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 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]

My personal physician (general practitioner) in New England, who had a great rapport with his patients, made two serious errors and lost his license/got struck off the register twice. After he lost his right to practise the first time, and after he willingly and successfully completed some required rehabilitation and retraining programmes, the licensing board in my state eventually permitted him to resume under another physician's close supervision within an institution (rather than having a private practice of his own). However, he later reinserted a tube into a patient with fatal consequences, which lost him his license a second time. The board's chief administrator said the doctor wasn't repeating the same error; the only common thread was they both incidents showed a very serious lack of judgement. The doctor has been permitted to resume practice again, but under all kinds of restrictions and conditions. But I think it all depends on the nature of the offence, the state's laws, the authority's written regulations and its normal practices, as well as the character and personalities of the doctor, the investigators and the authority's members. Aiding an abortion was for many years in many places fully sufficient grounds to disqualify a doctor or nurse. In many places, aiding euthanasia or mercy killing still is. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:50, 2 October 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]

I think "confirmation bias" seems like a plausible explanation for (or at least a contributory reason) why people cling so hard to what they believe to be right. (That is: they favour what they already have learned or somehow "know" from before, because the not changing anything (their opinion or belief) feels strongly comforting and reassuring). This is what is reflected in the proverb:
"The devil you know is better than the devil you don't."
And "confirmation bias" will still (or even stronger) hold up as an explanation in cases where the above mentioned: "positive illusions" and: "illusory superiority" do not apply.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 22:40, 29 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]

I made a suggestion for a change of the article title at Talk:Normal type. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:24, 4 October 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]

I'm not sure what you mean by your references to "Anglo-Saxon legislatures". The title of speaker was first recorded in 1377; the Anglo-Saxon period is generally held to have ended with the Norman Conquest in 1066, so to talk about the role of the speaker in Anglo-Saxon legislature is anachronistic. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was sympathically adopting the OP's use of the term Anglo-Saxon (see above) to refer to (modern) English-speaking cultures derived from the English-speaking cultures of Great Britain. This usage is common in many European countries. Marco polo (talk) 15:05, 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]

India is considered the largest democratic country in the world. Yet the Governors of states of India have always been appointed by the President. The situation in Russia has been similar to India after Putin's reform of regional administration in 2004. Moscow is one of the federal subjects, just like Saint Petersburg or Yakutia or Belgorod Oblast or Tuva. The regional leaders are appointed and sacked by the President. (Like the First Minister of Scotland, they are nominated by the regional legislature and appointed by the President). They used to be elected until 2004. In all Russian cities apart from Moscow and Petersburg, mayors are elected (although they may be sacked by the regional governor, according to a recently adopted law). --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer to the question is that Russia's constitution gives its president the authority to dismiss governors, including the mayor of Moscow, who counts as governor of the Moscow region. The Russian president is able to do this, whereas the U.S. president is not able to dismiss mayors, because the United States and Russia have different constitutions. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 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]

I don't think anyone knows. Her gravestone doesn't say. No source I can find says anything, and a blanket of lack of knowledge is more likely that just one or two sources that I've missed. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:11, 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]

Difficult questions we can answer immediately, impossible ones take just a little longer, so please bare with us. Are you thinking of L'Armari de les Set Claus. The parish hosts a festival there each August.--Aspro (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

grammar
Nudist? Otherwise, you mean "please bear with us". 92.15.9.254 (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia share in the puzzle's prize money?--Wetman (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is it, then the answer is Andorra and I've found the cupboard gets mentioned in this destination guide where (surprise, surprise) its gets described as the “interesting cupboard with seven keys.” Top Attractions, Also mentioned in Wikipedia's Casa de la Vall article and else where but not (as the OP states) the English versions. Casa de la Vall A festival begins there on the first Saturday in August and lasts for three days.--Aspro (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Wetman points out, this question relates to a regular prize trivia competition - the current question is here. We often get people posting today's question here in the hope that refdesk volunteers will do the legwork for them, and I've never yet seen anyone admit upfront that there was cash available for the right answer. I've no idea whether anyone has actually claimed the prize thanks to the refdesk, or if so, whether gratitude has led to a donation to the WMF, but if $100 would come in useful to you, you see a question of this type and you know the answer, it's always worth checking the website before you respond here. Ka renjc 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the quiz itself is a sad, sad joke. We'd had questions from it here before, with people giving serious applicable answers (answering to hints like: this amazing structure is known worldwide and the like with places that really were known worldwide) only to later find out the answer was some ridiculous roadside attraction housed at the gas station in Middle-o-nowhere, Forsakington county, Central US. As has happened again with this very question, btw. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some so-called "attractions" really deserve to be called "repulsions". :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'Indian' to refer not only to natives of the Americas, but other indigenes

In The Fatal Shore, I see the word 'Indian' used more than once to refer to the Aborigines in accounts by the first colonists. I was amazed. Of course, Cooke et al didn't think they'd hit upon the East Indies. So did the term, after Columbus's mistake, become a sort of colloquialism to refer to 'natives'? Is anyone else aware of this?

Thanks - sorry for the clumsy prose - am tired. Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED lists the word indian being used for the natives of the Philippines as early as 1697, so yes it appears indian frequently meant just about any native. The word Indies was loosely used to mean any place far away and foreign so it wasn't much of a stretch to call the peoples there Indians when you didn't know they were Maori. meltBanana 14:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many references state that "Indie" is short for "Independent" and was used to refer to any land that was independent of the colonial governments of Europe. If that were true, referring to all "indie" people as "indians" would make sense. However, it is absolutely false. "Indie" is derived from Indus, a landmark in a specific area of the world. The land around Indus was known as East Indie and West Indie. I'm sure there are also references to North Indie and South Indie as well - though South Indie would be nothing but water. -- kainaw ™ 14:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement may be true of "India" or "the Indies", but "Indie" doesn't exist in English other than as a modern abbreviation for "independent". --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but water, Kainaw? Well, depending where in India you're south of, it could mean Sri Lanka (when Sir Arthur C Clarke died, there were various reports that he'd died in India, on the ignorant journalistic assumption that Sri Lanka is part of India and not a separate sovereign nation).

In school, I distinctly remember being taught a poem that made reference to "Austral Indians", which was a poetic way of referring to Australian aborigines. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all - I really like it - doesn't seem to be reflected in fiction set in those times. Shouldn't we amend the 'Indian' article to reflect this? Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing a 1950s standard of living

If everyone in a western country decided to only work part-time and only spend as much as would give them a 1950s standard of living, what would happen to the economy? 92.15.9.254 (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what that means -- in the U.S. at least, the 1950's were pretty prosperous, and the main "lifestyle" difference between then and now is the ever-increasing proliferation and sophistication of technological gadgets. Also, in the 1950's, there were a lot of semi-skilled labor jobs that paid reasonably well, so that a man without much education could still often support a family. And a man in a professional or middle-management position usually could support his family at a middle-class level of comfort on just his one income... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how answerable this is regardless, but you'll need to define what you mean. Does "1950s standard of living" mean that I spend only what would have been spent in 50s dollars (discounting 60 years of inflation)? Does it mean that I only spend money on things that I could have spent money on in the 50s? Do I just try to project a budget forward, but can divide it how I like? What standard defines the "50s standard of living"? If everyone is doing this, does this mean that those below the poverty line magically get enough money to meet this new standard? And backing off a bit, is the point "what would be the impact of a 50s SoL?" or "what would be the impact of no full-time work?", because those are two very different questions that probably shouldn't be conflated. — Lomn 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question already said "spend as much as would give them a 1950s standard of living". You have asked several extra questions which the OP is not responsible for. 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're responsible for removing ambiguities listed if you want a hard answer. Fluff is easy, as is demonstrated below. It's also not useful. — Lomn 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is easy to understand and the meaning clear. This is not a kindergarten. I feel as if I've asked "What is two plus two" and then you come back saying "Can you define what two means? Do you want us to multiply them or divide them? It's your fault I don't understand" and so on. 92.24.190.229 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providing short-form answers: a net drop in consumer spending (the probable result of the "50s SoL" thing) hurts a consumer-services-based economy. Check out the last few years in the US. However, if all work becomes part-time, companies can cut costs and offer jobs to more people. You'll have to redefine "unemployment", since that usually means full-time work, but some new balance point will be found. The supply/demand curve will adjust to new practical realities. Economies are complex systems, and would that we have a Glooper that could perfectly model the whole thing. — Lomn 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a U.S. perspective, the question doesn't make much sense. In the 1950s, my grandfather, who had less education than me but a job with a roughly similar skill level, was able to afford a much larger house than I can afford, even with my partner working and contributing to pay our mortgage. He was able to afford a car for himself and another for his wife, and he was able to support his wife and three children, none of whom worked; whereas my partner and I share a car and both have to work just to meet our own basic needs. While we have computers and a router, which my grandparents did not have, in other ways our "standard of living" is no higher than theirs. So, I would have to increase, not decrease, the hours that I work in order to afford my grandparents' standard of living in the 1950s. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting to be told that the standard of living has declined in the US since the 50's - that's shocking. 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you probably have a longer expected lifespan than your grandfather, and access to better medical care. You can probably afford to get a greater variety of goods from all over the world. Standard of living is a very complex idea, and there is considerable disagreement on how to measure it. Buddy431 (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised people have problems understanding the question. See this http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/ 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that your graph shows is that workers are more productive now than in the 1950s. I'm sure that I generate more value for my company from a week of work than my grandfather did. However, I see a smaller proportion of that value than he did, because profit levels today are at record highs, as are levels of executive compensation, so most of the value that I create accrues to the compensation of executives and shareholders, whereas my grandfather would have seen a much higher share of the value that he produced reflected in his salary. This explains why an American with a given skill level would have to work more hours today than in the 1950s to achieve the same standard of living. The main exception would be the minority of Americans who are senior managers or who live from investment income. They enjoy a much higher standard of living today for the same number hours of work as in the 1950s. Marco polo (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in America is shockingly different from what I had assumed, if what Marco Polo says is general experience. I was not expecting US standards of living to have fallen since the 50's. But here in the UK you could go without buying all the things that have become commonplace since the 1950s such as central heating, tvs, fridges, computers, gadgets, large quantities of clothes, fancy foods, various types of entertainment, foriegn holidays, and many other things, and thus spend only a fraction of your income to get a 1950s standard of living. The cost of houses may have risen in real terms, but as people still buy houses I still think you'd still have a lot of surplus income. The cost of food is now a small fraction of what it was in the 50s. 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? Many people in the UK spend half their income on housing and fuel, and only a small amount on tvs, computers etc. I think that many families would not be able to survive on a single income even without these things. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. In the 1950s there was almost no central heating and not many people had cars, nobody jetted abroad for their holidays, so you would have used little fuel. In the 50s food at a guess may have cost a third of the household budget, now the cost of food is very much less especially for 1950s style meals. This more than offsets a rise in the cost of housing. In the 1950s I think most people rented, and rents are cheaper than buying, particularly in council houses. There is very much more 'disposable income' now than there was in the 50s. 92.24.190.229 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To give you an example of how standards of living have changed since the 1950s: In 1950, U.S. households spent 20.6% of their income on food, according to the USDA. In 2008, it was 5.8%. Spending on clothing has dropped from 10% to about 2% -- thanks, Vietnamese sweatshop workers. That's 23% of income that can go to other things, such as electronics, vacations, or whatever. In the 50s, so I've been told, American families almost never ate out and rarely took fancy trips. New Yorkers had their honeymoon in Niagara Falls, not in St. Lucia. Houses often lacked air conditioning. Families usually had one car -- or even no car, imagine that. TVs were super-expensive -- as much as $4,000 in today's money. Forget about having four or five TVs like families may have now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ramifications of the circular flow of income you would expect GDP per capita to drop to 1950s levels. If you ignored the export market you would expect that unemployment would remain more or less constant if everyone decreased their willingness to work by the same amount. People would make less stuff, but receive less income with which to buy it. You would expect a shift in employment away from complex and luxury goods towards foods and essentials.124.171.93.13 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India visa

When trying to apply for a visa to India online, I keep getting redirected to what it refers to as "Third Party Companies" with a big warning that I have to agree to let the third party company submit my visa to the Indian government. I do not trust the Internet, so I begin with the assumption that these companies are just scams. Do you have to submit the visa application through a third party company or can you submit it directly to the government? -- kainaw ™ 18:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian government outsourced most of it's Visa operations (except for Diplomatic and Official Visas) to third parties in 2001. The majority of countries are covered by VFS Global. For citizens of the USA, Travisa Outsourcing are the company that handles all requests. Nanonic (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cars industry maps

I notice for the articles PSA Peugeot Citroen, Fiat S.p.A., and Renault S.A. have maps which shows the locations of their factories around the world. So what about Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Jaguar, Opel, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Bentley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.61 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Please feel free to join us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cuban history

where can I go to read fidel castros' inaugrual address? 75.209.201.175 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found some speeches here but nothing that's obviously what you're seeking. There are a couple from January 1959, but none from February when he was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, and none from 1976 when he became the president. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clock in tower bongs 13 times

I live near a one hundred year old County Court House. The tower clock on top of the building was installed in 1906. When it "bongs' on the hour, it sounds just like many grandfather clocks I have heard. It "bongs" two times for 2 o'c;ock, 3 "bongs" for 3 o'clock, etc etc until it "bongs" 11 times for 11 o'clock and 12 "bongs" for 12 o'clock - 24 hours. However lately I have noticed it "bongs" 13 times for 1 o'clock, A.M. or P.M. I have verified this over this last week. Now the question is: Is this normal? Logic tells me 1 o'clock should give me one "bong" just like a grandfather clock does. Perhaps I missed this in the past and it has ALWAYS "bonged" 13 times for 1 o'clock. Do some "grandfather" clocks give 13 "bongs" for 1 o'clock? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bright, cold day in April by any chance, is it? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A grandfather clock in my house bongs once for 12 and 1. Grsz¹¹ 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking clock says that gonging once for 1 o'clock and twelve times for 12 o'clock is "most common". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

Polygamy in Jamaica

Is polygamy legal or illegal in Jamaica? Is polygamy a common thing in Jamaica? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Legal status of polygamy, the map at the top has Jamaica colored orange, which means that it is illegal there. --Jayron32 04:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of pedophilia

Oh boy...so I got into an argument with a friend the other day about the acceptance of pedophilia. Her argument was that pedophilia will be accepted in the future, much as couples of mixed races or of the same sex were once not tolerated in the west but now are; I think the two are extremely different and that human nature is more involved. What would my fellow wikipedians say about this? (And I'm not trying to start fights or be vulgar or anything) ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 04:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]