be hard; Camilla used to be Catholic and all the Palace needs to do is seed some rumours saying she still is, giving him the ability to step aside in favour of William), we will see another long-reigning monarch which may give the monarchy the lasting sort of gravitas that HM has brought. Further, Australians have been by nature much more independent-minded than Canadians; we were settled voluntarily for the most part, while Australia was in many cases settled by criminals--they were booted out, which tends to lead to a much more independent state of mind. Being on the other side of the planet from your Queen may also be a factor, though apparently not in New Zealand which is (according to my stepfather and his family) quite staunchly pro-monarchist. → ROUX ₪ 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...the general Canadian attitude of keeping things as they are and making changes slowly" - isn't that the very definition of a (real) conservative? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. In a dictionary definition sense, yes... but in real terms, conservatives (note the small c) are generally in favour of maintaining the status quo. Canadians, generally speaking, are fine with change. We just like to think it through first. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand and her people are sometimes characterised as "more English than the English". Many of Australia's early settlers were indeed on the wrong side of the law, but they weren't "criminals" in the sense we understand that term today. Often they were guilty of nothing more than petty theft. Very petty. Like stealing a loaf of bread. They're better described as "convicts". We do have an independence of spirit in many ways, but when it comes to amending our Constitution, that has usually proven to be a tough nut to crack. Referendums in Australia says there've been 44 proposals in 110 years, of which only 8 have ever passed. Conventional wisdom here is that a referendum needs bipartisan support to have a chance of getting through, but most issues become politicised, sometimes for no better reason than an opposition sees an opportunity to make some political advantage out of an issue that previously they didn't care much about either way, so they'll oppose whatever change has been proposed, no matter how reasonable or sensible. Sometimes they'll agree it's an OK idea in essence, but it should be implemented this way rather than that way, and that's enough for them to advocate a NO vote. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was using 'criminals' in the definitive sense; people who have been convicted of a crime. I make no judgement as to the severity of the sentence being proportionate.→ ROUX ₪ 21:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, Canadians seem in perpetual anxiety about their "national identity" and worry about remaining distinct from the larger, "aggressive" culture of their neighbor to the south. The monarchy is something that marks Canadians as different from the Yanks. Australians probably aren't that worried about being absorbed into the USA. For them, ditching the Queen might help people tell them apart from New Zealanders. —D. Monack ^talk 03:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only time Canadians (or at least the Canadian media) talks about ditching the monarchy is when the Governor General does something expensive and everyone finds out how much taxpayer money she spent. If we didn't have a Queen we wouldn't need an expensive Governor General...but that's really as far as it goes (and I suppose no one stops to think that we would still have an expensive head of state as a republic, with a different title). When the Queen herself was here a couple of months ago, there was some grumbling about the expense, but not as much. Everyone loves the Queen! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Canadians don't seem to have very strong opinions about the monarchy, although there are exceptions. The monarchy simply isn't a hot-button issue like healthcare, gun control, taxes, spending, crime, and the like. The fact that there's a picture of the queen hanging in the courthouse doesn't really have that much of an impact on people's lives. Not enough, anyway, as to encourage people to try to start what would be a monster political and constitutional effort to change the status quo. Note that the Canadian Constitution requires all 10 provinces to agree to any amendment messing with the monarchy. The Australian Constitution didn't make the monarchy an entrenched clause, perhaps because no one in 1900 could ever imagine people wanting to get rid of it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Mayoral Elections

Hello, I checked the pages to do with the Mayor of London and elections to that post, but I did not find the answer to my question. How is the date of the election determined? The date of inauguration is 4th May but the election date has varied from 10th June, almost a month following the change of incumbent, to 4th May, one day before. Why the difference, and who decides when elections take place? I imagine they are synchronised to fit in with local elections and the British tradition of Thursday elections. Sam 17:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

I find myself quite confused by your question. How can 10 June be "almost a month earlier" than 4 May? On the face of it, it seems to be almost a month later. But how could an election be held weeks after the office-holder commences their term? And how can 4 may be one day before 4 May? Am I missing something? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I have muddled my months, of course June is after May. Which of course, leads to another question: if the inauguration date for the Mayor of London is 4th May (the date Livingstone took office in 2000, and the date Johnson assumed control in 2008), why did the 2004 election take place more than a month after the date of the inauguration? (I have italicised parts of my original post where I have altered it to correct my mistake at putting June before May.)

Is it not possible that the election was 10 June, Year 1, with the inauguration 4 May, Year 2? For example, the monarch's coronation is often quite some time after accession, partly out of respect for mourning the previous sovereign and partly because of sheer logistics. HM was officially crowned some 16 months after her accession. Even more likely is someone on the article playing silly buggers with the dates or merely misunderstanding. It is not in fact possible to have an inauguration before the choice of candidate. On a careful reading of the articles in question, it seems that there is no set date for the inauguration. → ROUX ₪ 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the London Mayoral election is held once in 4 years on the regular date of English local elections. Generally that is the first Thursday in May, but in the year of the European Parliament elections (fixed Europe-wide for early June) the local election date moves to be held on the same day. As the Euro elections are at 5-year intervals, it is a different set of local council elections that are moved each time. Sussexonian (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Livingstone's second term was shorter than his first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archie and anti-Oshoism

The OP is himself closing it. He is afraid further discussion might make, what is a quiet fit RD question, looklike chitchat or soapboxing etc. He is tired of being blamed

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.

Resolved

Long time back I read an Archie comics, of course I can't recall exact wording of each character but the moral of the story was that ideal American youth should keep away from such cults. In it Jughead somehow gets entangled with Osho (did he wear an orange robe and a mala? don't remember, it's been a really long time), but nevertheless becomes a "victim" of the cult and starts saying things like -"we're all on a long journey", and "to a flower it's fall is end of the world" and other such nonsensical things. Everyone including Archie, Veronica, Betty and even Reggie is really worried about what will become of him. Then Archie makes up his mind to do something about it, perhaps he goes to a library and finds a bigbook of ridiculous quotations or talks about it with Mr.Weatherbee and in the end they somehow manage to cure Juggie by convincing him that anyone can thinkup and say such things like "to a toadstool even a butterfly is an airplane" and there is really no need to be impressed by such cult-leaders. And in the end-frame all the gang is shown with their arms around shoulders of each other, proudly addressing the

American youth to keep away from the silly Indian guru "who preaches from the backseat of a limo". (Osho or Rajneesh is never referred to directly but only as "the guru who preaches from the backseat of a limo").

Does anyone remember reading this comicbook and please recount the exact story, i.e. how they "cure" him etc. ? Were there any other Archie comics targeted against Osho. Thanks. Jon Ascton (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you could find an online link to the comic-book issue, or a synopsis of it, that you are referring to. By "Osho" you mean "Bhagwan" right, the same guy that was involved in the largest bioterrorism attack in US history? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WikiDao. Sadly yes. But the same guy was hardly responsible for that. It were the people living under him. Jon Ascton (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely as her guru he had some responsibility for her actions on his behalf? That any of his followers were involved suggests that perhaps Jughead's pals were right to be concerned! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they could find an online link to the issue, surely they wouldn't need to ask if anyone else remembers it and can tell them details they cannot remember? 109.155.33.219 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed to find any such source.Do they have any blog etc. about arcihe where some comic-freak had scanned all comics, might be. It would be copywrong... Jon Ascton (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Jon might? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, supply of Archie comics to India was awfully limited even in golden age of comics ( now, thanks to Internet, its ceased altogether ). But maybe some Archie fan, I hope mostly US guys are on RD, may recall it. Jon Ascton (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was an actual, official Archie comic, and not a spoof, satire, look-alike or outright unauthorized ripoff? --Jayron32 03:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Jay. I am quite sure it was actual, official Archie, nothing less. Jon Ascton (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Archie characters were at one time licenses to Spire Christian Comics, so maybe you are misremembering that (although it would be a huge stretch to remember that as a Rajneesh-ish cult...) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing me. I have just seen Spire Christian Comics. It says Other comics were based on true stories, Christian novels, or Christian movies.What the hell does the word "Christian" mean here ? Are we talking about Christian Religion...? Jon Ascton (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I have seen their talk page after I wrote above text. (It comes under Wikipedia Christianity etc.) I was hoping "Christian" to be author's surname ! In that case it's surprising for me.What can have Archie (I have read enough of it to understand it's basic spirit)to do with religion ? And then Christian religion of all ? Jon Ascton (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is noted in the article at Al Hartley, who is the connection between Archie comics, for which he was a prominent illustrator and writer, and Spire Christian comics. It directly mentions his religious beliefs and how it informed his writing and work. --Jayron32 05:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here is one involving a cult (although not with the Archie characters, so probably not the one you are thinking of). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I failed to open that link (technical problem). What it is, just please give me brief description. Adam, what is the difference between this Spire Christian Comics and mainstream Archie comics...?

The article's in question discuss this, but to restate it a different way: Spire Christian Comics was an independent comic company which produced Christian-themed comic books. Al Hartley was an writer and illustrator who worked for both Marvel Comics (Archie Comics parent company) and Spire Christian Comics. According to his article, Al Hartley started introducing Christian themes into Marvel-published Archie Comics, but this became discouraged. After this, he asked for and received permission to use the Archie characters in Spire-published comics, thus generating a series of Spire-published Archie comics, which were writen and illustrated by Hartley, but otherwise had no connection to Marvel, which still published their own Archie comics. I hope that makes things clearer. --Jayron32 05:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. That seems to be the answer. Osho was overwhelmingly critical of Christian religion. It's only natural that an author with Christian bent of mind oppose him. Jon Ascton (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Lots of others who were not overtly Christian wrote things which where critical of Bagwhan Shree Rajneesh or which spoofed him. Berkeley Breathed ran a story line in Bloom County the early 80's with Bill the Cat standing in as "Bagwhan Bill" and which lambasted the entire Rajneesh movement; Breathed is a self-avowed atheist. It's not hard to find people critical of a movement whose members poisoned some 750 patrons of Oregon-area restaurants, and they don't have to be Christians. --Jayron32 06:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There was a full anti-Osho, justified, feeling in US then 06:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

However, the Christian Archie comics were from the 70s and Rajneeshpuram was not created until the 80s. (Plus, the one comic I linked to about the cult takes place on a tropical island or something.) So I wouldn't consider this quite resolved yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was in the 1970s, references to orange robed cults were probably related to the Hare Krishnas, which were a common pop-culture staple at that moment and regarded warily by the "mainstream" as "brainwashers". (See the "issues within the society" section of the article.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

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.

Military might of Iran compared to Iraq

How does the current military capability of Iran compare with that of Iraq just before it was invaded? 92.15.27.8 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran now, or Iran at that time? Googlemeister (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the fourth word. 92.15.27.8 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by number of troops will get you the current comparison in terms of man-power. I don't know what the pre-invasion numbers were. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From our articles Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraqi Air Force and 2003 invasion of Iraq, It was estimated that the bulk of Iraq's army was made up of thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions and some sub-divisional special forces units. roughly 250,000-400,000 total people. Iraq's air force had about 200 fighter type aircraft (though a large number of those were not actually mission capable). Iran currently seems to have roughly 500,000 personnel and around 300 fighter jets (though again a fair number of these do not seem to be mission capable). From this, I would estimate that Iran has a 20-30% larger army and significantly larger air force then Iraq did in 2003. Numbers don't tell the whole story though, as the US was technically outnumbered around 2-1 when it invaded Iraq. Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about military capability, not troop numbers. Numbers don't tell the whole story; in fact they tell you relatively little. Technology plays a huge part. As does experience; raw conscripts simply do not compare to professional well-trained veteran soldiers. Armed forces that are tested in conflict are much more efficient than those that are not. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have an answer? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Equipment of the Iranian Army and List of countries by level of military equipment. My very limited understanding of this leads me to think that Iraq in 2003 had poorer equipment than Iran does currently, mostly because Iraq was under a pretty strict sanctions regime since the 1990s whereas Iran has been doing considerable arms trading with Russia, China, and North Korea since then. Compared to the United States, though, I don't know if that matters. The Iraqi tanks were really no match for US capabilities and the US air dominance is unchallenged. Any frontal assault would probably result in a relatively quick US "victory", but as we have seen that is hardly the mark of whether the conflict in the long run would be seen as a "successful" one or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Cape, Mantle and Cloak ??

What's the difference between Cape, Mantle and Cloak?? Historically speaking is what interests me, back in the middle ages. Coz i guess the words' meanings might have changed in modern times. But mainly i'm interested in how these garments varied from each other particularily during 1000-1400.

I know quite well what a cloak is, and I know they're supposed to be long, usually reaching down to your boots or ankles. And often they have hoods attached to them. They're supposed to cover your back, however if the cloak is big enough you might wrap the entire thing around yourself and stay warm.

But when it comes to mantle and capes, i'm unsure where the differences goes... you could of course simply tell me to search these words here on wikipedia but i already have, and i'm still unsure. Cape and mantle are said to be shorter than cloak, and capes often attached around the neck rather than over the shoulders and mantles are more of a female garment. wikipedia's sites says so, but often have i seen knights, nobles, men of the church, templars and kings of old, or depictions of them in the very least dressed in long cloak-like garments reaching down to the boots or ankles, sometimes attached over the shoulders and sometimes around the neck. And these are often called both capes and mantles.

An example; The knight templars (as seen in pictures, paintings, movies etc.) often had atop their white surcoats with the red cross another garment (also white with a red cross), looking much like a cloak without a hood. And I have often seen these being called both mantles and capes. So I'm unsure what is right and what is wrong, and what really is the difference between these garments.

One difference i tend to notice is that cloak-like garments of thin fabric which doesn't seem to protect from the weather so much and perhaps are worn more for symbolic purposes tends to be called either cape or mantle. or perhaps i'm wrong...

I guess opinions on the matter can vary, but hearing other people's opinion or knowledge about it can only be helpful.

So, Enlighten me?? :)

84.49.182.137 (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OED Online has:

cloak, n.: "A loose outer garment worn by both sexes over their other clothes."

mantle, n.: "A loose sleeveless cloak." The word was formerly applied indiscriminately to the outer garments of men, women, and children; at times it referred to various specific pieces of clothing. Its application is now chiefly restricted to long cloaks worn by women and to the robes worn by royal, ecclesiastical, and other dignitaries on ceremonial occasions.

cape, n.: "A cloak with a hood; a cloak or mantle generally; an ecclesiastical cope."

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

Numbers Game

I need a bit of help with this article, as you can see here. Firstly, my library doesn't have The Autobiography of Malcolm X, so I'll need to wait about a week for it to be sent from another library: if someone has access to it now and could check the reference, that would be very helpful. Secondly, reverting my original edit isn't enough, as the information I removed is almost certainly wrong. As I mentioned on the talk page, the problem seems to be an edit that removed the word n***er (without asterisks) despite it being a direct quote of what this was actually called (assuming the ref. checks out). I cannot add that word back in without logging in, and I have reasons not to log in :(. Without that word, the sentence is nonsensical. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of references to be had. Example: [1] even more here:[2].Even mentioned in a 1934 edition of the New Yorker. [3]Guess the editor that deleated it lives out-side the US --Aspro (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fantastic! Could you edit the (full) sentence back in with 2 or 3 of those sources for refs? As I said, I can't edit it in without logging in because of the 'n' word. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you edit it? Just properly cite it and you should be ok. Here's some more refs: [4] WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are bots, and possibly edit filters, that automatically revert or disallow IP edits that contain certain "trigger words". Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean vandal patrollers?

If it is properly sourced, it'll stay. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly there are automated processes that use trigger words; that's what the editor's running afoul of. Acroterion _(talk) 17:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well those automated processes should not be preventing an IP user from making properly sourced relevant contributions to an article! Which bots are guilty of that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main vandal-reverting bot is User:ClueBot, but there are also a number of edit filters that disallow edits that look problematic. You can learn more about them at Special:AbuseFilter. Looie496 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a problem! Who'd a thunk it? It all worked out in the end, though.

Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "N word" is not on any edit filter and probably never will be, because of the many legitimate uses. —Soap— 20:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. But, in any case, this worked out. Thanks guys! I'll format a couple of the best extra refs and add them in tomorrow, when I can use a proper computer. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DASHBot doesnt use the edit filter. Actually the edit filter was originally designed to go for the things that DASHBot and others wouldnt be able to catch. I understand that it's easy to confuse the different anti-vandal programs because they're deliberately kept with sparse documentation, though. —Soap— 22:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Italian town map - Pavia

If one were to guess, from what century would this Flickr "Historical map of Pavia" be from? The resolution is very high under Flickr's Actions, "View all sizes" for Original (8598 x 7151). Details can be read for the street names and at the bottom of the map the names of the numbered places in ancient Pavia. Looking at the medieval wording I would imagine someone could come up with approximate century. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map proclaims that it was printed by Pieter van der Aa. That gives a fairly narrow range of dates and the bibliography would suggest that 1728 is the best guess. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. Searching of van der Aa or "La Galerie Agréable du Monde" will find similar stuff such as London, Paris. Surprisingly, given the number of cut out pages for sale, someone has a complete (?) copy of of the atlas: here. If you need to ask what it costs (single pages sell for hundreds of dollars/euro), you probably can't afford it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pavia's historical center is so little changed that, by opening Google Earth and the map together, and working away from the Duomo ("Eccl. Cathed. Civit." on the map) and Piazza Grande (""Platea magna civit." on the map) you can identify modern street names for the streets on the map.--Wetman (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am a relative of the founder of Miller Arkansas

My Grandfather John Miller III was the son of John Miller II whom was married to Grace Pearl Baker. Grandpa said his Grandfather was in some way responsible for the formation of Miller Arkansas. Would like help learning the history. Miss Bakers father was nicknamed Tic. And this is most of the information I have before Grandfather passed away at the age of 84 several years ago. My name is Robert Miller Jr the son of Robert Miller Sr the son of John Miller III. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.46.61 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any information on the web whatsoever about anything called "Miller Arkansas". Can you clarify what you are talking about here? Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Miller County, Arkansas, Miller County, Arkansas Territory and Miller Homestead (Pea Ridge, Arkansas). Is one of these the subject of your question? Ka renjc 18:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

Business day

Who first decided that business could only be officially conducted Monday to Friday? Is this universal or are there cultures with other ranges? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Workweek and weekend for a lengthy, though often poorly cited, treatment. The brief history is that many religions have a day of rest and prayer (traditionally Sunday for Christians and Saturdays for Jews), and in the 20th century it became a standard part of collective bargaining agreements to have the weekends off. Plenty of commercial businesses do conduct business on the weekend, though, as you've probably noted. There are cultures with other ranges though in general the five day workweek has become pretty standard. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything: 4-Day workweek, 2-ply toilet paper. ^{[citation needed]} schyler (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo-Christian religion gave us our obsession with time (monks not wanting to be late for those morning prayers) and our 7 days per week with 6 days of labor and 1 day of rest—}we only got an extra one when enough people complained. (There is, of course, the "disagreement" on whether the Sabbath or Sunday are the "correct" day of rest, fortunately we've got both covered.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about a more worldwide perspective? Our Workweek and weekend mentions that Muslim-majority countries typically have Friday off (although there is a considerable amount of variation on what the official work-week is, and whether it's five or six days). On a slightly different note, I know that France has recently moved to a four day school week (with Wednesdays off), where it used to be typical to have school on Saturday mornings [5]. It's interesting that our Education in France article doesn't mention this; maybe I'll find a good source and work it in somehow. Such a week would be unthinkable to a student in the United States (though I was surprised to find that some districts are moving to 4 day weeks to save money [6], so maybe it's not as surprising as I'd thought). Buddy431 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that until the mid 20th century the work week in Britain was commonly 5½ days, including Saturday morning. --Anonymous, 04:35 UTC, Sunday, September 26, 2010.

Sunday is a regular weekday in Israel (8th paragraph, beginning with "The blast went off at 8:30"). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also of interest: Soviet calendar. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was at school in the UK in the late 1950s and early 1960s (actually at Hastings Grammar School) we worked on Saturday mornings and had Wednesday afternoons off. Such an arrangement would probably be unthinkable today as everyone expects to have a full two days off at the weekend. --rossb (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening a closed corporation in California

I dissolved my corporation and submitted the final tax return, but I need it again. Can I open up the same corporation? Does anyone know the form name or number? Or could I re-apply with the same name? Thanks to all for the help :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The California Secretary of State's office can probably answer this for you. I don't see the question in their FAQ but they are the ones who process the forms so they should know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even True ?

I heard somewhere, and cannot remember where, that a totally new US flag is hoisted on the White House every single day. Is this true, and if so, how expensive is that, and what happens to the " old " flags ? Are they given to schools or someone honoured, and if so, are they recorded with the date they were on the White House ? I don't think we could afford that for the Beehive. Thanks The Russian Christopher Lilly 06:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I made Eagle Scout, I was given a US flag that had flown over either the White House or the Capitol. So, yes, they're given to people who are honoured for one thing or another. Dismas|^(talk) 06:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I found some ordering instructions here. It looks like my troop had to pay for the flag and not the American taxpayer. Dismas|^(talk) 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's more than once a day, for both the White House and the Capital building, otherwise there's no way they could keep up with demand. I'm sure they hand out far more than 730 flags every year. --Ludwigs2 07:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I was told at the time by my (pedantic and buzz killer) father was that they have a number of flag poles and put flags up on each one. Then go back to the first, take it down, and put another up. They continue on to the second and so on. "Cool! A flag they flew at the Capitol!", "Well, you know they only fly them for a few minutes.", "Thanks, Dad." Dismas|^(talk) 07:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, it's the social obligation of fathers to make certain that their sons have a proper degree of self-centered cynicism. Can't send a bunch of idealistic hippie-types out into the world, you know; very embarrassing. --Ludwigs2 08:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His father spoke the truth, though. You can see it happen in this documentary, from 54:25 on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the documentary, its between about one second and a few seconds at most if you are lucky. The flags are not properly attached to the mast either, and are flown in an inconspicuous place with other flags undergoing the same process. If it wasnt the US government doing it, I'd say it was a rip-off. 92.15.9.254 (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When my elementary school received from our Congressman a US flag which had "flown" over the US Capitol, I did research (in the pre-internet age) which informed me that such flags "flew" for a few seconds only, just enough time for the wind to unfold them. after which they were lowered and folded by the hard working military detachment charged with such "flying." They could probably "fly" hundreds of flags a day over the Capitol or the White House. Edison (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a fair amount of time in downtown DC, and I must say I have never seen anyone hard at work out there at such a task. What would the tourists think of groups of military personnel running flags up and down all day outside the Capitol or White House?! I don't know how they work it, but I have a hard time seeing it produce "hundreds of flags a day"! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm counting only four flags flying above this picture (the fourth is not visible, behind dome;). Note that there is no one in the vicinity of the flag-poles. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks ! That was more than I expected ! Fancy that ! For sure, and one would rather have a flag that flew a whole day, or if the President or some other national hero gave it them in a ceremony, but I guess even a few seconds and they can say, " It did still fly at the Capitol, or George and Martha's ( Mt. Vernon ), or something. Are these flags like embroidered as well ? I have a US flag on my wall at home - under my New Zealand flag, and for six dollars, it was a pretty good buy, but it is not fancy. It appears the flags they give widows of service men killed - or at least from what I have seen on fictional TV type portrayals thereof - are like as if each star is sewn on and such. ( For sure she would much rather have her husband ), but that is an interesting custom also. Would they do so at the Washington Monument, which I understand has fifty flags round it ? I can imagine in a country of 300 million the demand could never cease, but then, if too many people got them, where would the rarity be ? Doubtless flag makers are the ones not complaing at all - a very worthy profession. Thanks again. The Russian Christopher Lilly 03:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the page of the Capitol Flag Program. It's clear that the flags that people can get are not the giant big flag from the middle of the Capitol dome but smaller flags that presumably fly from smaller poles above the building. The site says there are 100,000 requests a year, which equals 274 a day. So presumably the Architect of the Capitol has someone raising and lowering flags on a regular basis. With 2,600 employees, I guess the AoC has the manpower to do that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, here's this: US Capitol#Flags (which claims to explain it, but I do not see where that alleged patch of flagpoles is up there). Note that there is no huge flag flying from the dome, there is only Freedom. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak about the flags that are given out (sold) now but when I got my Eagle US flag (about 20 years ago), it was a nice stitched one and not simply a piece of cloth with the flag pattern printed on it. It's a good sturdy flag. Dismas|^(talk) 04:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in a similar vein of furious government souvenir manufacture. --Sean 15:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwalcoff: There is no flag that flies from the middle of the Capitol dome. That's where the Statue of Freedom is. All the flags that fly from the Capitol are of the same size. —D. Monack ^talk 08:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course -- I must have been thinking of the big flag over the White House. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenberg map

I found this map File:Reichskommissariats-rosenberg.jpg showing the final Reichskommissariat plan by Alfred Rosenberg. It shows parts of the borders of Reichskommissariat Ostland, Ukraine, Moskowien, Kaukasus and Turkestan. Is there a map with the entire subdivision of Russian Lebensraum? Maybe with Reichskommissariat Ural, West-Sibirien, West-Nordland and Ost-Nordland. I'd like to find a map as complete as possible. --151.51.48.46 (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did a bishop "reign" ??

In Medieval europe, in what kind of areas would a bishop have power and influence? maybe it varies from various types of religions, but let's say bishops in the catholic church, which was very widespread in medieval europe.

Would a bishop be elected bishop of a city, meaning all cities had their own bishop, or would they be bishops of each their county, or some sort of region, or a province? or would every church have their own bishop?

Although not sure (and that's why i'm asking) i would think a bishop were bishop of entire regions, meaning he was seen as bishop in all churches and cities etc within that region, but i don't know. I'm trying to find answers.

Answers and thoughts on the matter will be much appreciated :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each Bishop would have a Diocese, in the same way each Church was the centre of a Parish. He would be responsible for communion, ordainment and other duties in that area. They were arbitrarily defined to give each Bishop a manageable workload, so in a highly populated place they might be small while in a sparsely populated place they would be quite large.--92.251.191.21 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince-Bishops of Durham had more power than most. Mikenorton (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordainment = ordination. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Bishop (Catholic Church) article has some more information about your question, and you may also want to see Catholic Church hierarchy. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things were different in the middle ages. For one thing, land was not owned in the way it is today. Instead, people held large estate on behalf of the King. They where allowed to received the income from this land provided they paid the taxes and supported the king. Bishops often held great estates of land called manors and so where very wealthy individuals. As Lord of the Manor they also were the local law, thus welded much power that was quite separate from their ecclesiastical power. The OP would do well I think to read up on the social life of medieval England and the feudal system if he wants to understand this aspect. --Aspro (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were also decidedly ecclesiastical princes like the archbishops of Trier and Cologne, which in fact ruled the cities themselves. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for lots of helpful answers ! ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in many parts of the Holy Roman Empire, prince-bishops were the effective rulers over areas that extended well beyond the cities where their cathedrals stood. See, for example, the Archbishopric of Mainz. Marco polo (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in the HRE let to the Investiture Controversy, since bishops had both theological and secular domains, there was a conflict between the Pope, who claimed that he had the right to appoint bishops exclusively, and the Emperor, who claimed that since those bishops would be directly ruling chunks of his land as his vassals, that HE had the right to appoint them. --Jayron32 04:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even today, the Bishop of Urgell is a Co-Prince of Andorra, along with the President of France.John Z (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

academic citation

How would I cite a paper by Galileo in an academic paper? Our article's citation just gives Galileo's name, comma, and the title of the book in English. Is this sufficient? Should I find a page number? 85.181.146.8 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Citation article links to several resources on how to formally cite a paper. You may be able to find publishing information, etc, for your citation online, see eg. Galileo at Google Books WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should, of course, only cite a paper you have read. Since Galileo originals are very rare, it's probably in some collection. In that case, I'd cite it as "G. Galileo, "Sidereus Nuncius", 1610, in Jorkelman, Schrivenden (eds.), "Collected writings of Galileo", p.151-167, Someplace, 19XY", or similar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. I haven't read it, but I'm stealing an idea from it. (I know, because the place I read the idea cited it.) Should I steal Galileo's idea without attribution? Should I cite the secondary source? I could just steal the idea and get away with it you know, I don't have to give it to Galileo, I'm being nice to him. So, how do I do it? I am NOT digging out his ms85.181.146.8 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? "the place I read the idea cited it" -- so why not just cite that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: "Our article's citation just gives Galileo's name, comma, and the title of the book in English." Could you point to the instance of that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't cite it because it's Wikipedia. We have a whole article on the book I would like to cite. The bottom of that article does not cite the book. Another of our articles does, as: "Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" 85.181.146.8 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Yes, you don't want to cite Wikipedia academically! Last time I heard... Here's this for now in case it helps any: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems at Google books. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in academic circumstances, most people would frown far more on someone citing a work they obviously didn't read, then someone citing what they actually did read, even if it is wikipedia. At the very least, you should make clear you didn't actually read the work, but are relying on a citation of said work in another source, see [7] & [8] for example. If you don't what you're doing could easily be considered plagiarism. Note the idea is that wikipedia as an encylopaedia/tertiary source is not something normally suited for academic works (although it does depend on the circumstance), but you may use it as a starting point to find sources that you can use an actually read and use. The idea is not that you use wikipedia and then pretend to have read and be using the cited sources when you didn't and aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I added the link above to the article: you may well want to buy that book or check it out from your library. The external links section of the article may also be helpful. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "responsible and respectable" thing to do is to take a look at the original book in question to confirm that the Wikipedia article is a faithful accounting of it. (Don't just trust Wikipedia on this. It's often not a good source and can have a very idiosyncratic reading of old books. If it is wrong — as it often is, in my experience — the fact that you got your information from Wikipedia but didn't attribute it as such is grounds for academic misconduct charges.) If it is, cite the original book. If it isn't, well, at least you know. I write this as a tired reader of many bad student papers that crib from Wikipedia without properly attributing it. A Wikipedia-style point of view is pretty easy to spot if you know the subject matter in question. If you think your grader doesn't know or can't easily look up Wikipedia, you are almost certainly wrong... --Mr.98 (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's too pretentious; that's what "original research" actually is. For Wikipedia, which is just a readers' guide, after all, this will do just fine: "Galileo, Title (date), noted in Name, "Article" Journal Vol. (year:page)" You also make no false claims this way.--Wetman (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it needed to cite Galileo at all? Surely his works are out of copyright by now. Googlemeister (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to be getting confused. In response to Wetman The OP referred to an academic setting so 'original research' is often welcome and what should be the normal way of citing here on wikipedia isn't likely their concern. In response to Googlemeister, it is needed to cite whoever you got your ideas (or whatever) from, particularly in an academic setting but even on wikipedia. Copyright has nothing to do with it. If you're wondering why it's necessary to cite Galileo (or whatever) when you've taken the idea from another source who is citing him, well again copyright has nothing to do with it. It will depend precisely on the case, but usually if what you're taking is an idea (or whatever) which another source has summarised from a primary source, then what you're actually interested in is the idea from the primary source even if you're citing it from another source. If you're interested in citing what another source has said, you don't have to cite the references they use since you're actually citing that source not their references. Either way copyright never comes in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright doesn't matter for source material (except that it might prevent you from reading it in the first place). Research papers don't take text from their sources, they take ideas, which aren't copyright-protected. The information provided by citations is vitally important for other reasons; they tell the reader whether some assertion has been peer-reviewed, they make it possible to navigate the literature, and they allow the writer to gloss over details that the reader will know to look in the cited source for. Paul (Stansifer) 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally, totally unrelated to the citation issue, but: many of the standard translations of Galileo (into, say, English, like the Stillman Drake ones) are not out of copyright at all. Galileo in the original is out of copyright. Galileo in English is generally not. Translations of public domain material are still copyrighted, if the translation was more recently done. But again, this has nothing to do with citation practices. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Founding documents of other nations inspired/derived from the U.S. Constitution?

I vaguely recall reading/hearing the occasional reference growing up to other countries who copied from the United States Constitution or modeled their equivalent document on it, but am having difficulty finding a list. I'm quite curious just how many such countries there really are and who they be... The Masked Booby (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... there's the French Constitution of 1791, the Constitution of Uruguay, the Swiss Constitution of 1848, the Argentine Constitution of 1853, the Cuban Constitutions of 1901 and 1940 (source: [9]), and just about every other constitution in Latin America for that matter, the Constitution of Japan, the Constitution of India, and of course the constitution of the United Federation of Planets. LANTZY ^TALK 22:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Constitution#Modern_constitutions, which has

The United States Constitution, ratified June 21, 1788, was influenced by the British constitutional system and the political system of the United Provinces, plus the writings of Polybius, Locke, Montesquieu, and others. The document became a benchmark for republicanism and codified constitutions written thereafter.

and discusses the historical influence of some other national constitutions, too. (The Constitution of Japan was largely written at MacArthur's behest after WWII, probably the instance of the most direct US involvement in another country's constitution, but even still it is far from being a just a "copy" of the the US Constitution). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the text of the "British Constitution," as ratified. Or does such a thing exist at all? Figment of the imagination, much? Edison (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase "British constitutional system" I quoted above may refer to what began with the Magna Carta, the article for which says: "It influenced the early settlers in New England and inspired later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do, you know, have an article on the British constitution. It is not written down, but most Britons, I believe, consider it to exist. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many national constitutions are similar in form to the U.S. Constitution, with separate articles for the executive, legislative and judicial powers and an equivalent to the Bill of Rights. Considerably fewer countries have adopted the same system laid out in the U.S. Constitution for their own government. Many of those are in Latin America, where U.S. influence is strong. See presidential system. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to remember that there is a distinction between a little-c "constitution" and a big-c "Constitution". Just as The White House is different from a white house, so are the difference between the constitution of a government, which is the set of foundational principles under which the state operates, and The Constitution, which is the document that defines those foundational principles. All countries, by definition, have a constitution, insofar as they have a government which operates by a set of defined principles. Not all countries have, or have always had, a Constitution, that is a single document which defines those principles. Even in the U.S., where there is near hagiographic worship of The Constitution there are foundational principles, which are not written down in the Constitution, but are still considered constitutional principles, such as judicial review and the right to privacy. --Jayron32 04:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Scott Brodies's "Our Constitution" (Brodie, Scott (1999). Our Constitution. Franklin Watts Australia. ISBN 0-9585649-0-6.), Australia did borrowed some ideas from the US:

The delegates [of the Constitutional Convention] were inspired by both the British Westminster system and the American Congressional system. Aspects of the American system were borrowed because the USA was a federation of states, just as the new Australia would be; the most obvious examples being the way in which the Senate is elected and the names of the two houses. Also the former colonies were to be called states, just as they were in the USA.

Mitch Ames (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some elements of the current German constitution from 1949 was also heavily inspired by the American ecquivalent. The Federal Constitutional Court for example. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can provide sources stating that it was heavily inspired by the American equivalent. Both articles (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany and Federal Constitutional Court of Germany) don't mention this issue at all. Flamarande (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can. Here: "With the end of World War II, American influence was dominant in the preparation of the new basic charters of West Germany and Japan [...] The study of American constitutionalism after World War II led to a near-universal interest in the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in determining the constitutionality of legislation. This function was likewise performed by the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Australia as well as by other common-law countries. Constitutional review could not be exercised by the Latin American nations because their judicial structures were based on the civil law system. However, these nations wanted to include the process of judicial review. The solution was the establishment of constitutional courts. The first of these were in Germany and Italy, and they have since proliferated throughout the world." --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesia's 1965 Unilateral Declaration of Independence was based the United States own Declaration of Independence.--Britannicus (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to look for the citation now, but I believe Ho Chi Minh's 1945 declaration of independence for Vietnam drew heavily on the US example. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, check for yourself here. The beginning was inspired by the US document but the other parts were not. Flamarande (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Senate was partly modelled after the US Senate, so, to the extent that the US Senate's way of being is specified in the US Constitution, Australia's Constitution is partly modelled after the US one. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ...

September 27

Lost license

Hello. This is not a request for legal advice, it's just something I've been curious about. When a doctor loses his or her license, how can s/he get it back? Does he need to go through med school again, or can he just reapply to the certification board or something? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "loses his or her license", I presume you're referring not just to cases of misplacing their physical license certificate, but to situations where the doctor's permission to practise has been removed due to professional misconduct or worse. If the authorities took action to deprive the doctor of their license to practise, I can't see them giving it back again in a hurry, unless it was just some abstruse technical issue that had no bearing on their general professional standing. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors can lose their licenses to varying extents, so to speak. For some serious infractions the revocation is irrevocable, but a license may also be suspended temporarily. Sometimes a license may be recovered just by paying a fine, performing community service, and appearing before a medical examining board. One may also recover a license by challenging the examining board in court. Generally speaking, it's much easier to get a new medical license than to be readmitted to the bar. LANTZY ^TALK 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're referring to some foreign place, since here in the United Kingdom, doctors don't have licen[c/s]es. They can however be struck off the Medical Register (though the article that links to doesn't have any information about the process, unfortunately). --ColinFine (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on the process in the UK in the General Medical Council article. Warofdreams talk 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the link I inserted redirects to the article you cited, and I don't see anything in it about being struck off. --ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem doctors in the UK now do require a licence (at least those on a specialist register, which I think covers every fully-qualified practicing doctor in the NHS), which they have to renew every 5 years. For practicing doctors this seems to mostly be a matter of keeping up with their CPD (continuing professional development) which means a few days a year in seminars and various rubber-chicken talks, and some reading and paperwork. So a doctor can lose their licence, and thus be effectively unable to practice unsupervised, if they don't keep up with that. A Powerpoint presentation which covers the process is here. In addition to suspensions from the GMR, that's also something you'd expect to happen if a doctor takes a lengthy time off (say to raise children) or works abroad. I've not found the procedure for reestablishing a licence (which will presumably entail satisfying the GMC that one is fit to practice). To what extent this will entail a formerly independent doctor having to return to pupilage for a while I don't know. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GMC's page on this is here. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a musical performance great?

What makes a "great" musical performance "great", and not just merely "skillfully executed?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.80.119 (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question. Ultimately, it's entirely subjective. You might think a particular performance was one for the ages, while I might be quite unmoved. However, if a group of listeners all agreed it was great, it would be interesting to ask them what exactly it was about it that made it great. I suggest there would be a variety of answers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on what type of performance it is. A rock musician, for instance, might be thought highly of for their interaction with the crowd whereas a classical performance would have very little, if any, of that. Dismas|^(talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about: Harmony, and Variety, and Contrasts, Light & Shade {In the Musical sense of these terms}. In Philosophy where subjectivity is viewed-on as undesirable, perhaps we should study Music more. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musical coordination, loud, strong vocals, charisma, on-stage banter, plus the unabashed balls-out sexual energy a group such as The Rolling Stones creates inside auditoriums when they perform live is what makes a performance great and which is why they have been frequently referred to as "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World". Aerosmith also put on fantastic live shows.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this question earlier today. I used to think that with sufficiently sophisticated controls, a person could program a computer to make a truly great musical performance. After years of trying just that, I think "greatness" is extremely subtle and tricky to define. A programmer, or orchestra, may be able to pull it off, but I'm not at all convinced that greatness can be codified in words, at least at this point in time. It is something ineffable. Pfly (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I was thinking about this yesterday, after a conversation with a guitarist who is learning entirely by listening and copying. They told me that they didn't see the point in playing from written music because 'there's no creativity, you just play it exactly how it's written, like a machine'. Unlike, of course, playing back exactly what someone else plays! They didn't seem able to understand that playing exactly what was written, without interpretation, would give a poor performance and isn't what you're 'supposed' to do. No, not even in an exam. At that point, I struggled to explain exactly why machine-like reading of the music would be 'bad'. A good performer is expected to 'massage' the note-lengths and the tempo and the dynamics and even the pitch, where appropriate, to improve the overall effect, and that doesn't even touch on the many different timbres and effects a musician can achieve with their instrument: for example, a violinist has many bowing-effects available, some more subtle than others, that affect the 'feel' of a note or sequence of notes. That same violinist has types of vibrato to choose from, and can choose to play a single note in several different places on the fingerboard. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of growth: population vs. investment

If a normal portfolio grows 7% each year (or maybe, 5%), and the population of a region grows at a rate of 1% year, does it mean that every family can be millionaire, provided they save some money and keep it invested? Quest09 (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, eventually everyone will be a millionaire as currency depreciates. Not all families share their wealth, and not all portfolios grow at even 5% per year, and some families grow at a very much faster rate, but yes, in many countries, many extended families are already millionaires collectively (including the value of property). The problem is that the value of portfolios can go down as well as up (in fact they have done so in the last ten years), and by the time every family is a millionaire, the cost of living will probably have risen to the point where a million in any local currency is not really a large amount. There are too many variables for answers to be precise. Dbfirs 10:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) if you mean real growth (more than inflation) then "yes, it can grow forever, and everyone can be a millionaire". Especially if you live in 1999, or at least more than 2-3 years ago with this financial crisis. If you don't mean +7% or +5% above inflation, if you only mean inflation, then the problem is by the time every family is a millionaire, it is not worth so much to be one. It's like if in 1882, you asked, "Is it true that in 200 years, every family can have 100 dollars just by working hard for 1-2 days???" Well, yes, but a hundred dollars is not what it was in 1882. 89.204.139.66 (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But real growth can happen, and has (and is) happening, indefinitely. People, especially westerners (but even people in general) are continuously having higher and higher Standards of living (Here's a U.S. specific reference [10]). People, as a whole (though there are many, many, exceptions) live better lives than their parents, who live better lives than there grandparents (at least in terms of measurable things like life expectancy and purchasing power). As more minerals are mined and new technology invented, there really is more wealth to go around. Whether such growth is sustainable remains to be seen. It has been suggested that U.S. children today may, for the first time, have a shorter average lifespan than their parents ([11]). Malthus is famous for predicting that a growing population would soon outstrip our ability to produce food and, while such a scenario hasn't happened yet, there are people who continue to predict such a food shortage catastrophe. Buddy431 (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking a question about this below. 92.15.29.254 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is a zippo lighter supposed to turn on when you open it?

I just got a use zippo lighter and had it refilled. Is it supposed to turn on when you open it? (it makes a click). How do you use it? 89.204.153.235 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the model of lighter that you have. The generic silver one does not turn on when you open it. -- kainaw ™ 13:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in our article on it: Zippo (which unfortunately however does not seem to go into the many flashy ways of lighting a Zippo practiced by the the initiated, and the bored.;) Generally, you must turn the wheel to cause a spark to light the wick. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the questioner is confused by a common "trick" of opening the lid while also spinning the little wheel at the same time in the hopes that someone will be impressed. -- kainaw ™ 15:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly easy to learn how to light a zippo as you open it (the classic is to 'flick it forward' but you actually push the cover open then quickly pull your thumb back on the flint wheel). Check out youtube if you have a lot of dexterity for some cool ways of doing it like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkDdQmiNlrA&feature=related Spoonfulsofsheep (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology

What is that makes people think their ideas are the answer to existence's problems? Possibly this is a question for the science desk, for I am interested in the neurological reasons, as well as the sociological, cultural, and historical implications. It would almost seem that if everyone agreed on one course of action that it would all go smooth, but it seems too that one ideology's solved problems open another set of disadvantages, e.g. socialism or theocracy. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you what the behavioral phenomena is known as: positive illusions. You can take this to be right as I am never wrong about these things;-) --Aspro (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical corrections that do not advance the discussion need not apply — Lomn

Please. It's not a phenomena; it's a phenomenon.

Write "This phenomenon is..." or "These phenomena are...". One is singular; the other is plural.

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illusory superiority? --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP also seems to be asking where on the nature/nurture axis it comes. I think it is the result of a neurological weakness (like say, being very bad at maths) which in some circumstances be reinforced by experience (say having overly uncritical parents who do not consider that anything little Johnny does can be wrong, so, if anything goes wrong it must be someone else's fault). Then a Authoritarian attitude or personality appears to develop.

A psychologist called Professor Bob Altemeyer has carried out some interest experiments on his students about the later personality trait. He explains this (in a very long winded fashion but well worth the effort) in his free download called The Authoritarians . Dominic Johnson maybe exploring the same thing in his new book, only I have not read it yet. Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions. [12]--Aspro (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my opinion is that it's a manifestation of territoriality. Most male animals compete to dominate a physical space; human males compete to dominate an intellectual space. Looie496 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot live as a human without ideology. literally. the thing that separates humans from animals is the ability to create abstract representations of the world and act on them, rather than acting directly on the world itself (we can have a abstract concepts such as 'knife' or 'fire', imbued with certain potential characteristics and abilities, and then create and perfect physical instances of those concepts in different conditions, as we need them). The problem then becomes choosing between this abstract concept or that abstract concept that cover much of the same ground. for example, should marriage be polygamous (which maximizes the reproductive force of highly successful males at the expense of diversity), monogamous (which maximizes child care and social stability), or polyandrous (which maximizes the reproductive force of successful females)? There is no logical reason to choose between these three, and there is a decided friction where different where the ideas interact, and so the strategies are wrapped into ideological worldviews and enforced by the community to prevent conflicts. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can be existential and ideologically free, at least as you propose it. This conversation is an opinion question. It's only interesting because somebody decided to "collapse" it into whatever. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existentialism (in all its forms) is a moral ideology. Existentialists spent a good deal of ink explaining to people how the should perceive the world, mostly through rejection of philosophies that create abstract value systems in preference to a 'natural' value system that arises out of immediate experience. No existentialist I know of advocates the abnegation of belief, merely the rejection of uninvestigated belief.

and yeah, it was a funky question to begin with. such is life. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normal types of WHAT?

The article titled normal type is incomprehensible. I read the whole article. I'm guessing that it may be about types of people, but I can't tell from the article. I put a comment on this on the talk page in May and no one's answered! Can someone here shed some light? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in the Sociology category, and seems to be about one kind of Personality type. It is poorly written. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sure looks like gibberish, or even a hoax article, doesn't it? But a glance at the first sentence of Antipositivism will show you the realm we have descended into here. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for deletion of the article as nonsense today, if it were posted to AfD. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it was a copyvio or a hoax, but I fear someone actually created it in good faith, with the intention of improving Wikipedia's coverage of this subject area. Which depresses me. Ka renjc 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody might ask for help on the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that created it (also see Normal types) looks up to Germany although their English seems fine. No indication they're a hoaxer. I suspect as someone hinted above it's the sort of thing which may make sense to someone familiar with the field, but otherwise sounds like gibberish. The same is probably true of a number of science and computer stuff articles of course except perhaps then one of us is more likely to be able to make sense of them. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Normal type--an analytical construct; a heuristic, interrogative tool that is used to describe the formation of social groups." Classical and modern social theory (2000). Google Books excerpt: [13]. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global banding

Hi, I am from Germany and there is one phrase I do not understand. It would be very nice if you explained the meaning of "Please confirm your current global banding" to me. This is from an employment ad and I could not find out the meaning of global banding. Thanks --79.239.164.152 (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a misspelling of Global branding? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native speaker of English and a professional editor, and I have no idea what "global banding" is supposed to mean. Marco polo (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

globalgradingsystem. I have a funny stroy to tell yuo abuot this but i'm tied up at the moment.--Aspro (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...currently pecking at the keyboard with a pencil clenched in his teeth, hence the tpyos.--Wetman (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is fuller explanation. [14]--Aspro (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, ah, yeah, that's much more understandable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I'll read it through, hope that helps ;) If someone's able to explain it in one sentence that will help, too. --93.104.171.143 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Germanian People's ( tribes )

Is it possable that some of the tribes could have been travelers who wondered into this area and did not originate from the same sorse as the other tribes.

my point here is I want to know If it's possable that some of these tribes could have been of the 10 lost tribes known as the house of Israel.If so they would have probably came tru the cascacus mountains around 600 bc after the fall of the assirian empire.my understanding is the Assirians was keeping these people around the caspian sea as farming slaves than no body knows what happened to them.I think some of the tribes went into europe and find the debates over the germainian tribes intriging,is it possable that not all of these tribes came from the same sorse? have they done any genetics to see if this is possable or would the poeoples of the house of Judia that was taken away bye the Romans and dispursed thru europe in I think 400 ad these are the ones known as the jews caused the genetics to be flawed because the 2 are brothers so they would have the same genes.I am not trying to mix religion with science or history debate.But I do beleive that the reference of the 10 lost tribes is of the house of Israel that was captured bye the assirians in 800 bc and has nothing to do with the tribes dispursed bye the romans in 400 ad.not to insite rage here but for instance of the 10 lost tribes one of them was called the tribe of " Dan ".It seems to me that when you look up the germanian tribes and there origans you allways get alot of not sures and dead ends I do beleive that most of the tribes probably came from scadanavia but what if some of them just wondered in and could be of the lost tribes

I do not beleive the 10 lost tribes just asimulated into there new surroundings,I think they stuck togeather and when the assirian empire fell they made a run for it,I beleive they split up some went into asia,some went toward africa,and some went thru the mountains and into europe.this would have happened about 200 years after they where taken as slaves.I also beleive some even went back to there origins but we are talking about alot of people actually 5 times more that what wound up being dispursed bye the romans that we call jews ( house of Judia ) 2 tribes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.91.224 (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Germanic peoples covers their origin. As to whether or not they could have been the "ten lost tribes", probably not likely. Germanic peoples can be reliably traced back to the earliest part of the Nordic Bronze Age, roughly 1700 BC. The "ten lost tribes" refers specifically to the Jewish people living in the Northern Kingdom during the days of the divided kingdom (Israel and Judah). The united Kingdom itself was only founded in about 1030 BC, meaning that when King Saul was founding the Jewish state, the Germanic peoples had been a roughly unified and identifiable cultural group for 700 years or so. When the "ten tribes" were "lost", which would have been fall of the Northern Kingdom in 732 BC, during that time the Germanic peoples were already well established in the red areas of the map below:

.

As to what happened to the "Ten Lost Tribes", there are very speculative hypothesis that the Ten Lost Tribes became almost every ethnic group in the entire world. No joke, the Wikipedia article contains speculations that the ten lost tribes later became connected to such disperate people as the Japanese, Native Americans, the Kurds, the Irish, and well, at this point, we've covered everything. What actually happened to them is probably less romantic; a proportion probably moved into the Kingdom of Judah (southern kingdom) as refugees when their own kingdom fell; they would have assimilated into the local population. Many would have been killed in the warfare or the forced exile to Assyria, the rest probably assimilated into Assyrian culture. --Jayron32 03:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have an article Assyria and Germany in Anglo-Israelism. However, the overwhelmingly probable answer is that the great majority of the so-called "lost tribes" (who can only be counted as ten by splitting Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh and including Levi, even though many Levites stayed with the southern kingdom) were culturally assimilated into general middle eastern populations (mostly Aramaic speaking) and lost their separate ethnic/religious identity.... AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading somewhere that they found an entirely male-line descendant of Charlemagne, who, being a Frank, was German, which proved that he had picked up some Near Eastern DNA, that they tracked back to a time centuries before when the Franks, apparently, were staying around, I believe, the Black Sea. Make of that what you will. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind, 148, that while he may have been a direct male-line descendent of Charlemagne, he was certainly also the descendent of all the female lines - 1 per generation assuming no dynastic intertwinings - that had subsequently married the male line over those centuries, so one could only attribute the "Near Eastern DNA" to Charlemagne if it was on his Y chromosome. Similar considerations apply, of course, to all of Charlemagne's ancestors. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to QI, every European presently living is statistically a direct descendant of Charlemagne. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnogenesis has always been traditionally expressed in terms of genealogy, but modern writers recognize in peoples like the Goths, cultural self-identification instead. Who are recognizable male-line descendants of Charlemagne? Wikipedia has an article Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups.--Wetman (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptree titles

A lot of James Tiptree short story titles are (often fairly obscure) quotes from somewhere -- e.g. "She Waits for All Men Born" from 'The Garden of Proserpine' by Swinburne, or "The Earth Doth Like A Snake Renew" from 'Hellas' by Shelley. Does anyone know where (if from anywhere) 'And I Have Come Upon This Place By Lost Ways' and 'Your Faces O My Sisters! Your Faces Filled Of Light!" originated? They certainly *look* like quotes from something... Vultur (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a Google Books search, it looks as though the first one is from a poem by Archibald MacLeish. I didn't find the second one, though. --Anonymous, 04:49 UTC, September 28, 2010.

Yes, it's MacLeish. The poem in question is: "L'An Trentiesme De Mon Eage". Ka renjc 17:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second one looks Whitmanish. DuncanHill (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Jane Harrison Tomkins, who wrote as Jennie Harrison. There is a Google Books snippet here which has a similar "oh my sisters" refrain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on "filled of light", which is sufficiently unusual to yield limited results. There's an Emily Brontë poem that uses the phrase, but it doesn't seem relevant otherwise. I have couple of suggestions. There's an outside chance it could be inspired by an Alfred de Musset play called À Quoi Rêvent les Jeunes Filles. In translation, the phrase (snippet here) comes in a scene where a lover contemplates beautiful twin sisters, "... two forms so filled of light, two hearts as one / And either one might be her sister's mould ...". The other is a poem by May Sarton, "My Sisters, O My Sisters". Reading the critical analysis of it here, it seems to contain similar themes to the Tiptree story. But it's only a suggestion. Ka renjc 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 165.91.175.11 (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait identification

Who is this

please? I have searched tineye without success. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Mould would know. Ericoides 14:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you state on Commmons that it is your own work, perhaps you could enlighten us as to where you got it from? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't paint it! Kittybrewster ☎ 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was not what I meant though. If you could give some more information about where you found it, on the web or in real life, it might be helpful in the quest for a name. For example just a hint about a possible country of origin might do wonders (It bears some resemblence to the style of Joshua Reynolds). --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might Alexander Cotswillow Grencham, inventor of the telescoping fish spear. or that might just be pure misinformation.

--Ludwigs2 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was his middle name pronounced "Codswallop"? AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very possibly; he was a significant philosophical figure in the Nova Scotian Lowbrow Enlightenment, you know... --Ludwigs2 22:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Countries

Why are countries referred to with female pronouns instead of gender-neutral ones? --204.184.214.2 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our gender-specific pronoun article says the origin of this practice is uncertain. --Sean 15:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also cultural. during WW2, Soviets referred to their country as the motherland, while Germans referred to the Germany as the fatherland. Googlemeister (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also this recent discussion of the topic at the Language desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 September 13#Grammatical gender in English as to states. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The two Russian equivalents to fatherland, both common in WW2 propaganda, are feminine (отчизна) and neutral (отечество), but both stem from father. The only "mother-based" expression used in propaganda (родина-мать) is not a word but a poetic mixup of two words. On a lighter note, there's Odessa Mama. East of Borschov 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the French word for "the fatherland", la patrie, is feminine. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you give a company money?

Can a company like McDonald's or Microsoft or Coca Cola receive a donation from you (non tax-deductable, of course) to account for as 100% profit (donation)? How can I donate money in this way to Coca Cola or McDonald's, for example (to be used however they want, same as profit if I had bought one of their products but without the cost of producing their product and selling it to me). Can they create a "nothing" product that you can buy? (For example, is there a "nothing" product you can buy online, where you will literally get no delivery, though perhaps you could get an email saying you have successfully bought nothing for $779.50, or however much?) Thank you. 89.204.155.194 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing keeps you from doing so, but it is an accounting issue. First, it is not a donation in the general sense since donations often imply that they are given to a charity and the companies you mention are not charities. However, they do ask for free money in the form of stocks. The general concept is that you give money to the company. Then, you get a stock certificate indicating that you gave them money. You can sell that certificate if you like, but often you will hold on to it. As the company turns profit, they pass on a small amount of that profit to the people who own stock certificates - really as a "thank you" for giving them money in the first place. Now, you can resign a stock certificate - just giving it back to the company. So, it appears that the easiest method of giving money to a large company (from an accounting sense) would be to purchase stock and then hand the stock back over to the company. -- kainaw ™ 15:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If both you and Coke were interested in this kind of transaction, I think you could just write them a check, and then they could give you a receipt that said "Donation - $779.50", or whatever.

I don't have any reference for this, but I note that smaller businesses will sometimes do this. Especially online. Many online cartoonists (or other creative types) will accept pay-pal donations. You send the money, then get a receipt. There's no charity involved, you're just contributing money to a small business. You occasionally see this sort of thing in the real world as well. (You go blue-berry picking at so-and-so farms, in addition to paying for your blueberries you might also be asked to make a donation to so-and-so farms to help keep the quaint, locally owned farm going.)

All that said, I suspect that Coke isn't interested in taking your money for nothing. $779.50 wouldn't make any difference at all to Coke's overall money situation, but accepting donations would probably cause a poor P.R. situation. Obviously, you can't donate money to anyone unless they're willing to take your money. (But you could use the resign-on-a-stock trick, Kainaw outlines above.)

(However, if you've got $779.50 burning a hole in your pocket, consider donating it to the Wikimedia foundation, of course.) APL (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you must insist on donating money to a for-profit company, just let me know and I will get such a company set up. Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain that, even absent PR issues, Coke wouldn't cash the check. They would assume that either (a) you had (or thought you had) some clever way to extract millions of dollars out of them by getting them to accept a donation, or (b) you owed (or thought you owed) $779.50 to them for some reason, but they can't find it on their books, so they can't close it out. Even if they knew they were in the right, $779.50 just isn't worth the risk of dealing with legal issues. I feel like the auditors might be upset about money apparently appearing from nowhere, also.

Not part of your question, but related, are the concepts of consideration and peppercorn. These come up even in the case of nonprofits. For example, I once donated intellectual property to a nonprofit and received $10 as a peppercorn. The ever-present danger with receiving something is that the person may try to get it back! Paul (Stansifer) 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a journalist or writer who sent cheques/checks for a small value - ten cents perhaps - to various well-known companies, and most of them cashed them. But if it would be better to give the money to charity, especially overseas charity. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most large for-profit companies have affiliated non-profit organizations they contribute to. Instead of giving money to McDonald's, you could give it to their charity, Ronald McDonald House Charities. McDonald's makes this easy by putting donation boxes in their restaurants. Instead of giving to Microsoft, you could give money to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Coca-Cola has the Coca-Cola Scholars Foundation among other charitable efforts. —D. Monack ^talk 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as a "nothing product" you can buy, there was the iPhone app called I Am Rich, which cost $999.99 and did nothing except display a message to the effect that "I am rich." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims of Southeast Asia

So far I know that Thailand has a specific region that has Muslim population significantly (Pattan) and Philippines also has a specific region that significant Muslim population (Moro). What about Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.148 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Islam in all four countries: Islam in Burma, Islam in Vietnam, Islam in Laos, and Islam in Cambodia. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Speaker

From House of Commons of the United Kingdom#Procedure: "Speeches are addressed to the presiding officer, using the words "Mr Speaker," "Madam Speaker," "Mr Deputy Speaker," or "Madam Deputy Speaker." Only the presiding officer may be directly addressed in debate; other Members must be referred to in the third person." A discussion has ensued on German Wikipedia why this is so. (In Germany, most people would consider it polite to address all the people present.) Might someone here be willing and able to shed some light on this question of protocol? Greets 85.180.192.221 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a technique to stop people from using the word "you" – thus keeping everything more polite, supposedly. If one is technically talking to the Speaker, then it's, "Perhaps the Prime Minister could explain why he did such and such," rather than anything direct, personal and more likely to become disrespectful. (Interestingly, in the House of Lords, remarks are addressed to 'My Lords' – the House as a whole – although with the same effect that personal references are banned.) ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

expanding on the last, this is a system for maintaining order in the discussion. if members are allowed to speak directly to each other, then (at more irritable moments) the house will suffer from excesses of noise, as members direct comments to each other whether or not they have the floor. This would make it difficult to follow discussions on the floor and impossible to keep accurate minutes of the ongoing conversation. by requiring that all comments be addressed to the chair only one person can speak at a time, and all others have the opportunity to listen to what s/he says carefully. It's basically the same rationale that's used in formal debate (separate point/counterpoint periods, to ensure that both participants have equal opportunity to present their case) expanded to larger groups. --Ludwigs2 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more than that — it's a kind of exceptional formality and politeness which is used in a few, but not all, legislative bodies. It's not just because it is practical (which is arguably is or isn't). It's a specific type of formality known as "Congressional etiquette" in the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He or she sits on the Chair and is thus the Chairman. Everything is addressed through the Chair for the reasons already given above. Here are the duties of the The Lord Speaker who resides in the other place for comparision. --Aspro (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have also missed the obvious out of over familiarity. The debating style of the House of Lords is courteous, even tempered and delivered (mostly) at a genteel pace. Whilst in the House of Commons, debates are much more of a cut-and-thrust adversarial style, with much uninhibited and noisy reaction to the wordage uttered from who ever holds the floor. The Speakers different powers and duties reflect this tradition. --Aspro (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing applies in the US Congress. One addresses "The Junior Senator from California" instead of using her real name. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Everard: That is not quite the same thing, though, is it? Many thanks indeed to all of you. Your explanations make perfect sense, of course, and yet I wonder if this is all there is to it. Treasury provided the interesting piece of information that with The Lords addressing the whole assembly is the polite thing to do. So, apparently, directing whatever you say to the chair instead of the audience is not in itself more polite than the "European" way, but only by convention. After all, one might argue that talking to somebody who is actually in the room via a third person in the third person is a bit artificial (not that I mind; I confess I am a great fan of ceremony and ritual, particularly of the Anglo-Saxon variety), and that an insult in the third person is no less harmful than in the first person. So please pardon me when I keep nagging: What information is there on the history of addressing the Speaker only? On a somewhat tangential note: What happens (or rather happened, in the case of Michael Martin) when the Speaker himself is the target of criticism? Is he then directly attacked in the second person (I suppose so)? 85.180.192.221 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the IP is misinformed. Deflection of the aggressive you is a feature of Italian, in which lei is a reference to the addressed person's (unstated) excellence, which is directly addressed. Aggressive informality, as when telemarketers address one by one's first name, may violate minimal requirements of decorum.--Wetman (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm all for getting rid of excessive formality, but this trend has gone too far. Thank you for "aggressive informality" - I will use it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion may be taking a wrong turn. I am, of course, not referring to the use of the grammatical honorific (which in German is, perhaps rather absurdly, the 3rd plural), but strictly to the practice of not addressing your real audience at all, but a sort of placeholder. 85.180.192.221 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The formality is common in many committees in the UK, and serves to keep the discussion together, preventing the meeting from degenerating into private discussions (as Ludwigs2 explained above). Is it not used in US meetings? Dbfirs 22:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary for members of the House of Representatives to address "Mr. Speaker" or (since 2007) "Madam Speaker." In the Senate, members address "Mr. President," who is not Barack Obama (the president of the United States) but Joe Biden, who as vice president of the U.S. is also president of the Senate. Biden is almost never in the Senate, so they're really addressing President Pro Tem Daniel Inouye, or, more likely, the acting president pro tem, who can be any Democratic senator. I don't think I've heard this convention used in places like city councils or boards of education or what have you, which tend to be much less formal. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly true. What they are addressing is the office which he holds, in this case that of the acting President of the Senate. They would never address Inouye directly on matters which concern him and his actions as a Senator. It's a bit of a convoluted disconnect, but they are addressing the Chair, not addressing the person who holds the chair. --Jayron32 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at our article Speaker (politics)? This offers insight on the role of the speaker in Anglo-Saxon legislatures. In one of my past careers, I worked for a state legislature in the United States, in which legislators followed the custom of addressing the speaker in the state House of Representatives and the Senate president in the Senate. I think that the roots of this practice are to be found in the ancient dual functions of Anglo-Saxon legislatures as both legislatures and courts. (The legislature where I worked is still called the Massachusetts General Court.) When legislatures serve(d) as courts, the speaker had some of the functions of a judge, moderating discussion. When legislatures debate and legislate, the speaker retains this function, and legislators address the speaker just as a trial attorney would address the judge. I strongly suspect that this is the root of the custom. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates on Melos?

Dear Wikipedians! I write to you to inquire on philosophy and history!

I have learned of Melos, that which figures in the Melian Dialogue (416 BC). I wonder, therefore, did Socrates (469-399 BC) (or possibly Plato, as an opinion of Socrates is hard to discern from that of Plato) mention anything about the massacre of Melos? It seems to me to figure as something of a contemporary proof of the absolute wretched quality of the mob's tyranny - as perceived by Socrates or Plato, anyway.

Dear Wikipedians, I should be delighted and thankful to reecive your help on this matter. To me it reads like the most natural thing that, in search of evidence of Socrates/Plato's views, their comments on Melos should provide enormous help. Thank you in advance. 88.90.16.226 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP. Socrates was not much given to commentary on particular political events, being more interested in the idealized abstractions of philosophy and reason. Aristotle would be a more likely choice, but I do not recall him having made any particular comments about the act. Massacres of that sort were not particularly uncommon in the ancient world (armies were often paid in war-spoils, which included things like trade is women and slaves); the only notable difference in this case is that the Melosians had no support from other cities and were particularly stubborn, which may have annoyed the Athenians a bit more than usual. --Ludwigs2 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These weren't massacres...there were democratic slaughterings... Also at the time that the Battle of Melos, Plato would have been around 12-13.Smallman12q (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP IP here. I am aware Plato would be of that age, but I don't think it signifies to say he would be left untouched by it. My chief concern was if Socrates had had any opinion on it that he aired publically. Were he to have let this opinion show through to his students, then I imagine Plato would be able to produce a good argument against the Athenian democracy, should he share any elaborate view on the event. So far I've only been able to extract the historical account of Thucydides, but I trust people closer to Athens and Socrates/Plato may also have written something. Not yet sure if Xenophon, another contemporary, might have detailed reactions. 88.90.16.226 (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

America entering the downside?

According to this, http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us the average height of Americans is not only now less than western Europeans, when it used to be greater, but Americans have actually become slightly shorter than in the recent past. What is the cause of that? Thanks 92.15.29.254 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluoridation? ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the author's paragraph about height, "Recent Stagnation"? By the way, he has to support several of his claims he's making there — I question whether influences of immigration are magically made irrelevant by simply requiring the data to be from native-born Americans. Also you'd need to show that the most recent decline is statistically significant. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "recent" on his chart means a difference of one data point between 1960 and 1970. I'm not sure I'd put a lot of faith on that little data, and it is not that recent. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it has something to do with the weight of the world on our shoulders? Just a thought. . . DOR (HK) (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the 1960's. Apparently weed stunts your growth. --Jayron32 06:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

Moscow's former mayor

How does the President of Russia have the authority to dismiss the mayor of the city? Is this similar to the U.S. House of Representative's control over Washington, D.C.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional princples in Russia are a little more "fluid" than they are in the U.S. Russian politicians look at such constitutional princples as a rough guidelines, but ultimately not a big impedance to doing whatever they want whenever they want. For example, when Vladimir Putin had to leave the office of President because of constitutionally mandated term limits, he simply had his successor appoint him Prime Minister, and simultaneously had all of the interesting powers of the President shuffled to the office of Prime Minister. Aside from half-assed attempts to legitimize such moves, Russian leaders operate on the Rule of Law: He who rules makes all the laws. So, whether or not Medvedyev had the formal power to remove the Mayor, he did it, and everyone there kinda accepts that how Russian politics works, so it's sort of a fait accompli. The tradition of Nomenklatura dates to the Soviet Union days, but it appears alive and well under post-Communismn Russia. --Jayron32 03:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mayor of Moscow is technically a governor. The Russian President not only nominates but also has the last word in appointing governors. In 2005, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ruled that this did not violate "the principles of division of power and federalism [...] in the current historical circumstances". (Richard Sakwa, Russian Politics and Society, Routledge, 2008, p 277). This is very briefly brushed in our article on governor. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there ya go then. --Jayron32 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are a bit more complicated than what I wrote, but it boils down to that. For more context, I quote from the same page in Sakwa's book: "This decision has been seen to indicate the spinelessness of the Constitutional Court vis-à-vis the authorities, and thus its inability to act as a bulwark against authoritarianism." ---Sluzzelin talk 04:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so I wasn't completely wrong in my assessment of Russian politics. --Jayron32 04:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(My point :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no States' rights in the present Russian government system? Is there any sense of home rule or the right of people in a local area to choose their own leadership? Obama has no power to sack the Mayor of Washington, D.C. in the US, by comparison. The Queen or the Prime Minister of the UK cannot (to my knowledge) sack the Mayor of London. Does the Emperor of Japan have the authority to sack the Mayor of Tokyo? Why should some pipsqueak head of state in Russia be able to remove a Mayor of a Russian city from office? Edison (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "states". The Subdivisions of Russia are a very complex melange of relationships, while Russia is technically a federation like the U.S., it would be better to say it is a federation very unlike the U.S. This melange is reflective of Russia's history, especially of its expansion eastward from its Eastern European core. Some subunits of Russia do have a level of autonomy akin to U.S. states, however these are mostly places that aren't "Russian", strictly speaking. These are generally the Republics of Russia, which are mostly places that are populated by non-Russian ethnic groups. Of the Federal subjects of Russia (Federal Subject is the administrative division roughly equivalent to a U.S. State), the parts of Russia which are essentially Russian (that is, historically and ethnically Russian) are the Oblasts of Russia. Oblasts may technically have a certain degree of autonomy, but practically they are no more autonomous than, say, English Counties. This is more realpolitik than anything. Those places that are most ethnically Russian get the least autonomy because they generally don't revolt against the government, being Russian themselves. Those places more likely to stir up trouble because of ethnic differences are given more power over their own business. Moscow is technically a Federal City, but functionally this is probably equivalent to an Oblast in all but name. --Jayron32 05:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visas For Medical Treatment In the United States

Re: Visas For Medical Treatment In the United States

I would like to know how many Visas were issued in 2009 to Foreign Nationals for the purpose of receiving medical treatment in the United States.

Could you direct me to sources that would provide this specific information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseTemple (talk • contribs) 04:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be hard to find. United States visas are divided into a dizzying array of classes, while the government keeps stats on how many visas of each class are issued, none of the classes is expressly for "Medical treatment", so it is likely that such people are admitted under another class, such as B1 or B2 visa, which covers non-immigrant visas for business or tourism, I guess that if you are getting medical treatment, that may technically be "business". There are also W-class visas which appear to be technically "visa waivers", which may be a sort of "catch-all" for people who don't fit into other categories well. --Jayron32 05:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Kiernan

Would anybody happen to know the exact birthdate of Michael Collins' fiancee Kitty Kiernan? Her Wikipedia article just gives the year. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography/Travel question

Am looking for a "tourist destination" known for its large closet (could be one of its variants like cupboard or cabinet) It was built in the 19th century by a dedicated woman.

Its annual festival in August attracts fervent crowd

i did search on wikipedia / other sources

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]